HP vs. Torque and the System

[Greg Amy]

...need to create a new culture - how do we do it? The culture needs to get to the point where people actually THINK about [creative/tortured interpretations] BEFORE someone says something.[/b]

First, as the instigator for this (kinda unintentional) sheistfest, let me make it explicitly clear: Andy's ECU mods are "legal" to the current environment of IT rules interpretations. In point of fact, it is this EXACT solution that I was prepared to pursue with The Aborted MR-2 Project. "Right" to the spirit? Not. Legal to the words? Absolutely.

I brought this up *not* to target Andy specifically, but to shine the light on the fact that we as a group have really led ourselves "into the darkness" (what was it that Pogo said? "I have seen the enemy, and he is us..."?) This isn't specifically about the old ECU rule nor is it about any one particular person; it's about "us".

Andy's point above is very important. And it should be rhetorically considered by every person reading this board, and passed along to those that don't. How many times have you read a rule, looked at its real-world application and said to yourself, "Wow, that's not what I had in mind, but it sure seems clever/reasonable/interpretative/whatever?" Each time you do that (e.g., Motec, sphericals, splitters, MAPs in ECUs, whatever) that should be a clear sign that somethin' just ain't right. But yet, we as a group accept and tolerate it! There is where the change needs to be made: not in the words, but in our attitudes.

Andy, you asked how to change the culture. Culture change for *any* environment comes from the top, from the leadership. That&#39;s you, that&#39;s me, that&#39;s Jake, that&#39;s George (assuming he&#39;s still alive ! <wink>), that&#39;s everyone who is either a formal or a figurative leader, elected, chosen, or whatever. It comes from you and me saying, publicly, privately, and in words and deed, "this is not right, and this is not acceptable". It means forgoing competitive advantage in the pursuit of excellence; it means using the "correct" ECU in lieu of the optimal, and it means foregoing the weight balance advantage of a bridge superstructure masquerading as a rear swaybar. EVERYONE is guilty of this, not just one person; and once we agree collectively to follow the "spirit and intent" of the rules then everyone will follow.

For therein lies the dirty laundry we all tend to overlook: while proclaiming we want to clean up the wash we find ourselves as individuals looking the other way for our own. That, in a nutshell, is blatant hypocrisy; it is and obvious to everyone around us, and they follow suit.

So, time to look within: what are we going to do about it? THAT is what we have to decide.

GA

[Eagle7]

Bill, the ECU I have has a MAP sensor ON BOARD. I did not jamb a 3rd party map into the stock ECU housing and call it &#39;part of the ECU&#39;. [/b]

But evidently you did choose a 3rd party ECU that included said MAP sensor. I&#39;ve had drivers asking me how to put a Megasquirt into their non-MAP based cars for a couple years, and my answer had always been "you&#39;re screwed". Doesn&#39;t seem like a grey area to me. There was no allowance to modify anything outside the ECU enclosure in order to use that aftermarket ECU. Running the vacuum hose into the ECU required a modification. No way does it qualify under the gauges/instrumentation allowance, nor as an alternate fastener.



Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I&#39;ll admit that I sometimes left my wideband O2 sensor and my Palm Pilot connected to my ECU during events so I could log data. Two years running that turkey and I still don&#39;t have it tuned to my satisfaction.



I really like the open hood/trunk approach to impound. Let&#39;s encourage drivers to examine the other guy&#39;s stuff. The more we can stimulate these kinds of discussions at the track the quicker we&#39;ll change the culture.

[JoshS]

I really like the open hood/trunk approach to impound. Let&#39;s encourage drivers to examine the other guy&#39;s stuff. The more we can stimulate these kinds of discussions at the track the quicker we&#39;ll change the culture.
[/b]

To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership.

[Knestis]

>> No way does it qualify under the gauges/instrumentation allowance, nor as an alternate fastener.

That&#39;s not the argument. The gauge example was an analogy. Anyone here seen an IT car with a oil pressure gauge connected to the engine by a hollow tube full of oil? There&#39;s no allowance for that either. We (and I include all of my personalities and the mouse in my pocket when I say that) just want to ascribe more importance to this application of the logic than to the ones we&#39;ve been seeing forever.

And that&#39;s part of Greg&#39;s point, too I think. We get inured to the stuff that doesn&#39;t meet the letter of the rule if we see it all the time - if it gets accepted by the culture as de facto legal. That&#39;s NOT a good test. Then when something comes along that&#39;s new to us, that might well apply the same kind of tests, logic, or interpretations, we freak out...

