I think you may mis-understand what I was trying to say. I am not talking about changing one chip, but trying to build a new computer using the existing boards. One chip, flashing a chip or whatever will give very different results then stuffing a aftermarket computer in an existing box, and one goes with the "intent" of IT and one does not. Doing these basic and simple changes to the only makes sence for IT to do. I personally think we should open the rules a little more, more of a tuner class. I think IT needs to evolve with things that are "in" now.
ECU modification rules
- Thread starter gran racing
- Start date
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regarding the differences between flashing a chip and installing a stand-alone ECU, as long as the same sensors are used, the only difference is the ease with which changes can be made. Maps are maps. You've got fuel and you've got advance. What else are you going to change?
That said, I'm not trying to defend one position or another with that answer. My personal choice (as I've already stated) is behind Kirk's door number 3.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
New member
Cherokee,
Interesting point about category intent. Multi-thousand dollar FI systems w/in the intent of IT? I don't really think so.
Side note for the people who were poo-pooing small hp gains as not being that big a deal. There's a topic on the Prod board about fuel. Turns out that there are fuels out there that are passing the SCCA fuel tests, and are netting 2-3 hp gains on the dyno. These fuels are running $25-$30+ per gallon.
One vendor is VP. They have a leaded product (C44) is $30+, and the unleaded product (SR1) is ~$25/gallon. It seems that a lot of the FF/FC/SRF crowd are using them. I believe the add for the SR1 says that it is designed for cars w/ <10:1 compression, will meet SCCA fuel rules, and makes more power than any fuel out there, that meets the rules.
People are out there spending $25-$30/gallon on fuel for a couple of hp. To me, that is a good indication that small hp gains are VERY important. I'm also guess that there are some IT people running these fuels as well.
Hey Kirk, how much would the fuel bill for VIR have been if you used the VR SR1 @ $25/gallon??? Considering most people probably burn 10-20 gallons in a race weekend, that's a $250-$500 fuel bill!!!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Interesting point about category intent. Multi-thousand dollar FI systems w/in the intent of IT? I don't really think so.
Side note for the people who were poo-pooing small hp gains as not being that big a deal. There's a topic on the Prod board about fuel. Turns out that there are fuels out there that are passing the SCCA fuel tests, and are netting 2-3 hp gains on the dyno. These fuels are running $25-$30+ per gallon.
One vendor is VP. They have a leaded product (C44) is $30+, and the unleaded product (SR1) is ~$25/gallon. It seems that a lot of the FF/FC/SRF crowd are using them. I believe the add for the SR1 says that it is designed for cars w/ <10:1 compression, will meet SCCA fuel rules, and makes more power than any fuel out there, that meets the rules.
People are out there spending $25-$30/gallon on fuel for a couple of hp. To me, that is a good indication that small hp gains are VERY important. I'm also guess that there are some IT people running these fuels as well.
Hey Kirk, how much would the fuel bill for VIR have been if you used the VR SR1 @ $25/gallon??? Considering most people probably burn 10-20 gallons in a race weekend, that's a $250-$500 fuel bill!!!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
JeffYoung
New member
Call me naive, and I am new to all this, but when I was looking at (from a rules perspective) where I wanted to do my low cost, amateur racing, I had no idea (from the rules) that IT racing involved $50,000 BMWs and $4,000 engine management systems. Fortunately, I think most outside of the SCCA world who are looking to get into this don't either, cause if they did, they would stay the hell away.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
I'm confident that you didn't intend it to be and I'm not trying to pull a swifty on you, Bill...
...but the fuel case above is a perfect example of why we are jousting at windmills, if the anticipated purpose of revised rules is to make racing competitively less expensive.
Even IF some secret brew makes an additional 3hp - what, 2% in an SRF? - the fact that drivers are willing to increase their consummables costs every weekend, to that degree, is a clear indication that some people will find ways to spend more money than others.
Jim Politi (SCCA and NASA tech guy, "Grumpy") shared a great saying with me a few years back:
"Racing isn't more expensive than it used to be. I still spend all of my money on it."
