ECU modification rules

Originally posted by Quickshoe: How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Banzai240:
It doesn't, but it's consistent with the Touring car rules, and they seem to work fine.
Click to expand...



originally posted by Banzai240: So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.
Click to expand...


So which is it Darin, does it get rid of Motecs in the stock housing, or doesn't it? And while it may work for Touring, I'm not sure what that has to do w/ IT. And don't say that they're related because of 'Touring', because they're not. There's not one currently classified Touring car that currently fits into the IT class structure. And that doesn't even take into account the turbos and AWD cars. Are you going to change IT to allow those?

/edit/ fixed quoting format

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited November 05, 2004).]
 
I think I might have said this before, but there is no magic in a MoTeC box. Somehow some of us have the idea that the instant you bolt a MoTeC box into your car, you have gained horsepower, and as soon as they're allowed, you'll have to buy one to keep up.

That is simply not true. The FI system does not make horsepower. All it can possibly do is get the maximum amount of horsepower that your engine can mechanically make by optimizing how it uses the available fuel.

#1. The box that Darin pointed out costs a couple of hundred dollars, it does everything that the MoTeC box does, and has a faster processor to boot. It requires a little bit more computer knowledge, and you have to solder.

#2. NONE of these boxes, or even the chips, do ANYTHING unless you tune them properly using, probably, an engine dyno and a high speed lambda sensor. You MAY be able to tune one by the seat of your pants, but I kind of doubt it. The cost of ANY of these boxes pales in comparison to the real dyno time it takes to set the system up right. Even if we gave away MoTeC units, most people would not go very much faster, and I'll bet that a lot of people would go slower.

#3. With enough time and money, I can tune any stock system to go just as fast as the MoTeC. You can bet on it. The 'haves' are going to do just that, and they aren't going to go one iota slower than they go now, and by taking away the MoTeC, just like the shocks, all you're going to do is cause the 'haves' to spend more money. You still won't be able to keep up. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of car racing at every single level from dirt tracking to F1.

If we opened up the rule, rather than limit it, we would allow many more people to take advantage of the tuning technology that's currently available, and you still wouldn't have to have a MoTeC to keep up.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

Edit -

What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.

[This message has been edited by ChrisCamadella (edited November 05, 2004).]
 
Darin, thanks for the time you're spending on this topic, and for the Megasquirt info. I remember reading about it in a magazine, but never followed up. Given the low cost for the components (<$200
smile.gif
), and the fact I do have an extra computer housing, I may just give it a try. I'll probably need a lot of help from the younger, more computer literate guys I work with to sort this out, but..........we all have to start somewhere.

[This message has been edited by John Herman (edited November 05, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.
Click to expand...

I agree completely... The "solution" (if there is really a "problem"...) may be to do nothing...

At the very least, I think we might want to remove the redundency that exists in the rules due to D.1.a.6 and D.1.s... The later actually is the same wording that the Touring rules use, and represents, in my opinion, the true intent of the ECU rules... D.1.a.6 came along and really opened the door. They are essentially the same, with the exception of the words "or replace"...

Other than that allowance, I see little need for both of them to exist, as D.1.s would handle all situations (FI and Non-FI), and D.1.a.6 could go back to addressing varying the resistance of the sensors and allowing adjustable fuel pressure regulators...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.
Click to expand...

Chris,

So what you're saying, is that even if a 'bad' rule is put through, once people have spent money, based on that rule, you can't change it? What about the people that spent money prior to the rule, that essentially lost that investment because of the new rule?

Point of fact is that any rule change / addition will cost some people money.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Pressed for time today so this will be brief.

jlucas: YES, it is possible (and easy in most cases) to fix the parameters of the variable valve timing cars. In most cases, one can just disconnect the electrical connector, and in others, an oil pressure or other actuator should also be disabled. The competitor would have to pick one set of stock timing/lift parameters that were attainable when stock and run with it.

