September Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.

[frnkhous]

My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.

#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.

[CRallo]

Logically speaking (haha) one yes and one no is still a no... The statement would be false. So if you want to truly follow the rules to a "T" if your data logger is in your ECU you are SOL but feel free to have a seperate WBO2 gauge with separate wiring...

[CRallo]

Bruce, you can run the 13B in ITS where the GSL-SE is classed... The VIN rule being abolished would permit most 12a powered 1st gens to swap over to S. The early cars might be SOL though... :/

[Andy Bettencourt]

If the point is that it is hard to police, then yes, it would be in certain applications. But that doesn't change the legality...or lack therof in this case. Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.

I suppose a substantial tear-down could uncover it. Not any different that say a piston or connecting-rod issue...

[chuck baader]

Ok, guys....I'm at Baber this weekend and don't have the original request with me. I will post it Sunday night so all can see the original request. I have slept way too many times to remember the wording, but it was based on a decision sent to another racer in B'ham, and that decition was quoted. The reason I requested the WBO2 was that the decision he received was that the sensor was illegal. Now, I run a WB for my megasquirt...on the dyno. I will go on track in closed loop/learn mode and burn that to the controller and disable the WBO2 for the race and use it simply for data logging. It is an easy switch inside the MS software. If you don't think that is compliant, please do protest as personally I feel the CRB is incorrect in stating that the NB and WB perform different functions. IMHO, since sensors are free, they should be allowed. I'll post the request Sunday evening. Chuck

[JoshS]

IMHO, since sensors are free, they should be allowed.

The thing is ... sensors aren't free. That word gets used where it shouldn't be way too often.

[Ron Earp]

Now, I run a WB for my megasquirt...on the dyno. I will go on track in closed loop/learn mode and burn that to the controller and disable the WBO2 for the race and use it simply for data logging. It is an easy switch inside the MS software. I

So it looks like the popular opinion is that you can't use your wide band to allow the ECU to adjust fuel metering during the race.

Questions:

1. During a race what if you, the driver, observe your dash mounted wide band O2 sensor display and reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio? Legal?
2. During a race what if you, the driver, reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio (no wide band O2 sensor involved)? Legal?

[Eagle7]

Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.

unless a WB O2 was original equipment on that car.

Fixed that for you (I hope you agree). WB O2 was not declared illegal, just not equivalent to narrow band.

[Edit] Original post confused what was Andy's quote and what I added.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fixed that for you (I hope you agree). WB O2 was not declared illegal, just not equivalent to narrow band.

True...true. Not an allowable 'addition'.

[Bill Miller]

#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.

Goes back to the 'allowed mod performing a prohibited function' clause. You want to wire a non-approved sensor to your ECU (which just so happens to have built-in data logging), I'm sorry, but the burden would be on you to prove that you're only using the signal for data logging.

[JeffYoung]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.

[Eagle7]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.

Yes on a Megasquirt. The Gego value in the log is the % multiplier of fuel due to O2 sensor input. 100% means no effect. It can also be determined without a log by checking the configuration (connect a computer and check a setting). However all of that assumes standard ECU firmware that doesn't "lie".

I personally would be happy to disconnect my WBO2 if a competitor expressed a concern.

[frnkhous]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.

I think that this was greg's only point and I agree with it being hard to police. I do agree it is not technically legal to use it for the ecu, just hard to control what someone does with the info.