K
PS - We used a little less than 90 gallons of gas for the 13 hours - plus another 20 or so for the test day, practice, and qualifying. It was painful enough at $2.00/gallon for BP pump premium unleaded...
...but the fuel case above is a perfect example of why we are jousting at windmills, if the anticipated purpose of revised rules is to make racing competitively less expensive.
Even IF some secret brew makes an additional 3hp - what, 2% in an SRF? - the fact that drivers are willing to increase their consummables costs every weekend, to that degree, is a clear indication that some people will find ways to spend more money than others.
Jim Politi (SCCA and NASA tech guy, "Grumpy") shared a great saying with me a few years back:
"Racing isn't more expensive than it used to be. I still spend all of my money on it."
K
PS - We used a little less than 90 gallons of gas for the 13 hours - plus another 20 or so for the test day, practice, and qualifying. It was painful enough at $2.00/gallon for BP pump premium unleaded...
Banzai240
New member
Guys...
It's not RACING that is expensive... You can do it on a pretty tight budget...
WINNING, on the other hand, takes an investment, regardless of what sport you are in...
You can't expect a set of rules to dictate who is going to put in a full effort. Winners are going to take WHATEVER rules they have to work with to the extent, and because of that, will continue to win.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
It's not RACING that is expensive... You can do it on a pretty tight budget...
WINNING, on the other hand, takes an investment, regardless of what sport you are in...
You can't expect a set of rules to dictate who is going to put in a full effort. Winners are going to take WHATEVER rules they have to work with to the extent, and because of that, will continue to win.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Rules do not limit how much money someone can spend. Never have, never will.
But rules do limit how much gain you can get for your dollar.
If rules didn't affect costs, the IT and F1 would cost the same to be competitive.
The question isn't, why are people spending $100,000 on an (insert class here) car, the question is, can I be competitive at the level I want on $xxx.
My $100 (adjusted for ITS BMW dollars!)
But rules do limit how much gain you can get for your dollar.
If rules didn't affect costs, the IT and F1 would cost the same to be competitive.
The question isn't, why are people spending $100,000 on an (insert class here) car, the question is, can I be competitive at the level I want on $xxx.
My $100 (adjusted for ITS BMW dollars!)
As requested, I've been giving this topic some thought. I've tossed around some ideas and I've basically come to the conclusion that we have conflicting goals. However, I'll toss this against the wall and see what sticks. Please note this is a long post, but please read it in its entirety before you hit reply. I am offering the complete thought process, not a bumper sticker.
First, here is the rule as currently written:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."
First, note that I believe the intent of this rule was to allow reprogramming of the engine control unit and allow soldering and desoldering of factory board components in order to accomplish this. I believe it was written to specifically disallow aftermarket ECU systems such as MoTec. However, in order to try and restrict this the wording became too micromanaged, leaving open the gaping loopholes that it was designed to close. I don't fault the original rule authors, as it's hard to see the future; however, by offering up the suggestions here, the rule proposals can get torn apart here in the light of day before it happens in the tech shed (open-source rulesmaking?)
The first conflicting goals is that some members of this forum actually do not want *any* open ECU rule, believing that alternate ECUs and/or programming are not within the philosophy of the class, are an ex-post facto competition adjustment, and offer an inequitable advantage to various vehicles. For these folks, nothing short of the following will do:
Strike, in its entirety, GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s.
Unfortunately for those folks, the club has made the decision that ECU modifications will be allowed, so we will use that as the basis of further discussion. There seems to be two general positions: the original intent of the rules as I stated above, or to allow innovation in regards to state-of-the-art engine management.
I suspect that a large majority of the members of this forum (that support alternate ECUs), and of the club in general, are more inclined to go with my original stated intent of the rule, which is to change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping. However, as I noted, this didn't happen because of the poor wording of the rules. If this is where we want to go with the rules, then I suggest the following change. Note that I "feel the pain" of the original authors, in that I found it antagonizingly difficult to come up with words that properly describe what I desired. In a case such as this, I almost think it's better to explicitly state the intent of the rules rather than try to describe the technology:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.
