HP vs. Torque and the System

[Andy Bettencourt]

Either/or...
[/b]

You've lost me Greg. If you want me to point out some creative applications vs. some torturing of the verbage because you want to know my opinion, fine. If you are saying there is no difference, I won't get into it with you.

 

[Eagle7]

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.
[/b]

Except that the vacuum hose that you ran into the ECU is not "all done inside the factory ECU housing". I think your setup was illegal, solely because of the vacuum hose.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except that the vacuum hose that you ran into the ECU is not "all done inside the factory ECU housing". I think your setup was illegal, solely because of the vacuum hose. [/b]

I understand the issue, but let me pose this question to you:

You are allowed any fuel pump. Where does it say you can add wire to run it?

You are allowed additional gauges. Where does it say you can add wire to run them?

See where I am going? If the installed piece is legal, you can 'hook it up'. The vacuum line in this case is no different than the wiring you need to add to get your allowable gauges up and running. As long as you don't do an illegal mod to facilitate the legal one...right? If I had to modify my intake to grab a vacuum source or if I had to drill a hole in the firewall to run the line, etc.

The George R. "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule.

YMMV.

 

[mom'sZ]

Did you leave out a screw to run the vac line? IIDSYCTYC... oh wait... hardware is free. OK, say I got an aftermarket ECU with a tiny little nitrous oxide bottle mounted on the board. I run tiny little braided steel lines through a screw hole. Oh never mind....
I thought about the run a vac line through the screw hole idea. I didn't think it was fair to my competitors. Legal... maybe, within the intent of the rule... I don't think so, within the spirit of the entire rule set and in keeping with the gentlemenly nature of club racing... NOT
Picking the rules apart word by word and creatively interpreting them so as to allow a clearly unintended modification = torture

Andrew Rowe

 

[DavidM]

Wheeeee

I would've protested a new vacuum line going into the ECU box. You had to use the stock wiring harness, but adding a vacuum line was ok? Doesn't matter now.

If this is the kind of stuff that went on with the old rule, what do you think is going to happen with the new one?

David

 

[Knestis]

...say I got an aftermarket ECU with a tiny little nitrous oxide bottle mounted on the board. I run tiny little braided steel lines through a screw hole. Oh never mind... [/b]

Who says your ECU has to be so small that the Noz bottle is TINY?

K

 

[ddewhurst]

***The one that allows you to replace your stock upper links with custom tubular ones perhaps?***

Please Jeff , that issue was brought to a successful agrement conclusion. The rule allows Susko upper links & Dewhurst lower links. You know, goose & gander thing.

Besides that I moved on to Spec Miata where things get a little more stringent when you slide the rules.

 

[lateapex911]

The interesting point here is that anyone who would protest this line (forgetting whether it is grey, legal or illegal for a moment) would be doing so because.........????

...........Because the ECU he chose works better with the MAP sensor..as in easier to integrate..than with the stock sensor?

He could have utilized the stock sensor, and spent days and buckets of money, but he chose not to, thinking his method was legal....and the on track...and on dyno result would be...........the same.

It's curious to hear of people wanting to protest such an item, when I look around and find grevious offenses pretty darm easily...ram air, cut header panels for cold air intakes, and on and on. Yet, those mods...clearly illegal and performance enhancing...... don't get paper thrown at them, yet this one would?

And if the reason is "because I think it is clearly illegal, and a malicious cheat, and whether the result is a performance gain or not is irrelevent", fine. Fair enough. But, I hope that the same sharp eye is writing all other spotted infractions as well.

Also, I give Andy credit for beign straight up on this, as it is clearly an item that opinions differ on. But...I can tell you, he is not the first guy to do this. I know guys in other classes who have done the same exact thing. And they felt the method of implementation was legal as well.

 

[mom'sZ]

You are right Jake, and I think we are back to Greg's idea about creating a "culture" of not excepting creative interpretations of the rules.
Hey, when I first started working on my car, I took a stroll through the padock at Moroso and spotted one IT guy with a lawnmower battery mounted on the floor where the back seat used to live. Nobody said a word.

 

[shwah]

Andy I do think that your vacuum line was outside the previous rule. You could use any ecu, but you had to work within the stock components, which did not include said vacuum line.

However, I also think this is a case of people not seeing the forest for the trees. How does the stock Miata system determine engine load? However that was accomplished, I see no reason that an aftermarket solution could not be configured the same. So yeah technically not right, and actually one of the reasons that the new rule makes sense, but I don't see anything in the old rule that actually prevented a programable system in the Miata, or any other electronically injected car.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I most certainly think my set-up is legal to the letter (we could argue original intent or spirit all day) and most certainly not a 'tortured interpretation', I would have no problem defending it in front of a protest committee. Everything done to my car has that possibility in mind.

