2008 GCR ONLINE!

I will disacgree. The 'process' has only been in place for 3 or so years. The current ECU rule pre-dates said process so it most certainly was a factor in the development of the process fundamentals.



The original intent of the rule has no affect on the rules in place when the process was developed. Frankly, as Jeff stated, carbed cars have a slight base advantage wrt process power as their stock hp rating tend to be artifically low when compared to modern-day examples. Pull off the old-tech smog crap, do an IT-spec build and uprate your carb(s) and jets and off to the races you go.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I refuse to believe that the process set (at any date) accommodated all fuel injected cars as having programmable engine management. The detailed extent of this could not be quantified for use as a process without significant and detailed scientific research or a horribly inaccurate shot in the dark. If this was factored into the process, my guess would be the latter.

I'm not calling you a bold faced liar here, but even from a sheltered distance I can see that this doesn't add up.

Every car (and sometimes specific model years of that car, ala OBD1 and OBD2 split) will be unique in the way it responds to programmable engine management and even more specifically, by how well that programmable engine management is tuned.

You must also keep in mind that some cars can't physically be fitted with programmable management under the current rule due to wiring harness design, sensor type, ECU design, and physical box size limitations. These same vehicles will have free reign for '08 and I sure don't see a list of cars getting heavier.
 
I refuse to believe that the process set (at any date) accommodated all fuel injected cars as having programmable engine management. The detailed extent of this could not be quantified for use as a process without significant and detailed scientific research or a horribly inaccurate shot in the dark. If this was factored into the process, my guess would be the latter.

I'm not calling you a bold faced liar here, but even from a sheltered distance I can see that this doesn't add up.

Every car (and sometimes specific model years of that car, ala OBD1 and OBD2 split) will be unique in the way it responds to programmable engine management and even more specifically, by how well that programmable engine management is tuned.

You must also keep in mind that some cars can't physically be fitted with programmable management under the current rule due to wiring harness design, sensor type, ECU design, and physical box size limitations. These same vehicles will have free reign for '08 and I sure don't see a list of cars getting heavier.

As far as any cars getting heavier, you could make the arguement that those cars have been underachieving in the HP department vs. their spec weight until now.




[/b]
Click to expand...

Jeff,

I am not sure where you got the impression that each car is classed to the Nth factoid. We use a base percentage of 25% gains in IT trim - and that takes into account PFI. Sorry if it isn't more granular than that, but it isn't. Some guys will laugh at you when you tell them their weight is based on an 'estimated' 25% increase because they will swear they can't get there.

Not sure what doesn't add up. The process is not perfect and it is a braod estimate brushed across many cars. It gets up to where we need to be for IT and Regional racing.
 
Right.

And lets not forget the "Grand Re-org" (Feb addendum)..that came out a bit ago. We went through the ITCS, and looked at cars with an eye to how they fit in the class they were in, what they were capable of given the existing rules (Open ECUs), and they were adjusted up, or down, or moved as needed. As Andy points out, there is a certain granularity to be expected in classing 300 cars in the ITCS, and making them all play nice on tracks of all kinds across the country.

Some cars will and do respond better, and there *might* be some that come away from this happy. Will we see a new "Must have" car in ITB, ITA, ITS or ITR due to this?? I highly doubt it.

Also, while you might not be aware of whats under peoples hoods, you might also be surprised. When I started doing research...going to tracks and asking pointed questions, I found quite a few surprises.

I drive an old RX-7...NOT the car to have for ITA. And it is carbed. Yet I was instrumental in getting this ball rolling. Why? Because I felt the old rule was plain old dumb, and after researching the situation, and being involved in the process, I felt that it's upsides far outweighed the potential downsides. Honestly, at NHIS, in a class of 25 ITA cars, I grid about 6th -8th if I am on my game. I anticipate that the new rule could make it easier for some of my buds to realize some HP they haven't been able to crack because of money or impossible fitments, and I might grid up 8th to 10th. And you know, that doesn't bother me. Not because I don't want to be competitive, but because I was having my day in the sun in 6th! In all reality, I shouldn't be that high. (And the issue with the RX-7 is far more complicated than the carburetor status, and I understand that. Thats the way it is sometimes.)

I understand how this can be polarizing, and I used to be in the "Protect the carbed cars" camp, but it's just not that black and white.

I will also say I was VERY pleased with the quality of the responses we got to our request for input on the subject. Not only did people write in with their experiences, and their facts, but many wrote in suggesting a change that, on the surface, would hurt them. Thats the sign of some serious thought going on, and I really repsect those people who voted "out of party". Many offered to take their time to show us what they did, and how they did it, and I took some up on that.
 
Jeff,

I am not sure where you got the impression that each car is classed to the Nth factoid. We use a base percentage of 25% gains in IT trim - and that takes into account PFI. [/b]
Click to expand...

I don't have that impression, rather I feel it necessary to point out that your "process" could not have quantified the results of utilizing PFI due to the unknown car-specific benefits and the quantity of cars that couldn't even be equipped with such a thing under the "anything inside the box" rule.

There are just too many unknowns and too few people doing it for PIM to have been included in the "process". If it was, then it was a mistake IMHO.
 
Area under the curve...........

[/b]
Click to expand...


Yep, it'll help.

More processing power, finer tuning, using a fully-mapped MAP/TPS system versus whatever crap the factory uses...it all makes a difference. Should we be so inclined, I'd estimate we could see "more" ponies and a wider torque band from the NX with a full-up MAP system...

Granted, you ain't gonna cram more air into the system, and you're stuck with the factory injectors, but the ability to optimize whatcha got can't be underestimated...
[/b]
Click to expand...


I honestly believe that at our level, 95% of the cars and drivers have factors far greater than this one that affects how fast we are. Most people would get a much bigger bang if they took the $4K and spent it on testing and driver coaching than if they did a full blown ECU. And I'm sure 95% of the guys are out there saying, "not me!!"

How many IT cars out there are a 10/10ths build?? 20%?? How many drivers in IT are at a level where they can tell the difference when they increase the area under the curve??? 10%??


People are only fooling themselves...............


Take a look at your car prep
Take a look at your car developement
Take a look at your abilities


Then worry about the area under the curve.


Jeff, this wasn't aimed at you!! Just general observations!! B)
 
Area under the curve - at every possible set of conditions is a more accurate description of what can be done with programmable management.

Sorry, but if you are far enough outside the desireable operating conditions during a race to need that ultimate refinement in tuning, you screwed something up in the driver seat and are in the wrong gear.

I have plenty of 'area under the curve' in my resistor fooled continuous injection system running fixed timing. It behaves very well in all of my racing conditions - however I do race a fwd car that is set up for lots of throttle upon turnin, and not a lot (if any) throttle modulation...ever. So maybe this point is more salient for rwd or higher hp cars.

Of course I reserve the right to be proven wrong at any time, and change my car prep accordingly. :P
 
:018: Just wondering why some are so excited about the "new IT ECU, wiring, sensor rule" when the 2008 GCR states the same rule/s as 2007. Could someone clairfy this for me?

James
 
:018: Just wondering why some are so excited about the "new IT ECU, wiring, sensor rule" when the 2008 GCR states the same rule/s as 2007. Could someone clairfy this for me?

James
[/b]
Click to expand...

James,

Go look again at 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 and a.7, that's authorized modifications, reciprocating engines on GCR page 331. You'll see it there.

James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top