ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!!

[Greg Amy]

Greg - since allowed modifications cannot perform disallowed functions, I don't buy those hypothetical work-arounds.[/b]

It's not an illegal function. Even ex-Rules Nerd Greg doesn't see a problem with this, and I'm not being facetious (really!). Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical situation here where the current ECU housing rule doesn't exist. Thus,

- I can put in, for example, a TPS position sensor and gauge in my car, correct? Gauges are free; show me where it says I cannot do put in a TPS gauge. And,
- Since ECUs are free and there's no longer any housing situation problem, and one of my inputs to the computer is TPS, I can tap into the wiring of that allowed TPS gauge to wire that input to my ECU. Same goes for MAP sensor (MAP pressure gauge) and whatever else I can dream up.

The only thing keeping me/you/him from doing that now is the housing rule. Short of not installing one of the case screws (hardware is free, and we all agree air is a material) there's no way to get that wire into the ECU without modifying the factory wiring harness and plug.

It's really that simple. There's really not much that I can think of that you can't almost do now...and if you're clever (see removed screw above) you probably can.

[dj10]

Take your time. Get it right. Haste is what effed this up in the first place.
[/b]

Are you absolutely sure about this statement, or is it possible someone dropped the ball and didn't get the correct information from a Professional Tuner before writting the rule? I am sure this would not happen now with all the very good sources for information that are available. By now the ITAC & CRB have had a chance to talk to many tuners and will concur that the current ECU rule MUST be changed ASAP.

[shwah]

It depends a lot on how the wording turns out. Your hypothetical could fit, but if the stock sensors/harness requirement remains it would not, as that would preclude bringing any additional wires/signals to the new ECU. Just because you can put in an ECU and put in a gauge, does not allow you to send any signal from the gauge to the ECU, unless it says you can. This very discussion is a great example of why it is good to take the time to get it right.

Are you absolutely sure about this statement, or is it possible someone dropped the ball and didn't get the correct information from a Professional Tuner before writting the rule? I am sure this would not happen now with all the very good sources for information that are available. By now the ITAC & CRB have had a chance to talk to many tuners and will concur that the current ECU rule MUST be changed ASAP.
[/b]

That would be a good example of how taking additional time to make sure we got it right the first time could have been done.

Pretty much supports my argument to make sure we get it right this time rather than rush through a change. This will not be a rule that makes existing cars illegal, but it should make it easier for cars that have not taken the plunge to aftermarket ECU technology to do so. I guess I don't see why this suddenly needs to be a fire drill, when the very issue we are hoping gets 'fixed' is a great example of what not getting it right does for us.

[Greg Amy]

Just because you can put in an ECU and put in a gauge, does not allow you to send any signal from the gauge to the ECU, unless it says you can.[/b]

Well, there's two tangos to that song.

The first is what I call "implied consent". For example, the gauge rule states "[g]auges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed." Nowhere does it state that wiring can be added or modified, nor does it state that sensors can be modified or added. Taken to the extreme letter of the rules, we can add gauges but we can only use factory sensors and wiring, all unmodified. We, of course, infer the implication that we can add sensors and wiring appropriate to the gauges we choose to use.

The other is the "prohibited function clause." So, what's the 'allowed function' of a gauge package? To provide information, correct? Are there any restrictions as to 'how' or 'to whom or what' that information is provided? Is the intended function of the gauge clause to provide only visual information only real-time and only to the driver, thereby making our data aquisition packages illegal? There is nothing in the rules that defines- or even implies - what the intended function of a gauge package is, and there is specifically no restriction to what you can gage, should you choose to.

Therefore, if there is no restriction as to whom, what, or when information is provided by the gauge package, how is it that providing that information to a data aq or ECU - which is specifically allowed - is prohibited? We're back to the George Roffe theorem: "...you bloody well can." Gauging TPS is unorthodox, but it's allowed and, more importantly, unrestricted.

The ECU is open, but currently only within the factory housing and unmodifed wiring harness; gauges that provide information are unrestricted, as are their sensors and wiring; ergo, there are currently no restrictions to wiring that information into the ECU as long as the wiring harness and ECU housing is unmodified. Opening up the housing rule only makes it easier and cheaper to do so.

This very discussion is a great example of why it is good to take the time to get it right.[/b]

No argument there!

