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

[Joe Harlan]

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.
[/b]

Parity? There in past history has never been any attempt in IT to create parity. Recently a system of classification has come about in IT and the GOAL as I understand it was to get cars CLOSER than they have ever been before. I believe the NO GAURANTEE of being competitive clause still stands. Parity will never happen until we have Senna and Shumaucher as test pilots on the chassis dyno for ever car classified. Then and only then will we get any closer other than certains cars will still have strengths on long track and others will have it on short tracks. Parity is something you get in SRF. Close is what can be done in IT. Anytime we open up rules we reduce the chance that a system will keep cars close. Just like the 32/36 weber deal. The weber deal helped some cars more than others and to this date I am still not sure it was a good deal for the class. The best fix it to address severe issues on an individual basis and leave the catagory closer to SS than to Prod.

 

[bldn10]

"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."

Now who's being illogical?

I know you guys have a problem w/ intent but that, like it or not, is what statutory interpretation is all about. To even suggest that cars that came w/ TC have to disable it but cars that did not come w/ it can add it is patently absurd. Clever maybe, but absurd nevertheless. Any interpretation that leads to an absurdity is incorrect when there is another interpretation that makes sense. And indeed, doesn't the other way around actually make more sense - factory TC can be retained and will be taken into account in classing and setting weight? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the intent at the time the TC rule was enacted was to ban TC, period? Is there any doubt that you could not retain it even if you could find a way to do it w/o using the wheel sensors? Sure, the rule needs clarification but we all know what it means.

I have always said that the problem w/ the "new" ECU rule was the 2 words "or replace." Take those out and you can mod the stock ECU all you can as long as you do it in the box, don't mod the harness, and retain whatever we define the essence of the ECU to be. E.g. motherboard. Any car that can't take advantage of that rule should be given consideration in class and weight. If that had been the rule all along would we be having this discussion today? If the driving force behind this need to change the rule is not to level the playing field vs. unintended Motec-in-a-box, etc., what is it? There is nothing to be gained by simply making everyone a little bit faster. So, to be devil's advocate, what exactly is/are the objective(s) of any ECU rule change?

 

[lateapex911]

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]

This is very true. True parity doesn't exist in even the most spec of spec classes, but it can be aimed for. To those who advocate that it will never be, so why bother, I think you're missing the point.

Nobody thinks any solution is perfect. But, if we can open the situation up so that more subscribers have the CHANCE to get on a more equal footing, then thats HUGE. It's not just about the money...it's about the box.

 

[Joe Harlan]

This is very true. True parity doesn't exist in even the most spec of spec classes, but it can be aimed for. To those who advocate that it will never be, so why bother, I think you're missing the point.

Nobody thinks any solution is perfect. But, if we can open the situation up so that more subscribers have the CHANCE to get on a more equal footing, then thats HUGE. It's not just about the money...it's about the box.
[/b]

Actually Jake you reduce the number of people that are willing to try by adding cost to the bottom line of building an entry level car. If my IT car starts to cost as much as a GT car to construct Then I may as well buld a GT car. Bill actually has it right remove the word replace and you fix a large part of that rule.

 

[spnkzss]

...it's about the box.
[/b]

I proceed the following statement with an apology................ isn't everything in this world somehow always about "the box"?

 

[lateapex911]

Actually Jake you reduce the number of people that are willing to try by adding cost to the bottom line of building an entry level car. If my IT car starts to cost as much as a GT car to construct Then I may as well buld a GT car. Bill actually has it right remove the word replace and you fix a large part of that rule. [/b]

Huh?? THis is not a rule that would say you HAVE to do your ECU....just that you CAN...unlike now, when many CAN NOT, at any price....

The thinking person might decide that the ECU is going to add too little power to really worry about it...it's entry level, remember? We have guys in entry level cars on basic or even stock shocks...yet ALL levels of shock are allowed. But nobody has decided NOT to race because they know there are $6000 Moton packages in the paddock on ITA cars, do they?

No. But they might leap at the chance to get a $1000 dollar package that offered the same basic parameters but was understandibly going to come up a bit shy in performance. But, for the vast many, getting 90% of the way there for 30% of the money is a good option.

I can't see how opening options up makes it less friendly for entry level racers.

 

[cmaclean]

As a newcomer to IT I have to ask the obvious question.

What is the INTENT of the ECU rule as written now and to be written? All discussion of the rule should come from there.

Just because people are getting around the current (not so well written) rule by putting a Motec in a box, only means the cat is out of the bag IF the intent of the rule was to allow open ECU development within the stock housing. If the intent was to restrict development and allow only STOCK ECU flashing, reprogramming etc. then those guys who have spent $$$ to build a Motec in a box are SOL. If you build outside the intent you have to expect that the loophole will eventually be closed. Case in point, the clutch rule in SM. The intent was to use cheap clutches, the loophole allowed expensive ones. The loophole was quickly closed, lots of guys lost $$$ on clutches but the end result was a better class for everyone.

