HP vs. Torque and the System

I hope everyone understands that torque is taken into account during the process in the form of an adder. We may not have it 'exact' but it is a factor.

Bill - adding weight to cars that can rev real high and then subtracting it for no torque doesn't seem productive. I think we all know that the major benefit to tunable ECU's is the expansion of the area under the curve. What people have been saying is that the open ECU rule won't expand the performance envelope from where it is today...because today it's alrady open, just out of the reach of those without significant dollars to spend.

I like the attempts at new and improved number crunching.
 
I hope everyone understands that torque is taken into account during the process in the form of an adder. We may not have it 'exact' but it is a factor.

Bill - adding weight to cars that can rev real high and then subtracting it for no torque doesn't seem productive. I think we all know that the major benefit to tunable ECU's is the expansion of the area under the curve. What people have been saying is that the open ECU rule won't expand the performance envelope from where it is today...because today it's alrady open, just out of the reach of those without significant dollars to spend.

I like the attempts at new and improved number crunching.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy,

Where does it say that you can add a MAP, change the sensors, and modify the wiring harness? IF the new rule was intended to only make it easier to implement a MoTec like system, w/o having to go to the expense of stuffing it into the stock housing, why they need for all that other stuff? That 'other stuff' will give people the ability to optimize it even more, which WILL expand the performance envelope. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make more power, but I bet it does increase the area under the curve.
 
Andy,

Where does it say that you can add a MAP, change the sensors, and modify the wiring harness? IF the new rule was intended to only make it easier to implement a MoTec like system, w/o having to go to the expense of stuffing it into the stock housing, why they need for all that other stuff? That 'other stuff' will give people the ability to optimize it even more, which WILL expand the performance envelope. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make more power, but I bet it does increase the area under the curve. [/b]
Click to expand...

Bill,

The ECU I have right now is inside the stock box, wired into the stock harness and has a MAP sensor integrated into the ECU. The technology is out there already.

Now the Squirt guys can do the same thing I can for 1/4 the cost. No difference in performance...but you didn't realize that under the current rule I can do everything the new rule allows...
 
What Andy said +1, and..........

Bill, did you know that there are cars out there in ITB that are running full ECU systems with a MAP? And they've been doing it for a couple years now. The allowance of a MAP sensor was to ease the installation of some alternate systems, as they don't always talk to the stock sensors. Now, that's not to say that any system can't be made to work with any sensor, but, it was thought that to not allow an alternate sensor would defeat the purpose of the rule change. And it was also felt that allowing a MAP sensor wasn't going to allow the engine to breath better, and any performance changes resultant from that sensor change would be extremely minimal, if any at all.
 
Without turning this into an ECU thread, I think the most important part of the new rule is that it gives the opportunity for any EFI model car to easily use any aftermarket ECU. Changes nothing, just makes it easier.
Now back to your regularly scheduled process thread
(btw, great discussion)
 
Without turning this into an ECU thread, I think the most important part of the new rule is that it gives the opportunity for any EFI model car to easily use any aftermarket ECU. Changes nothing, just makes it easier.
Now back to your regularly scheduled process thread
(btw, great discussion)
[/b]
Click to expand...

How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?

And whatever happened to the 'every car has it's pluses and minuses, you pick your car knowing what they are'?
 
How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?
[/b]
Click to expand...

BECAUSE BILL, you can buy an ECU NOW for HUGE money that has those capabilities - that is perfectly legal. I have one.
 
How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?

And whatever happened to the 'every car has it's pluses and minuses, you pick your car knowing what they are'? [/b]
Click to expand...
BECAUSE BILL, you can buy an ECU NOW for HUGE money that has those capabilities - that is perfectly legal. I have one.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Um..., not to quibble, but how do you get the MAP to the sensor?
 
Many aftermarket (most?) ecus have a map sensor mounted on the board. If the car has a vacuum line going to the ecu box it can use that to bring a signal to the ecu sensor. Many cars have a map sensor from the factory. Those cars can use that one.

However not all cars have a map sensor, or a vacuum line going to the ecu, thus those are far more restricted in what ecu they can run. Opening up the map sensor is intended to make it equally easy to install an aftermarket ecu into any electronically injected car. The same holds true for the TPS.
 
Um..., not to quibble, but how do you get the MAP to the sensor?[/b]
Click to expand...

If the car has a vacuum line going to the ecu box it can use that to bring a signal to the ecu sensor. Many cars have a map sensor from the factory. Those cars can use that one.[/b]
Click to expand...

My eyebrows raised on that one, too.

Andy, what I think Marty's asking is the same thing I immediately thought of when I read that post of yours: I can only assume you added a MAP sensor to your car that didn't exist before - clearly outside the original intent of the rules - and you routed a non-standard vacuum line to your ECU, also clearly against the intent of the rules. From Chris' post above, I infer he agrees with that as well, that adding a MAP sensor and a vacuum line to a car that didn't have one before is outside the original intent of the rules. I'm further assuming you routed that vacuum line into the ECU without making additional holes in the housing (maybe using an existing screw hole or something like that), thereby meeting the "letter".

Now, in reading the words ("letter") of the rules, I can certainly "justify" what you did, but only in the same way I can "justify" spherical bearings (original rule), modified VW CIS (current new "engine management computer" rule), Motec-in-a-box, and a host of other controversial items. But I also believe that in doing so you've violated the spirit of the rules.

On the other hand, given MoTec-in-a-box...tit-for-tat?

