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

Seems simple to me. "Traction control is not permitted. Cars that it was available on must disconnect the system by removing the wheel speed sensors".

Nobody wants the ITCS to include stuff you can't do but if it is inherent to the capabilities of an allowance, you do need to have some limitations, no?
 
Problem is, the rule does NOT state that traction control is illegal. It implies that FACTORY traction control is illegal; what it states is that factory traction control must be disabled.

Regardless, like balanced and blueprinted Spec Miata engines, it's neither detectable nor preventable nor enforceable.

Just like a myriad of other things over the last two decades, traction control via ECU programming was never thought of when the rules were written. Well, it's happening. Today. Time to just let it go so we can all do it (although I don't have enough power to worry about it, myself...)
 
Well, certain TYPES of TC are currently being done, and are 100% legal.

But I'd hate to see the allowance of all 4 wheel speed sensors and full blown TC.

F1 struggled with this mightily IIRC. ;)
 
i'm bigger and younger than most other racers. this provides me the decisive advantage when i find out someone is using TC and i kick them square in the nuts and force them to wear a pink tu-tu all weekend around the paddock.

:bash_1_:
 
3- So, what to do. Certain cars are making process power, but at great expense, and they aren't even using the stock architecture to get there. Sensors are like languages. Think of a Motec. It's the all language speaking genious. It can talk to any language speaking sensor out there. And it's small, so it can fit lots of places. So it gets used, but at great expense, Now, think of the opposite end of the spectrum, say Megaquirt. It's not as bright..it can only speak english. Too bad your air metering device speaks Japanese. Oh well, no Megaquirt for you. Or maybe you can get a translator and install that along with megasquirt and use the air metering sensor for your signal. Kinda defeats the purpose of a rule thats supposed to make it simpler and easier. Or, we can allow you to add an English speaking version called a MAP sensor, Some cars already have them. Now you can eliminate the expense and confusion of a translator, and just keep it all in English. Result? Performance is the same, and the process power hasn't been breached. It's just cheaper and easier.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I get the point your making, but FWIW this analogy refers to the lower end 'off the shelf' systems such as SDS. The Megasquirt is fully configurable to any sensor set you choose, or air measurement method you have available - Mass Flow or Speed Density. It is the most customizable system available, but requires a great deal of knowledge up front, and learning along the way to make it work well.

I lean towards leaving the stock harness and sensor set intact, but understand the point of equalizing the level of difficulty. It just gets back to the oft quoted no guarantee clause and picking the right car to race. This is the kind of thing that I have a preference on, but can see the other side clearly enough to accept it if the rule comes out that way.
 
OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal. Traction Control, defined for the purposes of the ITCS, is electronic accelleration control, anti-lock brakes and vehicle stability control. Cars that come stock with any of these must be fully disabled.
 
Regardless, like balanced and blueprinted Spec Miata engines, it's neither detectable nor preventable nor enforceable.[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy's not paying attention... You make the problem worse with these constant attempts to tilt windmills.

But, if you still wish to draw your sword and attack the beast, then just add the first sentence; remember that every time you try to work the minutae it bites you in the ass (witness: current ECU rule).

But, it's still a windmill.
 
OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal. Traction Control, defined for the purposes of the ITCS, is electronic accelleration control, anti-lock brakes and vehicle stability control. Cars that come stock with any of these must be fully disabled.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that this isn't included the the NEW ECU RULE as you (plural) wrote it?!? :)
 
Just another example of "Allow it and they will come"... :018:



Dam_Break.jpg




The next big discussion is going to be how best to combine IT and Prod... :wacko:
 
OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal..
[/b]
Click to expand...

fixed it.

seriously, if it's going to be this difficult, go back to stock ECU. no flashes, no chips, nothing. of course then the process weights are all off.

:mad1:

one of those days at work too.
 
You want to know what's REALLY driving this quest? Most late model ECMs come in really small cases and I'd guess they're too small to install alternate ECUs in. LET THEM EAT CAKE!!! Chip the stockMF! YEAH
Oh, I almost forgot, "civil, reasoned, rational..." phil
 
Guys, we've been over this bridge before, but, look at all sides of the issue.

