ECU rule thoughts

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Riddle me this...

What can a Motec do that a remapped OEM ECU cannot?

Joe could answer this better than I, but I believe it is MUCH easier to analyze and modify the parameters of a Motec than it is to do the same on a stock ECU... Plus, I believe the Motec works on a faster processor, etc...

If you know what you are doing, I think you could get similar results with either, but I'm pretty sure the road is much easier with the Motec or other aftermarket systems...



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

 

[Joe Harlan]

George and Darin, Lets just say that a motec can do everything a little better and somethings a ton better and other things that a stock unit can't.

Finer control points for 3d control of FUEL,Timing, and load. Program almost as many as you want.

How about Data logging of all engine parameters...Not done in the stock unit. How about being able to dial you VVT into the track you are running with the push of a button. These are some of the smaller points. check out this web page http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_in...#aftermarketECU for some other information.

I forgot the big one. Traction control is available on almost ever stand alone system on the market.

Please take note of the fuel and timing points in the comparison charts on that webpage.

256 for and OE unit and 840 for the Motec

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[zracre]

If you have to keep the stock plug and ECU box without a biggyback unit, wouldnt it be overly complex to legally motec your ecu? you would have to keep all the stock sensors and inputs through the stock harness connector into the stock box...if someone can id like one please!!!!!! isnt being able to change the duty cycle at different rpms like properly rejetting a carb??? and having different spark curves built into our distributors??? I watched a Z car pull out onto the track at the ARRC outside pole.........

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

The more this comes up, the more I'm almost favoring just allowing any ECU, provided that the wiring harness and connector not be modified in any way and no additional inputs be added... Build a small adapter harness to make the plugs mate up and move on... Would certainly remove any abiguity...

NO, strike that... after further thought and discussion, what I really think needs to be done is that the entire wording regarding ECUs in section D.1.a.6 needs to be removed. Change it back to simply addressing the adjustable fuel-pressure regulator. Then, all cars would be covered under D.1.s, which says exactly the same thing as the Touring car ECU rules. This effectively removes the word "replace", but allows the internals to be "modified". The stock wiring harness would then be implied, as it doesn't mention it at all, and it isn't "inside" the ECU housing...

That would make IT consistent with other SCCA classes, and would allow 90% of the cars out there the adjustments they would need to adjust fuel mixtures, etc...

Not sure what kind of CRB support that would get, as there are some members who have gone further who would then be out of compliance, but I do think this would be a correct move heading into the future.

Any thoughts on this???




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

 

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
The more this comes up, the more I'm almost favoring just allowing any ECU, provided that the wiring harness and connector not be modified in any way and no additional inputs be added... Build a small adapter harness to make the plugs mate up and move on... Would certainly remove any abiguity...

Darin, this is the point I'm trying to make exactly. As long as the cat is out of the bag and the sky is going to be the limit (let's all agree that's what we have currently) why not make it as easy and cheap as possible to install the aftermarket EMS? Why should everyone have to spend several hundred dollars extra to skirt the rules in a legal manner?

Another point to consider if you require the use of stock sensors is that AFAIK only the very high end systems can be programmed to work with stock sensors. MAP sensor cars (Honda) would be at a distict cost advantage because most of the low cost units are designed to work with a MAP sensor and not MAF. As it is right now one can purchase a Haltech system used for around $600 and achieve 99% of the power potential of the highest end $3000 Motec. The problem is that the Haltech will only work with it's sensors (GM OEM for the most part).

Again, my point is that you're not going to keep everyone from spending money. As long as the ECU is essentially open it should be as easy and cost effective to reap the full potential of the rule as possible.

------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

[This message has been edited by C. Ludwig (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George and Darin, Lets just say that a motec can do everything a little better and somethings a ton better and other things that a stock unit can't.

Better? I'll buy that. I doubt it will make that much difference. With a stock harness and stock sensors, what can it do that the stock ECU cannot?

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Finer control points for 3d control of FUEL,Timing, and load. Program almost as many as you want.

Do you think that will make more than 1-2 hp difference?

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
How about Data logging of all engine parameters...Not done in the stock unit.

Data logging is already legal and possible with other hardware/software. Hell, I can hook you up with datalogging of Nissan ECU parameters without even having to touch the ECU.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
How about being able to dial you VVT into the track you are running with the push of a button.

