ECU Rule Input to the CRB

ECU Rule - Your Input

  • Keep the current rule and wording

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Allow chip replacements and reprogramming of stock chips

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Allow open engine control system replacement

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
LOL I apologize Joe for butchering your last name! :D My memory is going with age.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Funny since I am one of very few that actually uses their rean name in every post....You sure you can still remember your way around a track? :wacko:

Marty I am not ignoring your question...because of the information your asking for I am looking for the data Some of the testing done cannot be released as I don't own the information. Partial answer is it also depends on legal mods, grey mods, and what the chock point is in your system. I believe in everything I have said it was stated that some cars would benefit from the ability.
 
Marty I am not ignoring your question...because of the information your asking for I am looking for the data Some of the testing done cannot be released as I don't own the information. Partial answer is it also depends on legal mods, grey mods, and what the chock point is in your system. I believe in everything I have said it was stated that some cars would benefit from the ability.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Joe, are you at liberty to describe the legal and grey mods that would impact this?
 
the formating of Fastracks is a problem re finding relevant things also. I submitted a suggestion for them to take more advantage of the hyperlink capabilities of the pdf format. It is still all scrunched together as if it matters how many pages it prints on.
cheers,
bruce


I voted for 2, though I think leaving it as is would also be ok.

I think that the member solicitation period for this should be a pretty long time. I don't know what the normal period is, but this one should be at least a few months (maybe even reprint this in FasTrack for the next couple months). That will give this time to filter through the ranks to people that don't regularly read this board or others like it. This is a pretty important issue and needs as much input from racers as possible. Removing the FasTracks from Sports Car was a dumb idea.

David
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
Update:

30 of you have responded with letters to the CRB, and I am pleased with the content of the letters as well as the fact that many have taken the time to write, even though they have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. (In other words, we've gotten letters from guys who have non ECU cars.) Heck, we've even gotten letters from guys with no IT cars!!

Keep it up!
 
Update:

30 of you have responded with letters to the CRB, and I am pleased with the content of the letters as well as the fact that many have taken the time to write, even though they have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. (In other words, we've gotten letters from guys who have non ECU cars.) Heck, we've even gotten letters from guys with no IT cars!!

Keep it up!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Does anyone know how many IT racers are in North America?
 
Does anyone know how many IT racers are in North America?

[/b]
Click to expand...

Prolly about 18 or 20.

There are, however, several hundred guys with SCCA competition licenses that compete in IT classes. :lol:

Have another beer, Gary. :birra:
 
Does anyone know why the additional sensors allowed by the new rule wording are limited to air flow sensors?

This seems to limit your possible sources for ecu's, or at least how you implement them.
 
That is to restrict air intake to the factory inlet. IE throttle body, mass air flow sensor etc. The mass air flow sensor would not be required to work with an aftermarket ECM. It's in the rule to prevent anyone from adding a larger air inlet than stock diameter.

Chuck
 
I'd like to point out that to implement rule #2 would be just as unfair as to leave it as is. Just as not every car can fit a programmable ECU in the stock case, not all cars are able to be chipped or have a re-flash of the stock computer. The 2nd gen RX-7 is one of them (although one is in the works). I don't think that's fair to arbitrarily restrict the performance of some cars based pretty much solely on aftermarket support.

I support option #3, but keep the AFM, because as it's been pointed out it's the main restriction to many people, and allowing it to go will potentially gain some cars quite a bit of power.
 
One school of thought goes that the problem with the current rule isn't that it's unfair, it's just that it's a much greater allowance than perhaps was originally intended. So proposal #2 is intended to correct that, without trying to make it so that every IT car can replace fuel-injection electronics (that would be option #3).

I personally don't see this "lack of fairness" as an issue. All cars are not equal. If we really wanted that level of equality, we'd also be allowing live axle cars to replace their suspensions with coilover double-wishbones. We'd be allowing replacement of carbs with fuel injection. We'd be allowing replacement of solid front rotors (or heck, front drums) with vented rotors. Asking for equality of fuel injection electronics is basically akin to asking that all cars with old technology be allowed to update to the latest-and-greatest ... for everything, not just for fuel injection. And my opinion is that this concept is just not appropriate for IT, and it is just as inappropriate to have one philosophy about fuel-injection electronics, but a different philosophy about suspension design, or brake technology.
 
Please read the first post in this topic...there are PUHLENTY other topics to debate this issue; this thread is simply a poll as to see where folks stand, not why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top