Darin: Megasquirt is a great idea, and I wish we could all use it or comparable home-made systems, but Megasquirt (and anything else affordable) only works for Speed-Density cars (which have Manifold Absolute Pressure or MAP sensors) and not for Mass-Airflow cars (which have Mass-Airflow meters, typically with complicated hotwire output drivers). We would have to at least allow the adding of a MAP ***sensor*** to enable everyone to use these.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Point of fact is that any rule change / addition will cost some people money.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. Although pure logic theory does not indicate so, you're basically reinforcing the fact that NOT changing the rule does NOT cost some people money, which is, perhaps, exactly what we should do.

I guess that I'm not convinced, in this particular case, that this rule is necessarily 'bad'. If it were completely up to me, I would open up the FI systems to be a lot more free, but I'm certainly more than willing to live with the rule the way it is, except that Darin is 100% right that we should fix the apparent inconsistencies in the various sections, which we will certainly do regardless of our future direction on this subject.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
 
I think the people that inserted a Motec into the ECU showed how easy it is to "open" the rule up. Someone earlier said that the Motec people have an advantage that they can quickly adjust at the track. This is true. What they also said is that no one would sit at the track and burn proms at the track. I don't think that is true. Logically it may be, but I wouldn't have thought someone would shove a Motec into their stock ECU for $10,000 just to win a $15 trophy, so don't think anything is impossible/improbable.

I will repeat what a few other people have said. There really is no real advantage the Motec people have besides ease of changing maps. If you had an open ECU rule (again stock wiring and inputs) you could get the same results out of a Motec or anything else for that matter. If I wanted to take the time, with enough research and test&tune I could get the same hp #'s programming a prom for less than a motec without shoving it into a stock ECU.

I consider it to already be an open ECU rule in place. You can change the perimeters in your stock ECU for x amount of $$$, you can put a motec into a stock housing. Same results. Also, we are not talking about 15-30hp gains here, we are talking about flattening out the torque curve and 5hp max.

Spanky
 
Unfortunately, the information on eprom burning and/or flashing the ECU in-situ is a closely-guarded secret for some cars (I haven't been able to beg or buy the info for my VW, although I know that it can be done). Thus, it would be *much* less expensive, easier, and *legal* (think copyright infringement for the code) to replace such OEM systems with inexpesive do-it-yourself systems like Megasquirt. IMHO, if we're not going to open up the ECU rule, we should at least allow systems like Megasquirt by allowing the addition of the required MAP sensor and wire to those cars that weren't lucky enough to come with one.
 
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
I don't disagree with that. Although pure logic theory does not indicate so, you're basically reinforcing the fact that NOT changing the rule does NOT cost some people money, which is, perhaps, exactly what we should do.

I guess that I'm not convinced, in this particular case, that this rule is necessarily 'bad'. If it were completely up to me, I would open up the FI systems to be a lot more free, but I'm certainly more than willing to live with the rule the way it is, except that Darin is 100% right that we should fix the apparent inconsistencies in the various sections, which we will certainly do regardless of our future direction on this subject.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
Click to expand...

Problem is Chris, you've already had a rule change that has cost people money / trashed their investment.

And, once again, how is the ability to modify the fuel/ignition on the fly, who knows how many times per lap/race, equal to picking a set of jets and an advance curve, that you have to run for the whole race?

Pick a pair of data points and go w/ them, or have your engine mgmt system continuously update them throughout the race. Equal? Not even close!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
If we open up the ECUs for whatever is out there how about one for the carb guys?

Allow the carb guys to subsitute another carb of equal ventrui/body size. That way I could ditch my 40mm Stromburgs for some 40mm Webers that I could actually do something with - i.e. tune.

Very similar analogy I think.

Ron
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And, once again, how is the ability to modify the fuel/ignition on the fly, who knows how many times per lap/race, equal to picking a set of jets and an advance curve, that you have to run for the whole race?
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Ignition systems were free, so long as they used the stock distributer, so it would be possible to build a system for just about any car that would allow varying "advance curves"...

And, a Weber carb has about 4 different circuits, which activate according to engine conditions, and blend the transition points... These circuits can be individually tuned to optimize a setup for a particular day... I know, because I've touched all of them at one point or another on my CJ-7 with a DGEV... (kind of a pain in the a$$ at times, but doable...)

