August Fastrack out!

[Banzai240]

Same reason they allowed the threaded body shocks after they had been banned. Prices on them came way down and people were jumping through hoops to legally use the now much less expensive TB shock, so why not make it cheaper and easier and just allow them.
[/b]

Not exactly... The end result of changing the shock rules to make sense, as they do now, was NO change in the performance of the shock... People just didn't have to buy their Penskes, machine the threads off, then add the sleeve... They can just use them straight up... SAME performance...

This ECU thing is an entirely different level of rule adjustment... NOT the "same reason" at all.... I know.... I was there...

...so you and anyone else that feels that way say "no, thanks" and opts out. It's not a requirement - any more than pro-built engine internals, balancing, or anything else might be.

K
[/b]

They COULD have said that WITHOUT the rule change... Now if they do, however, the tradeoff is MUCH larger...

[Joe Harlan]

I've never used one, but I would be suprised if a $Texas Motec or Electromotive ECU wouldn't have the same "self tuning" options that a Hondata or most new stock ECUs have. No way you can blow your motor, as the ECU will tell through the wideband how lean you are and adjust itself for the perfect mixture

-Tom
[/b]

They do and its about resolution. Its also about aftermarket ECUs having the ability to do more than the OEM stuff ever thought of. GO do a search on the web.

Not exactly... The end result of changing the shock rules to make sense, as they do now, was NO change in the performance of the shock... People just didn't have to buy their Penskes, machine the threads off, then add the sleeve... They can just use them straight up... SAME performance...

This ECU thing is an entirely different level of rule adjustment... NOT the "same reason" at all.... I know.... I was there...
They COULD have said that WITHOUT the rule change... Now if they do, however, the tradeoff is MUCH larger...
[/b]

As far as threaded body shocks go they effect all cars about the same (all cars have shocks) Not all cars get the benefit on fine tuning that aftermaket ECU's bring.

[RacerBill]

OK, I've read 8 pages on this subject, and I still can't decide which side of the fence I would land on.
This here is my opinion and only mine and I am not passing judgement on anybody elses argument, logic etc.

BTW, my car is 1983 and carburated, so any decision that is made will only effect me when I decide to retire or move to something else. Add the fact that my car will be more obsolete and therefore the even less desirable except to some other nut who likes Shelby Chargers.


Probably, the least probable solution is to put the cat back in the bottle, or the genie back in the bag, whatever. It's the solution I would like to see, but realize that it is a

I've read all the arguments about costs, and I do agree that the proposed rule change would make the same performance improvements that are available today available to more cars at a lower price. Whether or not this is a good thing is another issue. I've changed my own mind five times just writing this!

I am not sure if this rule change is really going to effect as many cars as we thought. How many cars are out there with the ECU mods that are allowed today (you know, the kazillion dollar jobs in the stock housing). Are you losing to these cars? If you are, then you are probably going to take advantage of the proposed change. If not, are you going to break open the wallet just cause you can afford it now? Or are you going to wait until the guys who ran behind you this year bite the bullet over the winter and now you feel you have to go this route just to keep the status quo?

In any event, yes, the decision to spend more money is an individual one. So, will the proposed rule cost everyone more? Absolutly not. Will there be more money spent? Absolutly yes! Keeping up with or getting ahead of the Jones's has been around since the first family named Jones!

I think the real issue to condsider in deciding to support or oppose this change is what effect it will have on IT racing in general. Will the ability to use these aftermarket ECU's attract new drivers or will it turn them away? Will it attract more drivers than will decide not to race anymore? I don't know and don't pretend to.

I see three things with the proposed change. One - this effects only certain cars, and not all of them. From that standpoint, I guess I am against the change. Two - this change brings us closer to Production/Prepared level of preparation which is against the spirit of the class. And three - more people are going to spend more money even though it might be less than what they would have spent, or even because it IS less than what they would have had to spend.

OK, again. I had to step away from the keyboard for a minute here at work, and look what you guys do, post some arguments that make me change my mind again. So, if there are cars currently classed in IT that go into limp mode if sensors that are required by the GCR to be disconnected are, then they need ECU's that allow that function to be disabled.Can this be done by any other means, at a reasonable expense? If there are no currently classed cars with this need, then we need to address the issue when a popular car attempts to be classified. Would it be feasable to include a list of authorized replacement ECU's to limit the number of functions controlled in order to minimize the unintended consequence of performance gains (that is if you really support the proposed rule change on the basis of eliminating the 'limp mode' by its self?

