first off, just how people are using the ECU rule, and how to write a new and effective rule is way beyond me. i'd just like to admit that before i open my mouth. given my ignorance, i usually don't debate such topics, but i've had a rather frustrating day and feel like being onry.
rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.
[/b]
i disagree jake. the old rule, and money spent yesterday should have no bearing on a new rule. we can reference an old rule to learn how to write a better new one, but just because we screwed up yesterday doesn't mean we need to wait 5yrs to fix it. the attitude should be to do what's best for the majority of IT racers going forward, not what's best for what happened to the minority in the past.
So my current system uses an algorithm in the software based on gear selection and RPM rising rate to control wheel spin. How you gonna stop that? No Sensors needed and no tire spin!!!!!
[/b]
i already covered this. whoever i find out has TC i'm going to kick them square in the nuts, make them wear a pink tu-tu, and call them princess. i don't know why, but the TC thing really grinds my gears.
I don't like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn't have to get something done within the rules.
[/b]
same thing as with jake, this is improper thinking. what other people invested and how we screwed up in the past are already sunk costs and shouldn't influence our decisions moving forward. General Business 101.
OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it's not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can't go on willy nilly banning things that we don't fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn't going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let's not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.
In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
[/b]
10pts for recognizing future issues cameron, but i disagree on how to deal with them. when this ECU rewrite issue came up a couple months ago i was 90% in support of it because of the ever increasing control OEM ECU's have over our vehicles. I want to open up the rule so that we can ELIMINATE traction control and all the other bullshit. i can forsee us all having to remove the complete factory wiring harness and ECU as a part of typical car prep just like we install a cage today.
we'll all be running basically a more user friendly megasquirt. we'll install a half-dozen basic sensors and plug them into our pre-programmed but fully adjustable standalone ECU. that's the future i see. people are smart and will figure it out.
....alright, i feel a little better now.
Travis Nordwald
1996 ITA Miata
KC Region
Bookmarks