Bill said:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...That's not what I was trying to say at all. I want the genie put back in the bottle.</font>
So noted, Bill. Sorry.
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...many of the ITS and ITA cars will be able to take advantage...many of the ITB and ITC cars cannot.</font>
Ok, so if that's the generalized case, then
within each class there is a less-likely chance of an ex-post facto comp adjustment. So, speaking generally, if "ITB cars" can't take advantage of the technology then nothing is lost relative to other ITB cars; if "ITA cars" can take advantage of it then again nothing is lost relative to other ITA cars. I know this won't be the case forever, but it certainly addresses the situation short-term.
Of course, this is so generalized that someone will no doubt come up with an ITA car that's not ECU'd and an ITB car that is, but
within the current power structure I'd suggest the point is approaching moot.
Darin sez:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I then, ask you all to put together an ECU rule wording package for consideration...</font>
I'll do that, I'll give it honest and serious consideration. However, I must dispute your baseline requirements.
First, I don't see how the door can be "opened" any further. As far as we know today, Motec is the cat's meow. This standard is as good as it gets, state-of-the-art, so unless we really think about this the door can't go much farther.
Second, not nullifying investments is a moot point; if the current Motec investments are the new standard (see door discussiona bove) then that can't happen.
Third, I fail to understand your limitation with the wiring modifications. The original base premise for not allowing wiring modifications was to DISALLOW system such as MoTec. Given that we wish to retain this MoTec investment the issue with not allowing wiring modifications to disallow MoTec (yes, it's a vicious circle) is moot.
Fourth, I'm on board with no further induction mods. None, as far as I can recall, have been suggested.
Fifth, it's the lack of imagination that got us here in the first place <grin>. As hard as we try, it is
completely impossible to fully comprehend all future possibilities. It's because we tried that we got the current rule, and why we're in this boat today.
As I said, I'll give it significant honest thought, but my initial impressions are that there's not going to be an easy way to stop this. I see conflicting goals in your standards above, and short of breaking Requirement #2 we're kinda stuck. If you accept #2 then you really should consider opening up the whole enchilada and letting people use MoTec without restriction. If you're willing to step on the MoTec investments then we have a little room to breath, but we'd be stepping on that same lillypad crossing as we were when the current rule was written.
Bill sez:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If the rule states stock ECU w/ stock programming, any mod to that is cheating, plain and simple.</font>
Bill, you are absolutely 100% correct. However, if we stick to this rigid rule, one that is not enforceable in the extreme of contexts, then you end up with a group of drivers that are - de facto - cheating, but since it cannot be proven, they are - du jure - legal.
Case in point, the Spec Miata engine rule. The rules state (and I paraphrase) that *any* work done to an engine to improve performance is expressly illegal. However, we all know that folks are spending thousands of dollars to have brand-new crate engines disassembled and rebuilt to exact factory tolerances (blueprinting). Are they cheating? ABSOLUTELY! However, can you prove it? Nope!
So, for a category whose goals is to have equal preparation, you end up with two distinct classes of competitors: those true cheaters that spend $5000 on the rebuilds, and those non-cheaters that don't. In both cases, the engines are defacto legal because there is no way to prove otherwise.
My solution for the Wreck Pinatas would be to allow balancing and blueprinting by the rules to factory (not service) tolerances, because it's being done anyway and would open up the market to lower-cost rebuilds. This would allow competitors within the category to be on a much more even parity for less money.
Back to our ECU rule, it is unenforceable. Software is being written today for street cars where the dealer cannot determine if the ECU was modified. The intent of this is so guys can mod their cars and not have the dealer pull the warranty. Even more cool, many are written in such a way that a few stalk or dash switch changes can actually change the loaded programming in the ECU, so if specific values are read the output is as per the factory. Plus, they can be written such that the ECU cannot be overwritten by the dealer. This is a fact of like, and this will only become more prevalent as we move forward.
If you can find a way to enforce the original rule, we're all ears, but short of that you've got to consider the alternative. THAT'S why unenforceable rules are typically stricken, plain and simple.
George said:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...using any piggyback with a Nissan ECU will only be an exercise in frustration.</font>
Quite possible, but there's only one way to find out. Remember the basis for the team name "Kakashi Racing"?
http://www.kakashiracing.com/team.html
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why not just go with JWT?</font>
Because it doesn't work. I've got JWT's 100 octane ECU program and it did exactly bupkus for us. In fact, the 93 octane street program actually LOST 2 horsepower on the dyno. The trials and tribulations of using street crap on race cars from a single-source supplier to a market...
Dikita Banana sez:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper</font>
The latter, Dick. There just ain't much better than fully-programmable engine management from MoTec. Pretty trick stuff.
GregA
knew when to get rid of things that weren't consistent w/ the category philosophy (e.g. sequential shifting trannies).