So what's the intent of the ECU rule?

 

[tnord]

As a newcomer to IT I have to ask the obvious question.

What is the INTENT of the ECU rule as written now and to be written? All discussion of the rule should come from there.

Just because people are getting around the current (not so well written) rule by putting a Motec in a box, only means the cat is out of the bag IF the intent of the rule was to allow open ECU development within the stock housing. If the intent was to restrict development and allow only STOCK ECU flashing, reprogramming etc. then those guys who have spent $$$ to build a Motec in a box are SOL. If you build outside the intent you have to expect that the loophole will eventually be closed. Case in point, the clutch rule in SM. The intent was to use cheap clutches, the loophole allowed expensive ones. The loophole was quickly closed, lots of guys lost $$$ on clutches but the end result was a better class for everyone.

So what's the intent of the ECU rule?
[/b]

perfect.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, the SM clutch rule is not apples to apples. Clutches and PP's in SM - like IT - are/were open. Always were. I would hardly call that a loophole. What actually happened is SMer's had no idea what COULD happen if something like that was open in a low-hp spec class. The shock was ignorance really.

As far as the original intent of the ECU rule - I don't know 100% but I am 99.9% sure it was to allow flashes and chips. The CRB at the time decided to get 'smart' with the words and it came back to bite us all in the ass. You will all soon be asked for your input on 3 choices: Status quo, back in the bottle or open it up.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

.... ECU stuff now for carbed guys,....

[/b]

The carbureted guy's, really analog tuned barral induction, already have a choice of analog engine management systems. Furthermore, if they want they can add a cdi package to their distributor system and turn it into a low voltage spark timing system. They get a full analog ecu change! Why? Because in their infinite wisdom and in an effort to keep people like us from messing with their design's and comply with smog laws, auto makers made these things non-adjustable. The pattern is clear, if the carb guy's get alternate carbs, why can't we get alternate engine management systems. If the ECU on your car's an odd ball that no one deals with why not just circular file it, and put on a tunable one? The carbureted guys can! We know why, because of unintended consequences is why. Grand Am has a spec alternate ECU that they use for this season, it's either stock or the alternate programable Bosh system, why can't IT have an alternate ECU, it'd have x-allowed inputs and y-allowed outputs. Up to this point a lot of guys are riding a manufactures that are lax in making their system unaccessible, but believe me with the way our world is turning, I'd expect the EPA to get their real teeth back in the next few years. You can't just dump the cat and bolt on a header without changing the fuel curve, otherwise you'll run real lean and burn stuff up. If you want to take away ECU's take everything away. Make everyone run all the smog stuff that came on the car, egr, smog pumps, cats and all. So what if the old car's have to deal with cracked crappy cast-iron, carbs that can't be adjusted, or a mase of vaccume lines. They ran good enough to get them off the showroom floor! Why not around the track! Do I think this is the direction we should go? No!

Rest assured I think ECU replacement will go through, just think hard and carefully about it, examine all angles and keep the unintended consequenses to a minimum.

James

 

[tnord]

the point is that the intent did not meet the application of the rule. for that part of it the comparison is legitimate.


the ignorance for the SM clutch rule is the same as the ingorance that got us motec in a box.

as of right now, i'm voting for "back in the bottle." call me Mr. Willow Tree.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Huh?? THis is not a rule that would say you HAVE to do your ECU....just that you CAN...unlike now, when many CAN NOT, at any price....

The thinking person might decide that the ECU is going to add too little power to really worry about it...it's entry level, remember? We have guys in entry level cars on basic or even stock shocks...yet ALL levels of shock are allowed. But nobody has decided NOT to race because they know there are $6000 Moton packages in the paddock on ITA cars, do they?

No. But they might leap at the chance to get a $1000 dollar package that offered the same basic parameters but was understandibly going to come up a bit shy in performance. But, for the vast many, getting 90% of the way there for 30% of the money is a good option.

I can't see how opening options up makes it less friendly for entry level racers.
[/b]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry level folks to join in. Want proof! look at the E36 and the damage it created in ITS. Once it was felt you needed a car like that ot compete then the average racer found something else to do. You are not doing anyone a favor by making them spend more money. You say they don't have to but the truth is they do cause once it is an option then it has to be done to compete.

 

[Knestis]

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.
[/b]

WWKD?

Having thought about it seven ways from Heck, for a long time now, I would open it up much like the current ignition system rules - with a couple of constraints or choke points on the system:

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it's just an air pump" mode of thinking. I'd set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K

 

[Doc Bro]

So, to gain understanding about the ramifications of our actions. What happens if we go crazy and open it ALL up...the whole shooting match.

