ECUs....is it time?

[lateapex911]

I agree that it's time to open up the ECU rule (the "box" is just silly). But let me point out that we need to be able to add sensors and wiring too. Here's why: Different cars come from the factory with different TYPES of airflow measurement (e.g., hot wire temperature compensated mass air flow, simple flapper mass air flow, pressure sensor in intake, etc.). The Mega-Squirt is the probably both the cheapest and easiest solution, but it only uses a pressure sensor in the intake (no mass airflow sensor). Why exclude cars that simply came with a different type of system from being able to use the cheapest/easiest type of system? If you agree that there's no good reason, then it logically follows that wiring and sensors should be open as well (at least to add the pressure or MAP sensor and wires to it).[/b]

Well, I've thought about that. On the surface, it appears that that could be written into the rule, but that the existing meter would need to be left intact, and operational, except that it's output would be ignored.

(For example, any 'flap' style meter would need to be left to 'flap' as stock, not have the flap removed or pinned.)

But what am I missing with that concept? Unintended consequences??

 

[shwah]

At the very least, the current rule should allow the addition or replacement of the stock sensor that is used to gather intake air data. Every aftermarket system I've looked at requires a MAP sensor. Many cars (including mine!) come with either a mass air flow sensor or air flow meter, which is incompatable with everything except the top-level ECUs.
[/b]

The MAP sensor lives in the box. You just need to mechancally send it a vacuum/pressure signal from the manfiold - run a hose (your car probably already has one going to the ECU). You can then leave the original air meter system in place and ignore it's signal.

There are ways around throttle position sensors too if a car does not have one. MS allows you to use a MAPDOT function to use the rate of change of MAP signal in place of throttle position signal.

The real beauty of MS is that even if your car has something totally different that no one has ever integrated or controlled with it, you CAN develop that function on the system. It is totally open design and programming, and many of the functions people use were added by users, and the shared - spark control on the original systems for instance.

There should be no need, or freedom, to change or add sensors to run an allowed ECU modification. If we start going down that road, then the CIS guys could argue that they should be allowed new injectors because theirs don't have wires to integrate with the allowed alternate ECU.

 

[Eric Parham]

Well, I've thought about that. On the surface, it appears that that could be written into the rule, but that the existing meter would need to be left intact, and operational, except that it's output would be ignored.

(For example, any 'flap' style meter would need to be left to 'flap' as stock, not have the flap removed or pinned.)

But what am I missing with that concept? Unintended consequences??
[/b]

Jake, since you asked, here's my complete opinion on this subject. We should make the rule both simple and easy to enforce, without giving away the store. The only real motivation for high-dollar systems (e.g., MOTEC) is to control variable valve timing. Variable valve timing is almost as good as making camshafts free if the control is altered. I think variable valve timing should be severely restricted in all currently existing (hint hint) IT classes, if not disallowed completely. If that's done, then I really wouldn't worry about the nominal gains that non-variable valved cars might find from completely freeing the ECU, sensor, injector and pre-throttle body intake rules. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned not wanting to free injectors. Why? If folks want to fiddle with injectors for that last 0.025% why not let them? This isn't rocket science anymore. It's just like rejetting a carbueretor (did I remember how to spell that correctly?). Simple, effective, very easy to monitor, and best of all inexpensive and not contrary to common sense (e.g., heater core).

The MAP sensor lives in the box. You just need to mechancally send it a vacuum/pressure signal from the manfiold - run a hose (your car probably already has one going to the ECU). You can then leave the original air meter system in place and ignore it's signal.
[/b]

Chris, you must have the 88-92 VW Digifant ECU box with flapper (or late California with hot wire) in your car. The earlier ones (and many other makes) do not have any MAP sensor anywhere (although some of those did have a vacuum hose going to a non-ECU or ignition-only box). My read of the current rule is that you could not add an opening in the ECU or fuel computer box even for a vacuum line (presumably to an added MAP sensor in the box) if it didn't have it from the factory.

 

[Eagle7]

I'm pretty sure Chris meant that in a aftermarket ECU the MAP sensor lives in the box, so if you allow the aftermarket ECU box, you'd just attach a vacuum hose to it. That is true of a Megasquirt - I don't know about other brands.