On edit:
Remember, the whole reason we're back at this argument after 4 (5?) years is because of unintended consequences. When the ECU rule was opened up 4 (5?) years ago, the intent was to allow re-soldered chips and flash changes. Instead of simply stating that, we tried to get clever and "open" the rule then attempt to restrict it with specifics. I knew the intent, you knew the intent, but the wording of the rule caused it to be doomed from the beginning. I remember when I first heard about "Motec in a box": while standing in pit lane at LRP. Andy told me that the Bimmers were doing this and I was FLOORED. Impressed, but floored.

Look, we've debated this ad nausea for years now, and I think everyone agrees there are two courses of action here: ban modified ECUs, something that virtually everyone agrees is unenforceable, or open 'em up. No matter what you (ITAC "you) work to come up with, the box is already open; you have to recognize that no matter what clever wording you come up with you can't control it. So, Greg's suggestion is to ask the world "if we opened up this rule, what could people do" and see what happens. I think you'll find that there's really nothing that someone can do with an open rule that they cannot do now, yet cheaper and easier. Traction control? Being done. Full engine control mapping, totally ignoring factory inputs such as the MAF sensor? Already there.

So exactly what is it you're trying to stop? Nothing that I can think of right off hand. But, no matter what you do, someone will find a way around it. Time to just open the gates and let the floodwaters in.

[tnord]

out of curiosity....how is traction control being implimented without the use of the ABS system?

or is it some lawyer like clever cirlce logic to disable the ABS control unit, but leaving the wheel-speed sensors and using the same "guage" argument to reroute that information to the ECU.

<---not good at justifying these things, but good a copying everyone else.

[Greg Amy]

out of curiosity....how is traction control being implimented without the use of the ABS system?[/b]

Easy: you program the ECU to recognize out-of-range engine RPM acceleration rates and cut out ignition selectively to control it to within that range...

[Knestis]

I don&#39;t know HOW it might be getting done but I know how it COULD be done. Inductive wheel speed sensors are readily available and I could easily plumb them to my DAq system, then through an additional digital guage to a soft-touch rev limiter (since we have a lot of lattitude in ignition systems). As long as the gauge has the smarts to look at the differential between wheel speed and GPS speed (another signal from the DL1),

A few questions, that I may have actually floated previously: Under the current rules...

** If I can add a gauge (my wideband O2 sensor), can I add a driver control to adjust fuel pressure? How about spark timing? Injector pulse time or timing?

** Can I tap into the stock harness for a signal from the stock temperature/pressure/revs signal? If not, can I run a circuit completely in parallel to existing wires? Is it required that the stock wires actually work (ie. what if one is busted, a la a worn out stock bushing?)

** Can I remove the stock guages to put in aftermarket ones? If so, can I remove the entire integrated dash "cluster" (ie, to install something like the Dash 2)? Can I still do that if the cluster "talks" to the ECU? If the stock cluster sends signals to the ECU, can the replacement dash unit? How about if the OE unit was not "active" in that sense?

** Can I make my own guages?

K

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

While I agree that gauges are open, I don&#39;t see where that allows you to run the output to the ECU (if you can&#39;t get it there through the stock harness). The way I read the ECU rule, you can&#39;t get anything to it that can&#39;t come through the stock harness, and doesn&#39;t require any additional (or disallowed, ala ABS) sensors.

You already have expanded the performance envelope, only a few people with monetary means can take advantage of it. [/b]

And then there&#39;s that whole group of FI cars that can&#39;t take advantage of it.

[Greg Amy]

Bill, remember we&#39;re talking "what if" the rule was changed. I&#39;m getting the impression the ITAC is flumoxed by how to address the desire to allow aftermarket ECUs - and sensors - without opening the door to unintended consequences.

Thus, that question remains: what possible unintended consequences of allowing open aftermarket ECUs are there?

Now to Kirk&#39;s brain-teasers.

>>> ...look at the differential between wheel speed and GPS speed...

...or a map of gear selected and detected RPM - thus knowing the expected speed - compared to GPS. All child&#39;s play.

>>> ...can I add a driver control to adjust fuel pressure?

Yup. "[a]n external fuel pump pressure regulator may be installed" with no further restrictions specified. It&#39;s wide open.

>>> How about spark timing?

