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

Jake, my understanding of sequential fuel injection vs batch fire fuel injection is that at low RPMs and on start up, sequential fuel injection can make a difference in engine emissions, thus the factories adoption of the system of late. At mid to higher RPMs the difference is negligible. In fact, it is my understanding that at anything over low RPMs the injection systems ability to time the fuel pulse to the actual intake event becomes imposible and many sequential systems switch to batch fire at higher RPMs.

Joe, you seem to be in favor of the rechip/reflash daughterboard only option. Do you not believe that given enough time, money, and technical expertise a team would not be able to create a system under this rule that would be capable of full 3D control completely tunable sequential fuel injection? If one can replace the microprosessor chip or plug a daughterboard in it's place how would that not be possible? Is the intent of this rule to just make it harder or more expensive in the hope that most won't bother?
 
Jake, my understanding of sequential fuel injection vs batch fire fuel injection is that at low RPMs and on start up, sequential fuel injection can make a difference in engine emissions, thus the factories adoption of the system of late. At mid to higher RPMs the difference is negligible. In fact, it is my understanding that at anything over low RPMs the injection systems ability to time the fuel pulse to the actual intake event becomes imposible and many sequential systems switch to batch fire at higher RPMs.

Joe, you seem to be in favor of the rechip/reflash daughterboard only option. Do you not believe that given enough time, money, and technical expertise a team would not be able to create a system under this rule that would be capable of full 3D control completely tunable sequential fuel injection? If one can replace the microprosessor chip or plug a daughterboard in it's place how would that not be possible? Is the intent of this rule to just make it harder or more expensive in the hope that most won't bother?
[/b]
Click to expand...

The philosophy of the class is improved.....not replace touring. That said I normally don't respond to people without an identity.
 
The philosophy of the class is improved.....not replace touring. That said I normally don't respond to people without an identity.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Then why are carburetors allowed to be replaced and not improved?

Why are springs allowed to be replaced?

Why are shocks allowed to be replaced?

Why are the complete exhaust systems, including the exhaust header allowed to be replaced?

The fact remains that if you're using a re-flash that 50-state legal, you've not changed your fuel map, and are most certainly running lean with the free flowing exhuast. Installing a standalone is not that complicated, getting it tuned is much easier that finding the single person in the nation who has the knowledge to crack and tune a stock system, if there is such a person.
 
I'd also like to point out that cars can only be converted to sequential fuel injection if they are physically configured to do so. In otherwords, they must have an individual injector for each cylinder. I don't think any considered version of the rule would allow injectors to be added. To use sequential fuel injection would also require individual wires running to the controller and thus would only be possible in the open ECU, open sensor and harness version.

Joe, I guess that explains why you didn't respond to my inquiry in the other thread about untunable ECUs. I apologize for not properly introducing myself, I am Andrew Rowe, 44 years old, resident of Royal Palm Beach. Florida. Now that that is out of the way, please explain to me how headers are not outside your philosophy of the class. Also, coil over springs, camber plates ect. How are headers necessary to the construction of a safe race car? Also please explain how a competitor who chooses to use the alternate carb conforms to your philosophy of improve not replace touring? What of the inequity that a rechip/reflash only rule would create for my car? (a 1977 Datsun 280z with analog ECU)

Opps... On edit... James you seem to have took the words right out of my mouth while I was busy typing. That's why I have stayed mostly quiet on this issue, someone brighter and more articulate always seems to voice the same opinion as mine.
 
The fact remains that if you're using a re-flash that 50-state legal, you've not changed your fuel map, and are most certainly running lean with the free flowing exhuast. Installing a standalone is not that complicated, getting it tuned is much easier that finding the single person in the nation who has the knowledge to crack and tune a stock system, if there is such a person.
[/b]
Click to expand...

great. but why do we NEED it?

why don't we allow the removal of the washer bottle? it's not complicated. it won't change performance structure. it won't cost anyone a thing. and it would make some people very happy.

why don't we allow it? because there's no good damn reason we should. and there's no good damn reason we need to allow standalone ECU's at this time either.
 
Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.
 
Why do proponents of the open-it-all-up approach claim that they need it to attain equity, when there are inequities all over the rules? What is so special about ECUs? I mean, solid axle cars can't go putting in double wishbones. Sounds like a huge inequity. Why not ask for that?
 
Nice to meet you Andrew, 21 pages later I am not going to go back and cover all the ground that has been covered. I will have to let those that were part of writing the original rules set explain carbs and headers ect.

