ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!!

Air, fuel, spark,,,, so simple a concept, but so complex in practice?

IMHO there are a number of issues with ECU's in regards making one set of rules apply to all cases.

There are five instances of ECU progression in our cars:

No ECU
Pre-OBD ECU
OBD1 ECU
OBD2 ECU - Simple (circa 1996 > 2000?)
OBD2 ECU - Complex (and getting more so)

So what would Dave do?

D.1.a.6

a. Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the ECU's software programming.

b. In all fuel injected cars the programming must be routed through the stock, unmodified, motherboard connector to which the stock program-containing electronic device is attached. A 'piggybacked' daughterboard meeting this requirement may be installed inside or outside of the ECU's housing and the housing modified to accommodate this.

c. No other modifications may be made to the ECU.

d. No modifications are permitted to the stock OEM ECU connector to the wiring harness.

e. The stock, unmodified, wiring harness must be used.

f. The stock, unmodified, sensors must be used to provide signals to the ECU except that the installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness.

g. The re-programmed ECU may not control any functions that were not controlled by the OEM ECU.

I think this covers most of the cars that are listed today, but it certainly is not good enough to deal with newer cars that use ecu(s) to control many systems, or one system much more finely. For those cars I would look at no ecu mods. Yes, I do mean limited prep IT,

Leaning Phil and Joe's way.

Dave Zaslow
 
Not bad, Dave - I think you gain some serious traction with b, if the intent is to maintain a "chip/flash" kind of intent.

K
 
Dan,

You won't see anything concrete for a few months unfortunately. Hopefully, this will hit the next Fast Track for member comment, the letters will roll in and then it will get sent to the CRB. Hopefully the CRB will act but since it's a rule change, it may have to go to the BoD and hit for 2008. I am not sure on that one but that is how I think any change will happen.

Remember, there are guys on the ITAC with active programmable units, guys with the money spent but not active yet (me), and guys with nothing in the works. While we would all like the change (if there is one) to happen immediatetly, I am not sure it can. Since my money is tied up already, I am going to continue my development, run 2007 with a programmable unit and act per the rules in 2008. I WISH I was in your shoes right now.[/b]
Click to expand...



Andy,

I would really feel bad for the guys you are trying to stuff their ecu box with a ems and spending more money than they need to because of the the new rule change which in my book is inevitable. I do hope your wrong on the time frame because the longer this drags out, the more time and money will be wasted for some. I also believe we will have the ecu opened up so your developmental work on your ems will not be in vain, IMO. Yes, I do believe being in the new ITR class will have some advantages, one is not having to run the SIR. :D

Dan
 
My preference FWIW is for Andy's proposal, which is closest to what I think was the original intent and to the Class Philosophy (and similar to my suggestion - great minds..., you know :-)) as long as it if fair and enforceable. Otherwise, I cast my lot w/ Steve E. As to the guys who have already spent a bundle on X-in-a-box, is it feasible to allow them to keep them w/ a weight penalty? That might lessen the legitimate "we-been-done-wrong" objections.
 
I would suggest to those of you that would like to see the rule fixed and allow chipping ect. that you don't wait to vice your oppinion to the CRB. Write your letters of opposition to an OPEN rule today. There is no reason for the ADHOC or the CRB to waste any further time on aan open rule if enough people are against. it. Write to [email protected] and do it today. it looks like in the other thread that the number of cars that actually can't make adjustments to the stock box with some minor allowances are pretty small and even those i believe could be rechipped on the stock board.
 
it looks like in the other thread that the number of cars that actually can't make adjustments to the stock box with some minor allowances are pretty small and even those i believe could be rechipped on the stock board.
[/b]
Click to expand...

There is no compilation on the other thread, pretty worthless actually.