Now, granted, they won't be adjusting over the coarse of a 30 minute race, but then, when is the last time that a change this minute won or lost a race? We're talking OPTIMIZATION here, not mind altering performance increases... The temp. doesn't tend to change that much, nor the humidity, nor the elevations, so in reality, an FI car selects a mapping for a particular condition and that's what it uses... How much adjustment do you really believe there is over the coarse of 20 laps??

And, if you have an FI car, you DON'T have the option of changing your jets, so this is the only other way to make these adjustments...

Again, you pick your weapon...

This isn't about Carb vs. FI, it's about FI and what should/could be allowed into the future. Wherever the rules end up, it isn't going to change what the Carb guys do in the least... You'll never be able to equate Carbs vs. FI, so for this conversation, I'm going to focus on how the ECU rules should/could be worded, not on whether or not it's "fair" for the ECUs to be adjustable in the first place. They are now, and I, and many others, believe they should be. The question is really HOW far should you be allowed to go... and HOW do you write a rule that doesn't allow more than that...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
If we open up the ECUs for whatever is out there how about one for the carb guys?

Allow the carb guys to subsitute another carb of equal ventrui/body size.
Click to expand...

Does it REALLY make sense to you guys to tit-for-tat the rules like this?

Again, this debate isn't Carbs vs. FI... It's FI and what should be allowed. The differences between FI and Carbs can (and currently is) taken into consideration at the time of classification/reclassification.

Going forward, Carbs are going to be in the minority anyhow, so we need to get a grip on what to do into the future.

Using your logic, we'd be at Production level prep VERY quickly, were we to follow this line of thinking...

Only my opinion, of course...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... How can someone tell if you've changed "only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping."??? OR if the modifications "change only the mapping"??? How can someone determine if the chips replaced were only the "not reprogrammable" ones? ...
Click to expand...

OKAY. So, if ease of "enforceability" is a criterion - and it has semi-officially been explicated as being so at this point - and if the other criteria still hold, there is really only one logical answer - the one that I currently, actually believe is best:

Open it up.

Look - if we are going to allow Motec-like functionality to be re-engineered into a stupid OE plastic box, at a cost greater than would be the case if we just let people plug the OTS Motec the heck in, why not just quit dinking around and allow any engine management that can be plugged into an otherwise unmodified wiring harness, that uses no inputs other than those afforded by the vehicle manufacturer's original design?

>> Modified OBDI box with adapter in an OBDII car - OK

>> Aftermarket programmable box - OK

>> Piggyback unit that plugs between the OE box and the harness - OK

OK.

It just follows logically that, if we are going to allow the gawdawful expensive hand-made option we should allow less expensive options.
 
Well at least ChrisCamadella, Banzai240 and I are on the same page. The one point that they missed was that most ECUs go to a "lookup table" at wide open throttle, like in racing, which switches them out of active mode onto a fixed map, much like the carb and distributor guys anyway. Guys, I agree, even in active mode at part throttle, unless you live in Hurricane Alley, your barometric pressure and tempreture do not change enough during a 20-30 minute race to alter the mixture significantly.

What was the last carburator car classified anyway, maybe the 87 Honda Civic in IT-C? Even that one is 17 years old now. They don't even keep them in junk yards that long.

All I needed in my Renault was two $0.15 Radio Shack resistors in the air and water temp sensor circuits to make my car run correctly after I put on the headers. But no, too simple and cheap. Let's put it "in the box". Ok, fine, now my office looks like an electonics lab and the car runs the same as it did before I spent all the time and effort to replace $0.30 worth of parts. Reducing the cost or increasing the safety, no.
IT is not Showroom Stock and it is still a long long way from Production.
 
Originally posted by spnkzss:
I think the people that inserted a Motec into the ECU showed how easy it is to "open" the rule up. Someone earlier said that the Motec people have an advantage that they can quickly adjust at the track. This is true. What they also said is that no one would sit at the track and burn proms at the track. I don't think that is true. Logically it may be, but I wouldn't have thought someone would shove a Motec into their stock ECU for $10,000 just to win a $15 trophy, so don't think anything is impossible/improbable.

