An ECU rule proposal

Originally posted by jlucas:
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.
Click to expand...

Come again? OBD II compliant cars are the ultimate for ease, once that code itself is disassmbled. All OBDII machines should be flashable, thereby negating the need for even desoldering. With the increasing number of these cars coming into these classes, the investment in code disassembly work is FAR less $$ per competitor than each one buying a MOTEC at $3000+. Also, whoever did the initial investment could then resell services to others, so everyone wins...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:

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.
Click to expand...

I would agree, however there is a precedent- RR shocks. This is another matter where, IMHO, the technology is NOT in line with the purported class philosophy, so we need to consider a well thought-out alternative.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that my proposed rule is the end-all-be-all of this idea. If I thought that were true, I wouldn't have bothered asking for input. I have just seen enough people (some of whom I would consider "reasonable") talk about how this rule is less in line with IT stuff than most, so I figured I'd offer. I have no personal investment in this, as I have not begun building an IT car at this time. However, If I do start to throw an ITA Neon together, I'd like to know if I need to budget $1000 for ECU "cracking", or $3000 for a MOTEC.



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Right, except for the fact that I'm actually trying to propose an alternate rule, and not just complain about the current one.

Let's get back to the question-

What are the inherent issues with the rule as proposed as follows- (changed slightly from the last time)

----------------------------------
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 external add-on units shall be used. Internal "piggyback" modules are allowed for the purposes of providing an alternate ROM program. 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.

-------------------------------
Could this allow for aftermarket controllers, considering that it is stated that the stock ECU must control the engine? I hope not.

And yes, I know it's getting longer everytime I rewrite it. Man I wish that aspect were transferable to other things in life...
smile.gif


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

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited February 21, 2005).]
 
If I was to propose a new rule (sans ITAC hat) it would be one of two things:

1. Admit that the wording of the current rule produced some unintended, hugly expensive concenquences. Put the Genie back in the bottle. As of 2007, the ECU and ECU housing must be stock and unmodified. This allows sufficent time to phase current systems out, makes it clear that nobody should be developing new stuff, and gives builders enough time to plan.

2. Open it up completely. Full-on stand alone stuff is legal. BUT: go back and analyze the class structure. Give the carburated cars a weight break that they now deserve seeing as how the competitive balance is thrown.

Can either work? I don't know. I am actually a fan of the first. I am from the school that taught you to admit you made a mistake and fix it - all in the name of teh greater good.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Come again? OBD II compliant cars are the ultimate for ease, once that code itself is disassmbled. All OBDII machines should be flashable, thereby negating the need for even desoldering.
Click to expand...

Well guess what..... OBD2 Honda/Acuras weren't flashable till you get the RSX generation of ECU's. That means is you want a programmable ECU for a 1997 Integra IT car that meets the current rule wording you are SOL!
If it was allowed to use an OBD1 ecu in place of an OBD2 ecu there would not be problem programming it.


------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
 
Originally posted by jlucas:
Well guess what..... OBD2 Honda/Acuras weren't flashable till you get the RSX generation of ECU's. That means is you want a programmable ECU for a 1997 Integra IT car that meets the current rule wording you are SOL!
If it was allowed to use an OBD1 ecu in place of an OBD2 ecu there would not be problem programming it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I always thought that one of the "specifications" of the OBD II architecture was for flashable ROM image to allow for factory updates. I have been known to be wrong before, so I apologize.

Even so, your ROM image is stored on one, mabye two, EEPROMs, so the desoldering allowance should make it possible for you to rework the lookup tables to suit. If I am in error on this, please explain the architecture structure of the ECM, as it's one I'm not aware of.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Even so, your ROM image is stored on one, mabye two, EEPROMs, so the desoldering allowance should make it possible for you to rework the lookup tables to suit. If I am in error on this, please explain the architecture structure of the ECM, as it's one I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Hondata, the best editors of Honda/Acura OE ECU's, can explain it in more detail if you need but, in short, the data is masked onto the OKI ECU processor. Flashable processors are not for sale (Hondata has tried) from OKI.

The main point to take from this is that any ECU rule that tries to limit what is possible is going to be skewed by those writing it and their knowledge. For example, I have no idea what would be a fair ECU rule for any other manufacturer. At this point I think it should just be any ECU is allowed that connects to the stock wiring harness, how would that not level the playing field with reguard to ECUs?

BTW, this is the same boat for Touring. Some have ECUs, some don't.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited February 21, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by jlucas:
Hondata, the best editors of Honda/Acura OE ECU's, can explain it in more detail if you need but, in short, the data is masked onto the OKI ECU processor. Flashable processors are not for sale (Hondata has tried) from OKI.

The main point to take from this is that any ECU rule that tries to limit what is possible is going to be skewed by those writing it and their knowledge. For example, I have no idea what would be a fair ECU rule for any other manufacturer. At this point I think it should just be any ECU is allowed that connects to the stock wiring harness, how would that not level the playing field with reguard to ECUs?

BTW, this is the same boat for Touring. Some have ECUs, some don't.
Click to expand...

Well, this is why I posted this here, as it was a situation that I was not aware of. Learn something new every day.

To answer your question, the current rule allows anything that plugs into the stock harness, and yes, it levels the field, but at what level? Allowing everyone to run sequential gearboxes would level the field too, and eliminate some of the issue of certain cars not having the best setup for certain tracks, but is that a direction that we want ot go? Yes, I realize that's a stretch, but like many, I'm trying to illustrate a point...

