ECU rule thoughts

Originally posted by chipbond:
George,

Matt Green's very informative posts above include this:

"Also, BLM's affect long-term fuel trim numbers, which affect WOT maps (these cannot be locked in most ECU setups without hard-editing the hex code)."

Though I'm not certain what is involved in "hard editing", it certainly sounds beyond the ability and budget of most club racers. Even more so when, to do so will require a combined dyno/"hard editing" session.
Click to expand...

Wow, I feel loved!
smile.gif


Hard editing is going into the hex code itself and not just changing the settings and tables, but changing they way that they're read and implemented. I would compare it to suspension prep-

In IT, you can do lots of stuff, but it has to fit in the original layout essentially. This is changing the values, but the design (and its limitations) is the same as stock.

In Production (full prep), you can move pickup points and change geometry- not only are you changing the compliance value of the suspension, but also changing the way it works completely. This is "hard editing" the suspension.

I think I've finally started to better understand George's question though. At first, I thought is was a "it doesn't do anything so why do they need it/ use it/ want it?" I think now that it's a "Why not just let it free since it can't be doing that much in the grand scheme of things?"

Am I right, George?

Oh, and BTW- I'm all for open ECU rules. Someone screwed up and opened the door just enough, why not let it go?

Coming from a person who does ECU tuning (me)- I can tell you that in most applications, it's worth some hp. So is rejetting a carb and changing distributor settings. Why not make the allowance to help those who can't get their stock ECU reprogrammed? Also, I've seen calibrations that cost 3/4 or more of the cost of an aftermarket system. However in the factory vs. aftermarket vein, you're looking at relatively minute differences. Sure, in certain cases, there's features available that would be much more usable with an aftermarket ECU, but as many have asked, does it really change anything?

BEWARE- I AM ABOUT TO HIJACK THIS THREAD.

I personally would like to see the wiring rules relaxed too. There's no reason for the "stock harness in all its glory" language that's currently used. Why not ditch unused wires that result from allowed modifications? Why not custom harnesses? What's the point really? My stock harness in my turbo car would've gone up in smoke if I hadn't upgraded a few little things. Can someone give me an example of a performance gain that occured STRICTLY from the CHANGING of the wiring harness?

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Hear hear on the stock wiring harness rule change. If those electronic guys can run all sort of ECUs, then what difference does it make if my electrons flow through the crappy 32 year old wires or some nice new ones?

Only difference I see is that eventually some cars would not be able to race (100% legally) due to harnesses being NLA and the originals in bad shape. Yes, in 30 years you ECU/tuner/modern car guys, it will happen to you too - so don't write the complaint off as coming from vintage/old school racers only.

I'm biased of course, I had to add wires to my car since my harness was a fire hazard and they are NLA. So now, before I even run my first race, I know I'm not 100% legal. Bad feeling, but at least I won't go up in flames on the grid.

End of thread hi-jacking - if anyone is wanting to file or write on this matter let's start another thread.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
 
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.
Originally posted by rlearp:
Hear hear on the stock wiring harness rule change. If those electronic guys can run all sort of ECUs, then what difference does it make if my electrons flow through the crappy 32 year old wires or some nice new ones?

Only difference I see is that eventually some cars would not be able to race (100% legally) due to harnesses being NLA and the originals in bad shape. Yes, in 30 years you ECU/tuner/modern car guys, it will happen to you too - so don't write the complaint off as coming from vintage/old school racers only.

I'm biased of course, I had to add wires to my car since my harness was a fire hazard and they are NLA. So now, before I even run my first race, I know I'm not 100% legal. Bad feeling, but at least I won't go up in flames on the grid.

End of thread hi-jacking - if anyone is wanting to file or write on this matter let's start another thread.

Ron
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by seckerich:
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.
Click to expand...

I don't think I missed that. When I asked this question months ago it turned into a free for all. Basically I DO NOT HAVE a wiring harness from the factory front of the firewall. It is gone. Where it went who knows - the engine has been rebuilt 3 times and everything I had for electrics was rigged to say the best. There were a few scraps of it, but nothing except headlights. With no replacements available one has to make do. And, in making do it is not going to be just like the factory harness - no way possible. I'm sure there are those that would say "well that car shouldn't be raced, get another one" but I do not agree.

Who cares what wires carry the electrons? There is no performance advantage for me, unless, as I mentioned on the other posts, I'll be a better competitor since I won't fear fire everytime I get in the car.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
 
Originally posted by seckerich:
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.
Click to expand...