Finally, we have yet another conflict in that Darin expressed a desire to "...not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal)". This, of course, flies directly in the face of the original intent of the rules and my rule proposal above. If we are to accept that these systems must still be legal, there is also a desire to "not open the door any further", which was expressed by both Darin and George (and others, I'm sure) by saying they wanted to make sure that no wiring harnesses were changed nor were any additional wires, sensors, or outputs used. Therefore, to make this happen, I suggest the following rule:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "An alternate or modified engine management computer is allowed."
Note that this rule will allow replacement chips, alternate ECUs, and Motec-in-a-box. However it will *not* allow wiring harness and/or connector modifications, nor will it allow the installation of alternate and/or additional sensors, inputs, outputs, or wiring (remember ITCS 17.1.4.B, "IIDSYCTYC"). If there's any question to the matter, then add "The intent of this rule is to restricts modifications and replacement specifically to the ECU hardware itself. This does not permit any modifications of the factory wiring harness or pin connector, nor does it allow the installation or modification of inputs or outputs to the ECU." However, note that trying to get too clever and/or detailed may cause more problems down the line (as it has now). I believe the first rule, without clarification, covers it well.
There you go, three clear choices based on your position. I encourage you to really think these through and try hard to find loopholes and faults in logic. Post it here and we can fine-tune the ideas.
Personally, I'd prefer the second level, that of the original intent of the rule. I understand the position we've placed some folks in with our poor wording of the rules, in that they spent the bucks, but I suspect they knew going in that they were exploiting a loophole and it might get slammed. If I were to make a formal proposal today I'd tell these folks "sorry" and go with Door #2.
GregA
First, here is the rule as currently written:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."
First, note that I believe the intent of this rule was to allow reprogramming of the engine control unit and allow soldering and desoldering of factory board components in order to accomplish this. I believe it was written to specifically disallow aftermarket ECU systems such as MoTec. However, in order to try and restrict this the wording became too micromanaged, leaving open the gaping loopholes that it was designed to close. I don't fault the original rule authors, as it's hard to see the future; however, by offering up the suggestions here, the rule proposals can get torn apart here in the light of day before it happens in the tech shed (open-source rulesmaking?)
The first conflicting goals is that some members of this forum actually do not want *any* open ECU rule, believing that alternate ECUs and/or programming are not within the philosophy of the class, are an ex-post facto competition adjustment, and offer an inequitable advantage to various vehicles. For these folks, nothing short of the following will do:
Strike, in its entirety, GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s.
Unfortunately for those folks, the club has made the decision that ECU modifications will be allowed, so we will use that as the basis of further discussion. There seems to be two general positions: the original intent of the rules as I stated above, or to allow innovation in regards to state-of-the-art engine management.
I suspect that a large majority of the members of this forum (that support alternate ECUs), and of the club in general, are more inclined to go with my original stated intent of the rule, which is to change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping. However, as I noted, this didn't happen because of the poor wording of the rules. If this is where we want to go with the rules, then I suggest the following change. Note that I "feel the pain" of the original authors, in that I found it antagonizingly difficult to come up with words that properly describe what I desired. In a case such as this, I almost think it's better to explicitly state the intent of the rules rather than try to describe the technology:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.
Finally, we have yet another conflict in that Darin expressed a desire to "...not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal)". This, of course, flies directly in the face of the original intent of the rules and my rule proposal above. If we are to accept that these systems must still be legal, there is also a desire to "not open the door any further", which was expressed by both Darin and George (and others, I'm sure) by saying they wanted to make sure that no wiring harnesses were changed nor were any additional wires, sensors, or outputs used. Therefore, to make this happen, I suggest the following rule:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "An alternate or modified engine management computer is allowed."
