Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.
Jake, I don't really disagree with that. The issue is, there would have been no need for the "stuff it in the box" rule if people didn't feel that it was impossible to police the cheaters using re-flashed or swapped chips. Rather than leaving the rule as written, and letting the competitors deal w/ the cheating issue, they took the stance that people that could, would cheat, they couldn't / didn't want to try and deal with it, so they were going to 'legalize' the cheating so that everyone could do it. They thought that by keeping the original box w/ the original computer and connections, they could prevent people from coming up w/ full-blown systems like Motec, etc. History shows that they were wrong.

The end result is what has come to be the poster child for rules creep in IT.

I do understand and appreciate the need to 'look to the future' in terms of writing rules. And I guess the current ECU rule does address what would happen if you had a car that would only run in limp mode if you disable the ABS and traction control systems. You scrap the stock computer and go w/ something else.
Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.
Dynamically?