September Fastrack

[lateapex911]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.

Now, those on the ITAC will hopefully tell you I'm not the 'lazy guy" on the committee, But we prefer to let the category run on as standardized set of allowances as possible, with the least amount of exceptions. Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

[Ron Earp]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

Really? I must have missed all of that in the ITR discussions about classing those cars. Who was the ECU expert that was adjusting weight on what cars had better factory ECUs and sensors?

For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.

True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.

There just aren't that many cases like Jeff's that would need sorting.

Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

Better to do in now in Process 2.0 instead of letting the inequity lie.

[JeffYoung]

As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

[lateapex911]

Good points guys. It's certainly an issue I can see many sides to.

[DavidM]

Where's the downward spiral icon?

[JeffYoung]

David, I do understand the legitimate concern that there are unintended consequences of this. But right now, we seem stuck in a "middle place" between stock ECU on the one hand and open ECU on the other that is inequitable to some cars and not others.

What I really want to try to understand is what are the potential problems we get from opening up the sensor rule. Other than increased area under the curve, what potential problems do we get from this? I don't see any ability to increase peak power, so really there will be no change to the "Process" weighting of any particular car.

[GTIspirit]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

While I agree with that point if all cars were equal, the reality is that some cars are more equal than others. Some cars are clearly overachievers, and some are just not capable of keeping up. So would allowing a common sensor set create more of a disparity, or be more of an equalizer? Personally I think it would be more of an equalizer.

True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.

I totally agree with Ron on this. Not being privy to the process power and weight setting process I'm only assuming that there is no factor for stock ECU capability, especially not with the open ECU rule in effect now. But I can imagine there being a factor for fuel system and ignition type, but allowing a standardized sensor set wouldn't change this.

As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.

[shwah]

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.

But since all of these cars can run a 4 window hall sensor in the distributor, they can still send a useable ignition signal to the ecu as is.