ECUs....is it time?

[dj10]

I also would like to include these functions with the allowed engine management functions, and for the same reasons as you Dan. Our system can operate on a simple bang-bang control signal, but the future valvetronic type systems aren't so simple to operate. Maybe we should just cross that bridge in five years.

As for the D/A function. Speaking from my system, I need a lap-top hooked up to a RS-232 serial port to collect the data and write it to a file. I doubt that's something you'd want banging around during a race. Steve mentioned allowing direct collection of signals from sensors for D/A purposes, monitering those signals might be one way to watch but not touch a/f ratio's. Any idea on how you'd insert it into the current language Steve? I'd be a little concerned it might go into a system that does more that what we intend, but I might be convinced otherwise as I'm still considering it.

James [/b]

As for me, I'd be happy with a system like yours James. You can monitor the A/F when you down load the data into the laptop and still be able to make changes accordingly while the car is not on track. I'm not a 100% sure what you mean by a "bang-bang control signal" and how would this work the same on a double vanos?

dj

 

[Eagle7]

I know it's been rumored that some teams are using the current rule to take control of idle speed control systems. Most idle speed controls are setup with some kind of variable valve that routes additional air around the throttle blade at idle to allow electronic control to stabilize the idle speed during varying load situations and during cold warm up. The rumor is that teams are using the open box rule to pin these valves open to serve as an alternate route for additional air to enter the engine. This makes more power. Here's what's important. This could be accomplished with a simple jumper inside the stock box (gray area legal?) and isn't the direct result of an EMS change. It would also be possible if we speced an EMS and harness to have the harness shipped from the manufacturer with just enough leads to only allow interface between the ECU and the needed sensors and needed outputs. No PWM outputs for things such as idle control valves that would be used for an unintended purpose. I suspect this is where GA Cup is going with their spec ECU/harness rule. Want to eliminate this? Require all idle speed control systems be removed and any holes left in the intake blanked if an alternate EMS is used. Idle speed control is not required for a race engine where cold start is of little concern and there is not an a/c compressor continually cycling. In fact, probably 90% of the street cars that I do installs on do not utilize any form of idle control with their aftermarket EMS. They cold start and idle just fine.
[/b]

1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

With the bang-bang control there's two states, off and on. In my case I'm single VANOS so the single general purpose output wire goes to a relay, which switches a full 12v. to the intake VANOS wire. The control is set so that when x,xxx rpms is reached the relay activates the VANOS and the intake is advanced increasing overlap between intake and exhaust. With a double VANOS two GPO's and you could trigger both seperately, or use one GPO and trigger both at the same time. During tunning of my system we found that activating it early ment we didn't have to deal with a large shift in the fuel curve when it did kick in. Originally, the system would be way rich, untill the tip in point then it'd go lean once it was activated. I'd imagine that the dual VANOS whould want to activate early too as the same issues could be encountered.

James

 

[Eagle7]

These alternate EMS/ECU's will only be allowed to perform the function of fuel curve and ignition,

That won't fly for lots of cars.

they will not allow air to bypass the throttle plate,

I disagree. Why prevent the use of these stock parts.

nor perform functions not allowed (i.e. traction control or anti-lock brakes).

Agreed.

Only the systems listed are allowed to replace factory EMS/ECU's

Totally disagree with a spec ECU. What's next, spec shocks?

and will be mounted in such a fashion as to be easily inspected for compliance with allowed connections.

OK.

All original air metering sensors, including flapper valves or hot wire Air Flow Meters, will remain installed in the intake tract irregardless of if the alternate EMS/ECM uses the signal or not.

Agreed.

All air bypass control valves will be removed and the openings plugged, or used for alternate approved replacement sensors.

Disagree.

If an alternate EMS/ECU is not used then the original EMS/ECU must be used in an unaltered and unmodified state other than availible downloadable software or proms.

Why? If the ECU is open, modify to your heart's content.

If the original EMS/ECU performs other functions neccessary to the operation of the vehicle other than controling fuel and ignition, it may remain installed and connected to the stock wiring harness.

I think you're saying that the alternate ECU must not perform any non-fuel/spark function. The original ECU must be used for those functions. Disagree.

Otherwise the original EMS/ECU may be completely removed from the vehicle.

Strike the "Otherwise".

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are not to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

OK. No pot on the dash for fuel mixture. Why not?

The alternate EMS/ECU's and their allowed sensors are as follows:

Again, no spec ECU for me.

[/quote]How's that for a first pass? Now what holes can be poked in that? Let's figure out how to make this hold air. So that we can get what we need (adjustability) without going too far overboard that everything that's not EFI is no longer competitive.

James

On edit and second thought:

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?[/quote]

Thanks James. Good to get this discussion started.

I'd also like to bring additional sensors into the ECU as a logging point, and be able to log ECU data and arbitrary sensor data during events.

EDIT: Quotes didn't work, so I italicized them.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.
[/b]

Part of the problem is that older or lower cost systems that are simple enough to prevent unintended consequences are designed to only operate on a given set of sensors. Secondly, the pattern is set, if a replacement ECU is to be used it must be specified, much like a replacement carburetor is specified, otherwise one could show up with ECU brand X with it hooked up to perform illegal functions, and how would it be detected? By spec'ing the list of approved ECU's and how they're hooked up there's much more control on what functions are allowed and how to make cheating easier to discover. If you want to use brand X, then propose it to be included, including how it's to be hooked up, what sensors are used and where, and it will be considered. If we were to just openly accept all EMS/ECU's how would there be any manner of policing their implementation? We might as well let all the carburetted guys pick their poision too. Finally, I'm sure you like your idle control valve, and if you're running the oem computer you can keep it, but take it from me, it's not neccessary. For cold start all I need to do is crack the throttle plate open and get it above the surge point. Once I get 150 degrees in water temp the idle settles down and the surging stops, simple. As a matter of fact, I can go from cold to ready to shut down in the time it takes the pre-grid to form all without an idle control valve, or I can get it fully warm before I roll up to the pre-grid, then shut it down and wait quietly untill they give me the thumbs up.

James

 

[C. Ludwig]

1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.
[/b]

re: 1) A MAP sensor reading won't show additional flow. It's simply a pressure signal. In a speed density system there is not a sensor that will enable you to monitor flow. Quite simply, the only way you will recognize an increase in VE is when you need to add more fuel to maintain a common a/f ratio. Flow, or more precisely VE, is not actually directly determined in a speed density system. When programming a fuel curve you need to make assumptions on what the flow will be for a given MAP reading and program the fuel curve to match the assumed VE. I could go on but trust me when I say that MAP is manifold pressure and has nothing to do with flow. Now if you were to monitor a mass air sensor output it would be possible to see changes in VE.

In an RX-7 the restriction may be down stream of the throttle. Be it the ports, crappy manifold, whatever. But if we are to allow introduction of air sourced around the throttle it is a possibility to source air from around any restriction in the intake tract ahead of the throttle plate. ie. the infamous 325 restrictor plate. With the new rule that allows us to rework the intake tract ahead of the throttle plates it's an easy matter to route air to the IAC from in front of the restrictor. Peg the restrictor open under WOT and you can theoretically increase VE. Legal? If it were my car I'd make a damn good arguement that I have done nothing illegal.

re: 3) The current rule reads "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function." Though the letter of the rule is met in the senario we are referring to I highly doubt those that wrote the ECU rule ever considered this consequence. That is why I term it gray area legal. It does not IMO meet the spirit of the rule.

The more I think about it the spec ECU rule might not be the solution. The wording is already in the rule book. "No permitted component/modification..." Simply stipulate in the rule what is allowed and what isn't. No traction control, no abs, all air entering the engine must pass through any required restrictor plate and additionally must pass through the unaltered throttle body. I still think requiring that all IAC controls be ditched is a good idea. Turn the idle up from the stock 700-800 rpm to 1200-1500 and there is no problem. Ditching the control solves many more problems than it would create. However, I will concede that most won't like the idea.

At that point it then becomes incumbent upon the tech process to catch those that want to cheat. The current rule does nothing to deter anyone from cheating. Just like another rule won't. The current rule simply makes it more expensive and harder to obtain the 10/10 prep. At the biggest races part of the tech process would include downloading the current map/settings from the ECU onto a hard disc or CD in impound. This process takes all of about 1 minute. If it's not possible at that time to have a 3rd party fluent in that particular EMS to analyze the settings to determine if illegal functions have been programmed then the data can be stored and sampled later to determine legality. Employing one person for an afternoon at the ARRC who is fluent in major EMS coding should not be that much trouble. It would certainly be many times easier to check the coding of a common Motec box than it would be to check the coding of a stock PROM that has been burned with alternate information.

 

[dj10]

At that point it then becomes incumbent upon the tech process to catch those that want to cheat. The current rule does nothing to deter anyone from cheating. Just like another rule won't. The current rule simply makes it more expensive and harder to obtain the 10/10 prep. At the biggest races part of the tech process would include downloading the current map/settings from the ECU onto a hard disc or CD in impound. This process takes all of about 1 minute. If it's not possible at that time to have a 3rd party fluent in that particular EMS to analyze the settings to determine if illegal functions have been programmed then the data can be stored and sampled later to determine legality. Employing one person for an afternoon at the ARRC who is fluent in major EMS coding should not be that much trouble. It would certainly be many times easier to check the coding of a common Motec box than it would be to check the coding of a stock PROM that has been burned with alternate information. [/b]

Chris, are you ready to make a play to the CRB & ITAC with what you know as to be facts?

dj

 

[shwah]

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.
[/b]

Nope. I have an 86 CIS-E car. None of this applies to my setup. This would only be a viable option for a digifant VW. FWIW CIS-E does have a vacuum line going to one of the engine control boxes, but that does not really matter since we lack those all important electronic fuel injectors

 

[shwah]

The premis that only the high end systems allow you to adapt to factory sensors is incorrect. In fact the cheapest system - Megasquirt - supports this, and tons of people take advantage of it.

MAP vs MAF is not a big deal. It comes down to tuning. When you tune the ECU you essentially define the volumetric efficiency of the engine at different operating conditions (MAP vs. RPM). Once you get this map properly defined it will run great. If you have a MAF you now have a method to know explicitly how much air is entering, as long as you choose an ECU that allows you to use a MAF then tuning should be easier for you. I would expect the MAP guy to spend more on dyno time and the MAF guy to spend more on hardware and/or ECU development time.

All this talk has me looking through the garage for that old Digifant system I have laying around from a past project....

 

[sstecker]

The premis that only the high end systems allow you to adapt to factory sensors is incorrect. In fact the cheapest system - Megasquirt - supports this, and tons of people take advantage of it.

[/b]

there are sensor maps available but not for the factory MAP sensors.

 

[shwah]

In that case you will spend some time scaling the sensor and building/tweaking the sensor map. It can still be accomplished.

I am one of those that has wanted to undo the 'anything in the box' rule, but agree that this is just not feasible. I do not agree with allowing alternate sensors or wiring harnesses, but do agree that the shape of the box is inconsequential and should be updated. You should only be able to change the ECU connector on the wiring harness. If you have an old damaged/worn wiring harness, repair it.

The contention that some cars are old and some wires are damaged, therefore the whole harness must be replaced is silly. Identify the offending wire(s) and repair/replace that wire, running it from the original source to the original destination along the original path.

 

[Renaultfool]

Nice artical on the MegaSquirt in the copy of GrassRoots Motorsports I picked up at Borders last night. I have spent quite a bit of time researching MegaSquirt and you can fairly simply adapt it to about any combination of sensors that you want.

I see that some are still hung up on wiring harnesses and sensors, neither of which can make more horsepower than the Volumetric Effeciency of the mechanical parts of the engine design and intake restrictions built in from the factory. Leave the long block and intake tract factory stock according to our current rules and make the rest open. There is not significant weight savings from a harness, and the aftermarket ECUs can be adapted to your current sensors with a little work, so what are you preventing by allowing these items to be open? It ain't cheaten if it is open.
Carl

 

[Ron Earp]

I see that some are still hung up on wiring harnesses and sensors, neither of which can make more horsepower than the Volumetric Effeciency of the mechanical parts of the engine design and intake restrictions built in from the factory
Carl
[/b]

EXACTLY! Something I've been saying for a week now with respect to the situation. Doesn't matter what wires, computer, or software are hooked to the damn thing, you are not going to exceed the VE that is mechanically dictated.

