A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Conover]

The ECU rule is a red-herring. My understanding is that the rule was changed in two phases.

Second, and most liberal change, free ECUs. The motivation for this was equity and to lessen the cost of the arms race. There was a set of cars that could cram an after-market ECU into the stock housing a/o custom chip installed in the stock housing. The cost was prohibitive for most, but for the big buck guy, within budget. Given the relaxation of the original standard, it made sense.

The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others. Something along the lines of :

"ECU input devices may be replaced or substituted, stock air metering device must remain in place, but does not have to be utilized."

That would be the way to go, otherwise you have cars that you can put a nice new programmable ecu in the car and then have to spend literally thousands of dollars to design a one off trigger to run the thing from.

Intentions were good, I just think the rule needs to be more thoroughly considered if cost issues, and "fairness" for lack of a better word, are actual goals.

[JeffYoung]

I've tried, but I just can't contain myself anymore.

What Cameron said! lol......

[Ron Earp]

Said it on the other thread, say it here. As the others have pointed out the rule is unfair now. If your car comes from the factory with a crank fired system plus other modern engine management sensors/ECU you're good to go. Add any ECU you want and you'll have the sensors to make it sing.

If your car doesn't come from the factory with all the "goodies" you can't add them and you'll be not enjoying the benefits your competitors might have.

Ron

[spawpoet]

I've tried, but I just can't contain myself anymore.

What Cameron said! lol......

I would agree with that as well. I only pointed out the ECU as an example of creep and something more threatening than a wash bottle, but it's done and we can't go back. If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.

[JeffYoung]

I have too much of a vested interest in the sensor rule to debate it objectively....I'll leave that one to you guys.....

[lateapex911]

..... ECU as an example of creep ....., but it's done and we can't go back. .

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?

[spawpoet]

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?

I think it was pointed out before that some ECU cars had no way of getting around rev limiters etc (that are integral to stock units) without changing/modifying the ECU's, so I'm not sure opening of ECU's could have been avoided. Call it inevitable creep. The cars we race have changed, and the rules have to change with them. As long as all cars are kept as close to equal as possible that is all we can ask for. I (selfishly) don't want to see carbd cars left behind as ECU's have opened up, but at the same time I don't see yet where they really have been. I.E. I see well built, well driven versions of my carbd car as currently competitive.

[JeffYoung]

In the last 18 months, I've done way more reading than I wanted to on EFI v. carb. I had to make the choice to spend the money to do the conversion on the TR8.

My car is a bit unique because the FI intake manifold is significanlty better than the carb one, which gives peak gains that would not be there otherwise.

Which leads me to my core point. EFI is not "magic." At the end of a day, and this is backed up by all kinds of data from muscle car land, EFI will probably not make any more peak power than a carb'ed car.

What EFI does give you is, at least in my case, more torque and far more area under the curve via being able to more precisely tune timing and mixture across the rev range.

Carbed cars can do this is "rough" fashion via messing with the advance curve and the neddles/jets, but it is always a trade off (better in one area of teh RPM than another, etc.).

But "old school" ECUs can be VERY bad. Mine in particular, which doesn't fuel over 4500 rpm on purpose and has a terrible stock advance curve for emissions reasons.

Based on this, for my car anyway, the way these things line up is:

"Open" EFI is significantly better than "open" Carbs which is WAY BETTER than stock EFI.

Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing.

Make of that what you will. If we went back to stock ECUs, I'd have to ditch the ($15k) EFI conversion I did and go back to carbs.

[callard]

The Weber carb that is allowed for some IT-B cars has sequentially opening throttle plates. Within the present rules, changes can be made to idle air bleeds, main jets, air correctors and emulsion tubes. No matter what you do within these rules, the carb still goes a bit lean at high RPMs or runs like crap in the mid range. Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? If so, some of the existing cars will go faster and others won't. Just sayin'....
Chuck

[spawpoet]

"Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing."


This is appropriate to one question I am asking. When weights were set for cars pre-open ECU was the fact that carbd cars had more tuning capability at the time factored in to how they were processed or have carbd cars had an edge all along?

[jjjanos]

The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others.

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

[spawpoet]

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

[lateapex911]

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

YEs, and no. Depends on the car, and the point in history. Certainly early on, weights were set, and THEN the ECU rule was opened to some degree. (chips, in the box). Now, it is assumed that ECU gains are part of the package.

As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.