Note that this rule will allow replacement chips, alternate ECUs, and Motec-in-a-box. However it will *not* allow wiring harness and/or connector modifications, nor will it allow the installation of alternate and/or additional sensors, inputs, outputs, or wiring (remember ITCS 17.1.4.B, "IIDSYCTYC"). If there's any question to the matter, then add "The intent of this rule is to restricts modifications and replacement specifically to the ECU hardware itself. This does not permit any modifications of the factory wiring harness or pin connector, nor does it allow the installation or modification of inputs or outputs to the ECU." However, note that trying to get too clever and/or detailed may cause more problems down the line (as it has now). I believe the first rule, without clarification, covers it well.
There you go, three clear choices based on your position. I encourage you to really think these through and try hard to find loopholes and faults in logic. Post it here and we can fine-tune the ideas.
Personally, I'd prefer the second level, that of the original intent of the rule. I understand the position we've placed some folks in with our poor wording of the rules, in that they spent the bucks, but I suspect they knew going in that they were exploiting a loophole and it might get slammed. If I were to make a formal proposal today I'd tell these folks "sorry" and go with Door #2.
GregA
Personally, and speaking only for myself, I'm not concerned about someone's investment into a MOTEC. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if it's wrong for the category it's wrong. If it's a mistake, correct it early because later it's just too darned difficult. Second, a used MOTEC has significant value in the open market. With the demand for stand-alone ECUs among the "street tuner" crowd, I rather doubt those with a MOTEC will lose the bulk of their investment.
As would I.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Back when we had our ITC Toyota, we fell into the group that had ECU's that couldn't easily be chipped. At that time, I was against any change from the stock ECU, becuase it was cheap for, say, a Honda to re-chip, and would have been very expensive for us to develop our own programmable chip, even if we inserted it into a re-soldered connector.
But, as Greg has stated, the box has been opened and my preference is gone, as is the opportunity for his option #1. On the other hand, I don't think that option #3 is consistent with IT, unless it is desired to completely open up induction and allow carbureted cars to install engine management systems. Therefore, Option #2 is the best choice. As far as people who have already spent the bucks for something beyond that concept, it's my feeling that if they can afford to spend that kind of money in the first place, they can afford to lose it.
------------------
...Don
But, as Greg has stated, the box has been opened and my preference is gone, as is the opportunity for his option #1. On the other hand, I don't think that option #3 is consistent with IT, unless it is desired to completely open up induction and allow carbureted cars to install engine management systems. Therefore, Option #2 is the best choice. As far as people who have already spent the bucks for something beyond that concept, it's my feeling that if they can afford to spend that kind of money in the first place, they can afford to lose it.
------------------
...Don
bldn10
New member
Damn, Greg, you've pointed out a problem or an inconsistency I didn't know existed. Am I the only one who hasn't gotten this? I had not even noticed the rule you quoted:
"GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."
I have been focusing on 17.1.4.D.1.a.6.:
"Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing. ... "
Does this mean that there is a different rule for EFI and carb cars? Or is it just a drafting mistake?
Personally, and as a lawyer, I think D.1.s. is clear - you cannot gut out the box and install a non-OEM ECU. No mo Motec. The ECU is not the box, it is the boards and chips and whatnot (I'm not a techie) inside the box. I think your interpretation of this rule re re-programming, after market chips, etc. is substantially correct.
I stated earlier, and several agreed, that I'd like to see the words "or replace" deleted from a.6. but, now that I see s, I amend my position to deleting the former in its entirety.
------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
"GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."
I have been focusing on 17.1.4.D.1.a.6.:
"Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing. ... "
Does this mean that there is a different rule for EFI and carb cars? Or is it just a drafting mistake?
Personally, and as a lawyer, I think D.1.s. is clear - you cannot gut out the box and install a non-OEM ECU. No mo Motec. The ECU is not the box, it is the boards and chips and whatnot (I'm not a techie) inside the box. I think your interpretation of this rule re re-programming, after market chips, etc. is substantially correct.