 

[tnord]

I think variable valve timing should be severely restricted in all currently existing (hint hint) IT classes, if not disallowed completely.
[/b]

what are you trying to do, eliminate the ITS class altogether?

BMW 325 (of 93+ variety iirc)
99+ Mazda Miata
1994 + Integra GSR

are all cars off the top of my head that have variable valve timing in some form. and i completely disagree that allowing the adjustment of valve timing is the same as having an open camshaft rule.

 

[Greg Amy]

That is, of course, correct: the MAP sensor on the Megasquirt is on the board. The limitation is that 1)even if you could put the MS within a stock ECU housing, and 2) your car does not have a MAP from the factory, as my NX does not, then you cannot use the MS system.

If you're a lucky one that has a MAP system already then you can use Megasquirt. Alternatively, if you're really good with electronics you could figure out a way to program your existing system (e.g., MAF) as the input for airflow.

I looked hard through the rules for a loophole, and I looked far around that box to find an opening to stick a hose through (even to the point of leaving out one of the small case screws and fitting a small tube through it) but because of this ECU housing limitation I cannot easily use the lowest-cost standalone EMS system on the market... - GA

 

[sstecker]

and some cars will require a crank trigger
my car also has alternator control in the ecu box

 

[Z3_GoCar]

what are you trying to do, eliminate the ITS class altogether?

BMW 325 (of 93+ variety iirc)
99+ Mazda Miata
1994 + Integra GSR

are all cars off the top of my head that have variable valve timing in some form. and i completely disagree that allowing the adjustment of valve timing is the same as having an open camshaft rule.
[/b]

Not only that, but the two systems that I know how they work are are either cam setting A or setting B, there's no sweep between the settings just a simple bang-bang control system. Honda's does change the valve lift when it switches to the secondary cam, mine just changes the intake phasing, later BMW's changed both intake and exhaust phasing, but neither changes the lift. I did remember hearing about a system used in Ferrari's that does sweep the cam across the lifter, but how many Ferrari IT cars are there? Also, this system doesn't seem practical as the pressure and wear on the cam lobe would be very high because the roller lifter is shaped like a round ball bearing. Do a google search on Variable Valve timing and you'll come across a decent Wikkipeadia article on it. As for mine, we set it at a relatively low RPM and I run above the tip in point most of the time anyway. Only time I don't run on the second setting is at idle, warming up, and going slow through the pits/ hot pits.

James

 

[Eagle7]

That is, of course, correct: the MAP sensor on the Megasquirt is on the board. The limitation is that 1)even if you could put the MS within a stock ECU housing, and 2) your car does not have a MAP from the factory, as my NX does not, then you cannot use the MS system.

If you're a lucky one that has a MAP system already then you can use Megasquirt. Alternatively, if you're really good with electronics you could figure out a way to program your existing system (e.g., MAF) as the input for airflow.

I looked hard through the rules for a loophole, and I looked far around that box to find an opening to stick a hose through (even to the point of leaving out one of the small case screws and fitting a small tube through it) but because of this ECU housing limitation I cannot easily use the lowest-cost standalone EMS system on the market... - GA
[/b]

I pretty sure MS can use MAF instead of MAP. I don't know how many people are doing it (probably not many), nor how well it works. If your car has a simple Air Flow Meter rather than MAF you might be out of luck.

 

[Renaultfool]

It sounds like it took IT-R to get a lot of you to see the light! About time.
They quit making bug eye Sprites a long time ago. It is time we get into the present and run cars with the reality of the equipment and restrictions placed on them by the factorys.
To race many of these cars you must open up the ECU rule to make it economical for us to do.

Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. The ECU can change the mixture and the timing on some cars, but it cannot change the size of the hole. (The "hole" being your current intake track restrictions, throttle body, air flow sensors etc.) There is nothing being made or accepted into IT with a carb any more, let go of it.
In my opinion the ECU and wiring harness both should be open, heck even the sensors, as long as they have to draw their air through the original intake track and restrictions. To allow the open ECU but not the harness would only increase the cost. You don't need a MOTEC if you open it up. I've talked to people who have spent more money getting their IT-C Honda carb "professionally built" than some of the lower end ECUs cost. Megasquirt being one example. Open it up, lets run!
Oh yes, if any of you "keep it the way it has been since the early 70s when the rules were written" guys run across some really fast wire, send me a roll.

