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

Joe-I agree strongly. Not to be an old fart, but let's get our class back! This class is headed down the SCCA superhighway to Hell just like production did so many years ago (remember? IT is 1963 production rules-and, yeah, I know they didin't have ECMs in 63) phil
 
Phil,
I was only 1 at that time but I agree. Chipping, Flashing, and making a argument to help an single car that can't do these things is where we should be. Stuffing Motec's in stock boxes is an unreasonable level of prep for a mid to entry levelo class. IT for as long as I can remember has been the only reason this club gets new members. IT has always been in my way of thinking the starting point and the staying point for the largest group of people in this club. Even when I was pitching Club touring to emulate World Challenge i asked for IT level engine prep rules to keep it close for more people. Instead we got DP and BP? Improved to me would be improving something that was stock. What we have now is replacement. Guess what's next? Since now we can cotrol fuel and timing curves so much better our fuel injectors will be suspect when it comes to making power so we will need to replace those because they are at 110% duty cycle even with the fuel pressure turned up 25lbs. I am seriously laughing about all this as I dig up a copy of the 1989 IT rules to propose another set of classes that we can call touring or BT for short....I think we will start with a new set of class alphanumerals and call it BTA1 thru BTZ26...:)
 
And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....[/b]
Click to expand...

That's not true, Jake. 2002 GCR states, "...computer shall remain unaltered." That's when we allowed resistors on the input wires. 2003 is when the altered ECUs with unmodified housing" was first allowed.


...how would you write the new ECU rule...?[/b]
Click to expand...
In regards to traction control? I wouldn't even address it. It's TOTALLY unenforceable, so leave it open.

If additional sensors are allowed with an open ECU, then simply something like "use of additional wheel sensors for the purpose of traction control is prohibited."
 
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
[/b]
Click to expand...

We use a 25% estimate. Most cars need ECU tuning to hit that number. Some claim they can't, some go above it. The 25% is just an estimate (albiet an educated one). Never been touted as anything more. It HAS however, been fairly accurate and IT has never seen more cars being competitive.
 
From my point of view, a lot of this conversation is neglecting the time five or six years from today when 2007/2008 cars are coming into IT, and they have Government Mandated traction control integrated into the very being of the AI that runs everything. OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it's not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can't go on willy nilly banning things that we don't fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn't going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let's not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
 
Thanks for the validation Joe. Since we are considering such a major rush fowards, let's consider the radical possibility of moving the opposite direction before we really screw this up!
The class is zooming upwards at a rate that would have left me still racing with
EMRA if it wasn't for the original IT philosphy. What I propose is making engine management and preparation much simpler and hugely cheaper: limited prep IT-No aftermarket ECMs, No overbores, no +.5 CR, maybe even stock exh manifolds (headers are a pain in the ass, and we wizards can get a leg up on the GP with educated design-not too fair for a cheap/entry class). The modest needs for increased fueling could be trimmed w/fuel pressure if you're not ready to edit chips, but changing rev limit would require it.
What you'd get would be stone reliable motors w/15% less power that are sublimely cheap/reliable/available.
A good used motor would be quite competitive-holy cow! With the shortage of slower canidates for B&C, this would open up the list of possibilities nicely. Why swim upstream when sensible options abound?
And yeah! if you stuffed a motec into an IT computerbox, you can afford to take it out; sorry, just another opportunity for growth. phil
 
Hey Phil, what I fail to see is why you think this is such a major rush forward. Right now, 'MoTec in a box' is currently legal. How is the allowance for cheaper units with the same functionality a move in any direction?
 