I stated earlier, and several agreed, that I'd like to see the words "or replace" deleted from a.6. but, now that I see s, I amend my position to deleting the former in its entirety.
------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
Banzai240
New member
That's a really easy position to take when you AREN'T the one losing the investment...
These people followed the same rules as you or I, and they did nothing more than what was allowed...
Perhaps because of my position on the ITAC, I tend to be a little more concerned about throwing someone elses investment out the door...
And, for the record, I HAVE NOT made a Motec investment, so I'm not effected by removing this allowance...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 02, 2004).]
m glassburner
New member
I VOTE for option #2...
Riddle me this, Batman: Are the Motec systems using ONLY the stock harness and either (a) the OE sensors, or (
resistors/pots as allowed by the rules? There might be other parts called "ignition system" but that's for someone with more expertise to explain.
Were I in Darin's position - and I do understand it - I'd feel less bad taking away a toy that they shouldn't have in the first place.
K
resistors/pots as allowed by the rules? There might be other parts called "ignition system" but that's for someone with more expertise to explain.Were I in Darin's position - and I do understand it - I'd feel less bad taking away a toy that they shouldn't have in the first place.
K
Hey, Bill, I totally missed that; I've been focusing on "s"! I don't see how this necessarily changes my position, though.
ITCS guys, can this be addressed at the next meeting? Why is the ECU addressed in two different places? Probably a simple oversight on editing.
Also, instead of putting rules within D.1 and changing the Rotary section to reference them, how about creating a third parallel section with "Recip" and "Rotary" labeled "All"? It would make the rules a lot easier to read...
GA
Greg,
Great job. Question (I am not a techie): If a daughterboard was able to perform all the functions that a current Motec level system can, how does this rule change anything?
Secondly, how would one enforce/confirm that the daughterboard is only providing functions allowed by the intent of your rule?
Bill Miller
New member
But you don't seem to be too concerned about pushing other people's investments further down the grid/results sheet.
Greg,
As far as "Door #1" goes, the Club has changed its mind in the past, and reversed things (e.g. engine coatings, RR 3X adjustable shocks). I wouldn't be so quick as to give up on reversing the open ECU rule. Require stock ECUs, and make the penalties severe enough for cheating to discourage it. And when I say severe, I mean severe. If you're the first person in the logbook (essentially, you're the one that built the car), and you get caught w/ an illegal ECU, the logbook gets pulled, and the car is banned from further competition w/ the SCCA. If you're not the initial logbook entry, you get one pass, as the p/o could have installed the illegal ECU. A note is made in the logbook, and any subsequent ECU violations will result in the same penalty as if you were the original entry. This would hold for subsequent owners as well. The one pass would be for the car, not for every owner.
Since we're required to have VIN# tags in the car, Topeka could maintain a database of the VIN#'s for IT cars that are issued logbooks. And entry would be made if the logbook was pulled. This would prevent people who have had their logbooks pulled from just getting a new one issued. Anyone buying a built car from someone would be well advised to check the VIN# against the database.
You want to put the genie back in the bottle, that's a way to do it. Make the risk for getting caught cheating very high.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I agree, it's probably something that resulted from editing over time.
Honestly Greg, the best way to ensure it's covered is to write a letter. Despite what may or may not have happened in the past or what was thought to have happened, each and every letter the ITAC receives is reviewed and discussed until there is a conclusion reached. Nothing get's "shelved on the top of the closet in the spare room" if you know what I mean.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Option 1: forget about it
Option 2: biggest problem besides people loosing their current investment, is that still doesn't work for a lot of the OBD2 cars (Honda's especially)
Option 3: I think this is the best choice as there is only so much you can get from the ECU with stock wiring and sensors so it doesn't matter which one you use and it would minimize costs.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
Option 2: biggest problem besides people loosing their current investment, is that still doesn't work for a lot of the OBD2 cars (Honda's especially)
Option 3: I think this is the best choice as there is only so much you can get from the ECU with stock wiring and sensors so it doesn't matter which one you use and it would minimize costs.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech