ECU modification rules

G

gran racing

Super Moderator
For a while now I’ve been trying to figure out a way to manipulate my ECU, but am not having much luck. The cheaper methods that are currently legal are not possible for my vehicle’s ECU. It may be possible to modify it within the current rules structure, but it would be very costly. Besides, I’m honestly don’t think there are significant gains to be made. But I still would like to see what possibilities exist for the future.

In the most recent FasTrack, I saw the following: “Allow modifications to the wiring harness as it relates to the ECU rules. (Kamler) Tabled for further discussion by the Advisory Committee.”

I’ve often wondered why the ECU modifications are required to be done inside of the stock ECU housing. I’ve seen other ECU systems (such as Unichip) that could be used to tune the ECU at a much more reasonable cost but require the unit to be wired into the ECU harness. This system would not offer any performance advantage compared to the more expensive units that are contained in the box; it would just be a less expensive alternative. It just seems that this rule makes completing this modification more expensive then the alternatives which is contrary to the IT philosophy.

I’m curious to hear what people’s thoughts are on this subject.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
 
I'm in the same boat your in Dave. I can't even find someone that can promise a Rev Limiter bump. I may have to send it back and forth to someone until the right combination works.

If you allow modifications like that will it open it up to replacing the ECU with say an Electromotive TEC3 system that is completely laptop programable, or is this basic things like piggy backs?

Spanky
ITC #73 '90 Honda Civic WDCR
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I’ve often wondered why the ECU modifications are required to be done inside of the stock ECU housing.</font>
Click to expand...

The intent of that wording, coupled with the "stock unmodified wiring harness", was to write the rules in such a way that expensive aftermarket engine management systems, such a MoTec, would not be used, thereby lowering costs and complexity. Unfortunately, we racers tend to be very creative and clever, and someone figured out how to stuff an expensive MoTec system into a factory ECU housing using the stock unmodified wiring harness...

It's the same result as what happened by outlawing coilovers where the threaded collar is "permanently attached" to the shock body: the original intention was to disallow high-tech expensive shocks; the end result was folks using the high-tech expensive shocks, machining off the threads, then using a slip-on collar.

These are classic cases of rules micromanagement gone awry. The original intent may have been sincere, but it's just not possible to consider - and accomodate - all possible permutations. The only solution is to write a more general rule, but also publish the intent of the rule so that reasonable interpretations can be made by reasonable people.

I'd also like to use the Unichip, as it's a cost-effective solution, easy to install, effective, and configurable. Obviously, it's illegal to the rules as written today. Thus, my supposedly "inexpensive" solution will probably be to use some high-tech engine management system and multiple dyno runs in order to dial in my engine, then use the data I obtain to have the factory ECU reprogrammed (at $100 a shot plus shipping). Then, as conditions change, I'll have to have it reprogrammed yet again.

So much for the true intent of the rule...
 
I'll bite. I've run into the same problems that you speak of, plus others. For example, cheap do-it-yourself circuit borads are available for speed-density systems (MAP sensors), but not for mass-air-flow (MAF sensors).

Various business practices (some ethical, some not) of manufacturers and the after-market have prevented the average guy from being able to tune a computerized IT car with the same flexibility he enjoyed in the past. Thus, particularly for some models, tuning of OEM computers has become treacherous (both practically and legally).

I've also considered the *relative* impact on various models of opening up the rule to allow wiring and sensor changes. At a certain point, such changes may call for intake tract modifications. I don't know if we're ready for that, or if it can be headed off with a very thoughtfully written rule.

The major problem is still that the cars with computer-controlled variable valve timing effectively run free cam timing, while the rest of us are stuck with the factory bumpstick. Thus, the only solution that I can think of to the current dillema, short of bouncing the variable valve timing cars out of IT into Production (where valve timing is already free) or freeing cams for everyone (combining IT with Prod?), would be to allow completely free computers/wiring/sensors for cars that have fixed valve timing while forbidding any computer mods to those with variable valve timing. Those who want to run their MOTECs would be allowed to do so, but only if they disable all electronic control of the valve timing.

Just my untuned thoughts, although I also consider myself to be a likely candidate to run a variable valve timing car in the near future, so I have at least an imaginary horse in each race. YMMV
 
This is one of those areas where people are just going to be forced - someday, I hope - to grasp the reality that costs cannot be controlled by rulesmakers. If I want to spend $100K testing and dyno tuning my IT car, there's not a damned thing the CRB can do to stop me.

I frankly think that restrictions in this area are a sop to owners of old-school carb'd cars, who (incorrectly) think that allowing FI cars to tweak their inputs and outputs is the same as giving them open cams.

Where their concern DOES have merit, is where the computer starts controlling valve timing. Allowing that kind of control IS essentially giving away what has historically been a limitation imposed by mechanical constraints.

I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...

