ECU rule thoughts
- Thread starter C. Ludwig
- Start date
Ron Earp
Administrator
You pulling the 944s and George's estimates might be a case of IT horsepower and real-world dyno horsepower. Using an "IT Rule of Thumb" you should be at about 160 flywheel right? You're there at the crank now and it'll be even more soon.
I'd love to see more dyno plots of IT cars so that we can see what the real deal is on produced power, expectations, and classification.
I'd love to see more dyno plots of IT cars so that we can see what the real deal is on produced power, expectations, and classification.
Actually, it's not an estimate. Jon Milledge develops his engines on an engine brake dyno. The 185 figure is accurate and I've yet to hear of anyone else even getting close to that.
But I thank Jeff for his data point about pulling the 944s.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
ShelbyRacer
New member
EXACTLY my point. If you want to restrict something, restrict it. Don't play these games with "we're not saying you can't do XXX, but you can't do this, this, and this, so it would be too much trouble to try." Bullsh!t. You're simply restricting the mods to the people who have the cubic dollars to throw at it.
And don't tell me about the whole "it makes it easier to see someone cheating" thing. True cheaters are going to cheat no matter what, and they're going to hide it. Well. No matter the cost. You think someone won't go out and get stock looking wiring, and then repin the connector so that the illegal part will look like it's supposed to be there? You must be pretty naive. I could tell you things from the old Showroom Stock days that would make you puke. So could a lot of others on here. A cheater (a real cheater) is going to cheat no matter what the rule is. It's nothing personal. It's a way of life.
Oh, and one more point. This is a REGIONAL class. I'm sorry, but you can buy a NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE T2 or other car for what some people have in their IT cars. I'm all for the spirit of competition, but come on... If IT is meant to be the budget alternative where anyone can run (but not necessarily be competitive), then why is it that the whole class is turning into the legislative nightmare that parallels the Production class that we're supposedly striving not to imitate???
I know it's too late to help '05, but how about a rewrite for '06? NOW is the time. There's a lot of restructuring going on in Club Racing. Jump on the wagon (just make sure it has the right size wheels, a stock wiring harness, and a frame that hasn't been welded illegally).
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
Ron Earp
Administrator
K,
There is a repair allowance, but, I maintain that anything I do when I rebuild mine (I don't have one, can't get one) will not be 100% accurate to factory specs, therefore, illegal. At what point is close good enough? Same connectors? Same wire? Or, just basic layout? Length? Gauge? There is no repair procedure in my ship manual, so, there are no directions to follow.
I think we're all in agreement that a "custom" wiring harness offers no performance advantage other than simplicity, ease of build, reliability (all British and older German cars benefit) and in some rare cases like mine compliance with the rules.
I don't think that we need to pretend that IT is cheap, so cheap that you could run your street car with a cage, if this was behind the reasoning 20 years ago. Nobody does that, everyone has dedicated race cars in IT with a lot more trick stuff than a Painless wiring harness or a simple home harness rig.
Like I said before, MoTec are legal now and that is just another wiring harness, a very small one with probably more wire length inside than the entire car harness, were one able to pull all the chips and ICs apart. Lots of benefits from a MoTec for performance but there is no performance gain from a simplistic race car wiring harness.
Ron
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
There is a repair allowance, but, I maintain that anything I do when I rebuild mine (I don't have one, can't get one) will not be 100% accurate to factory specs, therefore, illegal. At what point is close good enough? Same connectors? Same wire? Or, just basic layout? Length? Gauge? There is no repair procedure in my ship manual, so, there are no directions to follow.
I think we're all in agreement that a "custom" wiring harness offers no performance advantage other than simplicity, ease of build, reliability (all British and older German cars benefit) and in some rare cases like mine compliance with the rules.
I don't think that we need to pretend that IT is cheap, so cheap that you could run your street car with a cage, if this was behind the reasoning 20 years ago. Nobody does that, everyone has dedicated race cars in IT with a lot more trick stuff than a Painless wiring harness or a simple home harness rig.
Like I said before, MoTec are legal now and that is just another wiring harness, a very small one with probably more wire length inside than the entire car harness, were one able to pull all the chips and ICs apart. Lots of benefits from a MoTec for performance but there is no performance gain from a simplistic race car wiring harness.
