Originally posted by Eric Parham:
......I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage by preventing them from combining the control of ignition and fuel in a single unit.
What's the solution? Either put the cat back in the bag (not likely), or completely free control of fuel and ignition.
The next problem with the ECU rule is that it allows much more than full tuning control of just fuel and ignition. Some cars have continously variable valve time (e.g., BMW E36 325i has VANOS), and others even have variable valve lift, all controlled by the same ECU.
If we're to allow full computer control of these systems, then, at a minimum, the corresponding specs for conventional cams would have to be freed to equal the playing field......
As for the variable valve timing cars that have already been allowed, one possibility is that we allow unlimited valve timing (only) for the rest of the field. Honestly, I can't think of another "simple" solution other than banning that type of technology in IT (perhaps by requiring disablement on cars already classed), FWIW.
I agree with your logic in many ways, but you're introducing the term "intent" which can get thorny.
"
I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage...."
Well, this is the defacto 'competition dajustment' that is the result of the "We have no way to police it so we'll allow it " ECU rule. The trouble with the rule has more to do with other procedures, more than it has to do with the rule itself.
Keep in mind that the CRB
sets the weight of every car when it classifies that car, so as to make it competitive in it's class. Well, in a perfect world they do, but a lot can happen to screw that up. Look at ITS. The (2.8L?) E36 comes stock with abaout 189 Hp, at the crank, but in race trim, they're putting down about 217
at the wheels !!! Now the 944 (2.5L), on the other hand, comes stock with 145, but in full built race trim can barely make 160, I'm told. Two engines with .3L displacement difference between them, but 57 Hp difference at the wheels. What's up with that? Unfortunately, the CRB doesn't have Karnack (sp?) the Magnificent predicting the future for them.
Any car classified after the ECU rule (post ECU rule, or hereafter: PECU) was instituted should, as part of it's weight setting process, have research done to quantify probable Hp gains, based on variables such as variable valve timing and so on. Those classified before the rule (hereafter referred to as BECU) have gone on to star in threads here at IT.com, but not at the track!
Which brings up the next point. Your thoughts regarding the free allowance of cam timing are going to hit a huge snag when you factor in rotaries. How should they alter their cam timing? Or valve lift?
And cars already classified getting free cam timing would still not be equal to those with continuously adjustable systems.
I'm afraid that those rule changes will get mighty complicated mighty fast, and there will be a lot of sharp clawed cats to stuff back in the bag.
The solution, and one that will work into the unforseeable future, is PCAs.
In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed, and I know alot of people think of them as a band aid, but it's extremely unlikely that all technologies can be accounted for in the original weight setting period, and that's obvious looking at some of the current situations.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 18, 2004).]