See, this is part of my issue though. In my car (albeit not an IT car), I will be shortening a few wires, lengthening a few (both to fix some routing issues), and finally, using a heavier gauge for a few critical places (since the factory choice of gauge was, shall we say, conservative). Also, I CAN'T get the pins to repin my stock ECM connectors anymore. They are simply NOT available. That means that my only choice is to go chop a harness out of something so that I have spares for when I screw up some of the ones I pull out. While I have said this isn't an IT car, it very well could be (several IT legal car choices use this setup), but I'd be screwed if I ever wanted to do things the RIGHT way. Basically, you have to hack and cobble your wiring to be legal, and that just ain't right.

I stand by my signature line (which actually was a quote from my best friend, but I stole it fair and square).



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I think I've finally started to better understand George's question though. At first, I thought is was a "it doesn't do anything so why do they need it/ use it/ want it?" I think now that it's a "Why not just let it free since it can't be doing that much in the grand scheme of things?"

Am I right, George?
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite. I've actually not come to any conclusion yet, although I have a few ideas I lean towards. My question at this stage is to figure out (if possible) just how large an issue this may be. Part of me thinks that a MoTeC is an advantage, but is it really a drastic advantage? Again, from what I know at this time, I'd guess it won't make a mid-paker a front runner, but might make someone knocking on the door a winner. Then there is the question regarding whether there are real alternatives to a MoTeC.

I just don't have the answers. And while there are a lot of opinions floating around (including mine), there are only a few who really know how big a difference it may make.

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Oh, and BTW- I'm all for open ECU rules. Someone screwed up and opened the door just enough, why not let it go?
Click to expand...

We're virtually there with the only limitations being having to use the stock box, sensors, and wiring.

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Also, I've seen calibrations that cost 3/4 or more of the cost of an aftermarket system. However in the factory vs. aftermarket vein, you're looking at relatively minute differences.
Click to expand...

And this is key to my questions.

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I personally would like to see the wiring rules relaxed too. There's no reason for the "stock harness in all its glory" language that's currently used. Why not ditch unused wires that result from allowed modifications? Why not custom harnesses?
Click to expand...

IMHO, you're now playing in Production territory. One can say "but it's a race car, why make the limitations?" to which I would answer that the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.</font>
Click to expand...

Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.



[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 18, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.
B]
Click to expand...


My point exactly. If you're going to allow the system (that's expensive to begin with) but make it so that you have significantly more expense (and less reliability) to make it work within the rules, you've essentially just made the monetary investment that much higher. This would be, according to the old Comp Board terminology, "not following class philosophy."

We all have seen that making something more expensive is NO deterrant to certain people. It just prices the rest of us out of the market. And THAT issue does more to put us into Production territory than the wiring rule change.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the rules creep issue, along with a lot of others. I'm saying this here in this forum because from what I've seen, I'll get some honest feedback (along with some other things...) and we'll see if it's worth writing in to CRB about.

I really think the ITAC has its hands full at this point, but I also think that it's really time for a Spec Book overhaul.

Yes, I realize exactly how much time it takes and exactly what's involved. And yes, you can tell me it's easy to sit here and critique the stuff when I haven't written it. Well, I'll say this- when the new Time Trials program rules come out in another month or two (pending approval), you can critique why rules-writing ability, because I did the majority (read-pretty much all) of the book.

And honestly, I'd REALLY like to hear feedback from some of you, because I've seen rules interpreted in ways I hadn't thought of. I can tell you that I did revise a few things after I started reading these forums, but I know I'm not perfect. I look forward to your commments in the future, especially from George, Andy, and the other ITAC guys (Greg- I'd also like to hear from you, since I understand you were, um, pretty active in Solo 1 for a while...).

Sorry for the digression, but I just wanted to say that I think it's time to really examine the class. Do we really want to keep modifying and tweaking and massaging a set of rules that aren't as applicable as they once were, or is it time to tear down and rebuild the right way? I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bath water here, but it might be time to drain and refill...


[edited for spelling errors due to lack of sleep]

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 19, 2004).]
 
That "incrementalism" is both the worst and best thing about the ITCS.

It's massively frustrating how it evolves without any real direction but at least you don't have to worry about someone jacking radical changes on you, on short notice.

It's a little like our two-party legislative system in that respect.

K
 
I don't know Kirk, I think the current ECU rule was a radical change, and it happened fairly quickly.

