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

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.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Steve,

No one is proposing making it all stock (like Showroom Stock.) That tuner that you can buy for your tow vehicle is reprogramming, reflashing, etc, which would be allowed under the most conservative of the proposals on the table.

As far as limp mode goes when removing ABS sensors, there's been a rule change to allow leaving one wheel speed sensor connected, which, at least on my car, prevents limp mode.
 
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.
[/b]
Click to expand...
That's the point Rob 17 pages later.....If they were not allowed for anyone then everyone would be in the same boat. Once you allow 1 car a motec the that is the new bar that is created. it was a mistake in the current writing of the rule that put the crack in the dam. Why blast the dam open? The only reason I can see is you feel you have a competitve advantage and could care less about the catagory as a whole.
 
Steve,

No one is proposing making it all stock (like Showroom Stock.) That tuner that you can buy for your tow vehicle is reprogramming, reflashing, etc, which would be allowed under the most conservative of the proposals on the table.

As far as limp mode goes when removing ABS sensors, there's been a rule change to allow leaving one wheel speed sensor connected, which, at least on my car, prevents limp mode.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Should have put a rolling eyes after some of that, I was just making a point about the extremes. The recent leveling of the classes will be out the window if we go to a chip rule. I will play either way it goes, might even be more fun to engineer around the new rule. :026:
 
That's the point Rob 17 pages later.....If they were not allowed for anyone then everyone would be in the same boat. Once you allow 1 car a motec the that is the new bar that is created. it was a mistake in the current writing of the rule that put the crack in the dam. Why blast the dam open? The only reason I can see is you feel you have a competitve advantage and could care less about the catagory as a whole. [/b]
Click to expand...

The way I see it is that the dam is open. Has been for 5 years. The problem is that everyone wants to sail on the 'IT Lake', but right now only those who can affort yachts can get out on the water.

We either have to ban all boating or open up the access so that even guys who can only afford a dingy can test the waters if they feel like it.

If it is opened up, the water doesn't get any deeper than it is now, just more people get to play in it.

Of course, I own a boat now that can go right in...either way - dock it or rev it up, makes no matter to me. But what does the majority want? What is best for the long term health and growth of the Lake?
 
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? [/b]
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I'm one. I didn't spend the money - I've got less than $300 in my ECU. I invested quite a bit of time to understand what was available and how it could work for my car - then built it myself. I learned a lot about my car in the process, too. Does that make my car any faster than other well-prepped RX-7's with stock ECUs - not a chance. Is it better than it was with the stock ECU - much, because it was really bad. Joe tried to tell me I could chip it, but nobody seems to sell one. I guess I could have put an much effort into reverse engineering the stock ECU as I put into building one, but I know that would have been much more difficult and much less fulfilling. What's the point?



I really don't get it about this not being consistent with the intent of IT. Why not? Because someone could spend $10K on an ECU. So what. He probably spent $20K on his shocks. If we're going to go back to all stock parts - bring it on. Stock shocks, stock springs, stock bars - let's even run the tires that originally came on the car. Actually, that sounds pretty sweet for the car I'm running.
 
But what does the majority want? What is best for the long term health and growth of the Lake? [/b]
Click to expand...
Funny, all through this thread I've been having this feeling of deja vu, and it finally occurred to me why: we've had this same debate before, and I'm sure it will surprise no one that there was about as much consensus then as there is now. In fact, we even went so far as to take a poll - the results are here.

I get the feeling this one is going to end up being decided by just a few votes (i.e. letters) one way or the other. I just hope the turnout is better than in the aforementioned poll :rolleyes:
 
Funny, all through this thread I've been having this feeling of deja vu, and it finally occurred to me why: we've had this same debate before, and I'm sure it will surprise no one that there was about as much consensus then as there is now. In fact, we even went so far as to take a poll - the results are here.

I get the feeling this one is going to end up being decided by just a few votes (i.e. letters) one way or the other. I just hope the turnout is better than in the aforementioned poll :rolleyes:

[/b]
Click to expand...