The bigger issue IS the protesting. I suppose I am part of the problem because I only protest when there is an issue that has a large performance increase - AND I GET BEATEN. The battery example above is a good one. I would never protest it, nor would I even say anything to the guy - until I had a solid enough relationship with him/her that I felt comfortable bringing it up.

Maybe we can start some sort of grassroots movement that centralizes all of our 'nitpicky' issues with each others cars and gets them distributed in a non-offensive way? Like a drivers rep who points out individual issues to competitors based on feedback? Could be a tech guy, a fellow racer - who knows? Just brainstorming. Can we change the culture? How do we do it?

 

[DavidM]

The interesting point here is that anyone who would protest this line (forgetting whether it is grey, legal or illegal for a moment) would be doing so because.........????

...........Because the ECU he chose works better with the MAP sensor..as in easier to integrate..than with the stock sensor?

He could have utilized the stock sensor, and spent days and buckets of money, but he chose not to, thinking his method was legal....and the on track...and on dyno result would be...........the same.

It's curious to hear of people wanting to protest such an item, when I look around and find grevious offenses pretty darm easily...ram air, cut header panels for cold air intakes, and on and on. Yet, those mods...clearly illegal and performance enhancing...... don't get paper thrown at them, yet this one would?

And if the reason is "because I think it is clearly illegal, and a malicious cheat, and whether the result is a performance gain or not is irrelevent", fine. Fair enough. But, I hope that the same sharp eye is writing all other spotted infractions as well.

Also, I give Andy credit for beign straight up on this, as it is clearly an item that opinions differ on. But...I can tell you, he is not the first guy to do this. I know guys in other classes who have done the same exact thing. And they felt the method of implementation was legal as well.
[/b]

*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the old rule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement. More accurately, I would probably say something to the car owner first. This is gray enough, that they could probably say they think it's legal. At which point I'd say I'm going to file a protest and we'll see what the stewards say. I would also do the same thing for the other items you mentioned.

A better question would be why aren't *you* filing protests against these people with the overtly illegal mods you see? I can't say that I know the rule book well enough to know right off hand if something is illegal or not, but if I suspected something was illegal I would say something.

David

 

[lateapex911]

*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the oldrule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement. More accurately, I would probably say something to the car owner first. This is gray enough, that they could probably say they think it's legal. At which point I'd say I'm going to file a protest and we'll see what the stewards say. I would also do the same thing for the other items you mentioned.

A better question would be why aren't *you* filing protests against these people with the overtly illegal mods you see? I can't say that I know the rule book well enough to know right off hand if something is illegal or not, but if I suspected something was illegal I would say something.

David [/b]

David, please read the following with all due respect. I'm not trying to be a jerk...you wrote:

*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the oldrule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement.

Taken literally, that is an "and" statement...in other words you would not protest if the performance enhancement aspect was not there. How do you determine that there is a performance anhancement due to his choice of using the MAP sensor instead of the stock version? (Keeping in mind his stock air flow meter/tps/whatever is still hooked up as stock)

As for the part about me protesting, I'd wage a bunch of bucks that i have written more paper than 95% of the members here. (Search "A Protest Story" on this site for a pretty in depth illustration of how the process works. As to why I didn't protest the infractions I saw, it was because I wasn't registered for that event in any way...I was just observing on a weekend that i could get away, but couldn't race.

 

[Bill Miller]

I understand the issue, but let me pose this question to you:

You are allowed any fuel pump. Where does it say you can add wire to run it?

You are allowed additional gauges. Where does it say you can add wire to run them?

See where I am going? If the installed piece is legal, you can 'hook it up'. The vacuum line in this case is no different than the wiring you need to add to get your allowable gauges up and running. As long as you don't do an illegal mod to facilitate the legal one...right? If I had to modify my intake to grab a vacuum source or if I had to drill a hole in the firewall to run the line, etc.

The George R. "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule.

YMMV.
[/b]

That's where you're wrong Andy, and what you've done is not legal.

Here's what the rule says, from the '07 ITCS

Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.[/b]

Please take note of the bolded parts of the rule (they say the same thing twice). Please tell me how you are allowed to add a non-stock vacuum line connection to the new ECU? It doesn't matter if you're new, whiz-bang computer has a MAP on it, if you can't talk to it through the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection you can't just run a new vacuum line to it, through an existing hole or not.

And if you want to really noodle on the language, look at this sentence:

The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing.[/b]

One way of reading that is that you are not allowed to add any wiring or sensors. In addition, you are not allowed to add any piggybacked computers that are outside the OEM ECU housing. I wasn't an English major in college, but I believe that is the correct grammatical interpretation of the sentence. If so, it doesn't matter if that MAP is part of your new, whiz-bang computer, you can't add it. That whole 'permitted mod, prohibited function' thing.

Since Jake loves to argue 'intent' of the rules, I'd like to explain how he sees the intent of the above rule allowing additional sensor(s) and additional connections to them.



It's not legal Andy, I don't care how you spin it.

