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

"I could have SWORN I was shooting the breeze with a Volvo guy, and we were talking ECUs...and I really thought I saw a stock vacuum line running to the ECU box...

So, if thats the case, he's good to go, right?" Jake Gulick, about 3 pages back.

As pointed out previously: how can you get a vacuum liine through an un-modified ECU case without violating the current rule? Clearly it constiutes a modification to the case and clearly it's illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, phil. [/b]
Click to expand...

Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case.

It's another part of the "luck of the draw" when it comes to picking a car to race under the current rule.

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it's a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.
 
Jake: all ECUs are installed in tightly sealed cases. There never was an original vacuum line to the Volvo ECU and there is no legal way to install one. phil
 
Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case.

It's another part of the "luck of the draw" when it comes to picking a car to race under the current rule.

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it's a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Naahh... the horse is still in the barn. Sounds like someone in this particular case left the door open though. :D

For damned sure, there ain't no stock vacuum line that runs to the D-Jet computer. Also, I've seen multiple examples of these ancient devices, and I've never seen one with a hole in the case, never mind one large enough to allow a vacuum line through.
 
"Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case."

Jake, where are you getting all this sensor business? How are sensors free when it expressly says that the addition of sensors outside the ECU box is not permitted? The Rule clearly contemplates that the only connection to the ECU is the "stock (unmodified) wiring harness." I just do not see any allowance to run a connection from an albeit stock sensor into the ECU box other than via the unmodified harness. And it's a "wiring" harness - nothing about any vacuum lines. Moreover, gauges and their necessary sensors/sending units can be added to monitor engine operation and perhaps other things like wheelspeed but no where do I see where it says they can be adjustable on the fly or wired into the ECU. Maybe I'm missing something (and I apologize if so) but I think you are far afield here.
 
Well, my reading of the rule describes things as you say, and thats probably what the rulesmakers wanted.

Now maybe my info is wrong, but IF there are ways of getting things into the ECU case, then you are free to do whatever you want. So I can see scenarios where it could be possible.
 
Jake-Nat called me today. What he actually did was run a throttle linkeage setup for an automatic vehicle and run the throttle cable that normally gives throttle position info to the automatic trans into the ECU to a TPS inside the box. Ingenius I agree. Legal? Reasonable men could argue it both ways. In the spirit of IT??
Well, I was a "Volvo From Hell" once too, and the way the D Jetronic wiring hrness and plug mates to the ECM, it may be possible to get the cable thru without cutting the box. phil
 
Jake, I don't understand your reply:

"Well, my reading of the rule describes things as you say, and thats probably what the rulesmakers wanted."

This sounds like we agree, but ...

"Now maybe my info is wrong, but IF there are ways of getting things into the ECU case, then you are free to do whatever you want. So I can see scenarios where it could be possible."

this sounds like you don't.

Are you being devil's advocate or do you actually read the rules to allow you to connect "things" to the ECU that are not connected in a stock setup and/or are not connected via the unmodified stock harness? If so, where do you get that? I just don't see it. If I were a steward and someone told me that they ran such a "thing" into the ECU because there happened to be a vent hole in the ECU box, they would walk away w/ a DQ, suspension, and points. Sounds like you are saying that if there is a way to cheat then it's not cheating. :blink:
 
What I'm saying is that it's bit grayer.

- IF there is room inside the case, you are free to replace the entire ECU.
- That new ECU may have sensors incorporated in it.
- IF the ECU box has openings, there may be items on the stock car that could be attached.
- Some ECUs are connected in different ways than others. That can allow some creative options.

(I've talked to lots of folks on this, and guys who have stock systems can see ways to do this stuff, and make a good case for it being legal. Others read the rule and think it's not, or shouldn't be.)

Now, I can see the Stewards debating on situations that could arise, and I can see both sides to the issue. Fact is that there are situations where it could be legal, and situations where it might not be.

Basically, allowing the replacement of the entire ECU in the box creates a whole host of issues. If we're going to allow that, then we should allow it. If we're not, then we should be clear that we're not.
 
