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

Right...as Andy said, what you'll see in fastrack isn't a simple blow it by them it's already decided item....the ITAC and the CRB are genuinly interested in getting the feedback.

And I am a bit resentful that you're heaping on the "it will be whatever you want and I'll scream I told you so later" stuff....look at what I drive..and look at Andy's situation....do either of us have anything to gain by opening it up? Uh..no. If thats not an indication of openmindedness, then I can't help you.

We have our opinions, but neither of us has arrived at them though any route that includes self interests.
 
..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.

....

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.
[/b]
Click to expand...

If you can wire a few gauges, you can wire a new ECU. This isn't rocket science! I should know.

All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run.

As for spending a day at the Dyno. Yeah, sure if you've got a system that you've got to re-flash every time then you might spend a few days on the dyno. I almost made that mistake and had Tri-Point recreate my programming. Instead, I had Richard Clewitt at Clewitt Engineering install a new chip that makes my system on-the-fly programmable. The result was my system was tuned after 3 hours! I could change out my chip and re-dyno again a couple more times for what Tri-Point's estimate was.

Since the dawn of IT alternate carburetors have been the standard allowed modification. Just think of this as allowing an alternate digital carburetor. imho it is in IT's philosophy to allow alternate out of the box ECU's.

James
 
We have our opinions, but neither of us has arrived at them though any route that includes self interests.
[/b]
Click to expand...

If I left an the impression that this was being driven by self-interest amongst the ITAC or CRB, that was absolutely not my intention.
 
If you can wire a few gauges, you can wire a new ECU. This isn't rocket science! I should know.

All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run.

As for spending a day at the Dyno. Yeah, sure if you've got a system that you've got to re-flash every time then you might spend a few days on the dyno. I almost made that mistake and had Tri-Point recreate my programming. Instead, I had Richard Clewitt at Clewitt Engineering install a new chip that makes my system on-the-fly programmable. The result was my system was tuned after 3 hours! I could change out my chip and re-dyno again a couple more times for what Tri-Point's estimate was.

Since the dawn of IT alternate carburetors have been the standard allowed modification. Just think of this as allowing an alternate digital carburetor. imho it is in IT's philosophy to allow alternate out of the box ECU's.

James
[/b]
Click to expand...
Again James, How many systems have you installed....The statement I highlighted is 100% BS and if you had actually installed anything yourself you would know it. There is no presto chango instant HP deal on the market in raw form unless somebody already is building it and marketing it for one a specific model and even then they are charging for their time to develop it. The alternate carb deal is a BS argument also because even a stock unmodified ECU can do things a thousand times better than a toilet boil with metering holes. Please stop passing off bad information.
 
"All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run. "



Joe, This what I have also been told by a very reputable engine tuner. At least the system he sells has this built in.


"It ain't the your dad's SCCA"



Let's hope not, the last time I looked it is the 21st century! I'm wondering what it would cost to build balls out bmw club racer in JP? I'm also wondering how much people in NASA have spent on their suspensions (Moton, or Penske?) in GTS-2 since everything (including brakes, wheels, flywheels, clutches, ecu's) is open with the exception of the hp to wgt which is their limiting factor? All we are trying to do here is open up one thing, the ecu's. If you have a stock ecu and want it flashed, go ahead. Spend what you want where you want. If you decide you want to spring for a EMS, fine, do it. if it's legal, we won't be making much more hp than the guy who has their ecu flashed. The SCCA rules must allow for some improvements or it will wither and die.
 
"All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run. "
Joe, This what I have also been told by a very reputable engine tuner. At least the system he sells has this built in."It ain't the your dad's SCCA"



Let's hope not, the last time I looked it is the 21st century! I'm wondering what it would cost to build balls out bmw club racer in JP? I'm also wondering how much people in NASA have spent on their suspensions (Moton, or Penske?) in GTS-2 since everything (including brakes, wheels, flywheels, clutches, ecu's) is open with the exception of the hp to wgt which is their limiting factor? All we are trying to do here is open up one thing, the ecu's. If you have a stock ecu and want it flashed, go ahead. Spend what you want where you want. If you decide you want to spring for a EMS, fine, do it. if it's legal, we won't be making much more hp than the guy who has their ecu flashed. The SCCA rules must allow for some improvements or it will wither and die.
[/b]
Click to expand...
That's not all systems as stated. What system is your guy selling? Again I have offered first hand information on the systems I have actually installed and or worked with and or own.

And BTW, My AEM plug and play system is bitchen and their support is excellent but the thing would not climb the trailer door to go to the dyno when I first got it. I have 15 year of FI background and I still struggle with ever new system I take on. Anything can be learned by those that are willing but FI is not a plug it in magic bullet unless somebody like me starts selling complete programmed kit for specific application and use. I promise if I do that every bit of my time and dyno time will be paid for in the kit price.
 
