One...more....time...

[lateapex911]

Jake,

I was around through most of the ECU issue. EFI cars already had the ability to change the resistance values. The way I remember it, the original iteration of the ECU rule was 'stuff whatever you can in the original box w/ the original connections'. That was in response to not being able to police re-flashed chips. The 'stuff it in the original box' thing was a great example of trying to 'legalize' the cheating w/o giving away the farm. The problem was, not all cars had the same size boxes, and you had guys adding vacuum circuits where none existed initially. The current 'use whatever you want' model was a reaction to the fact that the 'stuff it in the original box' version didn't work.

To claim that the open ECU rule was the result of wanting to give EFI folks the same flexibility as the carb'd folks is disingenuous and revisionist history. As far as looking to the future, what ever happened to 'warts and all'? And IT rules written for what may come down the road in the future? That's a new one.

Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.

Anyway, I was the guy who brought he ECU rule into discussion, and one issue that was seriously considered WAS the fact that ECUs were getting more and more invasive, and cars were finding themselves in tough situations. (limp modes, etc). OBVIOUSLY, if we had a few issues then, we would have MORE issues in the future.
And we had issues with the rule as it stood, which was that some cars were using full blown replacement ECUs while others couldn't fit an extra atom of air in their box.
So, the reasons to change the rule had a lot to do with the availability of reasonable to program/buy/install ECUs, the increasing complexity of stock ECUs, and the desire to have rules that affect genres of cars as equitably as possible.

Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

 

[Bill Miller]

Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.

Jake, I don't really disagree with that. The issue is, there would have been no need for the "stuff it in the box" rule if people didn't feel that it was impossible to police the cheaters using re-flashed or swapped chips. Rather than leaving the rule as written, and letting the competitors deal w/ the cheating issue, they took the stance that people that could, would cheat, they couldn't / didn't want to try and deal with it, so they were going to 'legalize' the cheating so that everyone could do it. They thought that by keeping the original box w/ the original computer and connections, they could prevent people from coming up w/ full-blown systems like Motec, etc. History shows that they were wrong.

The end result is what has come to be the poster child for rules creep in IT.

I do understand and appreciate the need to 'look to the future' in terms of writing rules. And I guess the current ECU rule does address what would happen if you had a car that would only run in limp mode if you disable the ABS and traction control systems. You scrap the stock computer and go w/ something else.

Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

Dynamically?

 

[rlward]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Chapter 2
I am not voicing a yea or a nay for the proposal at hand. I have seen a proposed change that seems perfectly logical for one person or group met with tremendous resistance from others that will not even be affected by the change. Respondents reply, "not on my watch" or suggest you go race production ....who the heck do they think they are? Are our number up enough we can chase these people away? Most rsponses are well thought out, but some are better left unsaid.

Chapter 3
IT was conceived and created years before I started racing. As time goes on, changes are made to accept newer cars. If those changes are not made, IT will die a slow death.
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. Maybe the way to preserve our numbers is to let older cars evolve within the confines of the rules that affect the newer cars. That is, if the newer cars have FI stock, and there is a stock FI set up you could get from a wrecking yard or the dealer, maybe that should be allowed. It woul be an expansion of the update/backdate rule, I know, but food for thought. Additionally, it would allow racers to do what we do (continually develop our cars) and would still be sort of in line with the current philosphy. Just a thought, maybe not worth much, but my 2 centavos anyway.

Another note, I still want to have 7" wide rims in ITB.....easier to get, etc, same o, same o. No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.

 

[lateapex911]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.

Chapter 2
Chapter 3:
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. ..... No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.

I disagree that old cars are automatically dealt a competitive blow...yes, that HAS happened in the past, (a decade or more ago) but it was due to the total lack of a systemic process. I see old cars running in lockstep with new ones quite often. Also, old cars DO disappear..naturally. I know certain old cars have 'issues' currently (like the Volvo, which has it's own special case in IT but I don't buy the 'new cars are screwing old cars' broad statements.

Also, in certain regions, ITB is THE most healthy class going. The NE sees big ITB fields and MARRS races are huge throwdowns in ITB. I bet the ARRC race saw the same ITB turnout as the ITS guys, or very close.

And by "right now it kinda sucks"....what do you mean?

 

[Bill Miller]

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.

Being able to drop in a Megasquirt system is the same as being able to change jets and adjust the fuel pressure? Really?

And I'd like to hear the argument that suggests that an EFI car would have a harder time getting a 25% gain over a carb'd car (all else being equal).

 

[JeffYoung]

I'm probably one of the very few guys on here who could legally convert from carbs to FI and did.

When I built the car, the couple of folks running TR8s in IT thought the existing Bosch L-Jetronic system was crap and that the carbs were better. That may have been true before the ECU rule opened; now it absolutely is not.

Peak power is up 13 hp. Probably due mostly to the FI manifold design over the carb though.

BUT -- mid range is vastly improved. That's where I think carb cars suffer vis a vis FI. With FI, you can optimizie across the entire fuel/timing/load range. With a carb car, you can make changes, but it is usually in a fairly narow RPM band.

Plus, NO MORE STARTER FLUID....lol....

Without doubt the FI is better system on my car.

Bill, I think the argument on FI cars not being able to make the 25% as easily as carb'ed cars is more based on the age of the system/car than anything else.

We are certainly learning that newer cars are more optimized from the factory. And they see less gain in IT trim. Since newer cars are all FI, you get the perception that FI cars don't see carb'ed car gains.

I mean, we'll never again see a situation like my motor, which was developed at the nadir of engine emissions/hp crap. My motor made 133 crank hp stock in carb form; 173 whp in FI, full tilt IT build form.

That's just not going to happen with any newer car.