Earl, thanks for reminding us. I forgot about this post. I can't believe more people are not involved in the poll, #1 and #2 for the life of me I can't believe people could be content with the current rule. This is my 2nd year in organized IT racing (I don't count ITE as organized). When I saw and understood the ecu rule for the 1st time I thought it sucked but it wasn't until after the end of my 1st year did I realize how bad it really was. Honestly, I love to get a EMS so I can have better control of the engine fuctions. I think there are more pros than cons to these. If the CRB goes back to stock euc's, that's ok to. But hell will freeze over before I spend 9 to 10k to stuff a ems into my stock ecu box.
 
From that thread...

Wonder what that means if no one likes the rule but all the alternatives come out equal![/b]
Click to expand...

I think that goes without saying at this point. Look at it this way - if EVERYONE is pissed off, we have some kind of consensus...

:P

K
 
As we say in la-la law land -- a good settlement is one where no one is completely happy.

Maybe the existing rule without the ECU stock box requirement is the best compromise.
 
Look at it this way - if EVERYONE is pissed off, we have some kind of consensus...

:P

K [/b]
Click to expand...
Great point - and if the results of that poll (and this thread) are indicative, anything that happens (including nothing) will piss off 76% - 85% of the people! Hell, you ITAC guys can't loose (or win, depending on how you look at it), whatever you do you're gonna have 3/4 of the IT drivers pissed at you :D
 
Anything short of opening it up penalizes someone. If you allow many of the suggested specific modifications, only the rich can afford them. If you go back to stock you move closer to showroom stock and the modern cars now coming into IT will not be competitive or in some cases even raceable.
Daughter boards, modified chips, stock harnesses, all add to the cost of whatever you have to do to allow a car to reach it's potential. As we continue into the future the factories are going to continue to complicate the picture by ever increasingly complicated interrelated computer interfaces with all aspects of our vehicles.
The only rule that makes sense is to open it up. That way the guy who wants to tune on the cheap can put resistors in their harness, try and modify their stock ECU, or buy whatever is within their budget. The guys who are well funded will just walk up to the counter and buy their solution. No different than it is now, except it will allow the less funded participants to get a little closer. Maybe that is the real fear here.
Joe, I run a Renault, chip that sucker in an affordable way.
I ran a resistor in the wiring harness to get the mixture somewhat close, not perfection, but close, that is all I felt I needed at the time. They changed the rule so that the harness could not be modified so I spent several hundred dollars to aquire several ECUs, experiment on them, and put a couple resistors and a relay inside them just to do what the $0.15 resistor in the harness did originally. Did it effect the performance of my car at all? No, it just cost me some money to do what I had been doing all along because I couldn't "modify" the harness. Those types of roadblocks are unnessary, costly, and they will not control the advance of technology. They are not good for the SCCA and will continue to shrink the IT ranks.
The various restrictive parts of the rule being encouarged by many in this thread primarely won't effect their car. If one of those is the path we take we will have only one viable car brand in each IT class pretty soon and I don't think that would be good for the group as a whole.
The little guy with the brand X car always needs to be able to hope that someday throughout their own engineering efforts, or inheritance from the death of a well funded relative, they have a chance to be competitive. Take that away and the class dies.
 
If you guys open this up... I'd propose a new name for the class...

IMPROVED TUNER

Update the intent of the class while you're at it, because the original intent is definately a thing of the past...
 
If you guys open this up... I'd propose a new name for the class...

IMPROVED TUNER

Update the intent of the class while you're at it, because the original intent is definately a thing of the past... [/b]
Click to expand...
How about this...

Now: IT-RGO (Improved Tuner - Rich Guy Only)

Open: IT-E (Improved Tuner - Everyone)

The intent can stay because as times change, people perception of 'inexpensive' changes. One would/could/and have argue it would get cheaper (for the masses) if it's open.
 
How about this...

Now: IT-RGO (Improved Tuner - Rich Guy Only)

Open: IT-E (Improved Tuner - Everyone)

The intent can stay because as times change, people perception of 'inexpensive' changes. One would/could/and have argue it would get cheaper (for the masses) if it's open.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class...

And if you guys think that "Everyone" is going to gain from opening this up... you're misinformed about the tech... The "Rich Guys" are now not limited to just what they can fit into the box, so while the "Everyone" you are talking about are out buying their stuff off the shelf and trying to figure out how to make it work... those with the means will be taking the stuff off the shelf, and then spending their dough to improve on that, have experts install it, and anything else that I may not have thought of to otherwise "gain a competitive advantage".