"Any ignition system" with some restrictions is allowed and "[i]gnition timing is unrestricted." So, again, yup.

>>> Injector pulse time or timing?

That one would be tough with the current rules. But then again, if you&#39;re manually adjusting fuel pressure, ignition timing, and injector pusle widths while driving, you&#39;re going too damn slow! Let the ECU do it all.

>>> Can I tap into the stock harness for a signal from the stock temperature/pressure/revs signal? If not, can I run a circuit completely in parallel to existing wires? Is it required that the stock wires actually work (ie. what if one is busted, a la a worn out stock bushing?)

I assume you&#39;re referring to engine control/ECU rather than gauges? Today, you can&#39;t. With an open ECU, wiring, and sensors, you could. And, the stock wires can all be ignored.

>>> Can I remove the stock guages to put in aftermarket ones? If so, can I remove the entire integrated dash "cluster" (ie, to install something like the Dash 2)?

Absolutely. The rule is clear on this. I do it with my Stack.

>>> Can I still do that if the cluster "talks" to the ECU? If the stock cluster sends signals to the ECU, can the replacement dash unit?

"...or replaced...", implying they can do the same function as the original.

>>> Can I make my own guages?

Absolutely. Send me pics and a price sheet... - GA

[Conover]

http://www.bsrproducts.com/product_info.ph...products_id=543

best part, they are "driver removable"

[Knestis]

"Add to cart - $3,395.00"

LMAO

K

[bldn10]

So, I can add ANY gauge? I think I&#39;ll add a turbo boost gauge. So I need a turbo boost sensor. So I need a turbo! There HAS to be a limit to how far you can bootstrap otherwise illegal components in under the gauge rule. Not to mention somehow wiring them into the ECU. Obviously, any new ECU rule HAS to clearly say what can be added and what can&#39;t.

[Z3_GoCar]

James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.
[/b]

Hey Dan,

There&#39;s been several examples given where a maximum accelleration rate of the crankshaft is specified, maybe it&#39;s even linked to a gear indicator, or a couple of wheel speed sensors. We&#39;re allowed to keep wheel speed sensors to keep the stock ECU&#39;s happy. I know that traction control is a non-legal function, but how do we assure that it doesn&#39;t creep in. I&#39;m especially worried about cars with drive by wire throttle&#39;s, where throttle actuation isn&#39;t directly driver controlled. Currently WC makes these cars switch to manual throttle&#39;s, and I&#39;d think this would be a good place to add a spec item.

James

[zracre]

If you have DA that taps into the ecu and it controls ANYTHING it now became a piggyback unit... Guages are free but if they do a prohibited function in the ECU they too are piggyback sensors If you can do it without modifying the stock harness and plug connector using wires that go into the stock harness at the sensors they are still not legal guages as they are no longer guages, they are ecu inputs.

[Greg Amy]

So, I can add ANY gauge? I think I&#39;ll add a turbo boost gauge. So I need a turbo [...][/b]

Illogical argument. Adding a turbo is an illegal function, whereas adding an aftermarket ECU is not. What you are describing is using one unrestricted mod to justify an illegal mod. Obviously not legal. However, using one unrestricted mod to assist another unrestricted mod does not mean that its use is illegal (assuming of course it&#39;s not further restricted).

It is in fact allowed, &#39;cause once something&#39;s unrestricted, it&#39;s unrestricted.

I know that traction control is a non-legal function...[/b]

Whoa, whoa, chief: where is traction control made non-legal? ECUs are currently unrestricted insofar as what you can do inside the stock ECU housing with the stock wiring harness/sensors; where does one now assume that the functions of that completely-legal device are further restricted? Engine management systems are wide open (current restrictions noted); outside of that you can do whatever you want.

So, you&#39;re calling it a "prohibited function"? Well, the purpose of an ECU is to Electronically Control the engine, and that&#39;s exactly what it&#39;s doing with traction control. Are you implying that we&#39;re going to get into exactly how the heretofore unrestricted ECUs actually do their work? Are we going to list for each vehicle exactly what functions each OE ECU does and limit it to that? Or are we going to simply allow someone to do with it whatever they can, under strict specified physical limitations?

We may not WANT traction control, but it&#39;s way legal. Remember, "if it says you can, you bloody well can!"