I am really open to all arguments as long as they are friendly. I am very willing to listen to all points of view as long as you are willing to listen to mine. This thread has brought up many good points. But there has been a lot of bitterness and disrespect. Free expression of ideas benefits everyone.

They do and its about resolution. Its also about aftermarket ECUs having the ability to do more than the OEM stuff ever thought of. GO do a search on the web.
As far as threaded body shocks go they effect all cars about the same (all cars have shocks) Not all cars get the benefit on fine tuning that aftermaket ECU's bring.
[/b]

There you go again - two more reasons why I am against the proposed change!!!!! (I agree with you, Joe on these two issues).

But keep up the good work. I don't want to make a decision about the resolution and then later say "I never thought of that!!!!!"

[Hahn63]

Ok .... we have talked about fuel, spark...lets see, we are missing somthing....um oh yea AIR. All that other stuff to play with but it still has to go thur the same holes as before. Wasn't enough of it then and won't be any more of it now! Better respone and drivability..yes, tuneable yes.. Major HP gain ....nope.


Roland

[Joe Harlan]

Ok .... we have talked about fuel, spark...lets see, we are missing somthing....um oh yea AIR. All that other stuff to play with but it still has to go thur the same holes as before. Wasn't enough of it then and won't be any more of it now! Better respone and drivability..yes, tuneable yes.. Major HP gain ....nope.
Roland
[/b]

Roland, How long are we at peak HP in what we do? Do you not feel that the HP that drags you out of a corner is every bit and likely more important that peak HP numbers? How bout I showed you a 15HP increase from the middle with a 2 HP peak gain. Which would you find more important. For me races are won and lost at the corner exit. I will take 15 more down low over 2 at the top always and these are the average gains that will be made on a 200HP.

[Renaultfool]

The reality is that this rule may benefit more cars than it leaves out.
There are not many people building 25 year old cars anymore. (the ones with carbs)
Most new cars being built now are into the computer/ECU age. If you are building certain popular Honda/Acuras and BMWs, maybe there are chips and daughter boards available. In the Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda camps there is even less available. If you want to build any of the less popular models of these makes or hold that thought, something different, there is nothing available.

Of course, if you have enough money to invest with Joe or some of his type, they will develop a one off for you. But now with the new rule you may be able to adapt something else that will get you to where you need to be happy. May cost Joe or someone some of their income, but so be it.

The chip rule/daughter board option only rewards those with the mega popular cars for which there is a chip or daughter board available. The stock rule eliminates modern cars from ever being able to race due to the rev limiters, limp modes, etc. Putting it in the stock box only increases cost, but does not eliminate it. Keeping the stock harness with connectors just makes it more expensive. (I am still waiting for someone to send me a roll of fast wire)

None of these make it impossible, just expensive. Some reward car choice, ie chips and daughter boards.
The new rule gives everyone a chance, to spend or not spend, but at least it is an equal chance.
Wait, maybe that is the real problem here, no more perceived advantage by car choice.
Anyone know where I can buy a hot chip for my Renault Renix computer? Darn.

I am happy with the new rule and I think it levels the field for all in IT. Carb guys you have always been able to tune, so quit crying and sweep up the rust under your car.
If I can ever find a decent affordable 71-73 Pinto body I will put my carb car back together too.
Carl

[Eagle7]

Roland, How long are we at peak HP in what we do? Do you not feel that the HP that drags you out of a corner is every bit and likely more important that peak HP numbers? How bout I showed you a 15HP increase from the middle with a 2 HP peak gain. Which would you find more important. For me races are won and lost at the corner exit. I will take 15 more down low over 2 at the top always and these are the average gains that will be made on a 200HP.
[/b]

What you say may be true, Joe, but how much of that 15 HP could you wring out of the stock ECU with a rechip? I think it would be pretty enlightening to see a dyno comparison of a top-notch rechip to a top-notch aftermarket ECU on the same engine with no other changes. I would fully expect to see essentially the same AFR curves and the same timing curves - and the same torque (power) curve. The resolution you talk about would allow some minor improvements, but nothing major. It would just be a lot harder ($) to actually do the development work with the rechip environment. Probably beyond the capability of nearly all of us racers and even the dyno tuners - takes a specialty shop to do it right.