...for a while. Until the new becomes accepted. Coilovers. Removed undercoating. Funky "traction bars." Spherical joints. Vacuum lines. Greg is right on. We decide what we are OK with, individually then collectively. Some of the creeps get codified as OK, via "technical bulletins" for example. (Pee-eww, that was a stinker.) Others get slapped down - internal coatings or RR shocks. Most get left in limbo without ever having to pass a test to see if THEY stink, too and we tend to be OK with that.

K

[GKR_17]

To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership.
[/b]

I like the idea, but it doesn&#39;t hold much weight since you can&#39;t file paper at that time.

[lateapex911]

On the other hand...

..........while I certainly understand what some are driving at regarding the stretching of boundries&#39; common sense and proper rules decorum, I&#39;d like to point out that several issues have come up this season that have been wild stretches of rules that many thought actually met the letter of the rule(s). The CRB and the ITAC have been reading the rules and examining the real world possibilities, and quietly, with little fan fare, adjusting things to close loopholes and to clarify language as needed to align intent more closely with reality.

Now, where does this "mindset" of rules stretching come from??

I rember Kurt Weiss telling me of a car at the Runoffs ...a Prod car...that had it&#39;s "selectable" reverse gear selected by climbing under the car and using tools. A 5 speed transmission had been turned into a 6 speed. What about the 7/8ths scale race car form the 60s? Or, well...you get the idea.

I submit that when a category/class gets popular, not only does it become more expensive to compete from a finacial perspective, it also increases the temptation to seek ALL advantages, whether they meet the "intent" or not....

[Bill Miller]

Andy and Greg,

We will agree to disagree.

Andy,

I&#39;m wondering if you floated your idea by Jeremy T. or any of the CRB members? And it really doesn&#39;t matter if the MAP was integral w/ your ECU or not, as long as it fit inside your stock housing. What&#39;s at issue here, is your ability to run a vac. line to it, even if it was through an existing hole in the ECU housing. There is nothing in the rules that permits creating an additional connection to the ECU housing, or anything inside of it. And please stop w/ the melodrama. BTW, Greg made a very good point about leading by example. You know what you did was not right, regardless of how you justified it through some mutual admiration society.

Jake,

That &#39;functional reverse gear&#39; thing at the Runoffs was a travesty, and a classic case of the &#39;old boys club&#39; protecting one of their own. Did you notice how the PCS was changed the next year?

[Bill Miller]

One more thing Andy.

What you did was alter that stock vac. connection by connecting it to a non-stock part (the MAP on your new ECU) for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage (the ability to use said MAP). THAT is expressly prohibited by the rules. What&#39;s the logic you use to get around that?

[mom'sZ]

Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used.

Thank you Bill
There it is.... ONLY ONLY
Only the stock ... harness may be used. Only seems pretty cut and dry.

[Eagle7]

To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership. [/b]

Letter sent.

[bldn10]

As if you needed another voice on this one ...



"My initial thought was that the vacuum line was over the line, so to speak. However, I think the gauge/wiring argument IS sound: We accept drilling holes, running wires, adding brackets, hell - even tie wraps, as acceptable means to accomplish allowed modifications all the time."



Here&#39;s why/where the gauge analogy fails: if the ECU rule simply said that you could modify or replace the ECU w/i the box and nothing more, it would indeed be similar to the rules allowing addition of gauges, fuel pumps, etc., and the necessary sensor connections would be part of it. But, it goes further and adds a number of restrictions including NOT adding any such wiring and mandating connection via the OEM harness. Conversely, the gauge rules have no such limitations. If the gauge rules said, e.g., that you could add any gauge or sensor but that you had to use existing OEM wiring to the dash, then you obviously could not add a gauge [well, you could add it but not wire it up] that required additional wiring. I.e. the allowance of the gauge would not bootstrap the addition of new wiring in the face of language to the contrary. Likewise, you cannot bootstrap a sensor wire or vac line or anything else via the allowance to mod the ECU if the wire or line wasn&#39;t there to start w/.



Therefore, IMO if a car does not have an existing vac line to the ECU, you can&#39;t add one, period.



