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

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?
[/b]
Click to expand...
So those of us that have made the investment under the current rule and learned to program an ECU need to switch over and learn to burn chips and make yet another investment? It takes about five minutes reading the other thread about what cars are not easily chipped to see what a cluster that will become. Start over again just so we give the feeling we are going to save money. RR shocks come to mind and are now cheaper than the revalved units we run today. The market is there for cheap ECU setups that use stock sensors and will not run much more than your "chip of the day" units. I carry a laptop now and don't even need the $4 chip. I didn't even need a seperate data unit--it is built in. More dollars saved. We just see this different.
 
So those of us that have made the investment under the current rule and learned to program an ECU need to switch over and learn to burn chips and make yet another investment? It takes about five minutes reading the other thread about what cars are not easily chipped to see what a cluster that will become. Start over again just so we give the feeling we are going to save money.
[/b]
Click to expand...

QUOTE(seckerich @ Jan 30 2007, 04:33 PM)

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...

why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent?
 
huh? how is it even possible to force you to do less than a 100% build?
[/b]
Click to expand...
It is more about wanting others to pull back to a prep level they are comfortable with. The top bar moves all the time in every class and it should take 100% car and driver to win most of the time. As I said in my other post it takes time and money-period. I got my butt kicked for years before I got to a level I could win.
 
As speed goes up, so does money. [/b]
Click to expand...



Steve, this is an unfortunate truth, as well as good teams or good people with the most money win. It has been this way from the beginning. Example, if I have a budget of say, 10k for the year and you have twice that and can afford more & better tires, more dyno time, track time, etc. The chances your will beat me will be certaintly be in your favor. So even with a flashed ecu, if you spend 4k on dyno time the chances you will be able to squeeze more hp out of your engine and ecu than I will. The only inequity of the ECU rule right now is allowing the top money spenders to be allowed to stuff their ecu boxes for hugh sums of money that most of us either can't or refuse to spend. Like the old shock deal, this will be unfair to those who have spent the money. I'm for opening the ecu up but really don't care which way it goes as long as current ecu rule is changed. No matter how much money anyone has, we should be understanding enough with the rule writing not to slam any group of people. In the end the good drivers that have the money will probably still beat us,...........just not by as much. :D

Dan
 
why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent?
[/b]
Click to expand...
You know the intent of those who wrote this rule? Have you spoken to them? The rule is written and racers exploit it. That will always be the case.

Steve, this is an unfortunate truth, as well as good teams or good people with the most money win. It has been this way from the beginning. Example, if I have a budget of say, 10k for the year and you have twice that and can afford more & better tires, more dyno time, track time, etc. The chances your will beat me will be certaintly be in your favor. So even with a flashed ecu, if you spend 4k on dyno time the chances you will be able to squeeze more hp out of your engine and ecu than I will. The only inequity of the ECU rule right now is allowing the top money spenders to be allowed to stuff their ecu boxes for hugh sums of money that most of us either can't or refuse to spend. Like the old shock deal, this will be unfair to those who have spent the money. I'm for opening the ecu up but really don't care which way it goes as long as current ecu rule is changed. No matter how much money anyone has, we should be understanding enough with the rule writing not to slam any group of people. In the end the good drivers that have the money will probably still beat us,...........just not by as much. :D

Dan
[/b]
Click to expand...
Thats why I see the money deal in all this as a no brainer. You will make it cheaper if you do not need to stuff the box and you allow a cheaper ECU to be used that does not need a rocket scientist and $10,000 to install. You will save money if you do not have to defeat the factory code. I saw your latest times for Mid Ohio--you get the job done fine. :eclipsee_steering:
 
It's interesting.

People had dogs in a fight several years ago and got the rule written to accomodate their need (or budget or ulterior motive). Now we've got some different dog owners and things have the potential to change. If I was foolish enough to put Motec in a box and I could potentially be put out by a rule change, I'd just hold on to it. It seems likely it'll change again.

As an aside, I do believe the rules must "evolve", however we need to safeguard against the "moving target" rulebook. (ie ITS e36 (he says while ducking) or spherical bushings..errr...bearings....errr..... bushings- whatever the hell they're called!!)

.02

R
 
why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent? [/b]
Click to expand...

The rule says "Replace"...thats REALLY clear....how can the intent of the rule be anything different??? WHY would they allow you to replace the ECU if that wan't the intent? And if the original rule didn't include the word "replace" then why did the same group change it (5 YEARS ago) if they didn't want to allow open ECUs?

(I think that, probably, in the mid 90s when the whole ECU thing came up, that the idea was probably to allow the ECU guys the same tunability as the carb guys had....but, I wasn't there so I can't say, and then, MAYBE they thought that allowing just chip flashes wasn't working, so they thought they'd open it up for those who needed it, but who knows, it's one of the more dorked up rules in my book...)

My issue is that the "in the box" aspect forces HUGE inequities both competitively and financially on the category.

Either allow them or don't. Five years ago they decided to allow them. Horse is out the barn...so fine....allow them, but lets do it right if we're going to do it at all.
 
You know the intent of those who wrote this rule? Have you spoken to them?[/b]
Click to expand...
Before people get too riled up about this, the answer to that question is "absolutely." This rule was written in 2001, approved for 2002; that was only 5 years ago (and I've been in this game for over 20 now.) Although there was not an ITAC (as we know it now) at the time, a very large number of people on this board were part of the original thought process.