** Cam timing must be as stock, relative to the crankshaft rotational position

** No additional inputs are added beyond those provided as stock (e.g., vehicle speed sensor is OK [came on my Golf] but a pitot sensor for airspeed is not)

** Parameters (inputs, maps, etc.) may not be manually controlled by the driver

** There may be no data links from the pit to the car (don't laugh)

I don't know what to do about traction control and ABS. I'm tempted, as I've stated elsewhere here, to stop worrying and accept their presence in IT.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
... I frankly think that restrictions in this area are a sop to owners of old-school carb'd cars ...
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think that we/they *were* also trying to contain costs for FI cars.

Originally posted by Knestis:
... I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...

** Cam timing must be as stock, relative to the crankshaft rotational position

** No additional inputs are added beyond those provided as stock (e.g., vehicle speed sensor is OK [came on my Golf] but a pitot sensor for airspeed is not)

** Parameters (inputs, maps, etc.) may not be manually controlled by the driver

** There may be no data links from the pit to the car (don't laugh)

I don't know what to do about traction control and ABS. I'm tempted, as I've stated elsewhere here, to stop worrying and accept their presence in IT.

K
Click to expand...

I think that the 1st, 3rd and 4th constraints probably have merit (i.e., stock valve timing, no in-cockpit control, and no distributed computer control), but I don't see any reason at all for the second constraint (only stock inputs). Why should an older or cheaper car with fewer inputs be penalized in this manner? We should be able to add any input wires or sensors to the computer. I actually don't see any reason to limit electrical outputs either, as long as those outputs aren't controlling a variable valve timing system!

Back to the first constraint, this is easy until you try to define a "stock" fixed valve timing for a variable valve timing car (e.g., at what rpm, load, fuel quality, etc.)?
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
This is one of those areas where people are just going to be forced - someday, I hope - to grasp the reality that costs cannot be controlled by rulesmakers.

I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...
Click to expand...

What? So we go even further down the path of engine management software and hardware? This is messed up. We need to be going the other way on this deal. Something like only allowing chip replacement on stock engine computers. I don't understand why we have to go all the way to MoTec to allow chips. You can't police chips. This is understandable. But you can police stock appearing chips. If you open up a computer box and the circuit board isn't a factory part, then you have a problem. You can even put a coverable hole in the lid of the thing so you just have to open it up and shine a flashlight in there.

Why is this so hard? A chip is $100-$300. A fully-programmable setup is $1000-$2500.

As far as variable valve timing goes, there's a limit to the hp involved there. It's a plus like independant rear suspension or fuel injection. People can adjust it with the chip. Whatever. Add some weight to those cars when classifying them.

K.I.S.S.
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">e need to be going the other way on this deal. Something like only allowing chip replacement on stock engine computers. I don't understand why we have to go all the way to MoTec to allow chips. You can't police chips. This is understandable. But you can police stock appearing chips. If you open up a computer box and the circuit board isn't a factory part, then you have a problem. You can even put a coverable hole in the lid of the thing so you just have to open it up and shine a flashlight in there.</font>
Click to expand...

What do you do about computer without removable chips that you send away, plug into a programmer, and program it? H
 
People are going to get the same net result but would be able to get there cheaper if this rule is opened up a bit. I agree with Kirk on limitations.

And there are many cars ECU which can not be chipped. Can the ECU be modified in some other way? Maybe. But there are amount of resources available. So would it cost me $1,000 for a fully tuned ECU / car or $5,000? We are limiting people who are not willing (or in my case can not afford) to pay to get the ECU modified with the current rules structure.

If there were a way to prevent any ECU mods and effectively police it, great. I wouldn't be against that. But there isn't. It just forces people to be more creative and spend more money.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What do you do about computer without removable chips that you send away, plug into a programmer, and program it?  H</font>
Click to expand...


It would still have the factory number on the main board/daughter, board whatever, check it by that.

I would say it has to have the factory "guts" in the case. Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.
 
Originally posted by gran racing:
People are going to get the same net result but would be able to get there cheaper if this rule is opened up a bit. I agree with Kirk on limitations.

And there are many cars ECU which can not be chipped. Can the ECU be modified in some other way? Maybe. But there are amount of resources available. So would it cost me $1,000 for a fully tuned ECU / car or $5,000? We are limiting people who are not willing (or in my case can not afford) to pay to get the ECU modified with the current rules structure.

If there were a way to prevent any ECU mods and effectively police it, great. I wouldn't be against that. But there isn't. It just forces people to be more creative and spend more money.

Click to expand...

Your car can't take advantage of the rule cheaply...my car can't take adavntage of it at all. All things equal your car has an option to increase HP that my car does not have. The old car guys got shafted by this rule no doubt about it. If opening up the ECU rule did not make you faster over a stock ECU why do you tinker with the computers in the first place?
 
At this point in our rules evolution, it is no longer a question of allowing more performance out of the fuel and ignition portions of the engine management systems, we've already let that cat out of the bag.

What can be gained is a reduction in cost to achieve the already allowed potential. If we choose to, we can level the playing field in terms of cost/benefit for *all* competitors by doing away with the arbitrary restrictions that cost so much to work around.

I would also like to see carbueretted cars allowed to convert to injection. I have already seen a computer-controlled fuel pressure regulator added to an older carbueretted car, although I have no opinion on its applicability to other cars.

