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

The 600-lb gorilla on this subject is enforcement. Kirk's emerging Laws of IT Rules Enforcement, for consideration...

1. It is not possible to write a rule that enforces itself

2. We have to be willing to enforce what we put in the rulebook (Corollary - Any rule that isn't enforced, might as well not be a rule)

3. If we dink around with rule wording in an attempt to get around the First Law, living with the Second Law gets awfully difficult

Pragmatically, this issue approaches the point where there are really only two options that are amenable to enforcement - "you can't do anything" or "you can do anything." Of course, I don't have the generalized fear of technology that some do (e.g., ABS brakes turning everyone into Randy Pobst).

ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. Addition/Replacement of stock sensors is prohibited.[/b]
Click to expand...
So if my stock throttle position sensor dies, I can't replace it with a new one? :)

K

On EDIT...

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.[/b]
Click to expand...

Please, please, please resist the temptation to toss "not allowed" language into the mix, all willy-nilly! "You didn't say I couldn't modify the connector that snaps into the ECU - so there."
 
How about this for a new ECU rule:[/b]
Click to expand...

We had this debate several years ago; maybe back when the rule change was proposed? I remember going back and forth, trying to come up with verbiage that would meet this intent but still include everyone's individual issues, and there was ALWAYS an exception that had to be made. This resulted in the current rule which, obviously, didn't work as intended.

Here's your first exception to your VERY good stab at the rule: the Nissan. Because of the design of the EEPROM, you can't simply desolder the PROM, solder in a socket, and plug in a replacement EEPROM. To accomplish this, a daughterboard has to be built to host the EEPROM. The original PROM is desoldered and a socket mounted there, and this daughterboard then plugs into the socket. This second board is then mounted on screws and posts on the original motherboard.

So, we're now down the secular road of incrementalism: do we try to come up with some words to allow this mod, or do we tell the Nissan boys they're SOL on being able to run aftermarket ECU programming? And, if you choose to allow it, how are you going to word it without opening the box for more than intended? Remember, the more words you put in there, the more there are to twist (Deja vu! I remember having this same conversation with George "back then"...head rush...)

This is but one example of the problems we had "back then" on trying to come up with suitable language. Man, I wish I had the motivation to find that original thread...anyone else?
 
i didn't mean we will be specifically using megasquirt as it exists now. we'll be using a more modern version of the megasquirt product. it'll be some generic EMS with a board and a half dozen sensors to run the car. before the product is shipped to us they will throw a baseline flash onto the ECU and the rest is up to us.


andy -

if we go to "chipped only" ECU's, doesn't that just force people to see how much shit they can pack into a chip instead of inside the stock box?
 
Kirk - I see your point in the additional language and I agree.

Greg - If you can't take advantge, then you can't take advantage.

Trav - Yes.
 
You guys do what ever you want, for me, for the future, I'll use the stock ECU's and reflash them to adjust the parameters and take away or modify the TC as the rules dictate.


Have fun at the Dyno, we'll be on the race track. . . :eclipsee_steering:
 
Man, I wish I had the motivation to find that original thread...anyone else? [/b]
Click to expand...

You'll never find it....because there have been a half dozen threads like this!

So we're at a crossroads. We can:

A-Stay the same. $10,000 Motecs (not kidding) stuffed into boxes that can hold them.

B- Go back. Reflash, new chips if you can, everyone else pounds sand, so sorry, and those who have spent money on "A" can mount it on a pedestal and display it.

C- Open the parameters up so that more subscribers can do what those lucky (?) few are doing already.


A sucks, because there is no equity.
B sucks becuase it wastes collossal amounts of time for some folk, and because it won't be equitable either, as Greg points out, not to mention the possible future issues.
C has issues with perceptions. It will be perceived that an EMS will be a absolute "Must have" if you want to run at the front. It is now in certain classes, but the air is pretty stratified, and the masses haven't discovered that yet. So they will perceive that the cost of racing went up with the advent of "affordable" EMS and the allownace to use them. But...the level of performace available won't change, so the reality won't match the perception.

So, A? B? or C??
 
Greg - If you can't take advantge, then you can't take advantage.
[/b]
Click to expand...

:happy204: for this approach.

Trav - Yes.
[/b]
Click to expand...

then that wouldn't really serve the purpose this current proposed rule change is intended to. i thought we were trying to make it less cost prohibitive to reach max prep levels? cramming a bunch of stuff into a little chip seems like it would cost MORE than it does now. or maybe that's the point? basic tuing is super easy and super cheap, but the fancy stuff will cost you well over 10k?

the wind is starting to blow me back in favor of stock ECU/wiring harness with NO modifications. can't police it? i know, but at least you have that on your conscious.
 
Greg - If you can't take advantge, then you can't take advantage.[/b]
Click to expand...

OK, so because you're adjusting weights on expected horsepower increases due to aftermarket ECUs, how much of a weight break are all the Nissans going to get as a result of being unable to "take advantage"?

And, if none, why...?

