ECU modification rules

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Geo:
Hold the phone. How can you say stock when you are already implying tech cannot police it?

Because tech can't or won't police a bunch of other things already and they are kept illegal. At least that way most people don't spend the time, money and effort in development, testing, etc. Only the cheaters.


The sad thing is that there are businesses who's job is to get you the "undetectable advantage", but they call themselves "legal" because they don't get caught.

In any case, I would much rather have an open ECU rule than what we have right now.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by oanglade:
Either make it all stock or make it open.

Fair enough... We already have Showroom stock....

I say make it open...



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

 

[jlucas]

First of all forget about stock. "showroom stock" is not even stock.

I don't know how it is for other makes but all ODB2 Hondas prior to the RSX are not easily/cheaply modified with the way the rules are currently written. The cheapest way is to swap in a ODB1 ecu but it's about 50% bigger than an OBD2 ecu, so you can see why that doesn't work. If intention is to keep the costs down, why not just require any OE ECU to be used that would get rid of the Motec's, etc...

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited October 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited October 30, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jlucas:
If intention is to keep the costs down, why not just require any OE ECU to be used that would get rid of the Motec's, etc...

Who cares about keeping costs down... I just want my car to go FASTER!!

Seriously... How would you police those ECUs that are easily reprogrammable??? How would you police ANY of them, for that matter...???

Again, this is IT... Presumably, these are IMPROVED TOURING cars... It's going to cost a little bit to make some of those improvements...

On this topic, however, every time a change is made, it ups the ante'... I personally think the rule is fine the way it is, but perhaps that's because for $650.00 or so, I can have my programmable ECU... (well... I actually already do, but you get the picture...)

So, if we open up the boxes to any box, then people will complain because they can't modify the wiring... so, the wiring will eventually be opened up... Then, people will complain because they can't add the extra sensors... so sensors will eventually be opened up..., etc., etc., etc...

In the end, as I've said before, those with the means will have, and the rest of us will have not... Just like it is today.

So, at what point do you say the rules are "good enough" and just go racing?? We all have the same options as far as ECU mods go... All it takes is money and talent...

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

 

[Dave Zaslow]

I also vote for #3 on Kirk's list.

For OBD2 Volkswagens and Audi's at least 3 companies (APR, Revo, GIAC) sell re-programs of the stock ECU that co-exist with the stock program. They do this without a change in hardware, only software that is ported through the OBD2 connector. Visiting your dealer under warranty? No problem, press a button a few times and your stock program is all the code scanner will see. You can have multiple programs controlled by a key fob that looks like your alarm remote.

How are you going to police this? We already have OBD2 cars classed in IT.

I think all ECU's should be allowed to be modified by altering input signals or replacement of the eprom; but only on the original unmodified circuit board within the original unmodified case that the car came with. That at least gives you a basis to see if something has been physically done to the ECU.

Can someone take a complete Trabant ECU from a hotter model and put it into the original case that came in the base car? Sure. Unless you disassemble all of it and can compare the circuit board numbers and scan for the eprom's coding you are S.O.L.

Dave Zaslow

 

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I personally think the rule is fine the way it is, but perhaps that's because for $650.00 or so, I can have my programmable ECU... (well... I actually already do, but you get the picture...)

I'd love to be able to do that, but the point is the rules require un-necessary expendatures. Currently for the Prelude we just built for ITS, there is nothing readily available that fits the rules. Hondata stuff is all OBD1 (same for pretty much any Honda tuner), which won't fit in the stock OBD2 case (same with AEM, Motec, Autronics, etc). Some chance a JDM ODB1 ecu will fit but it will have to be custom ordered, custom re-pined on the circuit board for the stock OBD2 electrical connection, socketed and then tuned. So were talking a minimum of $2000, for something that could cost $450 and an hour on the dyno if a ODB1 OE board swap was allowed.
I think the rule is fine for ODB1 cars, but it's going to be an increasing problem for more and more OBD2 cars as that's the future of IT.
Any other brands/cars out there with no ECU stuff available?

