lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, with the advent of ITR, I am seeing a lot of interest and the collection of cars to build for the new class, and thats great news.
But, I also see a lot of issues that people will be having with ECUs. Nearly every car on the list will need ECU work.
As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don't think it's the best way to get there.
Aso, it jacks the cost up staggeringly, and is really counterproductive in regards to acheiving the prep levels that the process predicts these cars will acheive.
What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can't fit someting in the box...even at any price.
Now, I know the response to that will be, "Too bad, thats the way it is, you choose your horse and run your course."
But does it HAVE to be that way?
I think it's time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it's intent.
I submit that the intent is NOT to force people to spend 2 or 3 thou on a unit, then another 2 thou on the tuning, or to exclude certain cars because of build and fitment issues. And honestly, is the current rule REALLY effective in thwarting cheating?? (and that was the reasoning, IIRC)
Perhaps it's time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.
Keep the stock harness rule, the no additional sensors rule and so on, but allow people to acheive prep equity across the board, and to do so in a more reasonable manner.
Thoughts?
But, I also see a lot of issues that people will be having with ECUs. Nearly every car on the list will need ECU work.
As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don't think it's the best way to get there.
Aso, it jacks the cost up staggeringly, and is really counterproductive in regards to acheiving the prep levels that the process predicts these cars will acheive.
What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can't fit someting in the box...even at any price.
Now, I know the response to that will be, "Too bad, thats the way it is, you choose your horse and run your course."
But does it HAVE to be that way?
I think it's time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it's intent.
I submit that the intent is NOT to force people to spend 2 or 3 thou on a unit, then another 2 thou on the tuning, or to exclude certain cars because of build and fitment issues. And honestly, is the current rule REALLY effective in thwarting cheating?? (and that was the reasoning, IIRC)
Perhaps it's time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.
Keep the stock harness rule, the no additional sensors rule and so on, but allow people to acheive prep equity across the board, and to do so in a more reasonable manner.
Thoughts?
Today the costs involved in creating a stand alone system have come down so much (like the fancy shocks) that it is no longer prohibitive to do. 
(Don't worry; while I have the capability, it ain't gonna happen on my CIS car!) But yeah, how can this be policed? Perhaps the existing rules are already sufficient to prevent this, even if catching cheating may be difficult? Maybe they would just need more teeth? Either way, the ECU case rule is outdated IMO...