 

[Bill Miller]

I'm probably one of the very few guys on here who could legally convert from carbs to FI and did.

When I built the car, the couple of folks running TR8s in IT thought the existing Bosch L-Jetronic system was crap and that the carbs were better. That may have been true before the ECU rule opened; now it absolutely is not.

Peak power is up 13 hp. Probably due mostly to the FI manifold design over the carb though.

BUT -- mid range is vastly improved. That's where I think carb cars suffer vis a vis FI. With FI, you can optimizie across the entire fuel/timing/load range. With a carb car, you can make changes, but it is usually in a fairly narow RPM band.

Plus, NO MORE STARTER FLUID....lol....

Without doubt the FI is better system on my car.

Bill, I think the argument on FI cars not being able to make the 25% as easily as carb'ed cars is more based on the age of the system/car than anything else.

We are certainly learning that newer cars are more optimized from the factory. And they see less gain in IT trim. Since newer cars are all FI, you get the perception that FI cars don't see carb'ed car gains.

I mean, we'll never again see a situation like my motor, which was developed at the nadir of engine emissions/hp crap. My motor made 133 crank hp stock in carb form; 173 whp in FI, full tilt IT build form.

That's just not going to happen with any newer car.

Jeff,

I'll buy the part about newer cars being more optimized. But if anything, that speaks to a Process issue more than anything else. Maybe 25% gain is too optimistic w/ an IT build. But then again, I have always thought that max hp gain didn't really tell the whole story. I fell that it is the area under the curve that really is the issue. Your comment about improving the mid range is consistent w/ that.

I also agree that seeing 50%+ gains from a legal IT build is very rare.

I just don't buy the "an open ECU gives the EFI guys what the carb guys have had all along" argument. I won't use your car as an example, because based on what you've said, I'd say it's an outlier or an anomaly.

 

[Ron Earp]

I just don't buy the "an open ECU gives the EFI guys what the carb guys have had all along" argument.

A crude litmus test for that is:

"If it is the same then let the carb guys run EFI with the same size throttle bodies as carb throttle plates and a single injector for each cylinder 1.5" from the end of the intake manifold"*
​

There won't be any takers. EFI is an advantage, slight in some cases large in others, but nevertheless it is definitely not a handicap.

Should it change, that is, should carbed cars be allowed to retrofit EFI? IMHO no. That boat sailed. You makes your picks and takes your chances. In rare cases someone gets to choose, like Mr. Young's car, but the rest of us stick with what we have.

*I'm not crafting a rule, just an example.

 

[lateapex911]

Well, there are all kinds of specific examples to prove one way or another.

In general, the ITAC wants to use 25% across the board form what I glean from what little public information is being released these days regarding the Process aspect.

IF that rule/aspect were applied across the board, the EFI/carb thing would be a non discussion point. EFI cars, I think, in general have a more difficult time making gains, but as Jeff points out that's likely due to the increased optimization coming out of factories, and that's related to production dates. Still, there are lots of exceptions. When I was on the ITAC, we discussed having a "POS factor" of 30 or 35% for cars from 74 and thereabouts because of the massively awful emmissions related air pumps, and exhaust manifolds and other power robbing devices that, when removed, result in big performance increases. Jeffs car is a classic example. There are others out there, but they don't see much racing action...most have rusted away. (I still think a Monza could be awesome in A and FIreArrow in B would kick butt).

Now carbs ARE a pia, and most of us would rather dork around with a laptop than get all smelly with gas on our hands..... and I thin we as a generation understand EFI tuning better than carb tuning. So there's some anti EFI bias there from carb guys.
But, in the grand scheme, I don't see the difference in rules to be a handcuffing aspect to the carb guys at all. I'd wager the number of carb guys who who really tune them and really know their stuff to be very very small, which also leads to the claim.
In any case, if the ITAC is trying to 'simplify' and stick to 25% (as they appear to be*), things like EFI vs carbs is going to be considered 'noise'.

* I make that comment based on things I've read here, and recent reclassifications of cars that clearly don't come within 10% of 25%, yet were classed at 25% anyway, like the MR2.

 

[callard]

There is a certain German IT-B carbed car that is allowed to bolt on the Weber identified in the ITCS. All the combinations of jet and air corrector changes that you can make will not result in an ideal fuel/air mixture across the RPM band. UNLESS you drill a couple holes in certain places in the carb body. To achieve parity with fuel injection are these holes legal?
Chuck - just askin'

 

[Gary L]

There is a certain German IT-B carbed car that is allowed to bolt on the Weber identified in the ITCS. All the combinations of jet and air corrector changes that you can make will not result in an ideal fuel/air mixture across the RPM band. UNLESS you drill a couple holes in certain places in the carb body. To achieve parity with fuel injection are these holes legal?
Chuck - just askin'

IIDSYCYC. I don't see an allowance... no matter how noble the cause.

 

[callard]

IIDSYCYC. I don't see an allowance... no matter how noble the cause.

That's my take too. I sold the car because I didn't condone the illegal carb and moved to a different class. To the guys that have one, it's worth almost 2 seconds at Summit Point.
Now to play devil's advocate: The holes provide the high speed enrichment that the carb can't provide with the emulsion tubes, air correctors, idle and main jets set to good mid range. If you adjust for a good high speed fuel mixture, the mid range goes to hell. It seems to me that if you can make those adjustments with a laptop on your megasquirt, you ought to be able to make those adjustments with a craftsman drill on your Weber carb. Only achieving parity.
Jake, what say you?

 

[CRallo]

I've always thought this, but I'll say it now... If computers are open, then carbs should be too!

There would need to be a stipulation about size and what not, but to me this is obvious...