Prior to 2002 the ECUs were NOT open; the only thing you could do was changes input values via resistors. The true intent of the current rule was to allow folks to modify the factory ECUs for replacement chips, daughterboards, and the like. The unfortunate choice of words resulted in what we have today... - GA
 
As far as the original intent of the ECU rule - I don't know 100% but I am 99.9% sure it was to allow flashes and chips. The CRB at the time decided to get 'smart' with the words and it came back to bite us all in the ass. You will all soon be asked for your input on 3 choices: Status quo, back in the bottle or open it up.
[/b]
Click to expand...


It is more about wanting others to pull back to a prep level they are comfortable with. The top bar moves all the time in every class and it should take 100% car and driver to win most of the time. As I said in my other post it takes time and money-period. I got my butt kicked for years before I got to a level I could win.
[/b]
Click to expand...

nope.

i do believe that making it easier for the bottom to rise to the top is a better approach than bringing the top down as i have posted many times. it's why i support written allowances for B&B to SM motors. but that's not what this is about.

this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

can you sit there just the same with a laptop and constantly burn new chips/reflash? sure. but you can buy a chip with a good tune on it for 1/10th the cost of a standalone unit, not have to rewire your whole car, and be 90% of the way there to the guys who are sitting there fiddlefucking with their ECU.

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.
 
My issue is that the "in the box" aspect forces HUGE inequities both competitively and financially on the category.

Either allow them or don't. Five years ago they decided to allow them. Horse is out the barn...so fine....allow them, but lets do it right if we're going to do it at all. [/b]
Click to expand...



People, this is exactly what everything has boiled down to and everyone knows it! The existing ecu rule is what we called in the Marines, a "clusterfuc=". We have all have seen the arguements both pro & con for either opening up the ecu or going back to the stock boxes. Let the BS stop now and get the CRB to move on something so everyone hows what is going to happen. There are people wanting to build cars and get them ready for racing that can't because of this hold up on the ecu rule. Everyone should have sent their letters to the CRB by now.
 
Well, if all goes according to schedule, the CRB should have a document for your input published by 2/20.

The <strike>300</strike> 602 or so words (ask me how I know THAT!, LOL) are in their hands and should be in yours in about 3 weeks.

Read it over, and send in your comments.

It includes a preface to aid in understanding the ins and outs, of each option, as well as...gasp...... the intent.
 
this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

[/b]
Click to expand...

http://www.aempower.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ProductID=603

The installation of the AEM ECU on the 1990-1995 Mazda Miata uses the stock sensors and actuators. The base map is automatically installed in the calibrations directory in the AEMPro directory on your computer. It is named 1710.V01.00.CAL.

Here you go!
 
i'm waiting to see what it says in Fastrack first, as i'm guessing many others are. [/b]
Click to expand...

Hell, I sent my letter in 2 damn months ago. What's the matter? Don't you know what you want yet? I want them to know I want a change. I honestly don't care what's in fastrack now because it will not change my mind. How ever if I find out I can't get what I want, then I'll look at my options.
 
nope.

i do believe that making it easier for the bottom to rise to the top is a better approach than bringing the top down as i have posted many times. it's why i support written allowances for B&B to SM motors. but that's not what this is about.

this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

can you sit there just the same with a laptop and constantly burn new chips/reflash? sure. but you can buy a chip with a good tune on it for 1/10th the cost of a standalone unit, not have to rewire your whole car, and be 90% of the way there to the guys who are sitting there fiddlefucking with their ECU.

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Perfect. You can sit and flash chips and I can tune with my laptop and we can both be happy and get about the same performance. PS. This is all legal now so what is the problem? I agree with Dan--time to write the letter and move on.
 
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...........[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually Jake, it is a BS example. Even if you could show me a potential IT car today that has a 100 mph speed limiter in the ECU, it's 5 years before the car can even be considered for classification. This is not something that should sneak up and bite someone in the butt. As someone said, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. The key being that you have a minimum of 5 years to see the bridge coming. Now that's forward thinking.

But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.
 
But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Let me be perfectly clear on this. It ain't the your dad's SCCA. The ITAC is virtually split on this issue - and I believe that the CRB will go the way the ITAC goes. Well written letters WILL count. I am betting this will generate the most input from the members in a long while. And it SHOULD.
 
Actually Jake, it is a BS example. Even if you could show me a potential IT car today that has a 100 mph speed limiter in the ECU, it's 5 years before the car can even be considered for classification. This is not something that should sneak up and bite someone in the butt. As someone said, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. The key being that you have a minimum of 5 years to see the bridge coming. Now that's forward thinking.

But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about a current ITA car which the factory ECU has a limiter set at 108 mph(or is it 113...either way) ??And, this is currently one of the fastest ITA car classed. The Nissan 12 valve 240sx. If you are advocating 100% stock ecu's, then this guy doesn't throw away an ecu, he/she throws away the whole car, or goes to another class.
 
How about a current ITA car which the factory ECU has a limiter set at 108 mph(or is it 113...either way) ??And, this is currently one of the fastest ITA car classed. The Nissan 12 valve 240sx. If you are advocating 100% stock ecu's, then this guy doesn't throw away an ecu, he/she throws away the whole car, or goes to another class.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The speed limiter is easy to domp on a 12 valve car without touching the ECU and was fooled under the old rule with no issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top