 

[Knestis]

Okay - I've been on the fence on this question, able to see both sides as reasonable. Or maybe, unable to see either side as compelling.

My initial thought was that the vacuum line was over the line, so to speak. However, I think the gauge/wiring argument IS sound: We accept drilling holes, running wires, adding brackets, hell - even tie wraps, as acceptable means to accomplish allowed modifications all the time.

However, regarding...

...Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. ...[/b]

This is a case of the damned "specifying what we CAN do" trap. I'm afraid that I don't buy Bill's contention that this prohibits the VACUUM connection, since all the bold bits talks about is the wiring harness. It doesn't say - or doesn't necessarily say - that the stock wiring harness is the only connection allowed. I take it to mean that the only connection to the wiring harness must be as stock.

What's the line? "You can't put too much water in the nuclear reactor!"

If I take my initial read of that line, it's restricting my electrical connection to the ECU but specifically NOT excluding additional OTHER connections.

Yeah, it's a moot point from here on but it's a great case study.

At the end of the day? It's about enforcement and not the rules. And enforcement requires protests and they are rare. That's the end of the story - for now.

In terms of changing the culture, we're going to be in touch with Beran Peter before the ARRC next year, ask if he's coming, and ask if he wants us to point out the problems that were visible on his car THIS year. If he says, "yes," then we will. If he declines, then we face a decision but we won't assume that post-race tech will take visible illegalities into consideration. That was first-ARRC naiveté at work.

An open-hood, on-jackstand "parc exposé" in impound would help a lot, I think. The idea of a "class rep" or something similar might work too but that would require a lot of buy-in, to avoid that person becoming a Nazi and/or pariah - even if he/she is just a messenger for questions or concerns. I like the idea of everyone in a class putting an issue in a hat, then someone draws the "issue du jour" and EVERYONE gets checked for that, by everyone else in the class en masse. But again, everyone needs to want it.

Cultural/organizational change is very hard, particularly when there are strong incentives for being a member of the culture as it currently exists. If a core group of drivers in a class were to implement any of the above ideas, and full-on ostracize anyone who didn't play, there could be movement. Peer pressure is always powerful.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

How about this one Kirk?

Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]

Where does it specifically allow the alteration of the vacuum connection? The alteration that Andy has made was certainly for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage, vis-a-vis the hook up of his heretofore not present MAP sensor.

 

[JoshS]

An open-hood, on-jackstand "parc exposé" in impound would help a lot, I think.
[/b]

Last year, I wrote a letter to the CRB proposing exactly that (I proposed it at national races). solo has been doing this for years and I think it's been very successful.

The outcome was that they published the concept in Fastrack (October '06), asking for member input. Nothing happened after that. I wonder how many wrote in?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where does it specifically allow the alteration of the vacuum connection? The alteration that Andy has made was certainly for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage, vis-a-vis the hook up of his heretofore not present MAP sensor. [/b]

I didn't alter any vacuum connection. Nothing was modified or added to the attachment point. I obviously agree with Kirk's assessment. From a core perspective, I believe I installed a legal part and 'hooked it up', just like you would an allowed gauge.

Either way, the point is moot. However, I want to drill down on how we would turn the culture around so that anyone would feel comfortable in protesting something the didn't think was legal - like a few think on this item. And not only on items like this rather major one, how about the little ones.

We need to create a new culture - how do we do it? The culture needs to get to the point where people actually THINK about the short shift kits, the lightened flywheels and the small batteries BEFORE someone says something. An open hood and trunk policy is awesome. We did it once last year and half the field had no prop rods or piston rods to hold their hoods or trunks open...

 

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

You didn't alter it? It sure as hell wasn't connected to that ECU when it left the factory.

And I'm sorry, the point isn't moot. You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the ship, from an IT perspective, twisting the crap out of the rules. You want people to worry about all those other things, but you were totally ok w/ stuffing a MAP in your ECU housing and running a non-stock vac. line to it? Talk about your double standards.

Andy, I like you, and up until today, had a high level of respect for you.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

You didn't alter it? It sure as hell wasn't connected to that ECU when it left the factory.

And I'm sorry, the point isn't moot. You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the ship, from an IT perspective, twisting the crap out of the rules. You want people to worry about all those other things, but you were totally ok w/ stuffing a MAP in your ECU housing and running a non-stock vac. line to it? Talk about your double standards.

Andy, I like you, and up until today, had a high level of respect for you. [/b]

Bill, the ECU I have has a MAP sensor ON BOARD. I did not jamb a 3rd party map into the stock ECU housing and call it 'part of the ECU'. IIRC, Greg and I talked about this exact solution and agreed it was legal to the letter...

Loss of respect? That is a shame. A shame I am willing to put every ounce of information anyone asks me out here on this forum for people like you - who don't even race in IT - to pick apart, complain about and stay as far away from the 'solution' as possible. I always thought it was part of the job. Full disclosure. That's fine - I'll play it your way from now on...