ECU free, Sensors free, wiring harness free, heck even location free. Then what?

What is the harm? Will some cars see such a huge gain that the class becomes skewed? I think that some of the other IT rules (cams, valve springs and port/polish in particular)help to limit the observable gains that a totally free ECU rule would achieve.

Some cars are able to appreciate all of these unintended consequences as the rule is currently written anyway.

I'm by no stretch saying I advocate this approach, I'm just trying to understand.

R

 

[tnord]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry level folks to join in.
[/b]

the perception might be that the distance has changed, but the reality is that it hasn't. as has been said eleventy billion times, people already effectively run an open ECU rule with their motec in a box. this is the top. if we open up the ECU rule, will these people already with motec have anything to gain? if the answer is no, then the bar has not been raised.

 

[Joe Harlan]

the perception might be that the distance has changed, but the reality is that it hasn't. as has been said eleventy billion times, people already effectively run an open ECU rule with their motec in a box. this is the top. if we open up the ECU rule, will these people already with motec have anything to gain? if the answer is no, then the bar has not been raised.
[/b]

Travis, thats why I am for putting the plug back in the bottle.

 

[shwah]

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it's just an air pump" mode of thinking. I'd set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K
[/b]

So CIS cars have to leave the now non-functional airflow plate in that rule? That will have the washerbottle guys all wound up!

Oh and between those choices - back in the bottle for me. Sucks for those taking advantage now, but the rule was a mistake. Cheaters will still cheat, and won't necessarily be winners.

 

[lateapex911]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry ........... You say they don't have to but the truth is they do cause once it is an option then it has to be done to compete.
[/b]

But Joe, it IS an option! HAS been.for years! It's happening RIGHT NOW! I could name 3 cars of different manufacturers in the front of ITS at the ARRC that had Motec in a box right off the top of my head.....

Of course, not ALL cars can fit it....so it's a option to some, but not all. And a real bear for those who CAN fit it....

But, if you want to be at the front of ITS at the ARRCs, it could be argued that the perception is that you *need* a $multi thousand, (depending on vendor and model) Motec system...

To me, THAT is a BIG gulf between the top and the bottom, and the guy looking in with his XXX car might find that he can't get one at any price. Unobtanium is even worse, in my book.

Right now, the options are: You can fit one, but can't afford the price of entry at however many thou.
You can't fit it, oh well.
You can fit it, and you can afford it.
So we have a range of little or nothing spent to massive amounts spent, but very little in between.

Now, if systems were optional and affordable, then I can not see how you can say that that is a real barrier to entry, or increases the gulf from the top to the bottom.

You're right...I must not "get it".........

So CIS cars have to leave the now non-functional airflow plate in that rule? That will have the washerbottle guys all wound up!
[/b]

Rest assured guys any rule allowing open EMSs will NOT include verbage allowing the removal of air metering devices, etc.

Yes, it will remain as delivered, and even if you think it's "doing nothing", you'd be wrong, in certain instances, it's doing just what is needed.

 

[Conover]

WWKD?

Having thought about it seven ways from Heck, for a long time now, I would open it up much like the current ignition system rules - with a couple of constraints or choke points on the system:

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it's just an air pump" mode of thinking. I'd set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K
[/b]

I like this approach, however I think maybe we should just allow the stock throttlebody diameter and configuration be the limiting factor. Set the Cis meters and Digfant style flapper boxes free in favor of modern air flow meters or mass density set-ups. This would help the older inefficient cars get up to par with the modern fuel delivery systems. Do we specify that injectors must remain stock as well? That would force the mechanical guys to use that old mechanical meter, while allowing the motronic/flapper box people to remove it.
So open sensors and injectors too. Just limit air by saying that the stock intake manifold and throttle body remain in place.

So I'd say Do This:

Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Slowly for my friend Jake, Put the plug back in the bottle. Take away the wording that allows them to MOTEC in a box and mandate all mods must happen to the stock box as was the intent. I cannot make it any clearer than that. I am all for taking a step backwards. The rule was EXPLOITED by a few and the balance of the class is paying for it. EXPLOITED Key word there. The Crappy written rule that is there could be fixed to fix the problem of EXPLOITATION. I understand there are folks that have the investment and if they are unhappy they can always take that investment to Prod,DP,BP,or GT where that kind of EXPLOITATION belongs. IT was and always has been an ENTRY level set of classes that because of the simplistic set of rules and reasonable aproach to prep level could be the stable of this club for many many years. The more we push the envelope the sooner we become the next "used to be a neat place to race" set of classes. Stop the bleeding by sewing up the wound not cutting a artery.