ECU rule thoughts

[apr67]

Originally posted by rlearp:
I mean, I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.

I think you are over exagerating.

Adding a guage is specifically allowed, and you can add whatever wiring you want to that end.

I don't understand the difficulty of running a new wire from the fuse box to replace the wire that is shorted, has cracked insulation.

I really don't see how replacing wiring that is gone would make you illegal. Do your best effort to reproduce what was there. Maybe no one else races your car, but they do exist and you should be able to see what the engine harness looked like.

[Ron Earp]

I have wired my car to run, and, since the car is simple is is somewhat like the original - in function. But, it would not pass the "original rule" nor the "repair" rule if strictly interpreted.

As I've mentioned in numerous posts here, part of what I object too, and why this thread is here I think, was the allowance for a MoTec ECU but not an aftermarket or non-OEM wiring harness. The logic escapes me. If MoTecs were not allowed, then I would not give thought to the wiring harness rule. But, since MoTecs are allowed, then I question the harnesss rule.

You can replace a ECU with anything you like as long as it fits in the original container. How about allowing a wiring harness replacement as long as it fits in the original container, the chassis? Just kidding.

To me the MoTec is a serious piece of equipment that has performance advantages, raises the bar in the class, and certainly, if anything smells like rules creep, unlimited ECUs is it. But, to me the ECU situation is such a large deal then the much smaller and loosely associated wiring harness rule makes no sense if the ECUs can be replaced.

Maybe my itsy bitsy brain just works in a odd way on this one. Anyone else feel the same way?

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[bldn10]

IMO the problem here is not w/ the restriction on stock harnesses, it is the allowance of replacement of the computer. Once that door was opened, desire to change the harness was a logical but unintended next step. Keep going and the final result will be "ECU's and associated wiring are free." I have written the CRB asking that we go back to the original intent - to allow modifications of the stock ECU - not complete replacement. I invite you to do likewise. Let's put this genie back in the bottle before it is too late.

"If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules."

FWIW it can be argued that 17.1.4.D.1.6, the rule under discussion and that contains the harness restriction, applies only to fuel injected cars since it starts out, "Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer ...." Buttressing this interpretation is the fact that 17.1.4.D.1.s also deals w/ ECU modifications but is not preceded by "fuel injected cars." I have also asked the CRB to examine this rule and determine if we really meant to have different rules depending on manner of fuel delivery.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[Ron Earp]

Bill,

If they canned MoTec installations then I'd shut up about wiring. If MoTec's were disallowed then, at least to my feeble brain, logic would be restored to the system (at least regarding this issue) and I could except the harness rule, although I still wouldn't like it. As it is, in my eyes, you can change the biggest wiring harness in the car(ECU) but not the smallest.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[Knestis]

Okay - since we are back on the original topic, we ask the same question again: How does that rule get worded? We can't say, "Motec is not allowed" for reasons that I hope are obvious...

K

[Matt Rowe]

I would also like to see the wiring harness rules relaxed for reasons of reliability and availability of stock parts. Repair procedures can only go so far when a harness reaches a certain age or when it isn't there to start with. Never mind issues like added instrumentation, electric fuel pumps, kill switches and all of the other allowable modifications that require working around the stock harness. I would gladly allow my fuel injected competitors to trade 15 #'s in wiring for 15 #'s in ballast as long as I can trade 2 #'s without having to worry about obtaining or maintaining a harness that has nothing to do with a safe race car. And on the note of safety, you would think that removing 15 #'s of combustable, toxic plastic insulation from the passenger compartment would be a worthy goal. The idea of molten insulation dripping onto my feet from dash wiring isn't fun, but that is what the rules force on us.

As for this change allowing rules creep, I think the distinguisher factor here is the modification to wiring (without adding sensors) does nothing to make the car faster. Cost and reliability improve, but assuming a car is at minimum weight the removal of 15lbs or wiring with the addition of equivilant ballast is not going to drop your lap times. ECU modifications, adding sensors, traction control, etc will drop lap times and that should be a watershed test when halting rules creep.

And of course the most frustrating aspect is being told that changes like unrestricted wiring constitute "rules creep" and add to the cost of preparing a car when a $3000+ Motec computer is allowed. I agree with Ron, either give us modifications to the whole harness and ecu, or allow mapping changes only to factory ECUs. Otherwise the application and intent of the rule makes little sense.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Matt Rowe]

Knestis,

A starting point for wording I would favor is along the lines of -

"Changes to fuel and timing maps are allowed as long as the changes are not performed while in motion and provided the stock ECU performs all engine management calculations. The burden of proof for additional "daughter" boards to provide map tuning is on the competitor."