If my inference is incorrect, I apologize. But if my inference is correct I suggest you've lost any basis for chiding others for twisting the words contrary to the original intent and towards your own...just 'cause others have done it doesn't make it right... - GA
 
My eyebrows raised on that one, too.

Andy, what I think Marty's asking is the same thing I immediately thought of when I read that post of yours: I can only assume you added a MAP sensor to your car that didn't exist before - clearly outside the original intent of the rules - and you routed a non-standard vacuum line to your ECU, also clearly against the intent of the rules. From Chris' post above, I infer he agrees with that as well, that adding a MAP sensor and a vacuum line to a car that didn't have one before is outside the original intent of the rules. I'm further assuming you routed that vacuum line into the ECU without making additional holes in the housing (maybe using an existing screw hole or something like that), thereby meeting the "letter".

Now, in reading the words ("letter") of the rules, I can certainly "justify" what you did, but only in the same way I can "justify" spherical bearings (original rule), modified VW CIS (current new "engine management computer" rule), Motec-in-a-box, and a host of other controversial items. But I also believe that in doing so you've violated the spirit of the rules.

On the other hand, given MoTec-in-a-box...tit-for-tat?

If my inference is incorrect, I apologize. But if my inference is correct I suggest you've lost any basis for chiding others for twisting the words contrary to the original intent and towards your own...just 'cause others have done it doesn't make it right... - GA [/b]
Click to expand...

All good questions.

The ECU I have has the MAP sensor integrated as part of the unit. I added 'nothing outside the OEM box'. I ran a vacuum line to that sensor through an existing hole in the box. No modifications needed. While the vacuum tube is certainly not stock and it attaches to a 100% stock vacuum source with no modification, I believe it falls under George's "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule, since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware. If the MAP sensor was a seperate unit that I had to install in the engine bay, I would agree with you 100%.

What is your take now?
 
***since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware.***

Been enjoying this engagement, but this ^ begs a question.

Is this "free hardware" rule you speak of the same rule as per 9.1.3.D.1.0. ? :rolleyes: If not which hardware rule do you reference ?

Have Fun ;)
David
 
***since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware.***

Been enjoying this engagement, but this ^ begs a question.

Is this "free hardware" rule you speak of the same rule as per 9.1.3.D.1.0. ? :rolleyes: If not which hardware rule do you reference ?

Have Fun ;)
David [/b]
Click to expand...

The 'free' hardware I refer to is the ECU. Some have questioned the addition of a MAP sensor and it's legality. I agree that it is currently not legal to add a seperate MAP sensor into the engine bay in order to make your ECU work. This ECU has the MAP sensor integrated, therby (IMHO) making the argument moot. It's all done inside the factory ECU housing as per the rules.
 
What is your take now?[/b]
Click to expand...
I completely agree and understand what you did; it is exactly as I assumed.

My "take" is that you took advantage of the way the rules were written, in contrast to its original intent, just as the MoTec-in-a-box guys did. I'd say that what you did is completely "legal" under the current mindset of the rules, as well as the "interpretive culture" of the category and the Club in general. I wouldn't even think of protesting you, as I believe what you have is completely "legal".

But - and the reason I put "legal" in quotes - I believe it's contrary to the intent of the rules. From the wording of the rules - and I was a competitor during the last re-write of the rule, as, I believe, were you - the clear intent of the rule change was to allow simple internal ECU housing modifications such that folks could re-program the "chip" and/or add a daughterboard to so do. Verbiage such as "...stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness..." and "...in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing" and "...stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used" clearly indicates that the rules writers had no intention of allowing additional non-stock sensors, wiring - yes, even vac lines - that weren't on the original car, such that someone can do something that the original ECU couldn't (other than re-programing).

But, that ain't the way the rule was written, was it? Thus, it begat MoTec-in-a-box and Andy Bettencourt adding sensors and vac lines that never existed in the original car, which soon led to full-up opening of the ECU rules (leading us back to that "camel's nose under the tent" argument).

So, all I'm sayin' is that you are just as guilty as any of us of taking unintended advantage of poorly-written rules, resulting in rules changes that were NEVER intended 10 years ago, yet you are usually the first one leading the charge against those that do that...

There are several lessons here:

- One, write the rules correctly. See my prior topic.
- Two, we have a club culture that promotes and rewards "creative interpretation", literal reading of the rules to gain an unintended advantage, a culture that's unlikely to ever change. Remember that when doing One.
- Three, we're all human, no one is immune and "above" doing such things. And we're all going to do it. So let's not pretend we're not.
- Four, camel's nose under the tent, slippery slope, Pandora's Box, whatever you want to call it: one seemingly simple change soon leads to unintended - and ultimately undesired - consequences.

- GA
 
Well, we can agree to disagree as usual.

What I lead the charge against is the torturing of rules. 'Replacing with air' and other BS you trot out as the 'brave new world'. Plain and simple. I have no problem with people working inside the rules as written in a creative way...like your rear 'sway bar'. Outside the intent? Uhhh, yup. Creative and legal? You bet. Problem with it from me? Nope.

If I was on the ITAC when the current ECU rule was written, I would have pushed back, asked them for their intent and helped them convey that intent to the best of my ability. Maybe we would have just chips and reflashed now...but I still believe 100% that there would be a huge gap in performance envelope because of it and we would be looking at opening it up in order to narrow that gap now that the costs are managable.
 
What I lead the charge against is the torturing of rules...I have no problem with people working inside the rules as written in a creative way...[/b]
Click to expand...

Care to explain the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top