Andy-if you use 25% for all cars, then how can it be relevant? I assume you're correcting advertised/factory horsepower with it. If thats the case, then its proportionally irrelevant and washes out of the comparison.
And, my experience is that your number is too high. I know of just about every well prpared ITB Volvo.
They're 130hp factory, and most Volvo guys would kill to see 150 on an honest (engine) dyno.
ITB VW? 108 factory/105 at the wheels of racecar: great. Phil
 
From my point of view, a lot of this conversation is neglecting the time five or six years from today when 2007/2008 cars are coming into IT, and they have Government Mandated traction control integrated into the very being of the AI that runs everything. OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it's not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can't go on willy nilly banning things that we don't fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn't going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let's not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I have to say I have lots of time with the 350 and the vds system and it is not designed to be a benefit to performance. The Traction control systems on street cars take away throttle and use the brakes to regain control in a wheel spin or slide situation. It will be actually more of a problem to blend those cars into IT if we allow more technology to get around these deals. On the 350z project we worked with a tuner and had the OE boxed cracked and flashed before the first race in 03. Anything can be done of you want it done. For those that think it will even the playing field your wrong unless you want to hire somebody to do the dyno work and write the fuel and timing maps. It would be far better to real it back rather than let it out for this class.

Edit:

Phil, I would not try to do no-overbores or take awy headers or things like that These are old cars lseeving a block is cost prohibitive and braken manifolds ect. Thr recipe was doing quite well until the introduction of a few over dogs by selfserving Adhocs and CRB folks of long past. The current recipe has a chance except it appears we have an adhoc that is pushing the catagory a little faster than it should be. We have had some very major changes in the last 3 years with reclassifications and a minor philosophy change which is a good thing if you allow the current and future competitors to catch their breath before thrying to make further large changes. I think we just need to take a couple of seasons and see how we shake out before any more major adjustment happen to the catagory.
 
Its a rush foward because it institutionalizes a pretty technical area of preparation that until now only a few big spenders have tread on, in an entry level class that's supposed to be cheap and simple. Don't you understand? The people coming in to this class haven't had the years of (technical) imerssion you and I have. I enjoy the challenges of doing stuff like replacing an engine mangement sytem and the intricacies of creating a nicely modified wiring harness, adding a MAP sensor, fabricating a TPS, and changing to a speed/density system; tuning on a dynamometer, or using data aquisition and a wideband Lambda meter to edit load tables. I don't think people in this great entry level class should have to.
The revolution will not be televised!!! Take IT back!!! phil

Re: limited prep-Joe, I'd never want to do that retroactively, but it might work great for newer homologations.
PS: regarding overbores/sleeving-if you can't find a good late model candidate that won't clean up including thrust face/top of bore w/>.0005" pressure honing, you're fishing in a toxic pool! In my experience, everything since about 1990 will have vitually no bore wear or ridge w/100K+ on it.
 
first off, just how people are using the ECU rule, and how to write a new and effective rule is way beyond me. i'd just like to admit that before i open my mouth. given my ignorance, i usually don't debate such topics, but i've had a rather frustrating day and feel like being onry.

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.
[/b]
Click to expand...

i disagree jake. the old rule, and money spent yesterday should have no bearing on a new rule. we can reference an old rule to learn how to write a better new one, but just because we screwed up yesterday doesn't mean we need to wait 5yrs to fix it. the attitude should be to do what's best for the majority of IT racers going forward, not what's best for what happened to the minority in the past.

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!!!!!
[/b]
Click to expand...

i already covered this. whoever i find out has TC i'm going to kick them square in the nuts, make them wear a pink tu-tu, and call them princess. i don't know why, but the TC thing really grinds my gears.

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...

same thing as with jake, this is improper thinking. what other people invested and how we screwed up in the past are already sunk costs and shouldn't influence our decisions moving forward. General Business 101.

OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it's not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can't go on willy nilly banning things that we don't fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn't going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let's not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
[/b]
Click to expand...

10pts for recognizing future issues cameron, but i disagree on how to deal with them. when this ECU rewrite issue came up a couple months ago i was 90% in support of it because of the ever increasing control OEM ECU's have over our vehicles. I want to open up the rule so that we can ELIMINATE traction control and all the other bullshit. i can forsee us all having to remove the complete factory wiring harness and ECU as a part of typical car prep just like we install a cage today.

we'll all be running basically a more user friendly megasquirt. we'll install a half-dozen basic sensors and plug them into our pre-programmed but fully adjustable standalone ECU. that's the future i see. people are smart and will figure it out.



