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

We all might be thinking it but maybe it bears saying: The technological landscape has changed, even in just the few years since the current ECU allowances were made.

I'm no Luddite by any means and, back when I was planning a return to IT after a long hiatus, I didn't anticipate how important on-board data-collection, OBD scan tools, and the like would be for me in 2007. I would never have anticipated spending the dough I did on a wide-band O2 sensor for the car.

And perceptions have changed along with the technology. I don't think that it's unreasonable for someone who might have been anti-open-ECU 5 years ago to be OK with the concept now.

Further, for the millionth time, PLEASE stop and think before making your case based on cost - regardless of your position. It just doesn't bear in any way that we can rely on for policy-making.

I'm really to the point where the primary concern needs to be curent equity - does everyone have the same legal opportunity to take advantage of performance offered by tweaking their brains? And we have to think about that irrespective of cost or ease of doing so.

K
 
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.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?
 
Oh - and thanks, Rob.

This might be a good time to revisit the ABS question as well, since the technology is so linked (physically and philosophically) with engine management.

K
 
Can anyone answer these questions?

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?
Dan
 
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?
Dan
[/b]
Click to expand...

this should not even be an issue. how do you not make a decision on what's best for the few thousand cars out there already built going forward rather than the best decision for a dozen people looking to the past?
 
How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?
[/b]
Click to expand...
I agree. Take away the ability to tune and go back to stock computer and I want the weight break the carb guys got because now I have less adjustment than them. Rob can come back and play in S and we won't even need ITR because some of them won't even get the beast to run with the ABS sensors removed. We can just run around in limp mode with a rev limit that makes racing a joke. I can buy a tuner for every diesel truck on earth and most cars with one phone call. Some of the arguements are based on outdated thinking. IT will not cave in because we allow some tuning. Lots of the loss over the past few years has been to spec miata and lots of them are already back.
 
How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Maybe we would never have had the need to go with the SIR had your car been held inside the original intent of the rule. As far as the car not running because of the O2 sensors I am not sure it was legal to disconnect them anyway, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.
 
Maybe we would never have had the need to go with the SIR had your car been held inside the original intent of the rule. As far as the car not running because of the O2 sensors I am not sure it was legal to disconnect them anyway, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I don't have an E-36 BMW. My car is a 99 323i E-46. It has 4 O2 sensors - all you really need is one. (Mine are all still there just wire tied up)
 
this should not even be an issue. how do you not make a decision on what's best for the few thousand cars out there already built going forward rather than the best decision for a dozen people looking to the past?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Would you say this if you were one of the dozen who paid all that money? Be honest. :D
 
yes.

sunk cost; Business 101.
[/b]
Click to expand...
How long have you been running IT Travis? I see SM/ITA in your post. Those who have done the work and spent the money LEGALLY have every right to want to keep it. Business 101 also. Those who have not want to stop others so they don't have to. Both sides have a valid arguement.
 
How long have you been running IT Travis? I see SM/ITA in your post. Those who have done the work and spent the money LEGALLY have every right to want to keep it. Business 101 also. Those who have not want to stop others so they don't have to. Both sides have a valid arguement.
[/b]
Click to expand...

SM for about 2.5yrs. IT last year after the implimentation of the spec tire rule.

sure, you have every right to want to keep it. but you also have every right to look beyond the end of your own nose and see what's good for IT as a whole instead of a dozen or two people who have spent the money on this. the only valid arguement is one that's made in support of the whole class and not themselves. if you want to argue that open ECU is the best for the class as a whole, fine. but having to answer to the people who spent the money as an arguement against going back to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE RULE is ludicrous.

<---work has made me short tempered today.
 
SM for about 2.5yrs. IT last year after the implimentation of the spec tire rule.

sure, you have every right to want to keep it. but you also have every right to look beyond the end of your own nose and see what's good for IT as a whole instead of a dozen or two people who have spent the money on this. the only valid arguement is one that's made in support of the whole class and not themselves. if you want to argue that open ECU is the best for the class as a whole, fine. but having to answer to the people who spent the money as an arguement against going back to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE RULE is ludicrous.