Now we are into fantasy land. First, if the ECU can change the cam timing, the stock ECU can be reprogrammed to. Don't you know the track you're going to before you get there? That's a smarty pants question, but I'm trying to get down to the real differences.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I forgot the big one. Traction control is available on almost ever stand alone system on the market.

Is that going to matter for IT cars? All it could control is acceleration wheel slip. We don't do standing starts and OK, I'll buy that it could be an issue for corner exit, but it would be easier to screw things up than to make things better.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Please take note of the fuel and timing points in the comparison charts on that webpage.

256 for and OE unit and 840 for the Motec

That's nice. Will that make any real differnce in power production? I doubt it would make enough differnce to even be concerned.

In the end, an ECU sets the amount of fuel to be mixed with a given amount of air and it sets ignition timing (and cam timing on some cars). A Motec must use all the stock sensors so it has no better data to work with than a stock ECU.

I'd submit that the advantages of a Motec are ease of use and maybe 1-2 hp in the mid-range if that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of the current wording. I just think there is mass hysteria over this.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
NO, strike that... after further thought and discussion, what I really think needs to be done is that the entire wording regarding ECUs in section D.1.a.6 needs to be removed. Change it back to simply addressing the adjustable fuel-pressure regulator. Then, all cars would be covered under D.1.s, which says exactly the same thing as the Touring car ECU rules. This effectively removes the word "replace", but allows the internals to be "modified".

I think it would do nothing at all without more specifics.

If you change the rule to allow modification to the internals and I want to install a Motec, I'll just modify the original board so it doesn't connect to the harness connector, cut out whatever I need and then install a Motec. That's modified.

I don't think that wording change is going to make any difference.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[apr67]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

How do you check something you can't see, or that can be dynamically changed?

Very specifically, HOW do you police something like this, assuming you don't have the resources of the CIA or NSA at your disposal??

Easy.

You don't. Just like the SCCA tech's everything else now.

(see protest story).

The simple rule is, no modifications. So if the seal is broken on the ECU (most have them) its not legal. If the chips inside have been soldered, its not legal. If anything is piggybacked on it, its not legal. If a diagnostic computer hooked to it says its not the right version, checksum, or whatever, its not legal.

If it passes all those tests, it is legal.

 

[Joe Harlan]

George, first I must ask, How many motecs or fi system have youactually worked with?

How many fuel maps have you written?

How much knowledge do you have on how VVT is controled by an OEM system compared to a system that has 3 times the function?

You asked for data points and i provided them. You are trying to knock hole through something I think you have very little understanding of.

If traction control was no big deal then ABS would still be legal in IT.

I have 20 to 30 motec maps on my laptop alone and I can promise you that it is far better than 2 or 3 hp on any engine.

Have fun
Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
If you change the rule to allow modification to the internals and I want to install a Motec, I'll just modify the original board so it doesn't connect to the harness connector, cut out whatever I need and then install a Motec. That's modified.

At some point, we are going to have to accept that this type of thing will happen regardless of what we do.

I can see where this is heading right now... When these things come to an impass, as the last ECU discussion did, the net effect will be no change...

People can point out problems with this stuff all day long, but it's a lot tougher to find a solution...

The "rule is creeped, so creep it further" argument doesn't seem like that great of a pattern to get into here. Nor does the "take it all back and piss on them" solution...

The solution I suggested is definately middle ground, and the scenario that George has suggested would be a very rare exception... Simply too much development for an IT car. Would some people try, of course they would, but they would be the rare few who are willing to spend $15,000 plus dollars to win a $10.00 trophy and bragging rights for a year...

The rest of us would be just as satisfied with our Jim Wolf modified ECUs and a new set of tires every now and then...

If you take out the phrase "or replace", you take away the arguement to just open it up to any ECU. That saves EVERYONE money, because a full-on ECU doesn't become the standard. Most cars could be competitive with a stock modified ECU, and those that had the $$$ to see if there is more there than that provided could go off and try to find it...