Keep in mind this is just a starting point for another endless discussion. But a couple of points

* It allows the same adjustments a carb can have (fuel and spark) so that is equivilant, if not equal.

* If some one has another set of maps they want to suggest thats fine.

* The "while in motion" statement limits anyone from getting tricky and altering the maps on the fly in order to effectivly bypass the stock ECU calculations

* A MoTec or any other aftermarket ECU is disallowed by the engine management calculations statement.

* Finally the burden of proof lies with the competitor. Which would require wiring diagrams and details. Not easy to meet, but we have put similar requirements for proof on aftermarket shop manuals and such.

So, who is going to be the first to shoot holes in this? I'm certainly not saying this is the answer but it seems better than the current situation.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - since we are back on the original topic, we ask the same question again: How does that rule get worded? We can't say, "Motec is not allowed" for reasons that I hope are obvious...
K

Well, we have laywers on the board. I think I know two. Seems like it would be right up their alleys.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[Team Rocket]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Every tiny thing done to make it easier to race and get a car on track helps us all out by bringing new people to the ... SCCA.

This is a great comment, and a great philosophy. Maybe there are times a little "rules creep" is good for the sport.

Jim

[Bill Miller]

* It allows the same adjustments a carb can have (fuel and spark) so that is equivilant, if not equal.

I guess this is one of those things that if enough people keep saying it, it will become fact.

I'm not going to get into it again, but I have yet to see anyone prove that a fixed advance curve and static jetting is the same as stuff than can change on the fly. I'd buy it, if the ECU was stuck w/ only one map (that you selected, from a wide variety of maps, kinda like picking your jetting), or that ignition timing didn't change. Look at something as simple as the knock sensor on an A2 VW. It will retard the timing if the car starts to detonate. Somebody explain to me how you do that, on the fly, w/ a points distributor or an electronic ignition that doesn't have said knock sensor (or any other inputs that can alter timing).



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[seckerich]

So with this logic only those models that have had their codes cracked would benefit from the stock ecu being doctored, but the rest would be screwed. So now the 20 plus people who can burn a chip for a BMW, Nissan, etc gain while the mazda gets screwed again because all we could do was clip the rev limit. The ability to tune with the stock ecu in most cars is very different. The Motec can only use input from the FACTORY sensors and tune for optimum mixture just like most altered stock computers. This is not a magic bullet, it just allows the average tuner to not need a code expert to do it. If you open the harness to anything you will get 4 wire wide band tuning and a host of other things you don't want to see.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

Originally posted by bldn10:
IMO the problem here is not w/ the restriction on stock harnesses, it is the allowance of replacement of the computer. Once that door was opened, desire to change the harness was a logical but unintended next step. Keep going and the final result will be "ECU's and associated wiring are free." I have written the CRB asking that we go back to the original intent - to allow modifications of the stock ECU - not complete replacement. I invite you to do likewise. Let's put this genie back in the bottle before it is too late.

"If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules."

FWIW it can be argued that 17.1.4.D.1.6, the rule under discussion and that contains the harness restriction, applies only to fuel injected cars since it starts out, "Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer ...." Buttressing this interpretation is the fact that 17.1.4.D.1.s also deals w/ ECU modifications but is not preceded by "fuel injected cars." I have also asked the CRB to examine this rule and determine if we really meant to have different rules depending on manner of fuel delivery.

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp:
I think the rule needs to be re-visited. Clearly, the ECUs are allowed to be changed and an ECU is simply a three dimensional multiplanar wiring harness with more feet-wire than the rest of the harness in the car.

Thankfully those who write the rules won't buy that silliness. It's much more than a wiring harness.

Originally posted by rlearp:
I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.

Methinks you've got that all backwards and sideways. You have to jump through hoops to install a MoTeC, but installing gauges and an MSD ignition are about as straight-forward as it gets.

Originally posted by rlearp:
Geo, the repair situation does not cover all instances.

Hmmm.... You have a bad wire or connector, you cut it out and replace it. What could be simpler?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by seckerich:
The Motec can only use input from the FACTORY sensors and tune for optimum mixture just like most altered stock computers. This is not a magic bullet, it just allows the average tuner to not need a code expert to do it.

Thank you.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Rob May]

Nicely put Steve. Amen!

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I guess this is one of those things that if enough people keep saying it, it will become fact.

I'm not going to get into it again, but I have yet to see anyone prove that a fixed advance curve and static jetting is the same as stuff than can change on the fly. I'd buy it, if the ECU was stuck w/ only one map (that you selected, from a wide variety of maps, kinda like picking your jetting), or that ignition timing didn't change. Look at something as simple as the knock sensor on an A2 VW. It will retard the timing if the car starts to detonate. Somebody explain to me how you do that, on the fly, w/ a points distributor or an electronic ignition that doesn't have said knock sensor (or any other inputs that can alter timing).

