August Fastrack out!

[JoshS]

If the status quo wasn't acceptable by most people (and I agree it seemed to be the worst out of the 3 choices), why weren't the choices to go back to stock ECU w/ reflash or full open? That would have been more interesting to see.[/b]

Those were the choices ... and it was interesting.

[ScotMac]

PS - the important rule change was really about the Fiero being put on the same spec line as the '88 year car - now I get ventilated brakes and better suspension
[/b]

And i get Holley TBI???

[planet6racing]

Wow! I've never seen so many conspiracy theories compressed into one thread on IT.com before! Not even Mattberg's threads have had this many!!!

So, the ITAC did what the input they received requested, and now others are up in arms. Let me guess, these same people didn't vote in the last election and are now calling for the recall/removal/impeachment of an official, right?

The ITAC is doing a great job. I'm really surprised they still even post here, given all the accusations about personal agendas (and others) that are made.

How many people really think this is going to change (significantly) where they finish over the next 2 years? 5 years?

And, when did you all stop having fun racing? This is a HOBBY, remember?

[charrbq]

Bill,
You owe everyone a beer for mentioning the name of the troll.

[benspeed]

10-4 on that Bill

Folks sorta fight change and think there are ulterior motives behind it.

PS-Mattberg is marching to his own drum (to be kindly theraputic) - but he isn't dumb - my bet is he likes this. C'mon Matt, chime in with some vitriol!

[seckerich]

Be very quiet--He is over stirring up S$$T in the Florida ECR thread. Something about Martin Bartlet and Barry Hair and divide and conquer. Who would have guessed. Isn't he from Washington region this week??

[DavidM]

Seems like I was in the minority with my vote of keeping the current rule. Somebody stepped on their johnson when they wrote the current rule so let's just finish the job apparently. The ITAC says they are recommending this rule because most people seem to want it. Most people seem to want it because they say it's already possible with the existing rule and this just makes it easier. Therefore, the ITAC is saying they are recommending this rule because it makes what is already possible easier. Not a good enough reason IMO and pretty much the definition of rules creep.

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results. They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there's no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you'll have to spend the money to find out.

A stand-alone management system is going to go beyond most people's skill level to get running properly. I'm pretty confident I could install one, but there's no way I could tune it right. I'd blow my motor. Most people will wind up farming this work out to a race shop along with all the dyno time required to get the job done. I could easily see it taking $4-5k to get one installed and working correctly. The race shops will be happy with all the new business.

I think this will go down as one of the worst rule changes. There was a big discussion a long time ago about the "sacred cows" in IT that we shouldn't touch. The engine was one of them. I guess that doesn't hold anymore. The day IT has open transmissions (they fit in the same case you know) I put my car up for sale. And yes, I'm being sarcastic - somewhat anyways.

David

PS: Nobody had better say a damn word about washer bottles, wiper stalks, rebuilt wiring harnesses, etc. from here on out.

[77ITA]

It appears that most of my opinions seem to follow the general consensus here, starting with the obvious performance advantage that will be given to late model computer controlled cars over carbureted examples. I currently run an internally modified engine computer (CHEAP off the shelf bolt on performance part) per the current rules and I think it's safe to say that the addition of a megasquirt, wideband o2 setup, and hours of dyno time would net me some serious extra power across the RPM range and added reliability. Suddenly a large gap is created between myself and the guy with the ITA RX7. I get a new level of preparation, he does not.

I can see why this rule came about... there are currently people spending truck loads of cash to fit fancy computers inside stock housings that integrate with the factory wiring harness. I don't feel that it's in the spirit of the rules, but it is legal and more power to those people. At some point, a guy with a small (normal size?) wallet complained and then it was suggested to just open up the rules to anything and everything. I feel that this is a terrible way to deal with the situation and was probably not very well thought through.