Carl

 

[Bill Miller]

It is time we get into the present and run cars with the reality of the equipment and restrictions placed on them by the factorys.
To race many of these cars you must open up the ECU rule to make it economical for us to do.



Carl
[/b]

Pretty funny Carl, I'll give you that.

BTW, "Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. " Sure sounds like an arguement for SIRs to me!

 

[Ron]

Being someone who runs a car with an "outdated and old" carb; mostly what I am reading is that opening up the ECU is for cost containment as for anything else. I run a carb instead of FI because I am the crew cheif on my car. If it stops running I check for Spark from that old distributor and fuel squirting out that carb thing. I grew up sailing with my parents , and KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID has worked for me. We still work really hard on all aspects of the car, just in a simple way. But don't think we don't want to run up front.
Then someone spoke of how much cost is involved in a race preped Weber carb. Well, if cost is the issue let us carb cars run a Holley 350. Every circle track around the country runs this carb. You can buy them anywhere, there cheap, even race preped. Sets of jets are cheap. Oh yeah we would get a little gain in performance, but so would an open ECU. I think Weber has even stopped producing the 32/36. You speak of updating from the seventies, here's a chance.
Yes , I am stiring the pot.

 

[Dave Ebersole]

And let the CIS cars adapt Mega-Squirt................

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Being someone who runs a car with an "outdated and old" carb; mostly what I am reading is that opening up the ECU is for cost containment as for anything else. I run a carb instead of FI because I am the crew cheif on my car. If it stops running I check for Spark from that old distributor and fuel squirting out that carb thing. I grew up sailing with my parents , and KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID has worked for me. We still work really hard on all aspects of the car, just in a simple way. But don't think we don't want to run up front.
Then someone spoke of how much cost is involved in a race preped Weber carb. Well, if cost is the issue let us carb cars run a Holley 350. Every circle track around the country runs this carb. You can buy them anywhere, there cheap, even race preped. Sets of jets are cheap. Oh yeah we would get a little gain in performance, but so would an open ECU. I think Weber has even stopped producing the 32/36. You speak of updating from the seventies, here's a chance.
Yes , I am stiring the pot.
[/b]

Ron,

First thanks for stirring the pot, as I came to realize several points about opening the ecu; however, this still doesn't change my opinion on the subject. It's just that cost containment isn't the only main reason for revising the rule. The philosophy of IT is that everything must remain togeather as an assembly, motors, carbs, intake manifolds, transmissions, all except the motor ECU. With the ecu one must open the case remove the control boards and sodder in a new set of control boards that already correspond to a very advanced tunnable engine management system, such that sensor gains and impeadances may be tuned to use the factory wire harness and sensors. Secondly I say count yourself fortunate that you can use an alternate carb, in all honesty I'd say restricting us to only using ecu's that can fit inside the stock computer case is equvallent to not allowing those of us with electonic FI to switch to a tunnable system(aka an alternate carburetor). How would you like it if you had to stay with the factory Hitatchi/Rochester/Solex/Motorcraft untunnable junk? Once you switched didn't you see a rise in HP? We who have post 1995 cars have systems that are designed to be untunnable. I say if we're not allowed an alternate ecu then you should be forced to return back to your original carburetor, after all what's good for the electronic FI cars should be good enough for the carbureted cars too, and while we're at it all distributor timming must remain at the stock setting, no timming advances, no adjusting the advance curve, nothing! It should all stay at the stock setting and sealed too.

James

 

[Bill Miller]

Ron,

First thanks for stirring the pot, as I came to realize several points about opening the ecu; however, this still doesn't change my opinion on the subject. It's just that cost containment isn't the only main reason for revising the rule. The philosophy of IT is that everything must remain togeather as an assembly, motors, carbs, intake manifolds, transmissions, all except the motor ECU. With the ecu one must open the case remove the control boards and sodder in a new set of control boards that already correspond to a very advanced tunnable engine management system, such that sensor gains and impeadances may be tuned to use the factory wire harness and sensors. Secondly I say count yourself fortunate that you can use an alternate carb, in all honesty I'd say restricting us to only using ecu's that can fit inside the stock computer case is equvallent to not allowing those of us with electonic FI to switch to a tunnable system(aka an alternate carburetor). How would you like it if you had to stay with the factory Hitatchi/Rochester/Solex/Motorcraft untunnable junk? Once you switched didn't you see a rise in HP? We who have post 1995 cars have systems that are designed to be untunnable. I say if we're not allowed an alternate ecu then you should be forced to return back to your original carburetor, after all what's good for the electronic FI cars should be good enough for the carbureted cars too, and while we're at it all distributor timming must remain at the stock setting, no timming advances, no adjusting the advance curve, nothing! It should all stay at the stock setting and sealed too.