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!
[/b]
Click to expand...

i admit, less than i thought.

here's the million dollar question (for me).

which one takes more of an investment (in both time and money) to extract 99% potential gain from? a standalone unit or a chip/reflash. start to finish, install, mapping, and tuning.
 
i admit, less than i thought.

here's the million dollar question (for me).

which one takes more of an investment (in both time and money) to extract 99% potential gain from? a standalone unit or a chip/reflash. start to finish, install, mapping, and tuning.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Travis, You are likely to have to have the standalone of that's the rule. It does not matter which one is likely to extract the most power because as have been stated. Once you open the rule up you raise the prep bar to that level. Flashing and chipping is a different prep level all together and it fits the philosophy of IT. AEM is probably the most bitchin ECM on the market as far as support. But I can promise you unless you are buying it from somebody that is mapping them for your specific use it is far from plug and play.
 
Again James, How many systems have you installed....The statement I highlighted is 100% BS and if you had actually installed anything yourself you would know it. There is no presto chango instant HP deal on the market in raw form unless somebody already is building it and marketing it for one a specific model and even then they are charging for their time to develop it. The alternate carb deal is a BS argument also because even a stock unmodified ECU can do things a thousand times better than a toilet boil with metering holes. Please stop passing off bad information.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I didn't say it'll make instant horse power without tuning. I said it'll start and run, maybe even not very well, but it'll do well enough to start tuning. The stock unmodified ECU only works well on a stock unmodified motor. When you take out the exhaust restriction, you have to tune for more fuel, when you run WOT again, you need more fuel. The stock system is set up to keep it at stoichometric, a race motor needs more fuel to survive. I'd rather have a toilet bowl I can adjust that a high-tech black box that I have to install with someone else's one size fit's all carb-legal code that I "hope" keeps my motor safe. While the ECU that I have is ideal for an opened rule, you're wrong in thinking that I'm advocating this position because of my car. My car needs a lot more work to become an ITR car than an ECU rule change. It only took 3 hours to tune it on the dyno, that's a fact and I've got the reciets to prove it.
 
I didn't say it'll make instant horse power without tuning. I said it'll start and run, maybe even not very well, but it'll do well enough to start tuning. The stock unmodified ECU only works well on a stock unmodified motor. When you take out the exhaust restriction, you have to tune for more fuel, when you run WOT again, you need more fuel. The stock system is set up to keep it at stoichometric, a race motor needs more fuel to survive. I'd rather have a toilet bowl I can adjust that a high-tech black box that I have to install with someone else's one size fit's all carb-legal code that I "hope" keeps my motor safe. While the ECU that I have is ideal for an opened rule, you're wrong in thinking that I'm advocating this position because of my car. My car needs a lot more work to become an ITR car than an ECU rule change. It only took 3 hours to tune it on the dyno, that's a fact and I've got the reciets to prove it.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Again James, HOW Many have you installed? Simple question? Again you are also wrong about the stock ecu. Most systems are in basic open loop during WOT and the systems that maintain control are typically to rich at WOT. Last an ECU tuned correctly will run very close to stoich all the way through the power curve and wants to be a little rich at the top. I would suggest before offering such great advise to a whole class of cars that you invest a bit of your own money and time into the equipment you are saying is so easy to deal with.
 
. Once you open the rule up you raise the prep bar to that level. Flashing and chipping is a different prep level all together and it fits the philosophy of IT. . [/b]
Click to expand...

And what prep level is that???

(And rather than play back and forth games, the answer is obvious, we are already AT that prep level, as ECUs are open...for some, and there are many out there that spent the time and money to take advantage of that fact.)
 
And what prep level is that???

(And rather than play back and forth games, the answer is obvious, we are already AT that prep level, as ECUs are open...for some, and there are many out there that spent the time and money to take advantage of that fact.)
[/b]
Click to expand...


You clearly have a grip on the obvious...
 
Joe, I think Jake makes a good point. For some that level is there. Those that can stuff an ECU today, or get a stuffed ECU are at that prep level today. Others are busy trying to figure out what it takes to stuff an ECU and others dont want to drop 5k+ on stuffing an ECU even though its possible.
 
Joe, I think Jake makes a good point. For some that level is there. Those that can stuff an ECU today, or get a stuffed ECU are at that prep level today. Others are busy trying to figure out what it takes to stuff an ECU and others dont want to drop 5k+ on stuffing an ECU even though its possible.
[/b]
Click to expand...

James I understand where we are today. And after 16 pages I am sure others understand that today we can stuff a box in a box. I have tried to provide good information (first hand in most cases) to point out that the open rule is not really doing anything to reduce cost because this new technology is not free is not boltin and will not better the catagory as a whole. After 16 pages of some serious bad information I didn't need reminded that the rule was poorly written several years ago and that the original intent has been exploited and now will be exploited further in an effort to "balance" the inequities of some cars...Rather than putting the correct word in the current rule to stop the exploitation. So I will stop here because clearly the adhoc will do what the adhoc wants and no amount of fact will slow this train down.
 
True it is not bolt in for most. But there are cars out there that do have direct plug in aftermarket ECU's or adapators to make such happen for around 12-1500. Companies like Hondata, Austronic, and the like all try to make simple ECU replacement systems for street tuners that can be used by those fortunate to have industry support. The many without still are left with splicing or piggyback.