As far as evolving w/o any direction, what's going on w/ the strategic plan? Haven't heard anything about it in several months. Having an overall strategic plan, and a mission statement for each category, would at least give us an idea of which way the ship is headed. [/hijack]

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 18, 2004).]
Click to expand...

Precisely my point on another thread. If MoTecs are allowed then to me that whole topic has just been made mote with respect to wiring harnesses. Allowing one competitor to use whatever ECU they wish while looking at another competitors car with the evil eye regarding his lack of a complete factory wiring harness just doesn't make sense to my feeble brain.

Certainly, any performance gains from a non-factory harness (which I suggest there are none) is eclipsed by the gains from a MoTec (of which certainly there are some). I think the wiring rule needs to be examined with the ECU rule. Changing the wiring rule would do nothing to folks already racing, but for those building cars, particularily burned out cars, salvage cars, old cars, or wrecked cars, it could make their dream more a reality by not having to worry about a silly "stock harness" rule. I don't think this takes the IT class into production, according to the GCR online, a lot more makes the classes different than a stock wiring harness.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Geo:
IMHO, you're now playing in Production territory. One can say "but it's a race car, why make the limitations?" to which I would answer that the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.
Click to expand...

while rules creep and not becoming production are worthy goals we should take a lesson from the coil over history lesson.
is requiring a stock harness actually limiting the work done to make a car fast or is it a rule that just makes it harder to build a car simply and still make it reliable. it is interesting to note that in A sedan the rule was changed last year to allow non stock wireing in order to make it easier to build cars from salvage sources.
dick patullo
ita rx7
 
The only thing about the stock harness rule (and loss of it) that I think would be significant is cheating.

With a stock harness, we can go to the shop manual, and see the wire codes (magenta with yellow tracer) and see where they are supposed to go. With a non-factory harness it would be quite easy to obscure cheating.

What kind of cheating? Adding sensors to feed the ECU. Such as a wide band ox sensor, which would allow a good ecu to run closed loop at WOT.

Its one thing if I see a 1968 Volvo with a non-factory harness. I probably won't worry about the ECU too much.

But what about when you see a 99 Vtec honda and the whole harness has been replaced. Are you going to assume it was bad, or that they found an advantage?
 
Guys, I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses.

I still believe the limitations define the classes, despite what may be possible with the limitations. SS (and IIRC, SM) do not allow internal machining to the engine. Yet, in both classes, the very best engines are balanced and blueprinted. They are just done through parts bin engineering. One could make the argument in those classes to just open the rule up to machining, but once again, the limiations define the class. But, I digress.

On the subject of wiring, IMHO if the wiring were opened up, then the rest of the EFI system would follow suit like falling dominoes. You can say no now, but the same arguments being made now will be made for opening up the air metering devices (oh, I can get a cheap MAP sensor based EFI that I want to replace my MAF based EFI with). You may argue with me, but I fully believe this. And if this happened, EFI would be absolutely fully wide open. Someone made the point about adding sensors and I just said I agree in a long winded way (sorry).

Then, once we open up EFI and wiring, the next big thing will be traction control (I just have to add one wheel sensor for cheap and easy traction control....).

Lastly, I'll come back to my main point of discussion and that is how much real advantage a MoTeC is. Yes, it's an advantage. But how much in terms of hp? Ease of programming (relatively speaking) is a very real advantage. Actual on-track advantage? And what of installing a piggy-back inside the ECU box?


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

You are never going to get the answer to that question about a MoTec. The only possible real answer would be if a car, probably a BMW or 2nd Gen RX7, were to be developed 100% and dynoed, with results open to all.

Then, the ECU would have to be replaced, developed 100% again, and dynoed. Considering I've received two negative emails for posting Jeff Young's TR8 dyno plots and Jeff Young received one as well (correction - Jeff got a positive encouragement, my bad), it appears folks don't like to discuss dyno plots and gains. And, that has been shown here on another thread too when dyno numbers and ECUs were discussed. Everyone got antsy and information was not forthcoming.

What is it worth? Don't know. I have helped tuned two cars with a MoTec, Ford small blocks, and I can say the flexibility was frankly awesome. Is it worth some power, certainly, but I don't know how much. Traction control can be built into the high end unit by watching the derivative of the RPM curve and pulling spark to cylinders when the slope increases too much, indicating wheel spin. Much like the cheater MSD boxes - no wheel sensors needed - so, for all you know traction control is alive and working now in IT.