Life is circular: When I built my 4dr Volvo in 91, I wanted to take advantage of the rules to sit as far back as possible. Steering wheels and gearshift knobs were free so my hub became 14" long and my knob 8".
The then current rule stated that you could modify the external throttle linkeage to the standard or optional carbertetor(s), so I asked fuel injection to be included under errors and omissions and it was done at once!...And my accelerator pedal got moved back 6". A tech inspector protested my "rear drive" setup (I could pay tolls out the rear window) and the stewards court found the car illegal, I appealed, and national reversed.
Based on precedence (I know, I know!) the existence of Nat's throttle cable is legal-he's halfway home now. Proving that getting it into the ECU is allowed? Your guess is as good as mine, but pushing the rules to the limit I consider to be the mark of a true competitive driver. phil
 
Boy this thing grew while I was at Daytona. I just can't wait to buy the hardware, software, and associated devices needed to connect to a stock computer and burn a new chip every time I change something on the car. This will save tons of money over opening up the laptop and reading the sensors real time and pushing a button. :rolleyes: Joes arguement about the cost of a backup unit is total BS--we carry a spare stock one now--big cost. Might not be as fast but just as cheap as his new rule. It takes the same time and effort to have someone program a Motec/AEM/etc as it does to find the one guru that has cracked the code for your model. And yes--I have actually done this before you ask. This is supposed to be better that we all have to go to "The Guy" that has the crack? Doesn't fly as a cheaper alternative. It is no harder to go to the tuners that have the alternate ECU than it is the chip burner only now I can adjust for free. Data logging is a whole lot better and cheaper than 10 dyno visits. You can write all the rules you like to restrict the stock ECU to chipping or daughter boards and I promise we will go around it before the ink is dry and do it legal. This pipe dream that you will save all IT racers money is just that, a pipe dream. Money will be spent in every class to gain an advantage and that is part of the sport. If some are too lazy to put the time and effort in to go fast they can be happy with what they have--no problem. Some of us are willing to do the work needed to win. It will never be equal as some will do the testing and engineering to win. Joe has provided a ton of very useful and accurate information to this discussion, I just disagree with his conclusions.
 
You can buy a chip burner for $150, chip @$4 each. Cary a laptop and you're all set to edit files (tune chips) anywhere. You need to know what area of the file to edit-yeah, thats a problem to solve, but if you get into basic chip tuning logic, it's not so impossible (ask me how I know). And with data acq you can achieve a near perfect tune. In the old days, you could port your own head, or take it to a pro that had experience and a flowbench (today, a chip tuner). Today the situations similar, but the tools to learn and do your own chips is much cheaper than a flowbench. phil

What does Andy say? The only time sucess is before work is in the dictionary?
 
If some are too lazy to put the time and effort in to go fast they can be happy with what they have--no problem. Some of us are willing to do the work needed to win. It will never be equal as some will do the testing and engineering to win.
[/b]
Click to expand...

get over yourself. this comment is more than a little insulting, as it implies that those of use who don't have 100% max builds are lazy. actually, it's not even implied, you just come right out and say it.

just because you have more disposable income to waste on this rediculous hobby doesn't mean you work any harder than i do.
 
Based on precedence (I know, I know!) the existence of Nat's throttle cable is legal-he's halfway home now. Proving that getting it into the ECU is allowed? Your guess is as good as mine, but pushing the rules to the limit I consider to be the mark of a true competitive driver. phil
[/b]
Click to expand...

Naahh... we need to make a distinction here. That may be the mark of a true competitive car builder/entrant, but it is not the mark of a true competitive driver. In most cases, the mark of a competitive driver is to be so without spending what may end up being thousands of dollars to electronically squeeze the last few horsepower out of an engine. (I realize that in many cases, we're talking the same guy here... builder/entrant/driver.) But my point would be that most drivers at the SCCA amateur level are going to get outrun anyway, tricked up ECU or no, because they don't drive very well.

From a larger perspective, based on this very informative thread, it is painfully obvious that any rewording of the current rule is simply going to result in the possibility of tons of additional money being spent, as a class... again.

Put the genie back in the bottle, go back to stock ECU's. If some individuals have already spent big bucks taking advantage of the current rules, too damned bad. They'll just have to get over it... see Travis' comment WRT disposable income... I agree completely.
 
get over yourself. this comment is more than a little insulting, as it implies that those of use who don't have 100% max builds are lazy. actually, it's not even implied, you just come right out and say it.

just because you have more disposable income to waste on this rediculous hobby doesn't mean you work any harder than i do.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around. I built my car in 1998 and still race it today. I would call it 99% at this point with more labor than money. I worked races for Speedsource all this time to help pay for the upgrades. You can make your own decision on how dedicated you want to be. No disrespect intended.
 
Put the genie back in the bottle, go back to stock ECU's. If some individuals have already spent big bucks taking advantage of the current rules, too damned bad. They'll just have to get over it... see Travis' comment WRT disposable income... I agree completely.

[/b]
Click to expand...

You do realize the implications of going back to stock, don't you?

Increasingly, the ramifications of increased whole car control systems will eliminate cars in the ITCS from racing, as rev limiters, speed limiters, traction controls, stability controls and who knows what else rear their heads. Is that what you want? Newer cars to be essentially banned? And what of old cars with ECUs that even stock are unreliable and impossible to find/replace? Do you really think stock is enforceable? (not that that should matter, because nobody cheats....)