I now understand your point also. Sadly this is a question with no difinitive answer since industry support for aftermarket ECU replacement is not that simple to start with.
 
James I understand where we are today. And after 16 pages I am sure others understand that today we can stuff a box in a box. I have tried to provide good information (first hand in most cases) to point out that the open rule is not really doing anything to reduce cost because this new technology is not free is not boltin and will not better the catagory as a whole. After 16 pages of some serious bad information I didn't need reminded that the rule was poorly written several years ago and that the original intent has been exploited and now will be exploited further in an effort to "balance" the inequities of some cars...Rather than putting the correct word in the current rule to stop the exploitation. So I will stop here because clearly the adhoc will do what the adhoc wants and no amount of fact will slow this train down. [/b]
Click to expand...



Joe, I agree with what you are saying here. But for the sake of arguement and the CRB does open up the ecu rule, then:

1. How do we police the EMS?

2. How are we policing the EMS now?

To keep the cost down further, should we:

1. Allow the manufactures of the EMS wiring harness?

2. Allow the manufactures of the EMS sensors or can the factory sensors be used?



If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?

I think everyone understands that these EMS units, installed legally, will not give you enormous gains but only allow you to fine tune and make more efficient what your engine already has. Like you said they are not cheap to setup.If a stock euc that has been flashed properly is going to be close to what a ems will be then why not allow them. Especially when there are people with obd2's that are having problem getting their stock units flashed?

Dan
 
Joe, I agree with what you are saying here. But for the sake of arguement and the CRB does open up the ecu rule, then:

1. How do we police the EMS?

2. How are we policing the EMS now?

To keep the cost down further, should we:

1. Allow the manufactures of the EMS wiring harness?

2. Allow the manufactures of the EMS sensors or can the factory sensors be used?



If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?

I think everyone understands that these EMS units, installed legally, will not give you enormous gains but only allow you to fine tune and make more efficient what your engine already has. Like you said they are not cheap to setup.If a stock euc that has been flashed properly is going to be close to what a ems will be then why not allow them. Especially when there are people with obd2's that are having problem getting their stock units flashed?

Dan
[/b]
Click to expand...

Dan again you are providing inaccurate information. If these ECU's didn't give enormus gains then nobody in their right mind would spend 10k to do it. The OBD2 deal has been shot down many times now and if you want the answer go abck and read this thread. A stcok ECM will never be as good as a free sytem because it is not as refined but thats not the point, Free ECM's are not part of the intent of IT. IMPROVED= rubbing on factory parts to maximize what your car came with. Does anyone think that it is easy to squeeze 200HP out of a 240z? But that is done with all factory parts. Anyway I am done you have 16 pages to get any answers you need from me cause we are just restating all the same things. I have already written letters.
 
Joe,

So to summarize your platform:

- You agree that EMS's are effectively open now

- You agree that allowing stand alone EMS's will not further open up the performance envelope

- You agree that open EMS's were not within the orginal intent of IT

- You want IT to return to it's original intent by going to chipped/flashed ECU's (Improved)

Correct me if I am mistaken. You are in the camp of going backward while others are in the camp of making it easier and more accessable to do what we have now. Is this correct?
 
Joe,

So to summarize your platform:

- You agree that EMS's are effectively open now for some vehicles

- You agree that allowing stand alone EMS's will not further open up the performance envelope for vehicles that currently are able to run standalone EMS in OEM box. for the vehicles that currently can not, performance envelope will be expanded somewhat

- You agree that open EMS's were not within the orginal intent of IT nor the original intent of the rule as written today

- You want IT to return to it's original intent by going to chipped/flashed ECU's (Improved).

-i feel that to obtain 90% performance potential, it is cheaper to attain this in terms of time and money with chipped/flashed ECUs
[/b]
Click to expand...


close for me. i made changes in bold to reflect my position.
 
Some of you need to sit back and reflect on what you are suggesting here...

If it was NOT the original intent of the ECU rule to allow "stand-alone" systems, the WHY on earth are you suggesting IT continue down that path by opening it up even further?

Sure, it might be "cheaper", and potentially "easier" for more racers to have access to this technology... Maybe... BUT is using and having access to this technology what IT is about? Is that the INTENT of the class?

Simple answer is NO, it's not... ("with limited modifications.... restricted to those useful and necessary"... notice the AND in there... sometimes, things that are "useful" are not "necessary", therefore they don't fit the intent of the class... and I don't give a rip about any of the other things in IT that could be argued against this... we're talking about ONE specifically right now that, while may be "useful", is NOT NECESSARY!)

Therefore, the logical conclusion is to STOP THE BLEEDING... Close the loopholes... reword the rule... get the intent of the rule in writing... Us as many words as you need, and NO more words than you need... Get rid of the word "replace", spell out the intent, spell out what is expressly illegal from a philisophical standpoint ("This rule is not intended to allow X, Y, or Z...", etc...), Tighen the rule down so it makes sense for IT...

You already know where you are starting from, so it's INFINATELY easier to repair the existing wording than it is to make all new wording which is intended to open things up even further... Unless, of course, you are just going to make it wide-open and just say something stupid like "engine management computers (ECUs) are free"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top