!- Traction control. Already being done,

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done.

4- VANOS control- already being done.

5- Timing control- and it's being done

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. again, it's being done.

[/b]
So... there is the logic guys... We write a bad rule... let it simmer for 5-years, then justify opening it up further because "it's already being done"...

First off, a "chip and flash" is NOT going to allow these things to happen without additional circuitry, possible ONLY because of the REPLACE allowance...

Second... opening up a rule because people are exploiting the loopholes in the existing, POORLY WRITTEN rule, is rules creep in spades...

and Third... If you write the new wording correctly, you can effectively limit MOST if not all of these things...

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.
[/b]
And now you are going to open things up so that this same average guy get's to spend $2000 dollars on a system which he will have NO BETTER understanding of, and STILL won't help him to be competitive with the guys spending $5,000 on the better systems or paying Penske or ??? to install/program the system for them???

I said it before... there will be NO increased equity, not even of OPPORTUNITY, if you open this rule up... All you will do is make it take MORE resources to field a car in IT for EVERYONE.

I will also contend that cost IS a deterent. If it's going to cost someone $10,000 to develop a stand-alone system inside a box, they're a lot less likely to pursue it. That keeps costs down. But thats a whole separate discussion, and really secondary to the point that opening this rule up is counter to the intent of IT as a class...