An ECU rule proposal

S

ShelbyRacer

New member
I'm posting in a new subject for a couple reasons, but most importantly, I would like to know thoughts on this. If I submitted the rule as proposed below, who would support it, who wouldn't, and why. Please do not turn this into a "it doesn't matter because it won't get changed" thread. I'm looking for thoughtful, intelligent feedback.

Also, I'd really be interested in knowing what you guys can find wrong with this one. (that's an honest question- I really would like to know for my own improvement).

The proposed rule change wording is in bold below.

---------------------------

The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. The ECU must be able to be read by any commercially available scan tool using the stock ECU configuration and ID.
---------------------------

This allows reprogramming, without making the rule overly cumbersome to read and enforce. Hook up any scan tool, set the stock ID for that car, and check. If it don't respond, it's out. If there's a reason to look further (as in it's identified in the protest), pull the unit and check (probably a $50-75 bond).

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Can I buy a scan tool for my 1990 Festiva? No. How about a Volvo 142?

Drop the scan tool language.

And what about add-on chips like later model Fords? All the stock chips stay in, you add another one on the J3 service connector.

But I'm with you. Allow programming. Tough to write...
 
on the face of it, a fairly safe sensible plan. Scanning is simple if you limit it to OBDII cars (96^) which can all be scanned w/generic OBDII tools. most Jap apps can be scanned with professional scanners but will require appropriate cartrideges and adapter cables. Euro apps are more difficult-the cheapest tool I know that will communicate with Saab, BMW, MB and VW costs $5000. (yeah-I know you can do just VW/Audi much cheaper)And many early euro apps can't be scanned at all. Limiting tuning to the editing of files in the stock ECUs would seem to me to be the most sensible and cost effective way to handle the problem of getting A/F ratios (and igniton timing) right for our somewhat modified engines, and is what I did with the EFI of my A2 VW. It wasn't easy, but no one had the wherewithal or willingness to do it for me (Digifant A2 EFI is certainly a very "niche" market). But now I have a small advantage over anyone else in that niche, as far as I can tell. The situation is probably the same with other EFI systems. Many people in the same situation might (reasonably) decide that a much simpler solution is to adapt a stand-alone ECU to their stock enclosure. So here we are-right back where we started. Phil
PS: I can't see that a stand-alone sytem has any competetive advantage over a properly tuned stock box. I know there are people who want to argue this, but I'm not on that game board.

------------------
phil hunt

[This message has been edited by pfcs (edited February 20, 2005).]
 
1990 Festiva? yes. Volvo, no. You guys bring up good points about the scan tool thing, since I didn't account for the Euro cars... I know of a few cheaper readers that will "ping" the Jap stuff, but nothing outside the OEM tools or the Snap On unit that will do Euro (and I think Phil is pretty close on the price there).

And damn, I meant to account for the add-on units. Try this one:
------------------------------
The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. No add-on units (internal or external) shall be used. Sensors must be stock or OEM replacement, but a single value of fixed resistance may be added between a stock sensor and the stock connector to that sensor.
---------------------------------

Damn, longer than the first one, but covers all the ECM/sensor bases I think.

BTW- Thank you all for the thoughtful feedback. Does this sound like something you'd write in and support if I proposed the change?

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Stock, that's it. Change the resistence values, but the box must be stock. Any evidence that the stock unit has been opened means it's no good.

A decent scan tool should be part of a Region's tool box. Although, having several Regions share one is ok, as long as there is no conflict in the race schedule. If the scanner shows the ECU to not be stock (or updated as per the mfg.), it's no good.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
The scanner can't tell you for all cars if the ECU is stock or not. I know it cannot for Nissans. So what good is it?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Bill-you MUST allow that the ECU not be original-that fueling tables can be changed-otherwise we all would have to run carburetors.
 
The Touring class ECU rule seams to work, They did use a Scanner on our car in impound to be sure it didn't have fault codes.
 
Simpler, you just delete the words "or replace" from the current rule.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The Touring class ECU rule seams to work, They did use a Scanner on our car in impound to be sure it didn't have fault codes.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is that the T cars all are 96 or newer, so you can use the universal OBD2 scanner. I think other guys are right about not including the scanner language, as it could be cost prohibitive for the Regions to comply and provide such.

Oh, and Bill-
I can make a pretty wild program that shows up as stock on a scanner. Not everyone might be able to do that though... Hell, I can now do the stuff they used to do in SS and the pro series- make it read stock, but if you hold down the gas pedal while you turn the key on, it reverts to a different set of tables...

I actually would go further with Phil's point, that not allowing modifications to fuel tables is WORSE than carbs. The mods allowed in IT can generate air flows that do NOT match the stock profiles, so therefore fueling will not match air intake as well. While the ECUs can adapt, the WOT tables will not adapt well, and I'd think that's where many spend the majority of their time... Not to mention that if you pull power to the unit, it takes a while to relearn the adaptations (like an entire race weekend or more).

