Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 150 of 150

Thread: September Fastrack

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post

    That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

    Ron
    It's a topic on our agenda for sure.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    I disagree. When we get to this level of detail, we are discussing the 'warts' of a chosen model. We should not open up engine position sensors.

    Says the guy who would benefit from such an allowance, but will make it work with a less accurate, but functional, trigger method.
    But....

    What if the Borgwald 2L GTI gets classed with you. It makes the same hp stock as your 20 year old VW and gets the same weight. But, it has a modern engine management system.

    Wouldn't you want the opportunity to use similar components? You can still make it work with your dizzy and batch fired injectors. But at least you'll have the opportunity to have what your competitor has.

    The past process didn't take into account differences in ECUs. I don't think P 2.0 is either and I'm not even sure it is possible to do so - as you say it'd get into incredible detail that the ITAC should be bothered with and if they are probably don't have the experience/knowledge to make 100% proper calls on (not sure who would!).

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default

    Ron,

    The simple answer to that one is have the Borgwald weigh more. If there's not an adder for a car that can take advantage of an open ECU, there should be. As many others have pointed out, we're way past increasing peak hp, but to a point (which I think is actually a bigger impact on performance) of increasing the area under the curve.

    Andy,

    This is what I based my comment on, if I mis-interpreted it, I apologize.

    I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time.
    David,

    Thanks for the kind words. But don't count on me spending a whole lot of time here anymore. And no, I won't be at the Runoffs.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Miller View Post
    Ron,

    The simple answer to that one is have the Borgwald weigh more. If there's not an adder for a car that can take advantage of an open ECU, there should be.
    There isn't an adder. And don't you think another subjective adder to the process is going to be more difficult to implement and than simply changing the rule to make the situation equitable for everyone?

    How much is the adder going to be? How would you determine it? +50 lbs if your car comes with a distributorless system?

    I don't think the ITAC has the ways and means to get into that fine a detail. But they do have the ways and means to make an equitable rules set so that at least all ECU cars can have identical access to engine management.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    The process is not that granular. Carbs get carbed allowances, ECU cars get ECU allowances.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    But....

    What if the Borgwald 2L GTI gets classed with you. It makes the same hp stock as your 20 year old VW and gets the same weight. But, it has a modern engine management system.

    Wouldn't you want the opportunity to use similar components? You can still make it work with your dizzy and batch fired injectors. But at least you'll have the opportunity to have what your competitor has.

    The past process didn't take into account differences in ECUs. I don't think P 2.0 is either and I'm not even sure it is possible to do so - as you say it'd get into incredible detail that the ITAC should be bothered with and if they are probably don't have the experience/knowledge to make 100% proper calls on (not sure who would!).
    Oh the irony.

    I am in that situation. A front running car classed at a favorable power to weight ratio compared to my car, and the class target, that has factory MAF and crank position sensors. I don't believe it will be changed. So I'll work on making me and my stuff, including the hall sender in the distributor triggering the ignition, more competitive and try to win anyway.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    Oh the irony.

    I am in that situation. A front running car classed at a favorable power to weight ratio compared to my car, and the class target, that has factory MAF and crank position sensors. I don't believe it will be changed. So I'll work on making me and my stuff, including the hall sender in the distributor triggering the ignition, more competitive and try to win anyway.
    Kudos for sticking it out and wanting to make it work. I admire the fact that you actually in that situation and you're not out trying to get the rule changed to your benefit.

    I don't have skin in the game either, but I'll disagree with you and say you should not be in the position you're in. Similar power, similar weight, but large differences in available ECU modifications puts you at a disadvantage you should not have to endure.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lilburn, GA
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    And this ties in nicely with what I'm trying to say now about opening the ECU rule up to allow a level field. You already did it with the first step of the ECU rule. Since some boxes has vacuum lines, some didn't, the rule was changed to allow MAP sensors so that it wouldn't be a grey area and folks would be on a level field.

    That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

    Ron
    And this to me is the definition of rules creep. The original rule had a loophole that allowed aftermarket ECUs as long as they could be stuffed in the original ECU box. People bitched and moaned that this was bad, costly, whatever, so the ECU rule was opened up. Now people are bitching and moaning that they can't use their new fangled ECU with the stock sensors so here we are talking about opening up the sensors. What's next? I wonder what the Prod rules on ECUs read? I bet not much different from ours now. Something to think about.

    David
    ITA 240SX #17
    Atlanta Region

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidM View Post
    And this to me is the definition of rules creep. The original rule had a loophole that allowed aftermarket ECUs as long as they could be stuffed in the original ECU box. People bitched and moaned that this was bad, costly, whatever, so the ECU rule was opened up. Now people are bitching and moaning that they can't use their new fangled ECU with the stock sensors so here we are talking about opening up the sensors. What's next? I wonder what the Prod rules on ECUs read? I bet not much different from ours now. Something to think about.

    David
    I don't think anyone will argue that the ECU rules crept - at that time. I have been on the ITAC now for maybe 6 years? That 'anything you want inside the stock box' rule was written before Darrin or I got there. Asking the people who invested in programmable stuff was going to be hard - but something some of us were willing to do...the issue was simple. Was a 'stock ecu' rule good? For OBD-1 and 'below', sure. But for OBD-2 equipped cars a reflash is crazy simple. So it was decided that the technology prices had come down enough to allow open ECU's outside the box...and that would keep the playing field as level as it could be.

    Having said all of that, the evolution of the rules to keep up with technology is not creep IMHO. ECU rules would have evolved sooner or later.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lilburn, GA
    Posts
    597

    Default

    I say creep, you say evolution. Still looks like Prod.

    I still laugh at the fact that we are required to have the stock coolant reservoir, but can do whatever the hell we want with the ECU.

    David
    ITA 240SX #17
    Atlanta Region

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •