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

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. [/b]
Click to expand...
Yes I am, if that's what the majority believes is in the best interest of the class. And that's not to say this isn't a big deal; it is, but if a mistake was made in the writing of the original rule then it needs to be corrected, regardless of what it's going to cost people. That's one of the risks involved in this sport.

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)? [/b]
Click to expand...
As Dan pointed out, there will always be those who have the resources and knowledge to push the boundries, no matter how you write the rules. We can't let that dictate where we are going to set the limits.

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"? [/b]
Click to expand...
Aren't they in that situation now? Is the point of this exercise to try and write an entirely new ECU rule that makes it possible for everyone to play, or to attempt to correct a mistake that was made in the writing of the original rule?

I agree with Andy; anything this side of adding extra wires/sensors is fine with me. It seems like from the very small sample we've seen here the prevailing sentiment is to go back to a reflash/chip/daughterboard(?) rule, which I agree sounds most like what the original rule was intended to allow. It would be interesting to know what the majority of the IT crowd thinks.
 
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[/b]
Click to expand...

Dan, that's correct. Limiting the harness and the sensors adds complexity and time to the installation, and can limit the available choices. Some aftermarket systems need a certain type of sensor(s), while others are more adapatable.

The most common issue, to my understanding is the use of TPS and MAP sensors. Some cars don't have one or the other, and some aftermarket systems are easier to install, or require specific sensors.

I haven't had it explained to me how substituting one TPS over another will increase performance, (nor have I heard any explanation of a documentable performace increase when swapping a TPS for a MAP sensor.)

I would be interesed in more comprehsive information regarding that.
 
(lateapex911)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"? [/b]
Click to expand...



(DJ10)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.
Click to expand...
[/b]
Thats an interesting point regarding the comments I have read about open ECUs being more like production. Initially, I thought that too, but I think the opposite is actually true.

A rule requiring the reflash/chip solution is, as we've seen in the other thread, a bit of a project for some in certain cars, and beyond the scope of a good number of racers. To me, hacking and wrting code with emulators and scopes and such seems to me an awful lot like Prod to me...basically, you're making your own stuff. Becoming the industry expert for your oddball....Bolt on? Not in some cases.

But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn't eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes.
 
A rule requiring the reflash/chip solution is, as we've seen in the other thread, a bit of a project for some in certain cars, and beyond the scope of a good number of racers. To me, hacking and wrting code with emulators and scopes and such seems to me an awful lot like Prod to me...basically, you're making your own stuff. Becoming the industry expert for your oddball....Bolt on? Not in some cases.

But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn't eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes. [/b]
Click to expand...



Jake, I just spoke to a guy who I literally ran into (by accident) @ WGI last year. We talked about obd2 cars and how hard they are to remove things like traction control and to modify. Makes me realize how fortunate I am with a obd1 for now. With more and more people going to move new cars into racing I ask you, how is racing going to accommodate these newer cars whith what I see only getting harder and harder to tune and take off features which are against IT philosophy?? I believe the answer is simple, equalize the playing field for all. Allow us the EM Systems so pretty much everyone is on the same plain.

Dan
 
One point that I've not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU's are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT's rules but Touring's stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.

Jake,

It's the same as the replacement carburetors. Sure given enough talent and modifications you could adjust the mixture in a smog carburetor. But IT allows for the wholesale replacement of these with approved aftermarket carburetors that has a wide knoledge base on how to adjust them. Do we make odd ball owners resposeable for tinkering their own solution, do they have to contact maybe the single person in the nation that can maybe hack their stock ECU, or can they buy a kit and bolt on what they need. The knoledge base is much wider for replacement ECU's when compaired to some of the stock units, especially if it's an odd-ball. Keep the words simple, set the ECU, sensors and wiring free!

James
 
One point that I've not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU's are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT's rules but Touring's stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Maybe someday, but for now, T3 (the slowest Touring class) has some cars that might fit into ITR, but the other touring classes are just too fast for IT. For now, the real source of IT cars is Showroom Stock, and Showroom Stock doesn't allow replacement ECUs of any sort.

BTW, I'm in favor of trying to rewrite the rule to meet the original intent (maybe even writing the intent in the book, to give stewards something to go on.)
 
One point that I've not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU's are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT's rules but Touring's stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.

Jake,

It's the same as the replacement carburetors. Sure given enough talent and modifications you could adjust the mixture in a smog carburetor. But IT allows for the wholesale replacement of these with approved aftermarket carburetors that has a wide knoledge base on how to adjust them. Do we make odd ball owners resposeable for tinkering their own solution, do they have to contact maybe the single person in the nation that can maybe hack their stock ECU, or can they buy a kit and bolt on what they need. The knoledge base is much wider for replacement ECU's when compaired to some of the stock units, especially if it's an odd-ball. Keep the words simple, set the ECU, sensors and wiring free!

James
[/b]
Click to expand...
2. The engine management computer or ECU may be altered, but not replaced. All modifications shall be done within the original housing. The car may meet federal emission standards, but shall provide OBD II compliant data to the data link connector.[/b]
Click to expand...

James you really need to read rules befpre you quote them. There is no replace in the Touring rules. and the car must feed the OBDII data through the service port to be legal. Next Touring is a completely different catagory and what IT does has no effect on the rules for touring.
 
But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn't eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes.
[/b]
Click to expand...

is it really a kit you bolt on though? a complete standalone system that you have to figure out how to get all of your sensors to talk to, and rewire everything going to the ECU. at this point you've still got a car that doesn't necessairly run. those oddball cars that don't have easy solutions for a chip/reflash won't have an easy solution for standalone EMS either. you'll be on your own.

off to the dyno you go....

think interpreting data acquisition is tough? i can only imagine making a car RUN, much less at its peak potential, starting from nothing and programming your own software will be much more difficult. this, or write someone a big check to do it for you. i don't see how this is any different from the situation with the oddball cars that don't have readily available chips.

that doesn't sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.
 
Joe,

If you're going to quote the rule you should also include the italics:

2. The engine management computer or ECU may be altered, but not replaced . All modifications shall be done within the original housing. The car may meet federal emission standards, but shall provide OBD II compliant data to the data link connector.

As of last years rules replacement was legal and happening, OBDII compliant data links weren't required. I guess this precludes someone from replacing their stock ecu with another stock ecu too.

Plug and Play, Baby!

Set the ECU, Sensors, and Wiring free!

ps. Joe, you should slow down typing, "befpre" you hit send, you might catch some of those fat finger moments.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Wrong again James I have been dealing with the ECU rules in touring for the last five years and they have always had to meet federal emmisions laws and those laws require that the car provide OBDII serial data..

It is the first sign that you are loosing an issue when you attack something stupid like fat finger issues. I could care less. I spent my days building cars and try to offer some actual fact to these arguments. The only reason you even care about anyof this is you bought a car that doesn't fit into any of these classes without modification and you would like to shoe horn it in. Well I could care less about your car or an investment in an ECU that was an exploitation of rule that was poorly written to begin with. You go ahead and have at it from here My letters are written and sent. I have offered folks help where they had none before with data and information. You on the other hand have brought nothing to the table but excuses as to why you can't do it.

PS in case you need the old rule here it is:
2. The engine management computer or ECU may be
altered provided that all modifications are done within the
original housing. Automobiles shall meet federal emission
standards.[/b]
Click to expand...

And there was no intent to miss the new part of the rule I cut it right from the 07 TCS
 
Listening to all these "issues" and "can'ts", "why we shouldn'ts', etc... It seems a miracle that any of these cars actually ever made it to the grocery store... :rolleyes:
 
is it really a kit you bolt on though? a complete standalone system that you have to figure out how to get all of your sensors to talk to, and rewire everything going to the ECU. at this point you've still got a car that doesn't necessairly run. ...that doesn't sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.[/b]
Click to expand...
Joe kind of made the point earlier, I think - we need to set free the expectation that we can make putting nth-degree tuning on an IT car with an off-the shelf part easy (read, "cheap") for every injected car in the ITCS. It just isn't going to happen regardless of the rules.

Someone who is willing to spend $10K on tuning under the current rules will still be willing to do so under different rules - regardless of whether they are grounded in "chip-only" or "anything goes" first principles.

Someone who runs a car that doesn't have economies of scale on their side in the aftermarket is going to have to break their own trail. STILL going to...