While I don't disagree that the stock systems are probably the way to go, I do think that if the ECU rule is opened it needs to be done so to include all wiring and sensors/output devices, in order to promote economical tuning, which I admit is an oxymoron when your talking about any sort of ground up EFI system. I have written my letter.
I also feel compelled to note my feelings that some in this thread are vehemently defending their position to the point of insult, it seems to me that is an attempt to hold onto what they perceive as their singular precious advantage, threatened by this issue. So while considering your view on this, free yourself from the scare tactics and unfounded hypothesis.
 
b. In all fuel injected cars the programming must be routed through the stock, unmodified, motherboard connector to which the stock program-containing electronic device is attached. A 'piggybacked' daughterboard meeting this requirement may be installed inside or outside of the ECU's housing and the housing modified to accommodate this.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Just checking this: the assumption, apparently, is that the stock harness could feed a Motec, but the stock ECU's socket pins cannot, right? Because I could put the Motec in its own box, make this box's connector look like a chip, call it an "external, piggybacked daughterboard", and still have a Motec, right?

How does the ITAC feel about putting its intent directly in the book?
 
I think that the assumption is that by forcing any new hardware to attach to the pin locations of the original map memory chip (PROM, E-PROM, whatever-the-heck), and not allowing any other hardware to be changed, we are constrained by the original functionality - and importantly, INPUTS and OUTPUTS) - of the stock ECU.

I'm no EE but I THINK that's probably a reasonably safe basis to work from. It seems like tough sledding to fool the entire ECU through that one set of pins.

K
 
Just checking this: the assumption, apparently, is that the stock harness could feed a Motec, but the stock ECU's socket pins cannot, right? Because I could put the Motec in its own box, make this box's connector look like a chip, call it an "external, piggybacked daughterboard", and still have a Motec, right?

How does the ITAC feel about putting its intent directly in the book?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Isn't this what Vic Sias did to adapt a Tec III? Also, using the stock sensors still means using the latest and most expensive system and not taking advatage of second hand equiptment that's less able to talk stock sensor.

James
 
I think that the assumption is that by forcing any new hardware to attach to the pin locations of the original map memory chip (PROM, E-PROM, whatever-the-heck), and not allowing any other hardware to be changed, we are constrained by the original functionality - and importantly, INPUTS and OUTPUTS) - of the stock ECU.

I'm no EE but I THINK that's probably a reasonably safe basis to work from. It seems like tough sledding to fool the entire ECU through that one set of pins.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

That was the intent of my proposal. I do not want IT to creep towards Production. I think that encouraging unlimited technological exploitation of the engine management system will degrade the competition in IT.

We all have investments in time, money and fabrication. We want to encourage others to make those investments as well so we can have more playmates in our sandbox.

IT is 'improved touring', not 'unlimited improved touring'. The constraints of our rules, tested against our driving skills, is what makes this a great class to race. Keeping those constraints keeps our class thriving. The ECU rule needs to change. It needs to change because the technology of the available cars has changed. How we manage that change needs to be done very carefully.

The conversation we are having here is terriffic. I would encourage all of those reading this topic to pop in with their points of view, or pose additional questions.

Dave Z
 
Isn't this what Vic Sias did to adapt a Tec III? Also, using the stock sensors still means using the latest and most expensive system and not taking advatage of second hand equiptment that's less able to talk stock sensor.

James
[/b]
Click to expand...

As has been posted several times. Megasquirt, the CHEAPEST aftermarket ecu system is fully configurable to accomodate your factory sensors. It does not even need a TPS, and can look at rate of change in MAP instead. It can run MAF or SD configuration. It can run any temperature sensor that is based on resistance change. It has a MAP sensor on the board, so if there is a vacuum line going to the ECU it has a MAP signal without adding any sensors to the intake tract.

It also comes in a super compact version designed for motorcycles. So, it could be made to work in lots of 'in the box' scenarios today. The system does require that you learn how everything works, but you need to learn that anyway if you are going to take full control of the engine and don't plan to blow it up.

Because of this I do not buy the position that if we allow aftermarket ECUs we have to open up sensors and wiring harnesses, or force people to buy very expensive systems.


