This is a great thread....
It's interesting to see the contrasts...
One guy wants things kept easy, simple and straightforward. Another wants each car line to have a variety of weights that the car will run at, dependent on it's equipment level.
Some ideas are great, but only suit one make of car.
The ECU box is truly the Pandoras box of IT....
I agree that the excuse that got us here, the inabilty to police, is really not valid. The rulebook has many examples of things we can't police, yet we still have rules about them. (Engine coatings is a great example. When was the last time you heard an "Engine coating" protest?? Heck the last time we submited a simple compression/throttle body/ and head protest, tech gagged like turkeys in the rain, and gave a suspicious throttle body back to the protestee! And couldn't actually measure for compression, and passed a set of domed pistons as "appearing stock") Even so, I hate making rules that allow lawlessness, just because we can't police it.
So, I have issues with writing too many rules because we, as a club (techs AND competitors) are bad at policing.
That said, IF we allow full on ECUs, we need to be ready that:
-The cost WILL go up...all that time writing and dynoing to get a version of workable traction control, better hp numbers in the low range, as well as other benefits, which further increases the gap between the haves, and the have nots.
-Disallowing the control of certain parameters will be a tough line to draw, and puts us right back in the 'can't have a rule you can't police camp', LOL, and it is very difficult to write a rule that affects all makes equally.
(Recently, I was told about a car that is making more HP than any other example of it's kind has before. I saw it run. Very impressive. I've seen the best, and it was faster. An observer pointed to an air line that is eliminated as an emission control device on other builds, but in this car, it was present. The concept is that it connects the intake plenum to the airstream above the trottle body, therefor allowing more air into the engine. In stock form a valve controls it in a certain manner, but the concept here is that the valve has been controlled by a full on control system to open at different times, and the fuel management has been tweaked accordingly..whether this is the actual case or not, it is an example of how a very flexible and powerful system could alter the competitive balance in ways that are unknown to the rulesmakers)
I see the argument that certain cars can't be flashed, or chipped, while others can, resulting in an unfair balance as an invalid point. Some cars have crappy brakes, some are aerodynamic bricks...others have bad gear spacing and so on. THe classing of the cars takes into account the cars variables, so the car should be classed based on it's potential. You have to accept your car, warts and all when you make your initial choice. it's up to you to do due diligence.
I see going back to stock ECUs as problematic....it's not easy to shove the genie back in the bottle....a lot of people have spent buckets of time and money and it's not fair to them. And it would be a shame to eliminate cars with top speed goverened programs be eliminated. Can any, or all cars with top speed limiters be "tricked" into a mode without reprograming?
Modified ECUs would put us back at square one, but we'd also have the same issues that got us here..
Ther is no good answer, but as of now, I need to see:
A - A rule that allows open ECus, but can effectively control their use, or
B - The return to a more stock based system, agian with effective conrols of it's function.
Either one should have a long lead announcement window.