Bill,

Thats is why I said equivilant, if not equal. I have a carb and I agree we are at a tuning disadvantage to the stock ECUs. A modified ECU isn't that much worse, all things being relative. But forcing the FI people to live without any mods for tuning and durability isn't a fair option either.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
Hmmm.... You have a bad wire or connector, you cut it out and replace it. What could be simpler?

Nothing, as long as it's one wire. Of course I can't repair connectors because the pins are not available. And if it's multiple bad wires tracing them is difficult at best. Then I get to the tricky part where I no longer have a harness. How do I repair something that isn't there. It's suddenly not that simple.

Allowing wiring harness changes doesn't automatically allow new sensors. Remember if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

As for the MoTec not being a magic bullet, can everyone who has actually tuned with both a modified stock ECU and an aftermarket system raise their hand? It appears there are a number of people who don't know the differences that are claiming there is no difference. Having worked with both I can tell you there is a difference in the consistency of the program. Do you think F1 would have spent billions of dollars on ECU development if a toyota module with new maps can do the same thing. The calculations the module performed are the real difference and not a trivial one.

For example being able to alter when WOT situations occur is not a normally adjustable parameter for a stock ECU but no problem on an aftermarket system. It matters for part throttle modulation and can make the difference between getting to the guys bumper and getting alongside. Which is the point of the whole thing.

I really don't care in the long run if someone wants to spend $500 or $5000 tuning their car. So if the group as a whole feels that allowing this sort of modification is allowed, fine. But then why aren't some other simpler and cheaper mods out of the question. Remember there is an overall class intent and yet it doesn't seem apparent in the use of the rules.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[seckerich]

I dont believe the comp board had a clue, or cared for that matter, what the processor speeds and ability was of a stock ECU when they classed cars. It is reality that many can have very complex maps perfected with aftermarket units and burned back to very stock chips. You think national, let alone a tech inspector can find that? You expect car companies that issue cam blanks with stock part castings will give them up? Welcome to OZ! Allowing adjustment with the sensors the car came with is the most even way to handle a no win situation.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

I guess I could go back to altering the ramp angles of my rockers for more lift, or play with my "stock" valve angles to gain more flow, or maybe cam timing since they never check them in the car--- I almost forgot I have a Mazda --BACK TO FUEL AND TIMING ADVANCE WHAT A MAGIC BULLET

[This message has been edited by seckerich (edited December 22, 2004).]

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by seckerich:
I dont believe the comp board had a clue, or cared for that matter, what the processor speeds and ability was of a stock ECU when they classed cars. It is reality that many can have very complex maps perfected with aftermarket units and burned back to very stock chips. You think national, let alone a tech inspector can find that? You expect car companies that issue cam blanks with stock part castings will give them up? Welcome to OZ! Allowing adjustment with the sensors the car came with is the most even way to handle a no win situation.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

I guess I could go back to altering the ramp angles of my rockers for more lift, or play with my "stock" valve angles to gain more flow, or maybe cam timing since they never check them in the car--- I almost forgot I have a Mazda --BACK TO FUEL AND TIMING ADVANCE WHAT A MAGIC BULLET

[This message has been edited by seckerich (edited December 22, 2004).]

Steve, through some horrible error, I think we are actually in agreement. You have to allow tuning, and if so then why not make it easy for eveyone. So if that's the case, why the wiring restriction (keeping stock sensors) and why the unmodified ECU case rule. It obviously didn't do what it was intended, so if we aren't going to prevent Motec's then why not make it simple to install them, as well as other aftermarket ECUs.

And as I said before ultimately if someone wants to spend $5000 on ECU tuning that's fine, but then I don't want to hear why a $500 dollar mod in the interest of convenience is not allowed.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Nothing, as long as it's one wire. Of course I can't repair connectors because the pins are not available.

And there are none in bone yards? Sorry, but the NLA angle doesn't play any better for wiring harnesses than it does for cams.

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
And if it's multiple bad wires tracing them is difficult at best. Then I get to the tricky part where I no longer have a harness. How do I repair something that isn't there. It's suddenly not that simple.

Well, if it's no longer there it is simple. It's illegal.

BTW, I don't think anyone is saying there is no advantage to the MoTeC. But it's not going to make a mid-packer a winner.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
And there are none in bone yards? Sorry, but the NLA angle doesn't play any better for wiring harnesses than it does for cams.

No, for some models, for some cars there aren't harnesses out there. And the cam angle doesn't fly because a cam is a performance advantage. There is no such advantage with a harness, it's just a cost/ease of car building issue.



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96