(And although I recognize this is a purely hypothetical discussion from one person, hypothetically with that statement the ITAC has just lost all support from me on this issue...either we can all do it, or no one can do it... - GA)
 
the wind is starting to blow me back in favor of stock ECU/wiring harness with NO modifications. can't police it? i know, but at least you have that on your conscious.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Having a rule you can not police is not a rule at all.
 
Having a rule you can not police is not a rule at all.
[/b]
Click to expand...

in many ways yes. but i'm starting to lean this way as the lesser of two evils. my thought was to bring a box of stock ECU's to the ARRC and make "everyone" swap. they did it at the runoffs for SM.



greg -

you're never going to find a solution that satisfies everyone.
 
So if my stock throttle position sensor dies, I can't replace it with a new one? :)

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

I thought about that after I hit send.


ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. All sensors must remain stock, in the stock location. Additional Inputs/Outputs are prohibited.

Define an Input and an Output in the glossary as having to do with the ECU.

That should stop someone from putting a "T" in between the sensor and the wiring harness also.
 
I think you should open it up, and in the spirit of making things equal and economic, if your going to open it up, open it all the way up, sensors wiring everything. For example, most affordable stand-alone units use the Mass density approach to Fuel metering, well, that leaves anything that doesn't have a MAP sensor out in the cold, Miata, VW, etc. so it will be cheaper and easier to allow them to add the MAP sensor.

I worry about the approach of limiting Traction Control or ABS or anything of that sort, because we do not really know what's coming in the future of these things, and while the technology of today may suck, the traction control of the future may not, and it may cost a bunch of cash to get around them, so let's not estrange our future generation of racing cars.
 
you're never going to find a solution that satisfies everyone.[/b]
Click to expand...

Travis, it's not about "satisfaction", it's about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of a potential competion modification, or no one should. It's as simple as that.
 
Greg-you're absolutely right and reasonable in that regard. E-prom replacement to the unmodified motherboard should be allowed, whether by direct replacement, resoldering, or installing a socket board.
This is standard chip-tuner practice; reminds me of the "standard machine shop practice" argument for installing sleeves, etc when there was no mention in rulebook or mfg manual. phil
 
Travis, it's not about "satisfaction", it's about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of a potential competion modification, or no one should. It's as simple as that. [/b]
Click to expand...

You mean like camber plates, exhaust porting, ECU stuff now for carbed guys, CAI, etc. There are plenty of car-specific limitations as is.

Sometimes what you drive just is what it is.
 
The problem there, Cameron is that some folks have a huge philosophical disagreement with the idea of "taking control out of the driver's hands (and feet)" - exactly the opposite of the direction that manufacturers are going with their technology. We WILL have this clash of cultures in club racing, the only question being when.

Jake - I'd respectfully add that most of your choices consider costs, and that until/unless we are willing to use "claim" rules, there is absolutely NO way to legislate what people will spend in attempts to be competitive. We can try to diddle at the margins, in terms of potentially reducing returns but the rules are weak tools for influencing spending.

How about this consideration: As technology progresses and engines get inherently more efficient power-wise, the potential benefit of fuel/air management changes should decrease. Does this serve as any kind of disincentive to spending $$ on aftermarket systems, that would likely get more and more expensive as the technology comes online?

K
 
There are plenty of car-specific limitations as is.[/b]
Click to expand...

That exclude entire marques of cars because of an inherent design? Name one.

We could leave it alone...[/b]
Click to expand...
The real core of the issue here is yet another attempt to swat a fly. The number of people spending $10,000 on a Motec system? Probably count them on one hand, I'd guess. You got yer ass handed to you by a bunch of clever guys that found a way around the wording, and now you're starting to head towards a train wreck to try and "fix" it.

Andy, you and I had a conversation about this long ago, where I attempted to tell you that no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do, there will always be someone that figures it out, that spends more money, that gets the technology heads and shoulders above everyone else. As Kirk has repeatedly tried to point out, you cannot legislate the amount of money people spend on their race cars. If someone wants to spend $100,000 building an ITS BMW or RX-7, there are no number of rules that can stop it, no more than you can stop someone from cheating if they truly want to.

I don't like the idea of Motec any more than the next guy. While I was impressed at the technology and ideas, I was DEpressed that someone did it for IT. However, if your reaction to this is going to be something that causes a lot of grief for a lot of people - and if you think this specific point is isolated to Nissans, you're sadly mistaken - then the resolution is truly worse than the problem.

And if any of you think that I have a conflict of interest in this game, consider this: I've been running a dead-stock ECU for two years now, all year in 2006 and when I won the ARRC. I have nothing to lose (and a lot to gain) at this point with having everyone go back to stock ECUs... - GA
 
Lots of philisophical grandstanding. I ask you all: WHAT would YOU do. Joe did. Trav did. Who else wants to go on record? Kirk? Greg? Solutions people.
 
Travis, it's not about "satisfaction", it's about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

[/b]
Click to expand...


;)

too many cars from too many decades with too many forms of technology to even consider "parity." never happen. it can be held within reason with weights, but that's pie-in-the-sky thinking if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top