Ron
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
dickita15
New member
Kirk
this is not a huge deal, it is just a nagging irritation. of the three rx7's I have had a part in building mine is the only one that had any kind of useable harness. in the case of older cars or salvage cars the harnesses are usually junk and in the case of carb cars like i am used to dealing with you only need 7 wires to race the car. makeing us restore the old harness increases the work required and reduces the reliability of the car. as i sighted before it is just a work around like coilovers used to be. it does not change the performance one wit, it just makes it harder to prep the car.
I am not sure, and have not heard any statements that convince me that this is creep for injected cars but for those of us with carb cars it is just a pain.
again not a deal breaker just a frustration.
dick patullo
NER ITA Rx7
Remember that this is the Internet so the entire conversation is completely academic.
First...
It's an entirely reasonable proposition that it does indeed offer a performance advantage if a car is simpler or easier to build (it's cheaper so time and money can be spent on tires or track time), or if reliability is enhanced - a car that finishes more regularly is inherently more competitive, just as one that busts often is not.
When we built the last rally car that I rode in, we stripped the entire harness out (it was a Golf), spread it out on the floor, got out the wiring diagram, unwrapped the entire thing, tie wrapped all of the junctions loosely to keep it in shape, and removed all of the wires we didn't need. We then wove all of the additional wires that we needed, including some redundant pieces that could be easily plugged in if something got damaged, and wrapped the entire thing back up.
We did NOT do all of this for fun, that's for sure. (That goo on the black tape the Germans use stays under your fingernails for days.) We did it to make the car more competitive.
If the rules allowed it, I'd do the same on my current car - with the added benefit being the loss of a few pounds of wire, since there are yards of stuff there that are useless. I didn't even HAVE the heated seats and I get the wire.
If you've ever seen an e36 wiring loom (I have) you'll understand that this job would be at the top of my list, were I running one of those bad boys and the rule allowed removal.
K
First...
It's an entirely reasonable proposition that it does indeed offer a performance advantage if a car is simpler or easier to build (it's cheaper so time and money can be spent on tires or track time), or if reliability is enhanced - a car that finishes more regularly is inherently more competitive, just as one that busts often is not.
When we built the last rally car that I rode in, we stripped the entire harness out (it was a Golf), spread it out on the floor, got out the wiring diagram, unwrapped the entire thing, tie wrapped all of the junctions loosely to keep it in shape, and removed all of the wires we didn't need. We then wove all of the additional wires that we needed, including some redundant pieces that could be easily plugged in if something got damaged, and wrapped the entire thing back up.
We did NOT do all of this for fun, that's for sure. (That goo on the black tape the Germans use stays under your fingernails for days.) We did it to make the car more competitive.
If the rules allowed it, I'd do the same on my current car - with the added benefit being the loss of a few pounds of wire, since there are yards of stuff there that are useless. I didn't even HAVE the heated seats and I get the wire.
If you've ever seen an e36 wiring loom (I have) you'll understand that this job would be at the top of my list, were I running one of those bad boys and the rule allowed removal.
K
ShelbyRacer
New member
No, that's just good economic sense. A performance advantage is something that given an infinite amount of time and money, one car will benefit significantly more than another.
And, I'm not saying IT racing is cheap. But I am.
Seriously though, sorry if my last post was a little, um, forceful. Again, I'm trying to stir things up (as if they needed to be) to find out real opinions on the topic before I submit a proposal. I know that this forum doesn't mean anything in the rules-making process, but it is a good sounding board and a great place to get some honest feedback.
I think I'll be starting a new thread soon though, since I've taken this much more off-topic than I originally intended.
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
seckerich
New member
If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules. I would take digital pictures of another car with a factory harness and duplicate its routing and connections as close as possible on these carb vehicles. The rule is to stop extra sensors and to stop the dumping of the stock harness,relays, and connectors to save weight. I would never protest a car with a fabricated duplicate.
ShelbyRacer
New member
Right, but you're not the only person out there. I know a great many IT drivers who would protest that if I was finishing in front of them. It only matters what the worst-case scenario interpretation is. In this case, it sucks bigtime.
On the weight thing, I'll concede, BUT we all have minimum weights. If that helps me get to my minimum, so what? Even if it's the matter of that 15 lbs getting moved down and back a foot, it means very little in the grand scheme of things. Sure, the little things add up, but this is only changing one thing at this point. You also make a distinction between carb and fuel injected cars, where I would say it's more a matter of model option availability. There are lots of cars (as mentioned above) that are wired for every concievable option. Why should they be penalized? This ain't Showroom Stock.