Aside from the fact how TOTALLY impossible this would be to enforce...

...they are no longer guages, they are ecu inputs.[/b]

I agree, Evan, which is why my scenario relates not to now, but to the proposal to allow other inputs with an open ECU.

[zracre]

adding sensors to the ECU is essentially illegal. How can you add sensors to control individual wheel speed with the stock harness/connector without changing the function of another input? DA can get info from its own sensors but tapping the stock harness is not legal. Adding wires to the stock ECU box is not legal either. I am not saying it can&#39;t be done, just not legally. If someone wants to spend the money like that they are trying too hard to find ways to cheat for IT anyways.

edit I see your point on adding sensors...should not be allowed.

[lateapex911]

I think you&#39;ll find that there&#39;s really nothing that someone can do with an open rule that they cannot do now, yet cheaper and easier. Traction control? Being done. Full engine control mapping, totally ignoring factory inputs such as the MAF sensor? Already there.

So exactly what is it you&#39;re trying to stop? Nothing that I can think of right off hand. . [/b]

Right folks, thats the crux of it. Lets lay some foundations to help us see the big picture:

1- The ITAC uses a process to set weights, and in that process, there is something I&#39;ll call "process power". That&#39;s the number the ITAC uses to punch in the process with the other inputs, and it assumes that the ECU is fully tuned. Now, some cars can, and other cars can not hit that number.

2- Some cars can hit that number...and do..right now. And, some do while ignoring the stock sensors...the new EMS uses what the tuner chooses, and in some cases the original sensor package is sufficient to give the tuner a choice. So, while we all think that the Borgward Special is using it&#39;s airflow meter to provide the signal, we&#39;d be wrong...and we&#39;d all watch in amazement as the pug was pulled on a dyno, and the thing kept running just fine, as it was actually using the MAP sensor the manufacturer so kindly provided. Remember, this is happening right now....and it&#39;s 100% legal. But it can cost nearly $10,000. Not kidding.

3- So, what to do. Certain cars are making process power, but at great expense, and they aren&#39;t even using the stock architecture to get there. Sensors are like languages. Think of a Motec. It&#39;s the all language speaking genious. It can talk to any language speaking sensor out there. And it&#39;s small, so it can fit lots of places. So it gets used, but at great expense, Now, think of the opposite end of the spectrum, say Megaquirt. It&#39;s not as bright..it can only speak english. Too bad your air metering device speaks Japanese. Oh well, no Megaquirt for you. Or maybe you can get a translator and install that along with megasquirt and use the air metering sensor for your signal. Kinda defeats the purpose of a rule thats supposed to make it simpler and easier. Or, we can allow you to add an English speaking version called a MAP sensor, Some cars already have them. Now you can eliminate the expense and confusion of a translator, and just keep it all in English. Result? Performance is the same, and the process power hasn&#39;t been breached. It&#39;s just cheaper and easier.

[Tristan Smith]

Hey Dan,

I&#39;m especially worried about cars with drive by wire throttle&#39;s, where throttle actuation isn&#39;t directly driver controlled. Currently WC makes these cars switch to manual throttle&#39;s, and I&#39;d think this would be a good place to add a spec item.

James
[/b]

There already is a car that has been listed in the GCR with a drive by wire throttle. So that would open yet another can of worms, wouldn&#39;t it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whoa, whoa, chief: where is traction control made non-legal?
We may not WANT traction control, but it&#39;s way legal. Remember, "if it says you can, you bloody well can!"

[/b]

From the ITCS: So cars with TC have to disable it, but cars without it can add it? Guess the GCR gets thicker next year.</span>

[Greg Amy]

So cars with TC have to disable it, but cars without it can add it? Guess the GCR gets thicker next year.[/b]

Nope. Cars with factory TC have to disable it, and ALL cars with programmable ECUs can add it. If wheel speed sensors are disconnected, and the ECU programming is free, it ain&#39;t illegal. And you, of all people, know it&#39;s being done now, so don&#39;t feel all insulted...

"Unintended consequences."

What&#39;s next: trying to specify exactly what the engine management software/programming CAN or CANNOT do? Don&#39;t even bother trying to write in something as silly as "traction control via yada-yada-yada is illegal"; you&#39;ll just be spinning your wheels (har-de-har!)