Open ECU rule and CIS

[rabbidmk1]

Ok I have a question about replacing sensors with equivalent units.

My interpretation is that someone could replace the hall sensor and its wiring for one that worked in a similar fashion. So does that means a crank trigger could be installed?

[shwah]

That's interesting Chris, because several of the strong proponents of this new rule said that it didn't allow anyone to do anything new, that they couldn't do under the old rule. But hey, what do I know, I couldn't see the similarities between running a stock harness and sensors w/ an open harness and added sensors.

I am inclined to agree w/ you though, I don't know how much gain anyone would see w/ a modified CIS system. The limiting factor is the intake, can and the throttle body. You may see better mid-range performance (that whole 'area under the curve' thing), but you're not going to find 5-10 hp in it.

And there's really no incentive for anyone running an A1 to throw mad amounts of money at this, because those cars will never be able to run with a full-boogie A3. Look how many new ones came out of the woodwork when they dropped the weight.
[/b]

The 'creep' relative to the previous rule is in the sensor allowance, but even that could be overcome with a very high end system. So yes the capability was always there to make an electronic fuel injection system programable. My advantage has been that I could make my setup run much better with $10 in parts from Radio Shack, and that very few would invest 10k to truly optimize theirs. Now they are more likely to spend 500 - 1000 to do this, especially since there is a (false IMO) belief that very large power gains will be had.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.

[Gary L]

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really. [/b]

Agree 100%, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Doc Bro]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.
[/b]

Bravo Andy. The DADA-ism (Satre- French literary existentialism...) has hit an all time high. We can argue the definition of a shifter knob or "mechanical computer" (whatever that is) all day but are these intellectual Sunday paper word scrambles really heading the IT community in the direction that we want to go in. It's really easy to play King and lob smart bombs in from afar but being part of the solution takes leadership and commitment. I question some of the wording of the new rule as well and I question some of the dichotomies in the rulebook (ie washerbottles and fully open ECU's), but I realize these things take time, and revisions will be necessary. I also realize that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Therefore I tend to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

I find it so amusing that we banter and banter yet no one does the things they 'threaten' to do AND even if they do follow through no one protests. So my question is: Do some of us speak to hear ourselves speak or do we just do it for the typing practice?

R

[BlueStreak]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.
[/b]

I greatly appreciate the work being done. I did not start this thread because I wanted to facilitate sillyness. I started this thread so that we could make sure the sillyness was accounted for in the verbage sooner, rather than later.

The sooner everybody's happy with the verbage, the sooner I'll know how much damage the ECU rule does to those of us who don't have the option of using ECU's to improve our performance.


Thanks
Eddie

[Rabbit05]

Hey y'all,

So I am building this MKII (well after I get married in the spring ) , and now the rule change. Me and the guys have this plan for building this car and doing it right. My question(s) is this....

What stand alone system would be good for a MKII ? I heard of Megasquirt, I know nothing about it. Are there options to choose from ? Is it VW specific ? And is it that much better, than say, a chip for a Digifant car ?

And will this rule make the VW completely uncompetitive to ...lets say a Honda/Acura?


IE..is it worth it ?



John (down but not out) VanDenburgh

[BlueStreak]

To take full advantage of the ECU rule, sell the MKII and start with a MKIII.

[shwah]

I'll take a shot at answering the question:
Megasquirt is a 'brand' of owner programmable engine management system, which is inexpensive in dollars, but more expensive in time, as you need to build it yourself from a kit (although there are sources to buy pre-built systems). There are other commercial brands such as Simple Digital Systems, Electromotive, Haltech, Motec, and certainly more that I don't recall now. At the end of the day they make it easier to change fuel and timing maps based on engine conditions (load, speed, temperature, etc). With these systems, and the proper tuning tools (a chassis dyno and wideband O2 sensor, you should be able to optimize the fueling and timing of your engine. In basic terms it is a chip that you can program with a laptop, or handheld controller.

Any A2 car that wants to use such a system, needs to be put together with all of the OEM Digifant fuel injection hardware and airflow meter (about half of them were delivered this way), and any A3 car, regardless of year is legal to be run this way. All A3 cars have stock systems that support this type of modification.

Edit - some think this changes the game. They are simply in denial of the fact that cars have been running systems like this for several years, but it was very difficult and expensive (relative to the current rule). They also believe that it will magically provide significant power gains, despite the fact that it does not alter the airflow capability of the engine (you can also make the engine run better over a wider range of conditions, which is more important at higher hp levels and rwd IMO than fwd cars that can't spin the tires and are always at 100% load or 100% braking). I am not in that camp, and will be retaining my CIS-E system for now.

[BlueStreak]

Chris,
Do you think it would be worth it, and legal under the new rules, for me to upgrade to CIS-E?

[madrabbit15]

And there's really no incentive for anyone running an A1 to throw mad amounts of money at this, because those cars will never be able to run with a full-boogie A3. Look how many new ones came out of the woodwork when they dropped the weight.
[/b]

I disagree, the A1s in ITB with a 4.40 R&P can be very fast, especially with the new weight. They can turn the rpms because of the solid lifters. Sure the A3s were fast at the ARRC, but every class was running 1.5 seconds faster than previous years becasue of the new pavement. The last time I raced ITB several years ago at VIR, with 2130lb scirocco and a 4.40 r&p I was able to 2:24s. The CIS system was not even set up or tuned. Now with the new changes, who knows..........

Anyway, point is, I still think these cars can be competitive........


Derek

[Rabbit05]

Chris,
Thanks for the explanation, I am thinking maybe do the wait and see game. If there was a "for sure" significant power gain to be had, then I would try to install one when we get to that part of the build.


Has anyone gotten a rough estimate yet on the power gained ? I am not a technical mechanic by any means, but isnt there a certain point where you cant get any more air/fuel into the motor ? I am not sure I missed a section of the rule, but the injectors have to remain stock , correct ?




And is this the door opening for futher rule changes to increase the costs of racing ? Is the name of the class going to be changed to "Improved Prodution" or "Prodution Touring" ? I liked the idea of tossing a cage in a car a running it, stock motor rules and an " Improved " suspension.

yay...another reason to spend money


(sorry for the rant)


John

[Bill Miller]

I disagree, the A1s in ITB with a 4.40 R&P can be very fast, especially with the new weight. They can turn the rpms because of the solid lifters. Sure the A3s were fast at the ARRC, but every class was running 1.5 seconds faster than previous years becasue of the new pavement. The last time I raced ITB several years ago at VIR, with 2130lb scirocco and a 4.40 r&p I was able to 2:24s. The CIS system was not even set up or tuned. Now with the new changes, who knows..........

Anyway, point is, I still think these cars can be competitive........
Derek
[/b]

Derek,

A couple of things.

=Several years ago, a 2130# ITB Scirocco would have had to run a 1.7 to be legal.
=A Rabbit GTI w/ a 4.40 R&P would have a top speed of 105-110 mph (assuming you could get it past 6000 rpm in 5th gear. That's assuming a 225/50/14 tire). Not sure if that's going to happen on 95-100 whp.
=While they may be able to turn the rpm's, there's not a whole lot of point to it, as they don't make any power North of 6k rpm, w/ the stock cam and only 9:1 compression. And, if you really want to twist them, you need the Alfa style lifters w/ the shims under the buckets. I've seen motors that have popped shims out because they were twisted to hard.
=If you can find one, a 4.40 R&P is going to set you back some serious coin. IIRC, that was a VWMS-only ratio. I know it was never offered in a stock 020 box. I'm sure that a custom one would be even more.

As I said before, they'll probably do ok on short, tight tracks, where the higher hp cars can't really stretch their legs, but put them on a wide open course, and they'll get their heads handed to them. That 4.40 R&P will run out of legs at a place like VIR. I ran a 4.20 in my old car, and there was not really anything left at the end of the front straight at Summit Point. Carrying more speed through 10 just made you run out that much sooner.

There's a reason that most of the fast guys that used to run one of these cars have moved on to something else.

[Campbell]

Bummer. I guess if you have a A1 VW you don't have much hope, not too motivating.

[jlinfert]

Bummer. I guess if you have a A1 VW you don't have much hope, not too motivating.
[/b]

On the contrary, a 1980 1.6 ITC Scirocco done right at 2040 lbs is a badass car. Gotta use a 4 speed (weight),use an adjustable WUR and every other trick you can that is allowed. 3.94R&P 13by 6's 225-45-13 hoosiers. It'll go like stink and turn very well, even stops acceptably.

[shwah]

Don't beleive the hype guys.

No fuel injection system will change the airflow capabilities of your motor - which defines the power capability. There are proven methods of properly adjusting the fueling for CIS and CIS-E systems to optimize the AFR. The rules allow you to run timing that suits your needs. There is no reason that you cannot reach the same power level with CIS as with a standalone system, within the restrictions of the IT rules.

A1 cars are at an advantage on smaller tracks, such as Blackhawk IMO. They are at a disadvantage at longer tracks such as Road America. The A3 has the advantage on the long tracks, and the A2 is in between in both cases. NONE of these differences are strong enough to decide results unless every aspect of car prep, setup and driver ability are equal. Any one of these cars can win at a given event when prepped, setup and driven well.

[Bill Miller]

Don't beleive the hype guys.

No fuel injection system will change the airflow capabilities of your motor - which defines the power capability. There are proven methods of properly adjusting the fueling for CIS and CIS-E systems to optimize the AFR. The rules allow you to run timing that suits your needs. There is no reason that you cannot reach the same power level with CIS as with a standalone system, within the restrictions of the IT rules.

A1 cars are at an advantage on smaller tracks, such as Blackhawk IMO. They are at a disadvantage at longer tracks such as Road America. The A3 has the advantage on the long tracks, and the A2 is in between in both cases. NONE of these differences are strong enough to decide results unless every aspect of car prep, setup and driver ability are equal. Any one of these cars can win at a given event when prepped, setup and driven well.
[/b]

Chris,

I agree that the A1 cars stand a chance on short, tight tracks. I don't know anything about Blackhawk, but I gave LRP and Beaver Run as examples. I'm not sure how you can say that the A1 cars are at a disadvantage on longer tracks, but could win given the right prep, setup and driver. That's only true if they're not up against an equally well prepped, setup, and driven A2 or A3. The A1 cars just don't stand a chance at any kind of horsepower track, given an A2 and A3 of equal prep/setup/skill.

[shwah]

Just suggesting that an ITB field rarely consists of all equally prepped, setup and driven cars, and that there is more performance variation in those factors than any between these cars.

[lateapex911]

Back online after my computer was stolen......

Too second what Andy said, if you are thinking of pushing the gray areas because you've spotted a loophole in the wording, think twice. Leaving the flapper out of the system and replacing the tube between it and the engine with "Air" won't fly. Modifying the mechanical "computer" is also gonna be a dead end. we'll fine tune the verbiage.

(I find it interesting how the thread called "open ECUs and CIS" has resulted in the Electronic Control Unit getting it's fuel rod and bellows modified....it's a bit of a stretch, eh?)

[msogren]

A computer has some kind of logic module, and recieves input from at least one sensor. IMHO. From what i read, you may modify the control pressure feed , and how it is fed, from the computer.
The flap door and fuel rod are part of the fuel system. All air is supposed to go thru the flap door.
MM