You might harness more of what is available, but, that is the goal of all of our modifications.

R

 

[dj10]

EXACTLY! Something I've been saying for a week now with respect to the situation. Doesn't matter what wires, computer, or software are hooked to the damn thing, you are not going to exceed the VE that is mechanically dictated.

You might harness more of what is available, but, that is the goal of all of our modifications.

R [/b]

Agreed, the hp you might gain is from making what you have more efficent.

I'm now interested, what the ITAC have to say about this and are we far enough along to sumbit something to the CRB?

 

[dickita15]

The original premise behind this thread was that requiring all ECU modification to be within the original box was making people spend more money that necessary to get the maximum legal improvement in performance. For the sake of illustration that you were being forced to spend $6000 for a Motec when a less expensive system would give the same result but would not fit in the box. It was said that by allowing different systems if would not change the 10 10ths level of performances but would just make it less expensive to get to this already available level of performance. This proposed solution is said to have no change in the balance of performance between cars.

Now some of you are suggesting that harnesses and sensors should be unrestricted. I have to believe that this would affect some cars more than others. Would this not upset the balance of performance that the ITAC achieved thru PCAs?

The original proposal, using the stock harness, is a cost saving measure but it seems to me that what you are talking about now could be a significant increase in performance.

 

[C. Ludwig]

Now some of you are suggesting that harnesses and sensors should be unrestricted. I have to believe that this would affect some cars more than others. Would this not upset the balance of performance that the ITAC achieved thru PCAs?

The original proposal, using the stock harness, is a cost saving measure but it seems to me that what you are talking about now could be a significant increase in performance.
[/b]

Can you explain that point of view?

 

[seckerich]

Can you explain that point of view?
[/b]

The current weights and allowances take into account historical %gains for the cars now in IT. If you now allow wide band O2, more precise sensors for Map, TPS, and air flow you open it up to some real creative solutions. How about a 65MM hot wire from a mustang on the Mazda? Total control of the dual Vanos on the BMW? I know some Honda's will get real fast with unlimited sensors and ECU. It will take years to balance the equation again as cars have to go 10/10ths in all these cases to see the real outcome. Open up the ECU but keep the STOCK sensors as the only inputs. Anyone with the brains to set up a system is smart enough to solder to the original ECU plug.

 

[Greg Amy]

Fully recognizing what Dick is saying (and agreeing with it) I do believe that the marginal gains in performance that could/would come from open sensors and wiring is small.

Once you start getting into a full-programmable EMS, you're on the fat part of the learning/performance curve, and it's easy to get fat gains with minimal work. Once optimized with factory parts, that little bit you can eek out with more sensors and wires is, really, not that much (generally speaking, of course; each car is different).

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. Let's run that way for a few years, with factory sensors and wiring, and let's see what happens. At best it changes nothing, where someone decides to run whatever system they're running now except in a bigger box; at worst someone figures out a clever way around the rules (a la "Motec in a Box" did) and we've nipped that in the bud before it gets too over-the-top.

If, after some limited time frame, we find that the lack of aftermarket sensors has itself created a system where it costs more to meet/get around the rules (as did the 'unmodified ECU housing') then we can revisit it at that time.

If you try to go full-guns and attempt to convince the ITAC, CRB, and BoD that Improved Touring needs wide open engine management system, I'm quite confident the status quo will prevail... - GA

 

[JimLill]

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. [/b]

I like that

 

[dj10]

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. Let's run that way for a few years, with factory sensors and wiring, and let's see what happens. If you try to go full-guns and attempt to convince the ITAC, CRB, and BoD that Improved Touring needs wide open engine management system, I'm quite confident the status quo will prevail... - GA [/b]

Lets go one step farther, change the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part and also remove the stock wiring harness, but keep the factory sensors.



My reasoning here is that it will keep the costs down more if we are able to link the EMS wiring harness to the factory sensors than to try and rewire & rework the stock wiring harness to the EMS. I will caution, the factory sensors may or may not be compatable with some EMS's. I also believe that any gains will be directly related to the quality of the engine, fuel system and exhaust it is hooked up to. Just a note, I don't believe that any of the EMS sensors out there will make a difference in power, all they are there to do is monitor, record and to be adjustable.