We are a CLUB...made of MEMBERS, and run mostly by members striving to create fair and equitable racing for members...

While the "Tough shit" rule exists, it is NOT supposed to be used as a trump car every time the rules writing and equity situation gets tough.

And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.

But that doen't mean we shouldn't try......
 
Andy's not paying attention... You make the problem worse with these constant attempts to tilt windmills.

But, if you still wish to draw your sword and attack the beast, then just add the first sentence; remember that every time you try to work the minutae it bites you in the ass (witness: current ECU rule).

But, it's still a windmill.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Greg, just so you know, I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I ask you, how would you write the new ECU rule if it were up to you? I would like to see your version, please. If I'm correct on your way of thinking it should not be to long of a rule and would address only the necessary items. I'm actually dying to see Jake's or others too. :D

Dan
 
Guys, we've been over this bridge before, but, look at all sides of the issue.

We are a CLUB...made of MEMBERS, and run mostly by members striving to create fair and equitable racing for members...

While the "Tough shit" rule exists, it is NOT supposed to be used as a trump car every time the rules writing and equity situation gets tough.

And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.

But that doen't mean we shouldn't try......
[/b]
Click to expand...



Jake, not to be a smart ass, again, did anyone feel this bad when they rescinded the shock with the reservoir? If nothing else, this will make you think about writing a rule correctly. So you keep if fair for a few or write a new rule for the many?
 
1- The ITAC uses a process to set weights, and in that process, there is something I'll call "process power". That's the number the ITAC uses to punch in the process with the other inputs, and it assumes that the ECU is fully tuned. Now, some cars can, and other cars can not hit that number. ...[/b]
Click to expand...

It's a sidebar but I'm going to throw a flag on this one. It's become accepted practice for the "process power" to be established based on WHAT some cars can hit, rather than regardless of WHETHER they can hit it. That's the basis of the "some cars gain more in IT trim" rationale. Assuming I'm following correctly.

Back to our regularly scheduled difficult policy issue... :026:

K
 
And what cars can hit depends hugely on how conservatively/aggresively a manufacturer rates his engine.
Take my new street car, a direct injection 2L Turbo GTI; VW rates it at 200hp; most people say it makes over that from the showroom (210??). And Andy, can you definetively explain to me how you can judge the net results of whatever ECM tuning is being done as its applied to your magic formula?? Sorry to call a spade a spade, but it seems like bullcrap to me! If some cars can't hit the numbers, I don't think you can blame yhe ECM. phil
 
Seems simple to me. "Traction control is not permitted. Cars that it was available on must disconnect the system by removing the wheel speed sensors".

Nobody wants the ITCS to include stuff you can't do but if it is inherent to the capabilities of an allowance, you do need to have some limitations, no?
[/b]
Click to expand...


So my current system uses an algorithm in the software based on gear selection and RPM rising rate to control wheel spin. How you gonna stop that? No Sensors needed and no tire spin!!!!!
 
seriously, if it's going to be this difficult, go back to stock ECU. no flashes, no chips, nothing. of course then the process weights are all off.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Man I would like that option. It sure seems like this actually fits the philosophy of IT more than where we are headed. Even stock ECUs, allow reflashes of stock chips, if car requires the chip itself ONLY can be replaced rather than flashed. Where we are headed we are ending up closer to World Challenge spec, than to Showroom Stock spec in this area.

However, it just wouldn't be fair. While the rule never ever should have been made to begin with, once it was some racers found ways to make great strides in their car because of it. While I think the rule change was a shame, I don't like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn't have to get something done within the rules.
 
Man I would like that option. It sure seems like this actually fits the philosophy of IT more than where we are headed. Even stock ECUs, allow reflashes of stock chips, if car requires the chip itself ONLY can be replaced rather than flashed. Where we are headed we are ending up closer to World Challenge spec, than to Showroom Stock spec in this area.

However, it just wouldn't be fair. While the rule never ever should have been made to begin with, once it was some racers found ways to make great strides in their car because of it. While I think the rule change was a shame, I don't like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn't have to get something done within the rules.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bad reason not to fix a bad rule......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top