For those not very familiar with the gained features and improvements from stand-alone engine management, I would suggest spending some time browsing around at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaSquirt (lots of links there)

In the end, this rule will turn IT into a 'tuner' class where racers with modern cars will be using laptops and dyno time. I don't know if this is a bad thing or not... The 'up-side' is that the whole "tuner" thing is very hip with the times and more popular with younger people (I've never even touched a carburetor!), but on the down side; I can think of a few IT racers that would have trouble setting the clock on their VCR

[JeffYoung]

This is already happening.....

[benspeed]

Yup - newer cars, younger drivers. These tuner guys know more about the electronics than the chassis setup. And who will be the next gen of drivers coming in? These guys. Tuning will make IT very attractive and competitive to other racing organizations by allowing this rule change.

[gran racing]

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results.[/b]

The way to actually find out is to enter next year’s ARRC without spending more money on your ECU.

They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there's no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you'll have to spend the money to find out.[/b]

You stated “(not with me driving, of course)” which leads me to believe that you feel that other person was/is a better driver then you. Serious question here: if that is true, shouldn’t your priority be driver development and not trying to see if there is another magic ECU program that can benefit your car’s performance a bit more? Not that I ever looked into it (alright, so I may have), but Randy Pobst does coaching days for $1,000 and is in the GA area.

Once again, all of this goes back to the diminishing returns in IT. If you want to win, one needs to evaluate what areas are the best places to spend money and time on. I do understand the feeling of “you don’t know until you do it” as I also feel that way with my stock ECU.

There are people out there for whom this will make ECU tuning much more in reach than before. In some ways this is bad (for ME) since others will now take advantage of it. The ITAC has stated that they classify cars based on a full build which includes ECU tuning, yet there are some cars out there that can not take advantage of this without a MoTec or similar system. I know when I looked into this many times for my car, I got the “sure you can do it”. I then say “o.k., what will it cost and how can we proceed?” That’s followed by either no reply or a “well, I thought it would be possible but with the current rules it’s not.” For these situations, with the new rule will it cost the person money or save them money to get the results the ITAC used when classing the car?

I will admit that I have some concerns about the whole tuning the car at the track with a lap top idea. Are there ways to expand upon who is able to tune their ECU while avoiding that? I imagine tuning at the track is already happening, but it just isn't as prevelant?

[Knestis]

... The ITAC has stated that they classify cars based on a full build which includes ECU tuning, yet there are some cars out there that can not take advantage of this without a MoTec or similar system. ...[/b]

This does bring up a great issue - I SEEM to remember that there have been some fudging adders/subtractors discussed for particular cars, where adjustments might have been made because make/models in question couldn't get to a "full build" in this respect.

We need to be very sure that there aren't any of these out there, if/when this change goes into effect.

K

[Gary L]

Edit: Never mind! The adjustable FPR is also covered in another area, so it was a duplicate entry. Thanks, Andy!

[Dave Zaslow]

Could someone please help me understand the full meaning of what the stock 'air metering device' is? I assume for most fuel injected cars that is the throttlebody. Are there other interpretations?

DZ

[DavidM]

You stated “(not with me driving, of course)” which leads me to believe that you feel that other person was/is a better driver then you. Serious question here: if that is true, shouldn’t your priority be driver development and not trying to see if there is another magic ECU program that can benefit your car’s performance a bit more? Not that I ever looked into it (alright, so I may have), but Randy Pobst does coaching days for $1,000 and is in the GA area.
[/b]

Am I as good a driver as Bob Stretch? Nope. Not even close. That's why I haven't worried about trying to modify the car. Until I can come close to Bob's lap times then the problem lies behind the wheel, not with the car. That's one of the big reasons I bought a proven fast car (that and I happen to like 240s). I will not be changing the engine management system any time soon.

Do I hope to be as good as Bob some day? You bet. I hope in a year or two I can be up towards the pointy end of the grid. I'd like to be able to compete for podiums without having to drop $4-5k on a stand alone management system. I don't think that will be possible if this rule is passed.