Basically, you will have made it cost more money for EVERYONE!

And all outside of the written intent of this class...
 
The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class...

And if you guys think that "Everyone" is going to gain from opening this up... you're misinformed about the tech... The "Rich Guys" are now not limited to just what they can fit into the box, so while the "Everyone" you are talking about are out buying their stuff off the shelf and trying to figure out how to make it work... those with the means will be taking the stuff off the shelf, and then spending their dough to improve on that, have experts install it, and anything else that I may not have thought of to otherwise "gain a competitive advantage".

Basically, you will have made it cost more money for EVERYONE!

And all outside of the written intent of this class...
[/b]
Click to expand...


EXCELLENT point Darin! :023:
 
The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class...

And if you guys think that "Everyone" is going to gain from opening this up... you're misinformed about the tech... The "Rich Guys" are now not limited to just what they can fit into the box, so while the "Everyone" you are talking about are out buying their stuff off the shelf and trying to figure out how to make it work... those with the means will be taking the stuff off the shelf, and then spending their dough to improve on that, have experts install it, and anything else that I may not have thought of to otherwise "gain a competitive advantage".

Basically, you will have made it cost more money for EVERYONE!

And all outside of the written intent of this class...
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about open exhaust systems, removing all the smog equiptment, alternate carburetors, alternate springs and shocks? How usefull and neccessary are they to the safety of the race car. Last I checked a pinto didn't NEED an alternate carburetor to get around a race track, a tubular header, or alternate set of springs. Why not get rid off all the performance modifications while we're at it.

If you've got to send your car to Florida to get the one person who knows how to tune your cars stock ECU, how inconvienient and expensive is that? When there are at least a dozen people that tune either Motec or Electromotive systems in L.A., and that many more for AEM's system, there's a depth of knowledge to tune these systems that far and away exceedes most of the stock systems. How are the Rich guy's, who can afford to find the one person with the knowledge to tune the un-tunable, any less of an advantage with what you propose? At least with alternate ECU's I can shop around.
 
How about open exhaust systems, removing all the smog equiptment, alternate carburetors, alternate springs and shocks? How usefull and neccessary are they to the safety of the race car. Last I checked a pinto didn't NEED an alternate carburetor to get around a race track, a tubular header, or alternate set of springs. Why not get rid off all the performance modifications while we're at it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

See... there's another example... trying to rationalize a change or allowance based on what is already allowed... WHAT is going to be next after open ECUs??? Once they are legal... what are you guys going to go after next?

You want to go National... Dump IT and just go Production racing... :rolleyes:


At least with alternate ECU's I can shop around.[/b]
Click to expand...

Yup... and you'd better make an early appointment to make sure he can fit you into the schedule with the multitude of other IT racers who will now be forced to step up and do the same thing...

I see the flood waters approaching and the door is ajar... Personally... I'd choose to close the door to keep anymore water from coming in, but it's not my call... Looks like you are aiming to swing it wide open...
 
you're not alone in this darin.

why do we NEED to open up ECUs? because cars in the FUTURE might not be able to race on their stock ECUs?

1) that's in the future. why don't we wait to see the lay of the land at that time before we write a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet?
2) cars are already finding ways around their ECU issues today as joe harlan has described, why would they not be able to do the same in the future?
3) it seems as one of the main problems that MIGHT arise with future cars is the ECU going into safe mode if the ABS is disabled. why is opening up the ECU the only solution to this problem? have we even talked about other possibilities?
4) since when do you have to send the whole car to the tuner? just send the ECU and have it reflashed/rechipped.
5) you guys seriously make my head explode. yes, lets use a poorly written rule allowing modifications WAY WAY WAY outside the original intent to write yet another rule that basically is the chassis equivilent of going to tubeframe cars so long as they match the original dimensions.
:wacko:
 
The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Darin,

You know I love you like a brother but this could be the single most rediculous premise for an arguement I have ever read. Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.

Now having said that, I could go either way on this. I truely haven't decided what I think is better for IT, shutting it down or opening it up. I feel like I have seen good arguments on both sides. Since the most expensive brand of EMS is pretty much the only one that can be used inside of most boxes, I fail to see how allowing cheaper options does anything but allow more people access to this potentially painful technology.

But just because it's cheaper for everyone may not mean it's the best choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top