Carbs are not EFI. We are talking a completely different situation and you will find that adjustment still only applies to a small number of IT cars listed. The 240z does not get an alternate carb. I don't believe the RX7 gets one either. Beyond that. You guys keep saying there are ECU's that are not tunable and that has been proven wrong several times now. As long as a chip can be programed and there is a desire to do so then they ALL can be programed. Sequential Fi....Yes you are right there has to be a physical set of injectors from the factory and the wiring to support it. I believe there are plenty of cars that meet this requirement and your forgeting that part of this 21 page thread has called for completely opening up to harnesses along with the ECU's. The allowances you guys are trying to trot out are not easy to answer but were apart of the original rules set. I rememeber baack to stock spring perches with coilovers sitting on them. My point has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting technology. MY point is if you want free ecu's we offer classes that already have them. If you want more cam we have a class for you. If you want 18" wheels and wings we have that also. So why push this set of rules into another level of technology that it was never meant to get to and only through a poor choice of words did we get the can of worms we are currently dealing with.

If you want some big ole modified hotrod then Production/Prepared or GT should be your next stop.

Lastly IT has always had cars with pluses and minuses if it is part of your cars ability to program Sequential EFI into the factory chip then more power to ya, If its not then look for the way to extract the most power out of what you have. I said it before does anyone think it is easy to get 200HP out of an L24 z and stay with in the rules. It takes work and creativity. Thats what racing and especially IT racing is about.
Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.[/b]
Click to expand...

Thats kind of a false argument. the allowance of an adjustable fuel regulator was the compensation for fuel mixture on injected cars. There is no need to have an ecu to make a safe mixture. I will bet a thousand bucks that any OBDII system hasa a much better fuel curve and control than a 32/36 DGV ever though of having. Paper argument.
 
Why do proponents of the open-it-all-up approach claim that they need it to attain equity, when there are inequities all over the rules? What is so special about ECUs? I mean, solid axle cars can't go putting in double wishbones. Sounds like a huge inequity. Why not ask for that?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, the ITAC process uses power estimates based on ECU gains, as thats what the rules allow.

But the Process does take into account basic categorical suspension design differencess, etc.
 
Josh, just to set the record straight, I am not a proponent of the open it all up version of the rule. I think allowing any sensors to be added or wiring to be added could certainly open the door for unintended consequenses. I believe the main objection to the rule as it stands is that some stock ECU boxes are very smalll. This creates an inequity between the guys that can't fit an aftermarket ECU in their box and those who can. Also, one of the better more highly configurable systems that will fit in a small box is also one of the more expensive. The in the stock box requirement seems to be the thing most don't care for.
 
Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.
[/b]
Click to expand...

carbs? phuck if i know about carbs.

"requirements" is a horrible choice of words. are you saying the car won't run unless we open it up to standalone ECU if someone puts on an exhaust? how did these other thousands of IT cars get them to run with out changing anything to the ECU? how do the SM guys do it? how do SS guys do it? how do touring guys do it? are saying that everyone of these cars has ECU mods? obviously not. so it's obviously not a requirement.

and btw.....there's more than just the ECU that can be adjusted to play with your A/F ratio. and also, a chipped ECU will do the job just fine.

anything else?
 
Travis, pulling one word out of context is sort of twisting my statement a little, no? All cars have fuel mixture requirements. No fuel -no run, to much fuel - no run, some fuel, some air - car runs - fuel mixture requirement. I never said installing a header requires a new ECU, that's silly. We all know that upping the fuel pressure (a legal mod) can correct the fuel curve on a fuel injected car. It's also legal to place a resistor between the harness and the stock sensor. In my case, there is a built in mixture adjustment in my AFM.
I take it you are a proponent of the stock ECU only rule. I could live with that if everyone else agreed to it. To me that is one change to the rule that would level the playing field somewhat. Main short coming would be that the cars were classified with the allowance in mind. They may now need rerun through the process. It took a lot of work by those fellows, but if it's best for IT and they are willing to do it... so be it. I truely want what is best for the class. And this is one option that could make a real difference. Joe's option of rechip or reflash only, to me, doesn't do so. It creates a situation were the rich and technically savvy have an advantage. (not that the rich and technically savvy aren't always going to have an advantage in racing) It does little to level the playing field.
Apparently a few years back, some folks did think it was necassary. Perhaps because a few bad apples were cheating and proving it was damn near impossible. That shouldn't be a reason to rewrite the rule though. When I raced motorcycles in the early ninties, we confronted this same issue. It was decided that the rules would require a competitor to willingly exchange his 'stock' black box for one furnished by the club. There were fewer models of bikes and so it was reasonable for the club to purchase a box for each model and they would occasionally ask a competitor to exchange his. If we adopted a stock ECU rule only, perhaps a competitor could provide a fee so the club could obtain a replacement box if he felt a competitor was cheating. Would you be willing to exchange your box under such a rule? There are issues with this form of enforcement, such as some boxes not being available anymore, but what if we trade boxes? Or if I think you're cheating you buy me one, I buy you one and we split the difference in cost. (and I certainly am not insinuating you cheat, please don;t take it that way)
 
"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.

Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.

"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..."

I apologize for being preachy on this but I have said it over and over and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Previous divergences from the class philosophy should not be used to define the philosophy or serve as precedents for new divergences. The open ECU rule was a divergence. Allowing stand-alones can certainly be argued to be a divergence too. I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. But, either expressly or implicitly, people are still asking that question. If I were on the ITAC/CRB that would be the first thing I would want to do - define exactly what the objectives are. Then set about crafting rules that will achieve those objectives. Otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If anyone wants to take a shot at a CONCISE set of objectives, I think it would be helpful to all.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Quick question Bill. How much money did you throw away on the blown motors because your stock ECU went crazy and leaned out the motor? A good management system would have paid for itself by now.
 
carbs? phuck if i know about carbs.

"requirements" is a horrible choice of words. are you saying the car won't run unless we open it up to standalone ECU if someone puts on an exhaust? how did these other thousands of IT cars get them to run with out changing anything to the ECU? how do the SM guys do it? how do SS guys do it? how do touring guys do it? are saying that everyone of these cars has ECU mods? obviously not. so it's obviously not a requirement.

and btw.....there's more than just the ECU that can be adjusted to play with your A/F ratio. and also, a chipped ECU will do the job just fine.

anything else?
[/b]
Click to expand...
Read the SM rules Travis, they allow you to adjust the AFM to get the desired mixture. No such allowance in IT.
 
When I raced motorcycles in the early ninties, we confronted this same issue. It was decided that the rules would require a competitor to willingly exchange his 'stock' black box for one furnished by the club. There were fewer models of bikes and so it was reasonable for the club to purchase a box for each model and they would occasionally ask a competitor to exchange his. If we adopted a stock ECU rule only, perhaps a competitor could provide a fee so the club could obtain a replacement box if he felt a competitor was cheating. Would you be willing to exchange your box under such a rule? There are issues with this form of enforcement, such as some boxes not being available anymore, but what if we trade boxes? Or if I think you're cheating you buy me one, I buy you one and we split the difference in cost. (and I certainly am not insinuating you cheat, please don;t take it that way)
[/b]
Click to expand...
That has been proposed in Showroom Stock for a while now, but it doesn't work for modern cars. In many cars sold today, the ECUs are coded to the car's VIN, and they won't even crank, never mind start, with another car's ECU. We tried this in our SSC Mazdas just to prove the point.
 
1) no i am not a proponent of stock ECU. i am a proponent of the original intent of the written rule, which was for chips/reflashes to be legal.
2) all cars were put through the process with the assumption that they could get a standalone system in the box iirc. they should not need to be reprocessed if we went to a chip/reflash rule.
3) buy 5 AFMs and pick one that gives you a good A/F mixture. you know that, you have an AFM pretty close to the same as mine. even so, chip/reflash should take care of any major A/F problems just the same as a standalone will.
4) ECU swapping for IT is not a logistically reasonable request.
 
"Yes you are right there has to be a physical set of injectors from the factory and the wiring to support it. I believe there are plenty"
all OBD II (96on) sytems with multipoint injection have discrete wiring to each injector, making sequential firing a possibility. (OBD II requires the ECM to be able to located and identify an open or short circuit to each injector, hence the discrete wiring even if batch fired).

"Quick question Bill. How much money did you throw away on the blown motors because your stock ECU went crazy and leaned out the motor? A good management system would have paid for itself by now. "
mom'sZ Posted Today, 04:02 PM

WTF??!! Because the OE injection system is so unreliable that it's difficult to drive a car even 50 miles without having a problem?? wHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? phil
 
[WTF??!! Because the OE injection system is so unreliable that it's difficult to drive a car even 50 miles without having a problem?? wHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? phil
[/quote]
Dont think I know you Phil--no I'm not smoking anything--you? I simply made the point to Bill that the RX7 has a notorious problem of going into limp mode and leaning out the rear rotor. The oil metering pump goes wacky and usually takes the computer with it. The metering pump is $1200.00 last I checked and computer is usually about $200.00 used. I know him and was simply pointing this out to him. Whats it to you? Post all the facts or opinions you want but grow up with the smokin crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top