At least not EVERYONE would have to go down that road... in other words, the Motec-modified stock ECU would be the exception, not the rule. Further, the MOTEC modifiers would have to go to just as much work to fit their Motecs into the stock board as anyone else would have to go to to modify the stock board... Sounds kind of level to me... It's still going to come down to who can afford the Motec and who can't, but the upped development costs actually may act as a deterent for all but those few with the means... And again, not EVERYONE would have to go out and do this... and I bet most wouldn't...

I know this doesn't work for everyone, but I also know NOTHING will... I think I'll stick with my statement... Remove the "or replace" wording and go racing...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Hey Kirk...

Want to lay odds on how many posts this thread ends up with???

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

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George, first I must ask, How many motecs or fi system have youactually worked with?

How many fuel maps have you written?

How much knowledge do you have on how VVT is controled by an OEM system compared to a system that has 3 times the function?

You asked for data points and i provided them. You are trying to knock hole through something I think you have very little understanding of.

I'll grant you I have no experience with them. I've never had the need. But that was not my question.

Please answer me this: Given the stock harness and sensors, what can the Motec adjust that the stock ECU cannot?

Given the variables involved, why can you not arrive at the same solution with the stock ECU?

I fully understand that with the Motec and other such stand-alones that you can have finer granularity in the maps. But the question is not how much more power can the Motec make over a stock ECU, but how much more can it make over a remapped ECU? Since the Motec cannot adjust anything more than the stock ECU, how will a Motec make more power than a remapped stock ECU with the same maps? That's a perfectly valid question. You can talk all day about how much more experience you have with a Motec than me and I'll agree with you all day long. But that question would still go unanswered. If I've missed some way the Motec can make more power than a remapped ECU please clue me in.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
If traction control was no big deal then ABS would still be legal in IT.

Interestingly enough, traction control is legal in IT.

But back to my question (I guess I framed it as an observation and shouldn't have)... Where are you going to use traction control in road racing (that is only controlled though ECU data, not chassis data)? The only place I can see is corner exit. I'm not totally ignorant of this topic. One of my best friends works on this stuff for a profession and has clients in all levels of motorsports including F1. That doesn't mean I know as much as you, but I'm not ignorant of it either.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I have 20 to 30 motec maps on my laptop alone and I can promise you that it is far better than 2 or 3 hp on any engine.

More than 2 or 3 hp over a well remapped factory ECU? I'm not talking about over stock mapping. Does the Motec go to open loop at WOT or does it remain in closed loop?

Joe, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. Am I challenging your knowledge? Yes. Not to say I know more. But if I'm to make an informed decision on this I need to challenge you. I still am of the opinion that the biggest advantage of the Motec is the ease of changing it. If I'm all wet, please correct me. But let's keep this to talking about the difference between a remapped factory ECU and a Motec.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I can see where this is heading right now... When these things come to an impass, as the last ECU discussion did, the net effect will be no change...

People can point out problems with this stuff all day long, but it's a lot tougher to find a solution...

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I think I'll stick with my statement... Remove the "or replace" wording and go racing...

And I still have to say this will solve nothing. The closest thing I can see is to require the stock circuit board to be used with some very limited and very carefully thought out modifications.

But I again, ultimately I agree with you that finding a much better solution is going to be nearly impossible. There's just no consensous here.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Joe Harlan]

George, I point you to a sites that makes a decent comparison and there are many other good sites out there I would suggest some research as I need to get back to making a living. You will not only find a greater gain in HP over the complete map but you will find a great big flat torque line across the complete map.......Peak HP wins dyno show and average HP(torque) wins races.
Imagine being able to run your engine in the perfect control point from 0 to redline with 256 control points. Now imagine being able to do that in 3D over 840 control points. You are able to control things much more accurately with a race ECU and all of these add up to HP and drivabilty over an OE unit. Plus here is the big one. Most of the reprograms that are done on stock stuff are done over the whole stock map. Take the 240sx forone. Most of them are way to rich from the facory and have very limited timing advance curves in them. What I have seen in most of the reprogs is that the fuel mixture is leaned down by x percentage over the whole map....same kinda thing with the timing. To pin point any of these deals you would have to be on a dyno and loading in each and every cell of the map to come up with perfect.(I have done this with the motec)This is not possible for most reprogrammers to have acess to every car and every situation to program like this. Clarke at JWT does the best in the business at estimeating needs based on mods....