If this situation could be addressed by allowing an older ECU as you said, could this be something that's addressed on the spec line?

Yes, I freely admit this is much harder than I first suspected, and I have a new respect for the rule as currently written. But as I've said many time already, that was one of the points of me asking the question.

Thanks again to those who've responded with pertinent information, as this was what I wanted to know. Feel free to add more, as I know I have more to learn...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
congratulations to all for a senible, balanced discussion of the issue. I'm heartened by it

------------------
phil hunt
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
To answer your question, the current rule allows anything that plugs into the stock harness, and yes, it levels the field, but at what level? Allowing everyone to run sequential gearboxes ......
Click to expand...

You're going to have to be a little more detail oriented if your going to start writing rules. Current rule also requires it to fit in the stock case, which is hardly "anything".
Seq Gearboxes? That makes as much sense in this discussion as boat anchors because none of us have those either.

Anybody have any idea what the problem would be with actually allowing "any" ECU that connects to stock wiring? Other than the people that want no further change (sorry guys, cat is already out of the bag) for the sake of no change.

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Right, except for the fact that I'm actually trying to propose an alternate rule, and not just complain about the current one. ...
Click to expand...

My point, poorly made but still valid, is that the issues and options have been pretty widely discussed and there's no consensus on them. I am not an expert in the technology but I'm supposed to understand policy and applying a wordsmithing exercise to a complex issue on which there is little agreement among multiple interests is going to be problematic.

Try getting people to agree to first principles (necessary if you are banking on buy-in) or explicate the assumptions and values being applied before you move forward (if you are in a position to be directive), but I'll bet a cookie that the same ideas and suggestions will come out here, as did in those past discussions.

** Leave it all stock
** Open it up completely
** Leave it the way it is
** Change it so I benefit
smile.gif


K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
My point, poorly made but still valid, is that the issues and options have been pretty widely discussed and there's no consensus on them. I am not an expert in the technology but I'm supposed to understand policy and applying a wordsmithing exercise to a complex issue on which there is little agreement among multiple interests is going to be problematic.
Click to expand...

Wow Kirk, that was a mouthful, but IMHO spot-on.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
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...
Click to expand...

Come on Darin, don't even try and sell that one. How many cases can you document where engines failed because of the stock ECU?

Up until about a year or so ago, cars were classified w/o taking an open ECU into account. The current rule has obviously resulted in unintended consequences.

I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good. Or, if you don't want to negate people's investments, make them pay a price. You want to run a tweaked ECU? 5% weight penalty. Or, give all the non-EFI cars a 5% weight break.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Again the touring rule would be a fair backing up to place. The issue with saying you can adjust cars to the current rule is BS at best. You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed. I have been on the dyno for 2 days now with a 350Z and the factory ECU and it is not gonna get any where close to a Motec in the same application. Making the rules open will only raise the bar for everyone and then the ADHOC and the CRB will be forced to make huge adjustments that time and the talent pool won't allow.
 
Kirk, you definately have more patience than I.

Tired of beating my head on the wall, good luck to all.

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The issue with saying you can adjust cars to the current rule is BS at best. You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed.
Click to expand...


Well Joe, that's pretty much where we are today. Granted, the concept of 'fully developed' in IT doesn't have the same conotation that it does in Prod (no comp. adj. and such), but I agree, it's raised the bar for everyone. I also agree that it will be something that will have to be looked at if a PCA for a given car is considered, but those shouldn't happen w/ the frequency of Prod. comp. adjustments.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed.
Click to expand...

AND... it's already been fairly successfully argued that the current Touring rules (which say "modify", but not "or replace"...) would not prevent someone from "modifying" a stock ECU to the point where it contained a MOTEC unit...

I'm not arguing that the current rule doesn't allows more than it should... I think it does... what I'm arguing is that we already have this rule in place and everyone knows the deal... WHY keep moving the target and introducing NEW problems, rather than just STOP changing the rules and work with what we have???

I've argued from the start, by the way, that we should just set our rule to read EXACTLY like Touring ECU rule and be done with it... I'm in the "take out the 'or replace'" camp...

I'm not at all in favor of going back to stock... This is IMPROVED Touring, not SS... There should be some room here for modifications that make a sensible racecar...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 22, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I have been on the dyno for 2 days now with a 350Z and the factory ECU and it is not gonna get any where close to a Motec in the same application.
Click to expand...

Have you cracked the code and can you rewrite it? Last I knew even JWT hadn't cracked the code for late model ECUs.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">AND... it's already been fairly successfully argued that the current Touring rules (which say "modify", but not "or replace"...) would not prevent someone from "modifying" a stock ECU to the point where it contained a MOTEC unit...</font>
Click to expand...

Show me where. The fact that National has to be able to check for codes kills the motec idea. I am not saying that we need to make every region purchase scan tools, I am saying that the way the Touring rule is written and enforced sets a standard on how it is read.

Darin. I am not trying to argue this either. My point is that the current target was a screw-up and it needs fixed. The touring rule would be a proper target. I can't believe that in the wioldest dreams of IT that it was ever thought we would see 5 to 10K managment systems for FI cars.

Geo: I am not going to get into what we are doing with the 350 on a website. We are doing development work.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 22, 2005).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top