ECUs....is it time?

that is not my intention at all; as these are irrelevant benefits. if you can't make a engine reliable it's your own fault, open ECU or not. environmentally friendly? seriously? if the EPA comes knocking on the front door of the SCCA and says "clean up or we're shutting you down," then fine, otherwise no need to mention it. saving $ on fuel? what's it going to do, give you 10.5mpg instead of 10? what's it cost you for a standalone EMS? $1000 minimum for parts and tuning? care to do the math on how long it will actually take to recoup those costs through fuel efficiency.

don't distract from the real issues. i may go back and read everything i missed over the last week or so, but somehow it seems the discussion has progressed to alowing any wiring, and any sensor you choose.....i'm not sure how i feel about that just yet.
[/b]
Click to expand...



Do you think for 1 second I was just talking about you? I'll do the math, 2% of 1 = .02, 2% of 100000 = 2000. Don't think in the 1st person or they will name streets after you.........."ONE WAY". Remember, every little bit helps.
 
Just curious Jake. Any new information from the CRB?
Thanks,
James [/b]
Click to expand...

James I just sent the CRB a letter on this. Hey ITAC any news? Is it me or does it seem like any more questions about the ECU Rule are purposely being avoided?
 
We are discussing it tonight. The next Fastrack will, I hope, have an item concerning it, and we'll go from there.

Feel free to send in your thoughts currently, or in reaction to the Fastrack item.

As you all know, this isn't the simplest item ever, and involves nearly every aspect of rulemaking and policy setting that a commitee will encounter.

It's got people on all sides, and the subject needs to be thoroughly understood.

Even the core philosophy gets involved on this one.

(I like thes kinds of things, LOL)
 
We are discussing it tonight. The next Fastrack will, I hope, have an item concerning it, and we'll go from there.

Feel free to send in your thoughts currently, or in reaction to the Fastrack item.

As you all know, this isn't the simplest item ever, and involves nearly every aspect of rulemaking and policy setting that a commitee will encounter.

It's got people on all sides, and the subject needs to be thoroughly understood.

Even the core philosophy gets involved on this one.

(I like thes kinds of things, LOL) [/b]
Click to expand...



Thanks, Jake for the come back. I emailed my letter to the CRB/ ITAC on Sunday concerning this matter. I agree with you, this would be interesting, I wished I tap the phone line and just listen. :D
 
Thanks, Jake for the come back. I emailed my letter to the CRB/ ITAC on Sunday concerning this matter. I agree with you, this would be interesting, I wished I tap the phone line and just listen. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL...well, if you did tap the line, your bill might have been high, although at 3 hours, this con call wasn't all that long.

We went over a normal amount of letters, then the ECU topic got a very productive discussion.

I will be submitting a new rule that will go out in the december Fastrack for member comment.

I think many here are going to be pleased with the concept.
 
LOL...well, if you did tap the line, your bill might have been high, although at 3 hours, this con call wasn't all that long.

We went over a normal amount of letters, then the ECU topic got a very productive discussion.

I will be submitting a new rule that will go out in the december Fastrack for member comment.

I think many here are going to be pleased with the concept.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Jake, I have vonage, all calls are free. But what you are saying sounds like most everyone was and is receptive to the idea of change? Can you post how your new rule is to read? This looks very positive and should make a lot of people happy, buyers, sellers and tuners. This would be great if approved by the anniversity date of the SIR or before.

WTG ITAC & CRB
 
Can you post how your new rule is to read?

WTG ITAC & CRB
[/b]
Click to expand...


LOL...no can do.....I haven't written it yet, LOL.

Once I write it, we will hash it back and forth I imagine, fie tuning the wording, then it will go to Fastrack.

If the big bosses think it's OK for net consumption before then, i'll post it.

Suffice it to say that most on the commitee feel that indeed the time has come and a more progressive approach is needed.
 
IF a change to the ECU rules were given a thumbs-up, when is the earliest the new changes would be legal? Is this something that could be made effective for the 2007 racing season?
 
No, this is a big deal, so it will hit the Fastrack in December. Then member feedback occurs. Then it goes back to the ITAC for a call yea, or nay. If "yea", then it goes to the CRB, and so forth. I would imagine, (but I'm a bit hazy on the protocols upstream) that it could be set up for a "go live" date in the spring. Kinda like the , acckk..cough...( sorry...hairball in the throat there)...SIR was last year.

But hopefully this will be seen...IF it passes...as a good thing.
 
No, this is a big deal, so it will hit the Fastrack in December. Then member feedback occurs. Then it goes back to the ITAC for a call yea, or nay. If "yea", then it goes to the CRB, and so forth. I would imagine, (but I'm a bit hazy on the protocols upstream) that it could be set up for a "go live" date in the spring. Kinda like the , acckk..cough...( sorry...hairball in the throat there)...SIR was last year.

But hopefully this will be seen...IF it passes...as a good thing. [/b]
Click to expand...



Damn right this is a BIG deal. I've hated the ECU rule ever since I first read it. Jake you seem pretty level headed I hope you take advantage of the quality tuners and installers that are out there for their advice. Knowledge + Common Sense = Wisdom
 
The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.
 
The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Myself and I'm sure many others have been waiting for something on this. I'm sure you will see immediate response.
 
The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.
[/b]
Click to expand...


The Feb '07 Fasttrack is out.
This is the only thing I found regarding the topic.

4. IT – Allow oxygen sensor simulators (Sirota). We will continue to monitor programming and piggyback technologies.

Was that it, or did I miss it in a different part of the document?
 
Nope, thats not it. Thats a seperate item.

The ECUu rule didn't make fastrack due to the Christmas/New Years holiday stuff and the messing that does with con call schedules, etc.

The discussion has happened over several con calls, with research done in between, and the direction has been settled.

I have written the rule, with several versions/revisions, and the CRB will be discussing it on their next con call, and as they have been on our con calls, it should go straight to Fastrack. I am HOPING that it hits the newstands 2-20, and member feedback will be overwhelmingly suppportive.

The gears ARE turning, but this is a BIG deal, and one that attempts to fix what many considered to be one of the most screwed up rules on the books....and one that nobody could seem to agree COULD be fixed.

Your patience is appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top