Joe Harlan
New member
Dick, the problem is I think at that time it was a high hanging curveball and we all missed it when the bottom fell out.
Rules Creep..
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
Dick, the problem is I think at that time it was a high hanging curveball and we all missed it when the bottom fell out.
Dick, I don't think anyone - except the clever BMW/RX7/MoTec guys - saw this one coming. By the time we all realized that MoTec was happening on a widespread basis (I'd put that at about Spring '04 or so) it was too late; everyone recognized that it was CLEARLY outside the philosophy of the class, CLEARLY outside the intent of the rule, but also clearly within the letter of the rule.
No one was willing to either protest it or spend the money for a 13.9, so *POOF* de facto legal. And now the ITAC and CRB are afraid to touch that new sacred cow for fear of pissing off someone (c'mon, kids, you did it with remote reservoir shocks!) Just add it to the bottom of the list along with things like spherical "bushings".
Joe, I disagree with you: it wasn't a hanging curveball, it was definitely heat. Woosh-POP-WTF was that...? - GA
Eagle7
New member
MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't have a Motec. I don't want a MoTec. I don't need a MoTec.
Now that we've set the context, could someone please explain to me what the huge benefit of a MoTec is? All of our engines are just an air pump, and you ain't gunna pump more air through it than it'll pump. Seems like most everyone has "chipped" their ECU to optimize fuel and spark, and yet they complain complain complain about MoTec, which is just another way to do the same thing. If the big complaint is that someone is allowed to legally spend that much money on their car, then I think we should restrict everyone to 2 sets of tires per year. The guys that throw their money into MoTecs are running fresh tires every session, too, and I can't afford to keep up with that.
I'm currently putting an aftermarket ECU into my car. Costing me all of about $200. I'm hopeful that it'll make it quite convenient for me to tune it properly. Is it as good as a MoTec? I don't know and don't care. Is it a competitive advantage over the "chipped" ECUs? I can't see why. I think it just makes it cheaper and easier to prep my car. Isn't that one of the goals of IT?
Kirk, I really disagree with your arguments that cheaper and easier is bad because it gives me more time and money to put into go-fast things. I think cheaper and easier is totally consistent with the philosophy of IT, and should be encouraged wherever possible.
I don't have a Motec. I don't want a MoTec. I don't need a MoTec.
Now that we've set the context, could someone please explain to me what the huge benefit of a MoTec is? All of our engines are just an air pump, and you ain't gunna pump more air through it than it'll pump. Seems like most everyone has "chipped" their ECU to optimize fuel and spark, and yet they complain complain complain about MoTec, which is just another way to do the same thing. If the big complaint is that someone is allowed to legally spend that much money on their car, then I think we should restrict everyone to 2 sets of tires per year. The guys that throw their money into MoTecs are running fresh tires every session, too, and I can't afford to keep up with that.
I'm currently putting an aftermarket ECU into my car. Costing me all of about $200. I'm hopeful that it'll make it quite convenient for me to tune it properly. Is it as good as a MoTec? I don't know and don't care. Is it a competitive advantage over the "chipped" ECUs? I can't see why. I think it just makes it cheaper and easier to prep my car. Isn't that one of the goals of IT?
Kirk, I really disagree with your arguments that cheaper and easier is bad because it gives me more time and money to put into go-fast things. I think cheaper and easier is totally consistent with the philosophy of IT, and should be encouraged wherever possible.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So...we were all looking for a curve and we got the heater. I am in the middle as a team owner and competitor. So in the interest of full disclosure, we have spent thousands on programmable fuel management on the 7's and I am ABOUT to do it again on the Miata.
IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?
I *THINK* the original intent of the rule was to allow flashing (undetectable) and chipping. The rule did not take into account that PFMS were getting small enough that they could be stuffed into some OEM cases. Here we are today.
- How do we word the revised rule
- What do you do about current classifications (if anything)
- As the 2nd 'strike' (RR shocks), how do we make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again
Might be a new thread but if this was back in the bottle and everyone was allowed to run without a washerbottle IT would be the best class in SCCA, no?
AB
IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?
I *THINK* the original intent of the rule was to allow flashing (undetectable) and chipping. The rule did not take into account that PFMS were getting small enough that they could be stuffed into some OEM cases. Here we are today.