[Joe Harlan]

The reality is that this rule may benefit more cars than it leaves out.
There are not many people building 25 year old cars anymore. (the ones with carbs)
Most new cars being built now are into the computer/ECU age. If you are building certain popular Honda/Acuras and BMWs, maybe there are chips and daughter boards available. In the Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda camps there is even less available. If you want to build any of the less popular models of these makes or hold that thought, something different, there is nothing available.

Of course, if you have enough money to invest with Joe or some of his type, they will develop a one off for you. But now with the new rule you may be able to adapt something else that will get you to where you need to be happy. May cost Joe or someone some of their income, but so be it.

The chip rule/daughter board option only rewards those with the mega popular cars for which there is a chip or daughter board available. The stock rule eliminates modern cars from ever being able to race due to the rev limiters, limp modes, etc. Putting it in the stock box only increases cost, but does not eliminate it. Keeping the stock harness with connectors just makes it more expensive. (I am still waiting for someone to send me a roll of fast wire)

None of these make it impossible, just expensive. Some reward car choice, ie chips and daughter boards.
The new rule gives everyone a chance, to spend or not spend, but at least it is an equal chance.
Wait, maybe that is the real problem here, no more perceived advantage by car choice.
Anyone know where I can buy a hot chip for my Renault Renix computer? Darn.

I am happy with the new rule and I think it levels the field for all in IT. Carb guys you have always been able to tune, so quit crying and sweep up the rust under your car.
If I can ever find a decent affordable 71-73 Pinto body I will put my carb car back together too.
Carl
[/b]

Carl, don't kid yourself this rule will make me money. That is not part of the issue that even we need to be discussing. Look back at all the threads and you will see that nissan,toyota and mazda are all well covered in how to chip and flash.

[Bill Miller]

Joe gets it.

This is all about the area under the curve and the shape of the curve. You want a better indicator of the true power of a car? Integrate the HP curve from 1500 rpm to redline. Now do the same for the torque curve.

There's your measure of what the engine will do. We know it can only make so much power, based on the amount of air that it can flow, but how long are you w/in 80% - 90% of the max?

[JeffYoung]

I agree.

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority's viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder's beliefs? Geez, this is a lot like first year law school constitutional law.

[Joe Harlan]

What you say may be true, Joe, but how much of that 15 HP could you wring out of the stock ECU with a rechip? I think it would be pretty enlightening to see a dyno comparison of a top-notch rechip to a top-notch aftermarket ECU on the same engine with no other changes. I would fully expect to see essentially the same AFR curves and the same timing curves - and the same torque (power) curve. The resolution you talk about would allow some minor improvements, but nothing major. It would just be a lot harder ($) to actually do the development work with the rechip environment. Probably beyond the capability of nearly all of us racers and even the dyno tuners - takes a specialty shop to do it right.
[/b]

And that is the point if everybody was limited to rechip then the playing ground is a lot closer to fair including the carbed cars Marty. Think about the difference in going from a stock 8/16 bit system to a 32 bit processer with much greater speed and resolution. Yes there is a difference. being able to adjust fuel and timing trim in ecah cylinder will produce more HP. You are never going to get this in an OE system because the hardware is not there to support the software.

Sorry Jeff but this not majority rules kind of deal, its about rules and what is good for the catagory, There is already a place for free ECU's it's called Prod or GT, If that kind of tuning is your bag then move on over to those classes and leave this class to the folks that are inteersted in more entry level run with the pack kind of deal. IF Technology makes the gap from the front to the mid get to wide then people will give up an dyou loose anyway.

[dj10]

I agree.

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority's viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder's beliefs? Geez, this is a lot like first year law school constitutional law.
[/b]

Have them count up the Electoral College.

[JeffYoung]

Do we give more votes to the bigger....never mind....lol......


Joe, this is club racing. The club decides what the rules are. Here, the club has, as best can be done, decided.

You guys are obviously passionate about this which is good but a lot of this is getting close to the "I know better than you (the majority) so my view of the rules should control" mentality that a lot of you don't like about Topeka.

[Joe Harlan]

Do we give more votes to the bigger....never mind....lol......
Joe, this is club racing. The club decides what the rules are. Here, the club has, as best can be done, decided.