I will repeat what a few other people have said. There really is no real advantage the Motec people have besides ease of changing maps. If you had an open ECU rule (again stock wiring and inputs) you could get the same results out of a Motec or anything else for that matter. If I wanted to take the time, with enough research and test&tune I could get the same hp #'s programming a prom for less than a motec without shoving it into a stock ECU.

I consider it to already be an open ECU rule in place. You can change the perimeters in your stock ECU for x amount of $$$, you can put a motec into a stock housing. Same results. Also, we are not talking about 15-30hp gains here, we are talking about flattening out the torque curve and 5hp max.

Spanky
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this entire post - except for the fact that a MoTeC unit costs $10,000. The list price is more like $1800 for one suitable for most 4 cylinder engines, I think.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240: And, if you have an FI car, you DON'T have the option of changing your jets, so this is the only other way to make these adjustments...
Click to expand...

Yet another one of Darin's unsubstantiated, incorrect claims. That's what the resistence values going to the computer do!

And as far as this stuff being taken into consideration when cars are classed, that's been what, for the past year and a half at best? Leaves out what, 90%+ of the IT field? And picking your weapon is fine, until they change the rules mid-stream that make your choice worse!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That's what the resistence values going to the computer do!
Click to expand...

I challenge you to show me in the rules where that is allowed... (Yes, it's a trick question...)

By the way, all that does is richen or lean the ENTIRE MAP... Hardly the same as being able to fine tune for specific RPM ranges, like you can with a Weber...

Again, this is 2004... We're moving forward and looking to the future, not dwelling on what was done in the past... Not EVERYONE (heck, not even a majority from what I can tell...) thinks that the ECU rules are a mistake, or that it was a mistake to open them up. If there are glaring mistakes in classifications, or in the specifications, I think we've shown we are trying to correct those.

I tend to believe that your bitterness toward the ITAC, or me in general, is "unsubstantiated"...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
There you go again Darin, trying to put words in my mouth. But it really doesn't matter. I'm not going to play your silly trick question games. You slam me for supposedly doing that, yet you'll use the exact same tactic. But, I know it's not your fault. You don't have the mechanism, or the capacity to admit when you're wrong. Instead, you'll ignore, deflect, obfuscate, or simply change the subject.

If you're going to allowd motec in the stock box, then I agree w/ the people that say you should just allow any system that uses the stock harness and sensors. The way it's written now, it's no different than the old shock rule. Make people spend more money to achieve the same result, thereby putting it out of reach for some. If you leave it the way it is, you're helping perpetuate the performance gap between those that can spend the money, and those that can't.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Darin and all.

As the only production classification required to run IT engine prep rules (Caterham in EP) please let me add my thoughts to the proposed rewording of the ECU rule. Though we don't compete in IT, the rulings affect us greatly.

We took advantage of the "replacement ecu" just recently having had little success (at considerable cost) with attempts at remapping the stock unit by a number of firms. I have equipped 3 cars with another 2 in process with this aftermarket ECU. It is nothing like the reported $10,000 conversion. In fact hard costs amount to about $1500 per car plus a lot of time milling the inside of the case, desoldering the factory connector, wiring etc. In the Ford OBD2 application we are working with (98 Zetec from a Contour/Mystique) it's about a 10 hour conversion. We sell them at $2500 which includes the base dyno developed calibration, software and connection cables.

If we loose the "or replace" verbage in the current ruling, as you favor, we will be forced to spend large sums to reprogram the stock ECU every time an engine rules change affects us. The ease with which changes can be made in an aftermarket ECU help keep racing costs minimal. I think that in both the long and the short term, the aftermarket "replacement" is more adaptable and less costly than the repeated expense of modifications of the OEM ECU.

And as time goes on, the cost of these boards will decrease further, we would expect.

Chip Bond
Caterham 7 America #37 EP
GT Classics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top