- How do we word the revised rule
- What do you do about current classifications (if anything)
- As the 2nd 'strike' (RR shocks), how do we make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again
Might be a new thread but if this was back in the bottle and everyone was allowed to run without a washerbottle IT would be the best class in SCCA, no?
AB
Joe Harlan
New member
ANdy you start by removing the replace clause in the current rule. You allow 1 season for current users to remove offending Aftermarket ECU's....You specify the intent of the rule in it's publishing......Blah blah the intent is to allow flashing,reprograming and chipping of the original ECU...I know my wording is not perfect and I woudl think long and hard before going to print but I bet there is a way to get it done.. The way to prevent it in the future is to have active wide open folks like the current ITAC working on these issues.....I will agree with Greg this once was in the mit before anyone saw the pitch...Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 07:28 PM
So...we were all looking for a curve and we got the heater. I am in the middle as a team owner and competitor. So in the interest of full disclosure, we have spent thousands on programmable fuel management on the 7's and I am ABOUT to do it again on the Miata.
IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?
I *THINK* the original intent of the rule was to allow flashing (undetectable) and chipping. The rule did not take into account that PFMS were getting small enough that they could be stuffed into some OEM cases. Here we are today.
- How do we word the revised rule
- What do you do about current classifications (if anything)
- As the 2nd 'strike' (RR shocks), how do we make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again
Might be a new thread but if this was back in the bottle and everyone was allowed to run without a washerbottle IT would be the best class in SCCA, no?
AB
[snapback]68541[/snapback]
Eagle7
New member
Help me out here Joe. Why do you feel so strongly that flashing, reprogramming, and chipping of the original ECU is a good thing and replacing it with an aftermarket ECU is a bad thing?Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 16 2005, 11:05 PM
ANdy you start by removing the replace clause in the current rule. You allow 1 season for current users to remove offending Aftermarket ECU's....You specify the intent of the rule in it's publishing......Blah blah the intent is to allow flashing,reprograming and chipping of the original ECU...I know my wording is not perfect and I woudl think long and hard before going to print but I bet there is a way to get it done.. The way to prevent it in the future is to have active wide open folks like the current ITAC working on these issues.....I will agree with Greg this once was in the mit before anyone saw the pitch...
[snapback]68542[/snapback]
Joe Harlan
New member
Covered it a few times Marty, But it is all about cost. You feel you don't need one but I have dyno'ed enough stuff and written maps to tell you that 2 cars side by side prepped the sme in every way. You with your 200 dollar (megasquirt?) VS you with my 7000 dollar Motec conversion. The motec makes better power and the fact that you have one of them noise makers I would bet that we could taylor a midrange package along with traction control and you are there. This technology that was never meant to come to IT......Improved is the key not replace.....Allowing this has hurt IT.
I have it on good authority that a current M3 with nothing else but a cat back and a custom motec saw 37HP at the wheels....You be the judge. This has been hashed many times over and beat like a dead dog. I believe we stuff the genie back in the bottle and get back to grass roots type stuff and go racing.
Eagle7
New member
1) Thanks for the reply. I really do value your experience and perspective. I'm an old guy, but fairly new to ECUs and performance tuning.
2) I read the GCR to make traction control illegal. Am I wrong?
3) Why will the Motec make better power than my MegaSquirt? They're both using the same sensors, ignition, and injectors. MS has 12x12 maps with interpolation between points.
4) If I put the extra 6800 into my suspension I think I'd go faster than putting it into a Motec.
Like the threaded body shock rule, I think this may be a case where advancement in technology has removed the cost factor and made this a non-issue. If someone wants to spend a bloody fortune to build a 10/10 car, he doesn't need a Motec to do it, but I remain convinced that a better driver in a 9.9/10 car will beat him to the checkers.
If "Improved" meant no replacement, we'd all be running stock shocks, stock final drives, etc.
Joe Harlan
New member
The mega squirt is only handling your fuel isn't that correct?
You don't have to trust anything I say. When you have a 10/10ths car show up and it includes a 10/10 shoe and 10/10 prep you help your chances by have at least the 10/10 prep.
First of all, let me start by saying I would like nothing more than to eliminate MoTeCs or any other aftermarket PFM devices from IT.
One of the problems as I see it is finding a good, workable rule to replace the current one. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is not the next step we need to take.
So, how to word the rule?
We could require the stock board remain in place. However, if we allow modifications to the board, what will prevent someone from removing all of the stock gizmos on the board and simply wiring a MoTeC to that board? You might say "no one would do that" but that sort of response is how we got MoTeCs into stock boxes.
We could require stock ECUs. I would love that if we could police it. I know some folks will say it's up to the competitor to prove legality. But if a tech cannot tell if it's been reprogrammed (especially with flashable memory), just how can anybody rule on legality? As I've said before, if the FIA cannot police ECUs in F1, how is the SCCA going to police ECUs in regional racing?
Then let's not forget there are some people for whom the current rule is a godsend because without it they had little to no hope of modifying their stock engine management.
OK, all that said, I'm not being negative or contrarian. I'm only trying to look head-on at the issues that need to be considered before rewriting the rule. Ignore these issues and we very likely would jump from the frying pan into the fire. I KNOW what I envision and I'm sure everyone else KNOWS what THEY envision as a solution. The key is to find a workable solution that can be effectively written to make that workable solution work effectively.
Again, I'd like to see the MoTeC go away. How do we word the rule?
One of the problems as I see it is finding a good, workable rule to replace the current one. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is not the next step we need to take.
So, how to word the rule?
We could require the stock board remain in place. However, if we allow modifications to the board, what will prevent someone from removing all of the stock gizmos on the board and simply wiring a MoTeC to that board? You might say "no one would do that" but that sort of response is how we got MoTeCs into stock boxes.
We could require stock ECUs. I would love that if we could police it. I know some folks will say it's up to the competitor to prove legality. But if a tech cannot tell if it's been reprogrammed (especially with flashable memory), just how can anybody rule on legality? As I've said before, if the FIA cannot police ECUs in F1, how is the SCCA going to police ECUs in regional racing?
Then let's not forget there are some people for whom the current rule is a godsend because without it they had little to no hope of modifying their stock engine management.
OK, all that said, I'm not being negative or contrarian. I'm only trying to look head-on at the issues that need to be considered before rewriting the rule. Ignore these issues and we very likely would jump from the frying pan into the fire. I KNOW what I envision and I'm sure everyone else KNOWS what THEY envision as a solution. The key is to find a workable solution that can be effectively written to make that workable solution work effectively.
Again, I'd like to see the MoTeC go away. How do we word the rule?
Marty - If you think that I said, "cheaper and easier is bad," you need to pay more damn attention. That's insulting as hell. The least you could do is actually read the ideas you are crapping on.
You know what? I kind of hope you all get exactly what you are asking for because it's the only way you're going to learn. I've been in - or thereabout - IT cars since before there was a national rule set, and have watched the Sedan classes get screwed up beyond recognition, only to become the GT classes (which got screwed up beyond recognition, TOO), to get reborn as the "new" GT classes (which worked great for about 3 years, before some idiots messed THAT up), to become a random smattering of GT "Lite" cars, a six pack of motherless GT3 mutants (a lot running SPU or other catch-all classes), and some ex-TransAm leftovers.
Production - same deal only worse in many ways. Nearly Darwin'd themselves out of existence, only to be "saved" by creating a whole new preparation level that survived what - two years? - before people starting picking at the scab of "progress." And that's a category for which, last time I checked, I could build an "affordable" gearbox for a "limited prep" VW that would cost $10K.
Spec Renault is going to save club racing! Oldmobile engines and wings are exactly what s2000 cars need. I wish I'd purchased all of the rolling stock when Enterprises got out of the V6-, square-tube-frame, POS spec racer business. Wait - NEONS! Yeah, that's the ticket...
"Professional" road racing has been the collective poster child of this foolishness. How many series have come and gone in the last 20 years? In that time, how much has NASCAR prospered? IT was kind of like that - a success story despite of its problems, because it was very hard to mess with the rules (albeit not because the France family was running the show). It has issues but it also had stability.
FINALLY, we have some clever people making decisions to guide the category to what could be its finest hour - eliminating a few major issues that REALLY needed to be addressed - but I'm beginning to think that all of the progress and changes that have been made in the last 2 years, unblocking the most constipated, bureau-crap-tastic rule set in the club, has been an unholy mistake. A line is forming behind a herd of washer-bottle guys and Mr. I Hate Wiper Stalks, each person in which has his or her own personal thing to add to "the list" - and none of them has the experience or foresight to even know to look behind them. Anyone who HONESTLY does not think that SOMEONE out there will put plastic windows and fiberglass body panels on the wish list within two years of an allowance to take off the piddly crap mentioned here is either blindingly optimistic or knows nothing of the history of how this deal works. Or both.