As to rule culture, I think this discussion does speak to it because it raises the bootstrap argument that arises not infrequently. Another rule, e.g., that I have some concern w/ is the one allowing after-market fuel pressure regulators. It says you can "install" one but it does NOT say that you can remove or disable any OEM regulator. It does not even say replace the OEM regulator - only install an "external fuel pump pressure regulator." The absence of language allowing modification/removal of the OEM regulator may have been as oversight or the intent could very well have been to allow after-market units only when the car does not have one, or when it can be added w/o messing w/ the existing one. Some of you may remember an old discussion about this; one guy even suggested that since the rule allowed an after-market regulator, he could replace the OEM fuel rail w/ integral regulator w/ a custom rail w/o one. While that interpretration seems extreme, it is the logical extreme of the bootstrap argument.

[pfcs49]

This new information makes me feel terrible- that a person who was instrumental in rewriting the ECU rules was, at the same time, engaged in what I think constitutes clearly illegal modification of his ECM. (running a vacuum source to/thru it) where there was no provision to do so in the rules.
What further exacerbates this/pisses me off, is that Jake Gulick, who has also been so active/opinionated on this subject (ECU rule), and who is a close associate of Andy, posted about this very same situation this year:

Jan 27 2007, 10:36 AM)
"We have one running here in the NE that has a complete system in the stock box. Quite an ingenious setup. I will ask about his power result, but his on track performance hasn&#39;t shown any significant difference. "
QUOTE: Jake Gulick

I have a big problem with a member of the ITAC reffering to something that&#39;s clearly illegal as "ingenious"
Do you understand this stuff Jake?? phil

What exactly is illegal about it? From what I have been told, his solution is legal, and rather ingenious. Prove me wrong, or protest him, but until that point, dragging acccuatrions across the net doesn&#39;t cut it.

(If the info I have gotten is incorrect, and I&#39;m wrong, I apologise, but my info says he&#39;s got a good setup)--------------------

Jake Gulick

Post #260

QUOTE(pfcs49 @ Jan 28 2007, 05:50 PM)
"I could have SWORN I was shooting the breeze with a Volvo guy, and we were talking ECUs...and I really thought I saw a stock vacuum line running to the ECU box...

So, if thats the case, he&#39;s good to go, right?" Jake Gulick, about 3 pages back.

As pointed out previously: how can you get a vacuum liine through an un-modified ECU case without violating the current rule? Clearly it constiutes a modification to the case and clearly it&#39;s illegal. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, phil.

Jake:
Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don&#39;t mod the case.

if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it&#39;s a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.

Jake: all ECUs are installed in tightly sealed cases. There never was an original vacuum line to the Volvo ECU and there is no legal way to install one. phil

Full Edit
Quick Edit Gary L Jan 29 2007, 07:00 AM Post #263

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 25-June 05
From: Oklahoma
Member No.: 2,372

QUOTE(lateapex911 @ Jan 29 2007, 12:48 AM)

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it&#39;s a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.
Gary:
Naahh... the horse is still in the barn. Sounds like someone in this particular case left the door open though.

For damned sure, there ain&#39;t no stock vacuum line that runs to the D-Jet computer. Also, I&#39;ve seen multiple examples of these ancient devices, and I&#39;ve never seen one with a hole in the case, never mind one large enough to allow a vacuum line through.
--------------------
Gary Learned
Volvo 142E

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing&#39;s for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain&#39;t now. I find it impeachable that someone who is cause in the matter of liberalizing a ruleset have such a blatant conflict of interst regarding that very ruleset. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil

[Knestis]

I&#39;m NOT arguing this because I think it&#39;s an example of how things should be but...

But, it goes further and adds a number of restrictions including NOT adding any such wiring and mandating connection via the OEM harness. ...[/b]

...which restricts only the wiring. It says zilch about vacuum lines and frankly, since additional wiring is specifically prohibited, one can *reasonably* infer that HAD the rules-makers wanted to restrict vacuum or other connections, they would have said that.

The production car reverse issue is a great example, and Bill makes a very illustrative point about the rules changing the following year. Our system reacts to cheats by dinking with the written rules, rather than by enforcing the ones we have. Someone has to be the grown-up and just say no but because we rely on hundreds of random volunteers spread out around the nation, who don&#39;t receive the same training or information, to enforce what&#39;s written, we are in a bind. Add to that (again, influenced by the volunteer dynamic) the fact that the stewards and tech folks are more than happy to defer the initiation of action to the competitors, and the system truly binds up.

I like the idea, but it doesn&#39;t hold much weight since you can&#39;t file paper at that time.[/b]

We can write paper NOW if we want but for the most part, we don&#39;t. A parc expose would NOT be intended to be an opportunity to find things to protest. Instead, it would be a different approach that encourages discussion - it&#39;s the concept of daylighting: Putting things out in the open so folks feel more involved, rumors can get quashed with actual facts, and people could come to consensus re: some of the illegalities that fall through cracks now. Peer pressure.

We can&#39;t - even with the ITAC&#39;s efforts to root out issues - fix enforcement problems by changing the book. Create a tech inspectors&#39; and stewards&#39; website with binding interpretations. Make appeals precedential. Chuck that system altogether. Who knows but it&#39;s about enforcement.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing&#39;s for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain&#39;t now. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil

[/b]

No issues Phil. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I have not, nor will lose sleep over my ECU. I ran the design by some of the &#39;brightest minds&#39; and key competitors in my Region, and they agreed it was legal to the letter. Over 2 years ago, I had been developing this system and have been on record as saying I would gladly sell it to someone in another class if we could figure out a way to get the horse back in the barn.

Let&#39;s just please seperate one driver who has the challenge of putting together a winning program against some of the top drivers in the country - who is ALWAYS willing to tell ANYONE what is done to his car - with a guy who is trying to cheat the system. I bet I could name 5 Miata guys on this BB whom I have told everything to in order to help them get up to speed. I have nothing to hide. Frankly, there are plenty of drivers who race other brands who know everything about my car. I even tried to help a Teg guy design a Miata with a full build sheet. Agree or disagree with my/Greg&#39;s ECU interpretation but PLEASE do not ever imply that I have manipulated the ruleset for personal gain or the gain of others.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me pose one final question as I do respect some of the counterpoints. Let&#39;s use these rules:

1. You can install any gauge you want
2. You must use the oem electrical wiring
3. You want to install a vacuum gauge

What do you do?

[pfcs49]

Like you said, Andy-everbody&#39;s entitled to his own opinion. Given your situation-that you weren&#39;t clear if your interpretation of the rule would pass scrutiny and that you were on the comittee-I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn&#39;t have done it, or B) submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn&#39;t OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct. .....but thats just my opinion. Phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like you said, Andy-everbody&#39;s entitled to his own opinion. Given your situation-that you weren&#39;t clear if your interpretation of the rule would pass scrutiny and that you were on the comittee-I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn&#39;t have done it, or submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn&#39;t OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct. .....but thats just my opinion. Phil [/b]

And I agree with your statement - except for my interpretation. I am VERY confident that it is legal. If I wasn&#39;t, it wouldn&#39;t be on my car. In fact, my car is very &#39;left&#39; of the grey when you consider many of the current legality issues that face us all.

We don&#39;t have to agree, and you may think I am full of sheeit, but I appreciate the manner in which you deliver the message..

[Gary L]

Let me pose one final question as I do respect some of the counterpoints. Let&#39;s use these rules:

1. You can install any gauge you want
2. You must use the oem electrical wiring
3. You want to install a vacuum gauge

What do you do?

[/b]

Just for the heck of it...

Sorry, I don&#39;t see the parallel here. The actual rule regarding guages and instruments specifically states those devices may be added, presumably in their entirety, to include hoses to hook them up if necessary. In contrast, the wording of the 2007 paragraph on ECU&#39;s is to specifically prohibit adding things.

There is no sign of the word "add", or any derivative thereof, in the ECU paragraph... you can alter or replace things inside the ECU to your heart&#39;s content, but there are no "additions" allowed. IMO, this would include adding a vacuum hose to said ECU.

[dj10]

Andy,

Does that vacuum line have any illegal purpose?

Does that vacuum line make more hp or torque and possible give you an unfair advantage in any way?

Is that vacuum line a saftey issue?



Yes to any of these questions and it&#39;s illegal.

No to all of these questions, run the damn thing and forget what anyone else thinks!

[Bill Miller]

One more thing Andy.

What you did was alter that stock vac. connection by connecting it to a non-stock part (the MAP on your new ECU) for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage (the ability to use said MAP). THAT is expressly prohibited by the rules. What&#39;s the logic you use to get around that?
[/b]

Still waiting for an answer to this one Andy.

I&#39;ll give you one thing, you&#39;re sounding more and more like a politician as this thread goes on.