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...but only on the original unmodified circuit board within the original unmodified case that the car came with.</font>

That pretty much eliminates all pre-OBD2 cars - like me, for example. The *only* company I'm aware of that reprogs Nissan ECUs does it by desoldering the factory PROM (it's not re-programmable) and solders in its place a socket and daughterboard. Then, an EEPROM is programmed and dropped in the socket. With your rule, this would be illegal.

Either stuff the genie back in the bottle (impractical and impossible to enforce) or open up the bottle entirely.

GA

 

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Any other brands/cars out there with no ECU stuff available?

2nd Gen RX-7. Evidently SpeedSource can pack a Motec into the OEM case for ~$4000.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

We all have the same options as far as ECU mods go...

Darin,

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-OBD (either I or II) systems just don't have the same number and kinds of input parameters that the OBD I and II cars have. Since you're limited to the stock, unmodified wiring harness, if you don't have it, you can't use it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 30, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-OBD (either I or II) systems just don't have the same number and kinds of input parameters that the OBD I and II cars have. Since you're limited to the stock, unmodified wiring harness, if you don't have it, you can't use it.

And some cars have 2.4L but others only have 1.8L...

Some cars have advantages... That's just the way it is in multi-marque racing...

If you want everyone to be on a perfectly equal playing field, GT or NASCAR is always a good option.

Otherwise, pick your weopon of choice.

I don't think that continuing to open up the rules is the right answer. Trying to classify cars around these advantages/disadvantages, however, merits consideration and is what we are currently attempting to do...

 

[Bill Miller]

Never mind Darin, it's pointless.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 30, 2004).]

 

[gran racing]

Comparing 2.4 L cars and 1.8 L cars to cars that can easily program their ECUs vs cars that can not is just silly. First of all, a 1.8L car can not convert their engine to 2.4L with all of the money in the word legally. But all cars could technically reprogram their ECUs, but it comes down to money. I'm sure Bill Gates could figure something out for us. I see what you are trying to say Darin, but it just doesn't apply here. Again, for many people it is a matter of opening up the rule and spending $800 or getting the same results and spending several thousands of dollars.

And the comp board looks into wheither cars can or can not get their ECUs programmed when being classed? Is this information based on generalizations and assuming cars wouldn't use a Motec or other similar very expensive unit?

Marty, sure you can buy the Motec for $4,000 but then you have to pay another $10,000 to get it installed and tuned.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

 

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Marty, sure you can buy the Motec for $4,000 but then you have to pay another $10,000 to get it installed and tuned.

That's not true. The entire unit tuned is in the $3000 range if I remeber correctly from SS. Hardware and dyno time.

$10K more? Where did you get that number?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.

Bill,

In all seriousness, why would we continue to put ourselves out here on this BBS when all you bring is crap like this?

Darin does more work on the ITAC than probably anyone in the last decade. Feedback has been overwhelming. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to be a dink.

How about we all ratchet up our professionalism a notch or two?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.

Bill,

It's not "pointless"... I understand what you guys are trying to say. But, again, if you guys want GT style allowances, then you are racing in the wrong class...

If we open up ECUs further, (all of this discussion, by the way, is coming from a group that has been bashing the ITAC and CRB for opening up ECUs in the first place... WHERE is the logic in that???), how is that going to help most racers? Those that can afford to do the mods now, will be able to afford to do the maximum extent, and those that can't won't... I'm sorry if you don't see that logic, but it's the way this game works...

You guys are right... the MOTEC deal slipped through the cracks with these rules, but now you are telling us that you want to just open them up as a result???

The bottom line to what I was saying previously is this... Technology changes with time, and we can't possibly write a rule in this case that covers all cases equally WITHOUT opening up several other rules concerning electronics and induction systems on these cars...