The top ITS car developers use them, so, that should be a hint that they're worth an increase that IS statistically significant to play a role on the track.

Still don't agree with your logic on the harness rule in face of the MoTec situation. The MoTec, when boiled down to it's basic components, is a non-factory wiring harness - albeit an extremely small one.

Ron


[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 20, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
George,

..... Considering I've received two negative emails for posting Jeff Young's TR8 dyno plots and Jeff Young received one as well, it appears folks don't like to discuss dyno plots and gains. .....

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]
Click to expand...

What? You received emails from people who said you shouldn't have published your numbers?? Why?? And they were upset enough to write you?? What the...???? What were the resons?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
One asked why I was posting dyno plot from a car I didn't own, was the owner aware, and furthermore he felt that these types of things should be kept off board due to the nature of the information. He didn't know Jeff and I are good friends and that Jeff wanted to share them. The other was about in the same vein although much shorter. Maybe I shouldn't say negative, that might be too strong, maybe I should say emails of concern. I have not tried to match them with screen names and will not do so if I can help it - don't want any bias when I converse with people here.

I remember when someone wanted dyno figures from a E36 a month or so ago something like this happened - someone had the numbers but would not post them, only hinting at what they were. I don't understand this behavior at all. But, that same reasoning might be why I didn't understand the email.

And, not to bogart this thread, but, a dyno section on the IT Forum would be cool. We have one at my GT40s site and there is a dyno section on the Lightning site I frequent as well as a few others. Very informative and I personally don't think it causes any problems. Incidentally I just saw a 240 plot at the local shop I frequent that was pretty good, 158hp and 155 lb/ft torque at the rear wheel. Neat and I bet more available in IT trim.

Back to your regularily scheudled ECU Rule programming.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
...... only hinting at what they were. I don't understand this behavior at all.....

And, not to bogart this thread, but, a dyno section on the IT Forum would be cool. We have one at my GT40s site and there is a dyno section on the Lightning site I frequent as well as a few others. Very informative and I personally don't think it causes any problems. Incidentally I just saw a 240 plot at the local shop I frequent that was pretty good, 158hp and 155 lb/ft torque at the rear wheel. Neat and I bet more available in IT trim.

Back to your regularily scheudled ECU Rule programming.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]
Click to expand...

Me either! The sceptic in me would say that they didn't want to release numbers because they could be used to support the case of E36s having too much power....or perhaps there is another perfectly good explanation...I've just never heard one.

I like the idea of a dyno thread, but I doubt it could happen in a racing environment like this, as we've witnessed here.

An interesting benefit could be the formation of a large database, which could help pin down the differences in dynos.

The 240...was that a ITA 240SX? or an ITS 240SX? or an ITS 240Z?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
A street 240z, stockish I think.

Reportedly, a well built 240z motor can make 190 or so at the crank.

If you run the ITS cars by achievable wheel hp, I think you see something like:

BMW: 215 or so
240z: 175 or so
RX7: same

I'm at 159 now, probably 175 acheivable. 944 is supposedly around 160 at the CRANK best case, not sure about the 944s. At its weight, the 944 probably needs the most help in S -- more so than my car, which surprised me. Although, the 944 handling/brake package does help it compensate.

The other major players I've not heard about include the GS-R, the 190E, the Alfa Milano and the 2nd Gen 240sx. The Corrado might be a contender too, still haven't seen one on track though.
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
944 is supposedly around 160 at the CRANK best case
Click to expand...

Actually, best case, money no object is 185 hp at the crank for the 944. And unlike most engines where you can make most of the gains for considerably less, with the 944 you get very little until you mortgage your children's futures.

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Although, the 944 handling/brake package does help it compensate.
Click to expand...

No doubt the 944 is an excellent handling car. A lot of excellent handling in stock form is due to a very rigid chassis (compared with other road cars). When you build a race car, much of that advantage is lost if you build a proper cage (stiffen the chassis) and build an all out suspension with spherical bearings and good dampers.

Interestingly enough, I was told the 944 would be a horribly expensive car to build, but other than buying an all-out crate motor, it's really no more expensive than the Sentra SE-R we've been running and developing. A Jon Milledge crate motor is probably (I'm guessing from rumors) about 25-50% higher than say a Sunbelt Nissan engine. But at those kinds of numbers it's all "lost in the sauce" anyway.
smile.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top