........... It takes the same time and effort to have someone program a Motec/AEM/etc as it does to find the one guru that has cracked the code for your model. And yes--I have actually done this before you ask. This is supposed to be better that we all have to go to "The Guy" that has the crack? Doesn't fly as a cheaper alternative............ [/b]
Click to expand...


I agree with this in certain circumstances. Of course, in other circumstances, you cna buy a chip for very little, and in yet other circumstances it's impossible.

And many of us won't have to go to anyone to do their aftermarket system as the applications included eliminate the need to understand and write code....so in many cases an open rule would give the option of being your own tuner, and needing to rely on nobody, but having a manufacturer and the net as your support structure. And for less $ in many cases.
 
You do realize the implications of going back to stock, don't you?

Increasingly, the ramifications of increased whole car control systems will eliminate cars in the ITCS from racing, as rev limiters, speed limiters, traction controls, stability controls and who knows what else rear their heads. Is that what you want? Newer cars to be essentially banned? And what of old cars with ECUs that even stock are unreliable and impossible to find/replace? Do you really think stock is enforceable? (not that that should matter, because nobody cheats....)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes.. I do realize the implications. But I look at the systems you mention (rev limiters, traction controls, etc) in an altogether different light. Some of them might make a car faster, some of them might make it slower... exactly the same situation we have already. It's part of the IT classificaton philosophy for Pete's sake, spelled out very clearly in the introduction paragraphs of the category specificaton.

Newer cars, with appropriate adjustments to the current ruleset (allowing originally-equipped ABS, for instance) will NOT be essentially banned. It's simply another one of those "makes it faster" or "makes it slower" things, for which we already have a process.

Older cars will NOT have a problem with ECU's becoming impossible to find/replace. If that were the case, all us dummies running 1971 Bosch D-Jet FI systems would already be screaming. And besides, if they do become unsupportable, so what? Let them die a natural death.
 
see, I think ab bit more theoretically, or categoricallly. Suppose some car has a speed limiter. You say class accordingly. So a car that has ITA level HP should be classed in ITC because it has a speed limiter at 100mph?? That'd make some pretty goofy racing, eh? And lets not say thats a BS example, because the situation might not exist NOW...the rules need to be forward thinking, don't you think?

And yes, I am fully aware of the "no guarantee" clause.....but I for one think thats not a very good reason to do a crappy job with the rules and classing. Just because it says that nothings perfect doesn't mean we can't strive to make it the best it can be...........
 
Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around. I built my car in 1998 and still race it today. I would call it 99% at this point with more labor than money. I worked races for Speedsource all this time to help pay for the upgrades. You can make your own decision on how dedicated you want to be. No disrespect intended.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Steve, I appreciate your point on this, My point has little to do with the cost VS benefit ratio to any competitor. It has more to do with where we draw the line at what 100% is. My belief is 100% should not require the investment of 5k for a motec system to be competitive. Some will try to argue that the megasquirt blah blah are just as competitive as the Motec and that mayb true after you buy all the needed parts to make it that way and you still end up at 5k. IT has always been a place where the top 100% is not out of reach to the guy that can afford 85% and stay in the same lap with the competition. I would contend that the more we add to the 100% end of the class the further apart 85% and 100% become and that's what kills particaipation in a class.
 
Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around.
[/b]
Click to expand...

huh? how is it even possible to force you to do less than a 100% build?
 
Steve, I appreciate your point on this, My point has little to do with the cost VS benefit ratio to any competitor. It has more to do with where we draw the line at what 100% is. My belief is 100% should not require the investment of 5k for a motec system to be competitive. Some will try to argue that the megasquirt blah blah are just as competitive as the Motec and that mayb true after you buy all the needed parts to make it that way and you still end up at 5k. IT has always been a place where the top 100% is not out of reach to the guy that can afford 85% and stay in the same lap with the competition. I would contend that the more we add to the 100% end of the class the further apart 85% and 100% become and that's what kills particaipation in a class.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Fair enough Joe. I just do not see that you will force anyone to buy the Motec or any other ECU if the chipped unit is just as good. I just do not want to be forced to go either route. A little choice will actually help cost. I think the ECU is the least of the high cost items in an IT car that seperate 85 and 100 percent. Tires, motor, and shocks will do more to widen the gap than any other items and there is no way to contain those costs. See the southeast spec tire rules. People just buy new shaved to 2/32 tires for every session. Show me a cost savings? The cars that have to use the $10,000 Motec were $50,000 to start with and are out of reach for the entry level guys anyway. Pieces of these cars are still very expensive. There are plenty of places for the lower dollar racers to run very competitive without spending a small fortune. As speed goes up, so does money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top