I'm truly worried that you are going to dick it all up and I don't want to be a part of that. Andy et al., I'd like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don't let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it's just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I've been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.
K
Joe Harlan
New member
OK Marty not to Dis your system. I looked at it in 2000 for a prod project and went a different way based on several things.....Speed being the first. that system is a 16bit 8 mega hertz system with very little memory on the board. Now you may be able ot upgrade some of that but that's not my deal. No time to build the stuff and modify it too. I went Motec the first time cause it had 32bit processor and I can't remember the clcok speed off the top of my head. I did not like the Motec software at first cause at the time it was DOS based but as I got to learn the software I found it very usable. I am now using the AEM stuff and I like it even better for speed and software plus the fine resolution. I like the 3d mapping features in the software and in some cases the autolearn features built in for quick setup. The reality is that while burning chips for the Nissan is a PIA it keeps costs down to a real number for the level of racing we are talking about. You will say the same about the MS but if you added all the ignition stuff I have to believe you are deeper than 200 bucks.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
...and your impending body-shell proposal? Wow! 2 birds...
One of my worries about the reversal of the PFM issue is that the cost of this technology is definatley on the decline with more and more options coming to market. Would we be chopping it off at the knees just as it's about to get 'affordable'? Realizing of course that the damage is done...
I know, I know...shut up and figure out how to eliminate the washer bottle requirment...
AB
Kirk, is it not possible to just disable the system by disconnecting a fuse or connector? Shoot, just install a blow fuse if you believe the fuse needs to be there. IMHO equipment that is not allowed to be removed must be there, but I don't think it needs to be functional. If some obscure, unneeded/unwanted part goes bad, I'm damned sure not going to replace it. And if you come off the track with a blown fuse, is anybody going to have the jewels to write the paper (if they even believe everything must be 100% functional)?
If I were in your position Kirk, I would just disconnect a connector or a fuse. Done. Game over.
While I haven't been racing in the SCCA as long as Kirk or Greg, I've been going to SCCA club races since the early 80s and almost built an IT car in 86 but went kart racing instead. I remember a lot of the things you talk about Kirk. I remember Shelby Can-Am. Doesn't anyone even own a functioning copy anymore? I remember when Production was similar to IT today. They did allow composite body panels back in the early 80s, I do know that. Weren't intake manifolds and carbs more open even back then also? I remember Sports Renault (still one of the two most popular classes IIRC as SRF now). Shoot, I even remember when Tom Davey won GT3 with a unibody Scirocco (twice with gen 1 and once with gen 2). Now they are all "funny cars."
Anyway, I'm rambling. Kirk, IMHO you are 100% correct. For my part, when considering requested rule changes, I try very very hard to consider unintended consequences. For me there must be a compelling reason to change, not just because it's only a tiny step. The only rule change I really really embraced besides PCAs is the change in the wheel rule to allow everyone to use up to 15" diameter wheels. I think that rule has really helped IT in our current environment and I've yet to hear anybody complain that it was rules creep or created a huge need to spend to keep up with the Jones or the Bettencorts, or the Knestises or.....
Joe Harlan
New member
One only has to look at World Challenge, It won't be long now. they have run all of the privateers with personality off and now the factory efforts are the only ones winning because the rules have allowed MORE,MORE,MORE and it will be a dying deal as soon as they saddle it with failed Trans-am lable.....Racing is becoming more and more ground hog day....
Eagle7
New member
You're right about the speed and memory, but I think it's come a long way from what you saw 5 years ago. 12x12 maps are recent. Couldn't do rotary ignition until this year. Autotune with wideband O2 is now working.
You caught me on the cost - I just looked it up and with the crank sensor circuit I'm up to $226, but that includes a couple connectors and a bunch of other parts I didn't need.
Eagle7
New member
Gee, insulting you was the last thing I was trying to do. I actually did read your ideas, but maybe I totally missed the point when you said:
"Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?
Money you don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?"