There may be several ways to address this intended leveling of the playing field, but the best that I can think of right now is to completely free at least the computers, wiring, and fuel system components. Note that ignition timing and control is already free (with stock distribution).

I wish there was something we could do to reign in variable valve timing (VVT). VVT must be addressed somehow, but I really don't have a good answer to that one. Maybe it can be solved with weight, but I doubt it.

Perhaps we could borrow from the SCCA Solo Street Prepared (SP) rules on this one. Basically, intake, fuel and ignition are free in SP (note that this allows conversion from carbueration to injection). Some of the best systems that I've seen run in SP are not the ultra-expensive MoTec systems, but rather the more tunable stock systems borrowed from stock donor cars of other make and/or model. There are even some completely custom home-built systems done on a tight budget, but they often require wires and/or sensors that didn't come with the particular car.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.
Click to expand...

As I recall, that's *exactly* what folks were doing with the old L-Jetronic boxes back in the 80's.
 
First of all, you can do what ever you want to inside the ECU box right now. I'm not trying to debate wheither the ECU rules should have initially been opened up to modifications or not. It is a done deal and too late to go back. For the record though, I do agree with it. Why? It is extremely hard to police and why penalize people that are staying within the rules?

My ECU box is quite large and could fit a lot of goodies in it as it stands. But it comes down to cost. I found a guy in Canada that says he could help me, but it is pretty costly and a loooong drive for me from CT. Not that you care.
frown.gif


And Cherokee - I never said there is nothing to gain. I wouldn't be looking into this if there wasn't. Now how much? That I really have no idea. I do not believe that it will provide a huge gain, but it is worth looking into.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
 
For the record I agree with the open rule also it only makes sense. But Give the old cars a bone.

But the part about having no idea on how much gain is what I am talking about. A computer car could be classed with my car and the computer could gain HP but my car has no chance and thats not right. The computer car is fluid the carb car is static.

Thats what I object to.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited October 28, 2004).]
 
ECU's, FI, Motec, variable cam timing...What are you folks talkin about? I can't find any of that stuff under the hood
biggrin.gif


Dave Ciufo
ITS 240Z #34
 
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
What can be gained is a reduction in cost to achieve the already allowed potential. If we choose to, we can level the playing field in terms of cost/benefit for *all* competitors by doing away with the arbitrary restrictions that cost so much to work around.

I would also like to see carbueretted cars allowed to convert to injection.

There may be several ways to address this intended leveling of the playing field, but the best that I can think of right now is to completely free at least the computers, wiring, and fuel system components. Note that ignition timing and control is already free (with stock distribution).
Click to expand...

People! You're killing me. Free fuel and electronic systems? How is that fitting with the class philosophy? What's next, free transmissions so everyone can run a 5-speed?

The only way we "level the playing field" in IT is by weight. Not by allowing everyone to run more and more non-stock pieces. If you need to run a car that allows more modifications, there are classes for that. We're the "just off the street" class.

Again, STOCK IS CHEAP. Keep it stock. If people want to solder new chips onto their motherboard, then that's how it goes. We can't fix that. (At worst, someone custom-burns a chip for their car, and it's still not nearly as expensive as a MoTec setup.) We CAN and should fix the programmable fuel-injection issue. This is clearly not a rule that came out as intended, much like the threaded-body shock rule. They fixed that, they can fix this.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
I would say it has to have the factory "guts" in the case. Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? That's small potatoes.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Are you kidding? That's small potatoes.
Click to expand...

The only cars that I have with a computer are my day to day transportation, and I have and will never tear into a computer...execpt to replace the entire unit with a new factory part...or one out of a junkyard. I admit that my knowlage in this area is limited.

But it seems to me that it would be a huge PITA to do what you say is small potatoes. But to put new chips not just a EPROM or whatever into factory circuit boards would be a big deal so I thaught. My thinking was that if you had to keep the un-altered factory circuit boards (the board,[not cut up or jumpered all over the place] part not the chips) in the computer it would elimiate all the expensive aftermarket stuff that I guess people are stuffing in the existing case....Maybe I am way off base, I guess I will just shut-up since I don't know what I am talking about.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
The only cars that I have with a computer are my day to day transportation, and I have and will never tear into a computer...execpt to replace the entire unit with a new factory part...or one out of a junkyard. I admit that my knowlage in this area is limited.

But it seems to me that it would be a huge PITA to do what you say is small potatoes. But to put new chips not just a EPROM or whatever into factory circuit boards would be a big deal so I thaught. My thinking was that if you had to keep the un-altered factory circuit boards (the board,[not cut up or jumpered all over the place] part not the chips) in the computer it would elimiate all the expensive aftermarket stuff that I guess people are stuffing in the existing case....Maybe I am way off base, I guess I will just shut-up since I don't know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

OK, first of all, if you're not willing to desolder and resolder a chip, what else are you not willing to do to develop your car? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is a pretty basic change that even street car guys do.

FWIW, I agree with you about requiring the stock board be in place and used with an allowance for a socket or daughterboard to be used to replace the chip. That's what I'd write if it were up to me.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top