....alright, i feel a little better now. :035:
 
You will lose driveability and performance. The high efficiency engines of today won't survive on limited sensors and some OTS standalone. Show me a Megasquirt smart enough to control direct injection. I'm just saying, don't oversimplify it. It's not going to be that easy.
 
I don't see why a programable ECU could not control any engine you want. I don't see why Megasquirt could not control a DI engine - someone will write the code to do this for their street car. The WC guys are running stand alone today with 'modern' engines, and it works out just fine.

On the surface a rule that stipulates stock ECU with chip/flash change only, or an optional 'standard' IT spec standalone ECU/harness/sensor set sounds interesting. Of course the real cost will be in dyno/development time, not in buying the stuff. If they specify the right one, the SCCA could require datalogging that they have access to, should they have the need to verify traction control (driven/undriven wheel speed, throttle plate position, throttle pedal position (on drive by wire), ignition timing, injector duty cycle). That same datalogging could allow boosted cars with a max boost allowance that could be verified to compete fairly. Not cheap stuff, but it could open up a host of other potentially good and potentially bad issues.

All more good reasons not to rush into a change to open up further. Lets see the proposed wording, and let our fellow club members have a chance to provide their input.

As far as my feelings about taking away allowances at the drop of a hat - this might not be the best topic for me to make that case on, since I DO feel that the rule change in '02 that allowed anything in the box sucked, and wish we all had to run stock boxes. However there is just such a bent on this site to 'close the loophole' on every good idea that someone comes up with, it bothers me. We compete in a few arenas; driving, enigneering, preparation. It seems there are folks that feel the field should be totally leveled in the former two (or at least the engineering), and I just don't agree. If you want that go see SRF class.
 
I have to agree w/ Cameron, how we address the electronics of today's (my '07) and the ones of the next five years is going to be tough. How you integrate these cars in w/ the IT cars of today is no easy task, given that you want to keep things balanced.
 
"You will lose driveability and performance. The high efficiency engines of today won't survive on limited sensors and some OTS standalone. Show me a Megasquirt smart enough to control direct injection. I'm just saying, don't oversimplify it. It's not going to be that easy."
You're absolutely right! Put your megasquirt over next to your 2bbl Weber 32DGV, time is moving faster than most realize. The way to keep it simple is to keep it simple. phil
 
ECU Rule:

ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. Addition/Replacement of stock sensors is prohibited.

You are not going to be able to prevent non-ABS based TC. If someone wanted it, they could have it now as the rule is written.

I'd really like to see what other people have in mind for the rule. There are enough people on this list that could read a rule and find a hole. Lets see the thought process written out in "final" form.
 
Using stock ECUs would be ideal in the perfect world, but it's just not something realistic for our given situation. Besides, it's much more difficult to take away stuff than to give people new (less expensive) alternatives.
 
However there is just such a bent on this site to 'close the loophole' on every good idea that someone comes up with, it bothers me. We compete in a few arenas; driving, enigneering, preparation. It seems there are folks that feel the field should be totally leveled in the former two (or at least the engineering), and I just don't agree. If you want that go see SRF class. [/b]
Click to expand...

Chris,

I disagree. What you see on this site IMHO is people taking to task the tortured interpretations of the written rule. See the 'traction bar' thread. NEVER was it the intent to have a traction bar be anything but a longitudinal, drive-axle locating device. The new 'lawering' of the ancient glossery has produced creep - and we need to squash it before it becomes status quo - ie: Suspension bushings.

Building a better moustrap is fine, but do so within the spirit and intent of the rule - or expect to get your investment 'clarified' out of existance - and that happens in EVERY form of racing, from Can Am 'sucker' cars to NASCAR and the Superbird.

*******************************************************************************************
How about this for a new ECU rule:

Stock ECU's must be retained. Removable chips may be substituted. OBD cars may be re-flashed. No other modification to the OEM housing or circut board is permitted.

(BTW: I have over $3K and a years development into a programmable unit that has yet to see the track in my car)
 
So you'd require people that spent $$$$ on Motecs or other similar types of ECUs to ditch them? I like the idea of allowing people to use piggy back ECU systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top