I almost wonder... If we went out and checked every harness out there, what percentage do you think have some runs of "wire" that are just insulation (the center conductor has been removed)?
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
But that's simply cheating, and rationalizing an allowance in the rules simply because someone will otherwise break them is counterproductive.
Look - the same arguments can get made for pretty much every step loosening the regulations: Safety, cost, ease of maintenance, availability or lack thereof, etc., etc., etc. At the end of the day, the line is drawn pretty arbitrarily between SS, IT, Prod, GT, and for that matter the formula and sports racing categories.
In order for the cost/benefit ratio to make sense, a change has to be universally a pretty good thing for the health of the category. Otherwise, every additional thing the rules allow us to change just creeps us farther down a road we pretty much can't travel backward on.
K
Look - the same arguments can get made for pretty much every step loosening the regulations: Safety, cost, ease of maintenance, availability or lack thereof, etc., etc., etc. At the end of the day, the line is drawn pretty arbitrarily between SS, IT, Prod, GT, and for that matter the formula and sports racing categories.
In order for the cost/benefit ratio to make sense, a change has to be universally a pretty good thing for the health of the category. Otherwise, every additional thing the rules allow us to change just creeps us farther down a road we pretty much can't travel backward on.
K
No kidding! You brought back bad memories of an electronics lab in college where I had to create this complex logic circuit for a street signal controller. A simple 4 way intersection with some kind of "J/K flip-flop" circuits utilizing some AND/NAND/OR/NOR gate chips---hell I don't remember. All I know is this breadboard with these chips and a rats nest of wiring all over the place was incredibly complex looking no matter how neat I tried to make it (important for troubleshooting purposes when it doesn't do what it is supposed to the third time you do it). When all was said and done, I am the first one in class to get it to work (most gave up before going postal). The professor holds up this little chip saying this thing does the same thing that circuit and all those chips and wires does in this neat little package.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
There is a provision for repairs. That is all that is necessary.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
lateapex911
Super Moderator
If you know that many guys who are so protest happy, you must race in a differrent world than the guys I know. Protests, to the best of my knowledge, are pretty rare considering the number of legitimate illegalities I see.....
I highly doubt guys are going to protest a well intentioned repair.
I think guys SHOULD protest obvious and flagrant violations involving missing wire harneses etc., but doubt I'll ever witness one...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Bill Miller
New member
As evidenced by the ECU rule. I think you'll get differing opinions about it being good for the overall health of the category, as well.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
dickita15
New member
there was a provision to work around the no coilover rule as well, why did we change it. I think it was because it was now cheaper and easier to use real coilovers and the end result in performance was the same.
there was not a very good reason to make people jump thru extra hoops to get to the same end.
dick
Ron Earp
Administrator
I think the rule needs to be re-visited. Clearly, the ECUs are allowed to be changed and an ECU is simply a three dimensional multiplanar wiring harness with more feet-wire than the rest of the harness in the car. I'll be happy to explain this to anyone who doesn't understand Seimens and Motorola ECUs (used in many cars) and their construction.
Simplicty is a good reason to change something. I mean, I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.
Geo, the repair situation does not cover all instances. I'm basically going to have a 100% legal car, except for the wiring forward of the firewall. The sad thing is that nobody will care what I do, until I start beating them (big if there). If I consistently get the car to run up front then all of a sudden people will become "interested" in looking at my car. I just went to the graphics place the other day to get things made for my car, maybe I should also include some 4" block type "I'm illegal - are you?" banners for the car.
Seriously, what would relaxing the harness rule do? I can think of numerous positive aspects:
*Allow older cars to run safely - older Brit/German cars have an inclination toward FIRE. FIRE bad. Lucas, The Price of Darkness, still lives in my chassis. His offspring lives in many of yours. We could banish him from my car and others allowing safer and more reliable cars.
*Increase the number of available IT race cars. Fire damaged cars could be used since they could then be wired for racing without a lot of cost.
*Make race preparation easier - lord knows there are enough things to deal with. We don't need to be worrying about "is that an original or OEM type wire carrying those electrons?"
*Simplify cars for troubleshooting. I imagine newer cars could really benefit here.
*Cars could still maintain "street functionality" in case we're still working under the guise of these cars being "street cars on the track". Not sure why we keep that guise up when I see people pull up in tractor trailers for IT racing and set up a mini-shop in the paddock, but what the hell.