<---work has made me short tempered today.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I see well beyond my nose and have been in this class for a long time. You are in an area where a good SM is considered a top ITA Miata and you view this from your perspective. I am in an area where 80% of the IT cars are full tilt and you will get waxed with a SM. Your few dozen number is a joke if you look at other parts of the country. I respect your opinion but I think we just see very different groups of cars to base our arguements on.
 
, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.

Now you know 2, Joe and if I may speak for Noam, make it 3. All late model BMW's.
Click to expand...
 
Would you say this if you were one of the dozen who paid all that money? Be honest. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes, If I EXPLOITED a rule that tclearly shows it's intent then I woudl expect to eat it as soon as the club figured it out. Cost of doing business period. I have done it before and will do it again. And Steve I have been involved as a driver,builder, owner and prepshop since 88, I have paid my way to an opinion. And for the record it is not an old way of thinking just because it doesn't agree with your way of thinking.

Cool Rob, How is that my problem? I bet money there is a way around it with the factory ECU. I will also bet money there is a way around the post cat O2 sensors using the factory ECU. But I am not going to go out and do the research you guys aren't willing to do. If the car can't be nade to fit the IT philosophy maybe "its not and IT car" Maybe they are outside the philosophy of what an IT car is?
 
I see well beyond my nose and have been in this class for a long time. You are in an area where a good SM is considered a top ITA Miata and you view this from your perspective. I am in an area where 80% of the IT cars are full tilt and you will get waxed with a SM. Your few dozen number is a joke if you look at other parts of the country. I respect your opinion but I think we just see very different groups of cars to base our arguements on.
[/b]
Click to expand...

so because i live where i do i have no ability to understand issues outside my region?

more than a few dozen? ok. how many?
 
Absolutely yes, If I EXPLOITED a rule that tclearly shows it's intent then I woudl expect to eat it as soon as the club figured it out. Cost of doing business period. I have done it before and will do it again. And Steve I have been involved as a driver,builder, owner and prepshop since 88, I have paid my way to an opinion. And for the record it is not an old way of thinking just because it doesn't agree with your way of thinking.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I refer to old more for the cars classed then compared to now. ;) You have just as much right to an opinion as me if you pay your dues and race once as you do if you have raced for years. If you race you have a voice in what happens. It is just my opinion that you will have more inequity with models under your proposed rule than with an open ECU and stock wire and sensors. We will not change each others minds on that so it is a waste of time to try. Good luck with your shop and racing and hope to meet you at the track some day. Hopefully the points we bring up in these discussions make the 4000 plus viewers of the thread write a letter so we get what most want instead of the vocal few.

PS. My gcr's and pcs go back to the 80's too.
 
Cool Rob, How is that my problem? I bet money there is a way around it with the factory ECU. I will also bet money there is a way around the post cat O2 sensors using the factory ECU. But I am not going to go out and do the research you guys aren't willing to do. If the car can't be nade to fit the IT philosophy maybe "its not and IT car" Maybe they are outside the philosophy of what an IT car is?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a way to make it run - but just running isn't going to make the car get to its full potential. In a region where it takes an 100% effort to be at the front 'just making it run' isn't going to cut it. It was probably easier/less expensive/more productive to install a Motec using the stock harness than it would have been to create a bunch of O2 simulators and fool the wheel speed sensors.
 
I refer to old more for the cars classed then compared to now. ;) You have just as much right to an opinion as me if you pay your dues and race once as you do if you have raced for years. If you race you have a voice in what happens. It is just my opinion that you will have more inequity with models under your proposed rule than with an open ECU and stock wire and sensors. We will not change each others minds on that so it is a waste of time to try. Good luck with your shop and racing and hope to meet you at the track some day. Hopefully the points we bring up in these discussions make the 4000 plus viewers of the thread write a letter so we get what most want instead of the vocal few.

PS. My gcr's and pcs go back to the 80's too. [/b]
Click to expand...

Gentlemen,

It's getting to the point that we agree that we disagree on this discussion. It should not be up to us any more until the fastrack come out. I have posted some questions about "what if" and it seems like no one is willing to answer or discuss them. I can't imagine they the CRB will do anything except either, go back to stock or open the ecu's up. If they leave the rule alone, there may be many IT'ers throwing themselves in front of moving trains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top