The guys with more cubic $$$ are still going to have an advantage. They'll have individual programs for each track and guys at the track that can program the system based on variations in the track and weather that particular moment in time. They'll also have advanced data acquisition systems to show how the car is performing on track to determine how to change the programming.

This rule doesn't "fix" anything. All it does is make it cost $4-5k more to maintain the status quo. The current rule, while less than ideal, is a known quantity. The new rule is going to open up Pandora's box and who knows where that will lead. If the intent is to up the technology factor and cost in IT then it will sure do that. If the intent is to fix some perceived inequity then I think it will fall short.

David

[lateapex911]

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results. They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there's no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you'll have to spend the money to find out.

. [/b]

Dave gran really hit the nail on the head with his response, but I'd like to specifically point out that assuming you will never know until you do a full ECu isn't entirely the case.

Go to a dyno, and fully instrument the car, and look at the results. You'll see if there are issues with mixture, for example, right away. As I stated earlier, in my research on this, I found cars that run very very well with their stock/slightly modded setups. And one of those guys, who's at the very pointy end of the field, has little interest in "Really finding out"...he's smart enough to know already.

Ask any dyno owner what he sees as clients, and I bet many will tell you they see lots of laptops. Do they see a blown motor from time to time? Of course, but thats no different than setting a car up lean with a screwdriver, or adding a degree too much timing...ot's just done with a mouse, instead of a wrench.

David, again, this is a big picture deal. It's optional....nobody's forcing anyone to spend the money. It's up to each individual to sit down and self critique. "Whats wrong with me? Is it my prep? My driving? My chassis setup? Or is it my car? My power level?" And, "I am X.XX seconds off the pace. Where is that time coming from?? The corners? The straights? " Only then can you start to draw conclusions, like: "If I spend X$$$ on the chassis, will I gain those X.XX seconds? Or the motor, is that where I am losing all the time?"

Invariably, the answer is spread across all categories, and the smart people look for the biggest gains for the least costs, and leave the incremental and minor things to the end.

[Bill Miller]

Could someone please help me understand the full meaning of what the stock 'air metering device' is? I assume for most fuel injected cars that is the throttlebody. Are there other interpretations?

DZ
[/b]

That's the way I understand it Dave. It sure isn't the flapper valve in a CIS system. That's actually an air measuring device, as it measures the amount of air entering the engine through the air metering device (by means of deflection), and adjusts fuel flow accordingly.

[JoshS]

It means air measuring device. The rule means definition #1. The throttle would, I suppose, fit definition #2. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: me·ter
Function: transitive verb
1 : to measure by means of a meter
2 : to supply in a measured or regulated amount
3 : to print postal indicia on by means of a postage meter

[gran racing]

I have to say, watching the Greg Amy dyno day with an expert ECU tuner there was very, very interesting. I was amazed at just how good the stock ECU did.

I don't think that will be possible if this rule is passed.[/b]

I just don't buy into this, although I kinda hear where you're coming from.

The guys with more cubic $$$ are still going to have an advantage.[/b]

This is true, but's regardless of this ECU rule. I've heard my fair share of one race engines in IT, new autocross tires for each qual. session then new tires for each race, and the list goes on. I am all for doing things to limit the return on people spending big money on IT cars. I could be wrong, but I still think this ECU rule will actually help those of us with smaller budgets. Would I consider spending $1K on ECU/engine tuning this winter if this goes through? Maybe. At the same time if I don't, I do not believe this is what is keeping me from holding a flag at the end of the day. Sure, maybe I (we?) need to work harder and become a better driver than the other person, but so be it.

Figured I should put a break so you don't think I'm directing my next comments at you David.

Today, more cars than ever are competitive in each class. I no longer feel like WE are going to get the "not guaranteed to be competitive" crap answer - things will be looked at and listened to. I also honestly believe if people here who feel this is a dumas idea provide real reasons why that's the case (and not just how it impacts you personally), it will also be listened to.

[Lael Cleland]

3 is good. ITM new class, UPS TRUCKS the big brown trucks !!