*Possibily add a couple of cars to the field. Every tiny thing done to make it easier to race and get a car on track helps us all out by bringing new people to the Secret, uhoh, I mean SCCA.
And, the negative things about relaxing the harness rule?
Only thing I hear from people is something call "rules creep", which I don't fully understand. Where are we creeping to? Seems to me if we SIMPLIFY the harness rule we are reducing the number of rules we have to worry about to race our cars.
IT racing is, as I understand it, the lowest level of racing in the SCCA. It should be simple, the cars should be simple, the rules should be simple to understand, and even better - the reasoning behind the rules should be simple to understand. In this case I feel the reasoning for the rule is flawed and furthermore not simple to understand.
Ron
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 22, 2004).]
Simplicty is a good reason to change something. I mean, I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.
Geo, the repair situation does not cover all instances. I'm basically going to have a 100% legal car, except for the wiring forward of the firewall. The sad thing is that nobody will care what I do, until I start beating them (big if there). If I consistently get the car to run up front then all of a sudden people will become "interested" in looking at my car. I just went to the graphics place the other day to get things made for my car, maybe I should also include some 4" block type "I'm illegal - are you?" banners for the car.
Seriously, what would relaxing the harness rule do? I can think of numerous positive aspects:
*Allow older cars to run safely - older Brit/German cars have an inclination toward FIRE. FIRE bad. Lucas, The Price of Darkness, still lives in my chassis. His offspring lives in many of yours. We could banish him from my car and others allowing safer and more reliable cars.
*Increase the number of available IT race cars. Fire damaged cars could be used since they could then be wired for racing without a lot of cost.
*Make race preparation easier - lord knows there are enough things to deal with. We don't need to be worrying about "is that an original or OEM type wire carrying those electrons?"
*Simplify cars for troubleshooting. I imagine newer cars could really benefit here.
*Cars could still maintain "street functionality" in case we're still working under the guise of these cars being "street cars on the track". Not sure why we keep that guise up when I see people pull up in tractor trailers for IT racing and set up a mini-shop in the paddock, but what the hell.
*Possibily add a couple of cars to the field. Every tiny thing done to make it easier to race and get a car on track helps us all out by bringing new people to the Secret, uhoh, I mean SCCA.
And, the negative things about relaxing the harness rule?
Only thing I hear from people is something call "rules creep", which I don't fully understand. Where are we creeping to? Seems to me if we SIMPLIFY the harness rule we are reducing the number of rules we have to worry about to race our cars.
IT racing is, as I understand it, the lowest level of racing in the SCCA. It should be simple, the cars should be simple, the rules should be simple to understand, and even better - the reasoning behind the rules should be simple to understand. In this case I feel the reasoning for the rule is flawed and furthermore not simple to understand.
Ron
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 22, 2004).]
All valid points but they move forward from the presumption that something is actively being "done" to the harness - in your case, bringing it back from the dead.
If you take the same question and assume that the default setting is that the original one is there - and stays there - there is no simpler rule, or cheap answer, than "don't do anything to it."
Taken to a logical conclusion (not hyperbolic, even) the simplest rule is "you can to anything you want." That does NOT result in simple cars however, even if it is dead easy to understand and enforcement is a non-issue.
My point about "good for the category" requires that rules changes be considered in the context within which most IT cars are built.
There's no secret that I'm an Anti-creeper but it's also clear that one man's "rules creep" is another's "progress." It just depends on our perspectives. Since I joined the secret club in 1979, I've seen numerous examples of creep resulting in revolution:
** Clever rules interpretations and rising costs drive Production participation down, until someone calls a Mulligan and we essentially start over with LP cars.
** Showroom stock cars get faster and faster, to the point that current C cars are faster than A cars used to be. Trunk kits seem like a good idea until escalation wars set in and they are legislated out in one fell swoop.
** T1 cars get faster ever year until someone decides that the category needs a complete overhaul because performance of the cars has evolved too far beyond the capacity of IT-type safety rules.(Hasn't happened yet, my guess is this becomes an issue before 2008.)
** Some regions have started "Showroom" Spec Miata because the national SM rules evolved beyond what some folks wanted to see - and that's essentially a brand new class.
I really like Dick's coyote/roadrunner parable: If we catch the bird, the cartoon has to end. If we open up another rule, we are one step closer to killing the bird, HOWEVER small that step might be. We need to be very sure that there is an overwhelming benefit to that move.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 22, 2004).]