Closing the door back to a stock boardand mother board puts everyone on a much closer playing field (development and money) wise than allowing a few to take advantage of a poorly written loop hole in the current rule.

 

[ITANorm]

I agree with the stock motherboard theory, even though the K-jetronic on my car is not "chippable".

What can be done? Well, here's some 15 year-old technology: A stock ECU vs a TRD built and programmed double board GpA ECU - from the late '80's.

http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/87man.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/GpA-1.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/GpA-2.JPG

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 18, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[planet6racing]

Dammit, I've had it. Everyone keeps on complaining about this rule, but no one will answer the question:

HAS THIS CHANGED IT?

Has the balance been upset? If not, what's the big friggin' deal? Are you upset that your neighbor is out spending you on his car? Big deal. There will always be someone out spending you (just look at GT1). Get over it.

Until someone can show how this is "ruining competition in IT" I don't think anyone, especially the ITAC and CRB should even bother to look at it. It is not value added.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

 

[Joe Harlan]

Lets see E36 was classed before open ECU rule.....now where are we at.

I'll give you more....
240sx,CRX in ITA were classed before current ECU rules. The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.

 

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.

The E36 also had a governor at 128 mph, but was easily fooled [edit: legally] with the old ECU rules. I suspect the same is true of the Nissan.

On a different note, a lot of people talk about the benefits of VVT with upgraded ECU's. Which cars are supposed to be taking advantage of this? Every one I'm aware of in IT is basically digital (including the E36), though I'm not sure about the 2 liter Alfa's...

Grafton


[This message has been edited by GKR_17 (edited November 18, 2004).]

 

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
Dammit, I've had it. Everyone keeps on complaining about this rule, but no one will answer the question:

HAS THIS CHANGED IT?

Has the balance been upset? If not, what's the big friggin' deal? Are you upset that your neighbor is out spending you on his car? Big deal. There will always be someone out spending you (just look at GT1). Get over it.

Until someone can show how this is "ruining competition in IT" I don't think anyone, especially the ITAC and CRB should even bother to look at it. It is not value added.

Has it changed for me? Yes. I know what the air fuel ratios are for my car. I have mapped them. I have had the car to the dyno several times. Under the old rule I could only tune with the pressure regulator. Now I have the option to throw a lot of money at the car and yes there are gains to be made. For example a datalog I'm looking at right now that was run with a stock ECU shows A/F ratios at 16:1 @ 4000 rpm, 14:1 @ 5700, and 11.5:1 @ the power peak of 7500. The graph is a more or less straight line from the way too lean 4000rpm to the way too rich 7500. Tell me there is not legitimate power to be had from a flat graph in the 14-15:1 range? Adjusting the pressure regulator effects power at all RPM but playing with the computer will show gains top to bottom. End result is a faster car. Period.

Now here I am thinking that I have the experience and knowledge to spend around $1000 including used EMS and dyno time to extract that power if the ECU was free. But under the current rule I'll likely have to spend another $1000 to have someone install my ECU of choice into the factory box. For what purpose should I spend the extra $1000 to modify the aftermarket ECU to "look" stock? Speedsource is selling bolt-in Motec systems for a reported $3500. The basic Motec system ca be had on Ebay right now for $2400AUD (~$1870US). Why should I have to pay Speedsource or anyone $1600 more for the system than I really should have too? If the ECU is truely going to be free (I'll admit that wasn't the concept but it is the reality) why should it be made more difficult and expensive to make the modification? So some can say that we tried to keep it close to stock but we can't stop people from spending alot of money? Bah!

I was actually against the rule to open up the ECU in the first place and would be in favor of going back to that. Even if it can't be policed. There will always be people who cheat. Let them have their trophy.



------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:As an additional note, the CRB contacted me and asked specifically that we be careful in how we suggest rewording any rules to avoid making existing cars illegal. So, similiarly to the idea of reclassifying the RX-7 to ITB and considering making all their 7" wheels suddenly illegal, we have to keep this in mind here, regardless of what might have happened with remote resevoir shocks or Production sequestial shift transmissions...

Darin,

No such consideration seems to have been given when moving any of the other cars from ITA to ITB. But, it's nice to know that the CRB doesn't have the sack to change a bad rule because it might cost someone some money!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608