With the requirements the rules have now, you are not allowed to modify anything outside the ECU box... That's a good, solid limitation... for ALL cars. What you do inside that box is restricted only by the number of sensor inputs your factory offered, and how much money you have.

Let's face it... if we wrote a new rule that required factory main boards, those of us with plenty of room for Daughterboards would like it just fine, but those of you complaining that you can't fit a Motec would still be complaining because there isn't room for a dauterboard... AND, those that could afford to fit a Motec, would be affording to redesign a Motec to work as a Daughterboard, and we'd all be in the same boat we are today...

If there is a "equitable" solution, I just don't see it. Again, if you open up the ECUs to whatever for everyone, then people will be wanting wiring rules changed, induction rules changed, etc... Where does it end??

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

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by gran racing:
... the comp board looks into wheither cars can or can not get their ECUs programmed when being classed?

This gets to the root of Bill's and others' objections - I think. A lot of cars were classified before the ECU modification allowance went on the book.

(We'll set aside the question of how well considered those classifications might have bee, for purposes of this issue.)

When it became possible for the PROM-based FI cars to legally tweak their engine management, a lot of drivers of cars with older technology saw it as a "competition adjustment" after the fact.

Personally - based on efforts over the years to spoof OE FI systems - I'm pretty sure that the net gains to be had are minimal, even if conceptually they should indeed be considered when initial classification happens.

The question of whether one FI car can more easily be upgraded, vs. another, is an entirely different question and one that splits some pretty thin hairs. Personally (again), I don't think that the CRB has an obligation to assess the aftermarket to see how much support there is out there, when it considers classification of Model X vs. Model Y.

Mr. Amy has a tougher row to hoe with the NX2000, compared to entrants of more "popular" cars, because he can't buy OTS parts - but I think he knew that going in. Should he get a weight allowance relative to, say the Acuras, because lots of companies are making bars, shocks, headers, and other stuff for them? I don't think so.

We all pick our weapons but Bill's point is that some weapons got blunted after initial choices were made. The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K[/B]

Did you just say that???

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

 

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm in favor of wide of FI/ECU rules, because nothing could be further from the truth. My comment was a contradiction to your claim that everyone had the same ECU options, albeit w/ a different cost schedule. I pointed out that you were wrong because not everyone has the same number/type of inputs/sensors feeding the 'box'. You then went off on some wild tangent (like you usually do, when it's pointed out that you're wrong) about 'picking weapons'.

My take on the ECU rule is, and always has been, put the genie back in the bottle. If you don't see it as a defacto comp. adj. to the folks that can take advantage of it, maybe you shouldn't be chairing the ITAC.

Kirk pretty much hit the nail on the head, as it relates to my gripe w/ the ECU rule.

I still contend that the "we can't police it, so we'll make it legal" excuse was about as lame as you can get. And what really bothers me about it, is the assumption that it makes. It assumes that everyone will want to, and worse yet, would cheat. Is it really that naive to believe, and expect that people will 'play by the rules'?

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand how not being able to police it leads to "anything you can stuff in the stock box". Why not something to the effect of "The engine mgmt. ecu shall show no evidence of tampering. Evidence that shows the box to have been opened will constitute tampering." I've also thought about having an SCCA seal on the ECUs. Granted, it wouldn't do anything for ECUs that has already been hacked, or for ones that you can flash through the OBD port, but it closes the door a bit.

And if they're going to use the "we can't police it" excuse, there are a number of other things that should be legalized. Engine coatings being one of them. And if you don't think there are coating technologies out there that are undedectable (short of advanced analysis techniques, e.g. x-ray, etc.), then maybe I'm not the only naive one. And from Jake's recent anecdote, it would appear that the list of unpoliceable items is larger than I thought.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K

While the "process" may be there, we still have no idea who or what will determine if an inequity exists (or is sufficient), and if anything will be done about it, in a timely manner.

But it is nice to see that they are calling them what they really are, comp. adjustments! No more of this euphamistic rhetoric!


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608