You guys are obviously passionate about this which is good but a lot of this is getting close to the "I know better than you (the majority) so my view of the rules should control" mentality that a lot of you don't like about Topeka.
[/b]

No Jeff again I am sorry, I don't think I know better I could be completely wrong but history proves that the more we open up a class the sooner it starts to die. The other issue is an informed membership. With out the fastrack being in the magazine we have no gaurantee that the mebership is even informed on this deal. Get that not all of our membership is tuned into the net..(wish i was one of them) I am not trying to be disrespectful to your opinion and yes I am passionate about this set of classes being a place that the front is not out of reach from hard work and good driving that is what entry level is about. Prod and GT while having good cool cars can't attract the newbies because that level looks out of reach to most, Do we want to look out of reach? Or worse yet actually become out of reach? Look at history it proves what I am saying.

[Chris Wire]

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority's viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder's beliefs?
[/b]

50 letters to the CRB and we have a majority? I think we have a sample but I'd hesitate to assume a majority. Like Joe said, I'm sure many IT guys don't even know this is happening. I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this issue but I know for certain that I have some reservations about the paradise some think this rule would create.

I watched first hand as an American Sedan competitor not so long ago, the class 'evolving' from stock brakes, stock trannies, stock cranks and stock rear ends, etc., to 4-piston racing brakes (safety), Muncie/Tremec custom trannies (reliability), steel cranks (reliability at 7500 rpm), and custom 9-inch Ford rear ends for everyone. My $10k championship-winning Mustang was sold as I watched the bar become $25k - $50k for a proper build with all the new goodies.

I don't wish the same fate for IT.

[RSTPerformance]

50 letters to the CRB and we have a majority? I think we have a sample but I'd hesitate to assume a majority. Like Joe said, I'm sure many IT guys don't even know this is happening. I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this issue but I know for certain that I have some reservations about the paradise some think this rule would create.

I watched first hand as an American Sedan competitor not so long ago, the class 'evolving' from stock brakes, stock trannies, stock cranks and stock rear ends, etc., to 4-piston racing brakes (safety), Muncie/Tremec custom trannies (reliability), steel cranks (reliability at 7500 rpm), and custom 9-inch Ford rear ends for everyone. My $10k championship-winning Mustang was sold as I watched the bar become $25k - $50k for a proper build with all the new goodies.

I don't wish the same fate for IT.
[/b]

Chris-

Very good example...

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Jeff,

If it really was a case of the drivers determining what they wanted the rules to be, we would never see "inconsistent w/ class philosophy" responses to requests, they would simply be put out for member input.

[JeffYoung]

Guys, I understand the point about "majority" but all I can say it is the best we can do to try and figure out what teh community wants -- put it in Fastrack and post here.

I fully agree that expanding rules TOO QUICKLY kills classes. Here, at least in teh SEDiv, the inevitable -- there is no way to stop it, it happens -- evolution of the rules in IT has not been so rapid as to drive off drivers.

This particular change, from "anyting you can fit in teh box" to any ECU doesn't seem to me to be too radical a departure from where we are. I don't think it will cause anyone to leave IT, and it may bring in more folks.

But I do agree it is time for a "pause" in teh rules. We've seen a lot of change, let's let it sit for a while and see how this shakes out.

[Banzai240]

Jeff,

If it really was a case of the drivers determining what they wanted the rules to be, we would never see "inconsistent w/ class philosophy" responses to requests, they would simply be put out for member input.
[/b]

Exactly Bill...

Those of you with kid's... especially teenage kids... How many of you would let your kids make their own rules??? ... or set their own curfew??? ... or decide what's best to have for dinner... WHEN have they ever listened to your wisdom and knowledge, gained through years of experience and "been there, done that"???

If one could rely on each driver taking a completely objective view at the situation and doing what was best for the category... Well... what are the chances of THAT happening???

I seem to recall many of Kirk's conspiracy concerns over the "Process" and worrying about letter-writing campaigns getting rules changed... Hmmm... Maybe he had a point...

[JeffYoung]

Darin, I like you and respect you but what you posted above makes my point.

You have decided you are the parents, and that the rest of the guys racing IT you disagree with are the kids.

The hubris!

Seriously man, look at what you just wrote. You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that's been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.