None of us will be OBLIGATED to do anything. I'd wager that, if you haven't spent $1000 on parts, software, experiments, and dyno time under the current regime, you aren't going to spend it on Megasquirt or whatever if/when the rules change. The good news is that, if you don't you also won't lose much - if anything - in relative competitiveness to others in your class, indexed to what they are already spending on this particular area of improvement.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that neither of the primary directions proposed here are enough better than what we have to warrant the transactional costs associated with changing the rule.

K
 
is it really a kit you bolt on though? a complete standalone system that you have to figure out how to get all of your sensors to talk to, and rewire everything going to the ECU. at this point you've still got a car that doesn't necessairly run. those oddball cars that don't have easy solutions for a chip/reflash won't have an easy solution for standalone EMS either. you'll be on your own.

off to the dyno you go....

think interpreting data acquisition is tough? i can only imagine making a car RUN, much less at its peak potential, starting from nothing and programming your own software will be much more difficult. this, or write someone a big check to do it for you. i don't see how this is any different from the situation with the oddball cars that don't have readily available chips.

that doesn't sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu's until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn't finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can't get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu's unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu's?

Dan
 
Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu's until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn't finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can't get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu's unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu's?

Dan
[/b]
Click to expand...
Bad argument Dan, At least with the factory system there is a chance to use a factory manual and scan to to correct the problem. Or you could actually run the car down tio a dealer.How are you going to resolve an issue with your motec at the track with no factory support? I am very curioous Dan, How many of these systems havfe you had hands on experience with? How much actual programming of a Motec,Haltec, AEM, Megasquirt, ect have you done. I am also curious in a effort to get full disclosure. Does your race car already have a Motec in the box that you are afraid to loose? Believe me if Turners guys couldn't figure it out they would have had just as much trouble with any aftermarket system out there.

edit: on a side note Dan, I am an AEM dealer I sell and program Motec. I am fully able to stick either in an OEM box. I could stand to make a boatload of money by doing all of these things. I believe IT is betteroff without this level of prep becoming a requirement to run up front. I am also of the belief that there are a great number of cars that will have to be moved if an open rule is created. imagine Dave Gran's Honda...ITB 2.0 liter with sequential injection and full timing maps with no rev-limiter. I am thinking it is now an ITA car, Dave now has to buy all new rims.
ITA 240sx, OPen up the rules and it will end up an ITS car how many guys are ready for that? These classes have a reasonable balance that will be disrupted by an open rule. And finally as has been stated and backed up by others The new technology is improving to the point that the OEM's are trying to grab every ounce of power out of the factory ECU and program that the gains or losses of a stock unit with be part of the classification process.
 
B I am also of the belief that there are a great number of cars that will have to be moved if an open rule is created. imagine Dave Gran's Honda...ITB 2.0 liter with sequential injection and full timing maps with no rev-limiter. I am thinking it is now an ITA car, Dave now has to buy all new rims.
ITA 240sx, Open up the rules and it will end up an ITS car how many guys are ready for that? . [/b]
Click to expand...

OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he's not about to pay for it. So, he's not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you're saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)


I'm curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?
 
OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he's not about to pay for it. So, he's not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you're saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)
I'm curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well Jake,
Open system, Daves car. were it to be shipped to me and a custom AEM system adapted under an open rule. It now has sequential FI with full ignition control mapped, Traction control with no sensors because you can't police it and what ever we want for a reve limit. I am not familiar enough with the early SI engine (but you know I could be if challenged) I would expect from what I have seen a 30 to 35 % maybe more gain from stock HP if my company were to do all the work including a full IT engine prep. SO how quickly does it move out of ITB.

240sx 3 valve as stated many times I have always felt less the stock MAF (which actually works as an SIR) the car can make ITS power and would be very competitive at that point if fully developed. I would have to sit down and really look at the book but I am thinking of a couple of others off the top of my head.

How about an open rule volvo 142? I have to think the gains would be fairly significant there? AT what point do we stop? once we screw up the balance do we give the carbs guys a similar adjustment with an open carb rule? I know we could drag a bunch of old 510 back to ITC if we gave them a pair of solexs?

I kjnow you want to try to make it sound like these things can be done now and some of them can. That is the biggest reason to go back to chipping the stock box. You are not going to add traction control to a box that it did not exist in already. If you could actually get a complete Motec on a chip don't you think Motec would just sell it that way? They would have a product that no one could rival. Imagine your whole system smaller that the credit card you bought it with. NOT AVALIABLE TODAY. The rule was dorked years ago and just needs to be fixe and nothing more. the obsoleted parts will be less in numbers than you are trying to make out. That technology can be used in Prod or Prepared so there is at least a market for those guys to recapture some if not all of their investment.