IM(not so)HO- we need to allow modification to fuel and spark tables but require it be done within the confines of the stock ECU's electronic architecture. This parallels the carb rules VERY well.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by bldn10:
Simpler, you just delete the words "or replace" from the current rule.
Click to expand...

Problem is, then we'd have people spending MORE money to put MOTEC chips on the stock board. I think we need to establish exactly what can be done, not try to limit what can't.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No add-on units (internal or external) shall be used.</font>
Click to expand...


You just eliminated all currently-available aftermarket-modified ECUs for later-model Nissans (B13 and B14 Sentra, NX2000, 240SX, probably more). They all use alternate PROMS mounted on daughterboards inside the stock housing.

I think we're all beginning to see why it's so hard to allow alternate ECUs without opening up Pandora's Box (and why it will be impossible to close it)... - GA
 
I agree with you Greg. In spite of how the current rule looks, and how sexy Motec, etc may look to some people (i.e: thinking that it is somehow "better" than a properly tuned stock ECU-I don't believe it is), I feel that the current rule is the best compromise available.
Don't forget that while there are chip tuners that are able to edit some manufacturer's files, there are many that can't or won't provide for our unique needs-that being slightly modified/soon to be archaic vehicles. In those instances, adapting a stand alone ECU in one's own housing starts to look very attractive once you get over the $$.
------------------
phil hunt

[This message has been edited by pfcs (edited February 21, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
You just eliminated all currently-available aftermarket-modified ECUs for later-model Nissans (B13 and B14 Sentra, NX2000, 240SX, probably more). They all use alternate PROMS mounted on daughterboards inside the stock housing.

I think we're all beginning to see why it's so hard to allow alternate ECUs without opening up Pandora's Box (and why it will be impossible to close it)... - GA
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see your point. I appreciate the feedback, as this is exactly the type of info I'm looking for. I admit that I am not aware of all the specific application items, so that's why I figured I'd post the idea for feedback.

Just a thought- what if add-on boards were allowed inside the housing (simply by striking the "internal or" from the rule wording above)? I realize that this opens the possibility for some to put a whole new controller inside, but is there a way to address that w/o screwing the Nissan guys (and probably others)? If I am thinking correctly, the Nissan solution is probably a unit that substitutes the PROM and limp-home chips, and adds no active computing power to the unit...

Greg- can you give a link to some place that provides technical info on the Nissan piece?



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
The Nissan units from Wolf use an add-on daughtercard that were designed to be installed in the stock ECU case... In other words, the stock units were DESIGNED to have the option of having the addition cards... the stock mainboard has the solder pads, and the case has the mounting bosses already installed... Additionally, the complany that makes the main board also supplies the daugtercard... I think they are standard issue on certain Turbo cars, as well as are factory pieces on Subarus...

Now, on the topic of ECU rules... How about taking a novel approach to this subject and just LEAVE THE CURRENT RULE ALONE and concentrate on making cars COMPETITIVE under the EXISTING RULES??? If you change the rule, all you do is change the problems with it...

I'd rather concentrate on making cars competitive under the existing structure rather than keep trying to change the rules and making everyone chase a moving target all the time...

We can correct nearly any issue that has to do with ECU rules with the tools we currently have in place...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Now, on the topic of ECU rules... How about taking a novel approach to this subject and just LEAVE THE CURRENT RULE ALONE and concentrate on making cars COMPETITIVE under the EXISTING RULES??? If you change the rule, all you do is change the problems with it...

I'd rather concentrate on making cars competitive under the existing structure rather than keep trying to change the rules and making everyone chase a moving target all the time...
Click to expand...

That's what we were all doing BEFORE the current ECU rule came in...


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
 
Originally posted by oanglade:
That's what we were all doing BEFORE the current ECU rule came in...
Click to expand...

Yah, except that the CARB guys had the advantage there of being able to keep their engines alive under racing conditions...

Again, any inequities caused by the current ECU rules can be negated pretty simply by making some adjustments...

Just my opinion...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darins point is good, although it is filled with slope and slipperiness as well.

Going back to stock just can't happen..it was a screw job in the first place because it upset the competitive (designed at least) balance, but reverting now would be another screw job. Totally unfair. (And I would benefit from it, so...I'm clearly not acting in self interest)

And really, ANY re-writing of the existing rules really goes against the philosophy of IT, which has, as one of it's cornerstones, the concept of "reasonable" racing. Changing rules and causing guys to reinvent an expensive wheel flies in the face of "reasonable, in my eyes.

But the onus lands on the ITAC and the CRB to be proactive in the "adjustment" process...but not too "proactive".

But that's another story..

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Besides some of the items that are posted above, this rule does nothing to allow currently IT eligible OBD2 Honda & Acuras to modify their ECUs. They still won't be able to do anything with your suggest rules.

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top