Now after reading this long thread again, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of making the rule say what they meant it to say. I can see alternate chips fitting into the IT philosophy, arguably moreso that a 'bone stock' rule. Limit it to stock computers, alternate programming, alternate EPROM chips. If a specific car requires a 'daughter board' in order to install a chip, write it on the spec line, and be specific - brand X or Y, model a and b daughter boards are approved to facilitate ECU tuning. This will only happen if those racing the car provide sufficient data to the ITAC to justify the allowance, and to limit the allowance. The cars that cannot chip tune at all are old enough to not have checks and balances designed into the engine management to prevent us from tricking them to do what we want, so that is no biggie. Current technology cars can be flashed with no changes to the hardware so they will fit just fine. The codes can and have been cracked and it will be possible to put an IT tune into your Whatchamacallit's ECU.

The other function issues in new cars are other problems. They could probably be disabled in a new program, but I don't know how you control that. Just an idea, but maybe all of the speed sensors have to be tirggered from a single point that is directly coupled (not to a drive wheel that could be not spinning as the other wheel spins, and not to a front wheel) such as drive shaft, or rear end. Then they cannot detect wheel speed differences.
 
It has a MAP sensor on the board, so if there is a vacuum line going to the ECU it has a MAP signal without adding any sensors to the intake tract.
[/b]
Click to expand...

If there is no vacuum sensor will megasquirt run off of a TPS and a MAF? Can megasquirt run w/o a MAP, not even the one on the board?
 
I seem to remember some Porsche guys running Alpha-n in the low Rpm ranges, then segueing into other modes at higher revs, possibly due to intake pressure instability due to cams(?).


So, some folks here like the idea of a chip replacement/flash mentality. Just picking brains here.

You know that currently, the rule allows full ECU replacement, and that includes sensors (case by case)

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.

And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you're allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?

Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?

I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I'm interested to hear thoughts on those three items.
 
I don't know the extent, if any, that carb cars utilize ECUs or stand to gain from ECU mods, but has anyone noticed that there are actually 2 ECU rules? One is specifically for FI and has the words "or replace" - the other is a general rule, and thus applies to non-FI cars, and only allows you to "alter" the stock ECU in the box. This is another GCR anomaly that I doubt was intended.

No one ever answered my query about the objectives of a rule change. Can someone succinctly state why we need an ECU rule change? I'm not saying we don't - just that in my experience if you don't have a clearly defined objective you aren't likely to get a satisfying result.
 
No one ever answered my query about the objectives of a rule change. Can someone succinctly state why we need an ECU rule change? I'm not saying we don't - just that in my experience if you don't have a clearly defined objective you aren't likely to get a satisfying result. [/b]
Click to expand...

What about Jake's first post in the first thread?

As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don't think it's the best way to get there.

Aso, it jacks the cost up staggeringly, and is really counterproductive in regards to acheiving the prep levels that the process predicts these cars will acheive.

What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can't fit someting in the box...even at any price.

Now, I know the response to that will be, "Too bad, thats the way it is, you choose your horse and run your course."

But does it HAVE to be that way?

I think it's time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it's intent.

I submit that the intent is NOT to force people to spend 2 or 3 thou on a unit, then another 2 thou on the tuning, or to exclude certain cars because of build and fitment issues. And honestly, is the current rule REALLY effective in thwarting cheating?? (and that was the reasoning, IIRC)

Perhaps it's time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.

Keep the stock harness rule, the no additional sensors rule and so on, but allow people to acheive prep equity across the board, and to do so in a more reasonable manner.

Thoughts?[/b]
Click to expand...
 
I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.
Click to expand...
[/b]

I am one of those guys and I want what is best for the category. Does it suck? Yes.

And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you're allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?
Click to expand...
[/b]

I am. Every car has it's limitations. We deal with them.

Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?
Click to expand...
[/b]

This is the case with almost everything on the car. No off-the-shelf shocks available for your car? Develop them. No suitable rear sway bar? Develop them. No chip available for your car? Develop it! Somebody has to do it first. My Miata is one of teh most mainstreem cars on the track today. Guess what? Off-the-shelf stuff isn't good enough. I have a custom ECU in the works, one-off rear shocks and a custom rear sway bar and a fully adjustable front sway bar mounting bracket.. More to come in year 2. the best cars just don't get bolted together from a catalogue - period.
I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I'm interested to hear thoughts on those three items.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I could go either way. Open it up with stock harness and sensors or stuff it back in with chips and flashes only. I hope we get a ton of letters. Something WILL change.
 
I have been following this thread with great interest because this rule change is profound and far reaching. I have a solution I feel could make the most people happy and upset the current balance the least. The following is the rule as it stands now. My suggestion is to strike the ‘in the box’ verbiage as follows.

D.1.a.6
Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU<strike>, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing</strike>. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors,<strike> or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing</strike>. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.

I feel this is the best compromise for the following reasons: (not necessarily in order of importance)
From a rule writing point of view, the change is simple. We’ve not added more verbiage that could be misconstrue, twisted, interpreted or tortured anymore then is already being done. We’ve done so using less words. Secondly, this change would upset the current balance the least. The specs were recently realigned to bring more equality to the class with this rule in mind and changing this rule could require further tweaking of the specs. No car would receive an advantage that some cars don’t already enjoy. Thirdly, it accomplishes most goals of the proposed rule change. It reduces the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. It makes the technology available to every budget. Competitors that have invested in the old rule don’t loss their investment. It doesn’t rule out what the future may bring. It contributes to rules creep the least. Some models are hamstrung by small stock ECU boxes, this removes that inequality.
I feel this is a better solution then some of the other suggestions for the following reasons. Going back to ‘stock OEM ECU only’ is backwards thinking, unenforceable and could require further adjustment of the specs. Chipping, reflashing and remapping of the stock electronics marginalizes some competitors further. To make fair, it would require intimate knowledge of every model. Well financed teams would find a way to do anything they wanted anyhow. Making tuning changes could require special equipment and/or technical knowledge. One of the advantages of aftermarket ECUs is the ability to make changes using a laptop, PDA or built in interface. Tuning adjustments for track conditions and weather could be made at the track. (an advantage carb guys have always had) Opening up the rules to allow additional wiring and sensors could bring unintended consequences never imagined and would constitute vast rules creep. Enforcement of stock harness and sensors would be as easy as comparing with stock parts.
There are cheap, open source aftermarket ECUs that could be adapted to any electronically controlled fuel injection car currently competing (do your homework guys) The cheapest system available can use any sensors and can be assembled from parts for less then three hundred dollars. Using it is not simple, but neither is setting up your chassis. Technical prowess and deep pockets are always going to be an advantage.
 
You know that currently, the rule allows full ECU replacement, and that includes sensors (case by case)

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.



As I stated before, you did away with the very expensive shocks w/ reservoiurs, (I wasn't in ITS so it didn't pertain to me when you did it :D ) and pissed a lot of people off, but it was done. 2. It's not like they won't be able to use their stuffed ecu box. If you open up the ecu rule they will be able to keep and use what they have.

And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you're allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?



"Like now", Jake it's always going to be this way with no matter what rule you change or draft. In some degree someone willl be able to take advantage of something.



Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?



Staying with this atitude will hurt the most people. IMO, it's either back to the stock ecu with no daughter, mother or grandmother boards, or open up and allow the EMS to step in where most everyone can take advantage of this (getting cheaper all the time) technology. This is a far cry from production.



I do have one question (actuall there's two :D ), by limiting the open ecu but only allowing the stock connector, are we not limiting which ems we might be able to use as well as driving up the costs?

Dan



I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I'm interested to hear thoughts on those three items.
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top