Finally I will ask you the same questions I asked Dan, How many of these plug and play systems you are so excited about have you personally installed and programed. How many Megasquirts have you actually built and sucessfully dynoed? How many stock EFI systems have you had experience with? ALl of this matters when making a recommendation to the CRB on this rule change because if the answer is none then you are relying on second hand information rather than first hand knowledge and i fear that's what has got us in the mess we are in now.
 
Well Jake,
Open system, Daves car. were it to be shipped to me and a custom AEM system adapted under an open rule. It now has sequential FI with full ignition control mapped, Traction control with no sensors because you can't police it and what ever we want for a reve limit. I am not familiar enough with the early SI engine (but you know I could be if challenged) I would expect from what I have seen a 30 to 35 % maybe more gain from stock HP if my company were to do all the work including a full IT engine prep. .[/b]
Click to expand...

Just so we understand, thats what you could do with an unrestricted open system. How much more is that over the current possibility of an unrestricted sytem in his box, assuming he could fit one and pay for it?

240sx 3 valve as stated many times I have always felt less the stock MAF (which actually works as an SIR) the car can make ITS power and would be very competitive at that point if fully developed. [/b]
Click to expand...

But nobody is talking about removing any MAFs, etc.

How about an open rule volvo 142? I have to think the gains would be fairly significant there? [/b]
Click to expand...

We have one running here in the NE that has a complete system in the stock box. Quite an ingenious setup. I will ask about his power result, but his on track performance hasn't shown any significant difference.

I kjnow you want to try to make it sound like these things can be done now and some of them can. [/b]
Click to expand...

Lets be clear here. I am not making it "sound as though some of these things can be dne"...I have only refereced items that I know ARE being done.

Finally I will ask you the same questions I asked Dan, How many of these .........have you had experience with? [/b]
Click to expand...

My role on the ITAC is to research and recommend. Some of my experience is more direct, some not. I avail myself of the knowledge of others with experience, such as yourself, whenever possible, whether I have direct experince in the matter or not. I feel that it is better to undersand all points as that gives you the clearest and biggest picture on any issue.
 
Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu's until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn't finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can't get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu's unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu's?

Dan
[/b]
Click to expand...

Listening to all these "issues" and "can'ts", "why we shouldn'ts', etc... It seems a miracle that any of these cars actually ever made it to the grocery store...
[/b]
Click to expand...

first off, i'm 26, grew up with PCs, and currently sit in front of one all day every day at work. second, i did everything on my car other than the cage, including building my own engine, so i'm not intimidated by DIY or trying something new.

second, if you go back to the original ECU thread jake created a couple months back, i was one of the first people to jump on the "open it up" bandwagon largely in part to the ECU issues new cars present, so i do understand and recognize the problems that might come up with new cars.

but those are problems we don't have just yet. you can't make a rule based on what MIGHT be, only on what currently is. how do we know that turner, speedsource, joe, etc won't figure out a way to do everything we need via chip or reflash only? now we just created a rule that opened up a whole mess of issues and caused a lot of people a ton of work for no reason. i think we'd be fools to guess how things turn out in the tuning market and what our ECU needs will be 10yrs from now.

i really think we need to wait a year to see what ECU issues show up in all the new ITR cars before we make a change.

i'm curious, what was turner having problems with on their ECU under touring rules that they wouldn't have had under "open" rules? i watched that thing run with my own 2 eyes at the runoffs, and they had it figured out just fine, except for they hadn't figured out that toyos won't last a whole race. :D that is, if they were on toyos, i just assumed they were based on the whole car wearing huge toyo logos.
 
OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he's not about to pay for it. So, he's not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you're saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)
I'm curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?
[/b]
Click to expand...

This IS an interesting issue, since the ITAC has based some cars' race weights on their "not being able to reach the formula IT gain %" - or words to that effect. Or maybe it's a non-issue, if the current weights were all figured based on the POSSIBILITY that all FI cars could do Haltech-in-a-box kind of stuff, rather than on the different question of whether anyone was actually DOING it??

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top