James
[/b]

James,

Please, find someone else to sell this load of BS too. Just because it has to fit in the stock housing means that it won't offer any tunability? Since there are guys out there that have stuffed full MoTec systems into their stock housings, I think you need to re-evaluate your statement.

And maybe this is a good time to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause. Every car in IT has warts, pick the one you want to run, but realize it has to run w/ those warts. You've got FWD cars and RWD cars, you've got cars w/ live axles and cars w/ IRS, you've got cars w/ strut suspensions and ones w/ torsion bars (and some w/ dbl wishbones), you've got cars w/ OHV motors and cars w/ OHC motors, you've got cars w/ FI (many flavors) and cars w/ carbs. They've all got pluses and minuses, pick the one you want to run, and deal w/ its 'fact set'.

The ECU rule should have never been changed. The underlying reason behind the change was based on the assumption that given the opportunity, and the low probablity of being caught, people will cheat. Maybe there's enough evidence throughout the history of racing to support this assumption, and maybe there isn't. I think it's a sad comment on our sport though.

I agree that newer cars' electronics will have to be addressed. We've got rules on the books that may make some of these cars un-raceable (cars go into limp mode if you disable or remove xxx, but the rules require that xxx be removed or disabled. Short of diddling the ECU, I don't know how you solve this problem. But to claim that you're at a disadvantage to a guy that can run an alternate carb, because you can't run an alternate ECU is a crock!

 

[Greg Amy]

...And maybe this is a good time to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause...The ECU rule should have never been changed.[/b]

Bill, I relented on the spherical "bushings" and I feel better for it; I suggest it's time to discontinue tilting this windmill... - GA

 

[Ron]

Running the stock carb would be fine as it is basiclly the weber 32/36 with a holley name on it. I am not opposed to opening up the ECU. I agree that there are certain cars that benifit from the rules more than others as they are written now. My own goal would be to class all IT cars into a production class. I think that SCCA should greatly reduce the number of classes. Do we really need CSR, DSR, and S2000 (Three of my favorite classes). What Grand Am did by going to just two classes was great.
Sorry. a bit off topic. Open up the ECU make it easier for FI cars to run. Make it easier for CIS cars to run. Just don't force me into building a new car without a 2 year warning so I can plan my next move. Thats all. I would hate to show up at Road Atlanta in February and find the FI cars much faster all running Mega Squirt and me just whinning like one of my three daughters. YES THREE.

 

[JimLill]

Does it make sense to have an age based scheme?

Something like cars older than 1990 can make more changes than newer ones or something along those lines? Or maybe a 20 year limit, that is older than 20 years you have more freedom. (I have a 1986 !! )

Swapping CIS for Megasquirt would be nice........

 

[Ron Earp]

Does it make sense to have an age based scheme?

Something like cars older than 1990 can make more changes than newer ones or something along those lines? Or maybe a 20 year limit, that is older than 20 years you have more freedom. (I have a 1986 !! )
[/b]

Won't work IMHO. Some manufactuer's persisted in using essentially 80s based FI systems into the 90s, late 90s. There is no hard and fast cut off year for easily modified verus not easily modified ECUs.

As I mentioned in an eariler post how easy it is to modify is directly related to how much aftermarket support there is. My Lightning is OBD-II, but there are so many things out there you can essentially write your own running code for the motor. Simple. Our late model Volvo V70 is OBD-II too, but there isn't a thing on the market for it useful for racing and you'd need to Megasquirt or similar to get good racing performance from it.

R

 

[Ron Earp]

Pretty funny Carl, I'll give you that.

BTW, "Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. " Sure sounds like an arguement for SIRs to me!
[/b]

Uggh. Not there again.

I think what he means to say is the intake size is fixed, the engine is an air pump, and no amount of electronic management will make it produce more power than the mechanicals dictate. Certainly, good a ECU management will allow you to harness more of what is available, but it isn't magic.

R