Rules Creep..
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
zracre
New member
I wouldnt withdraw it...there are many things like that on cars coming down the pipeline that will need to be adressed...this may be a good oppertunity to handle it in a model fashion that will make it a legitimate process to remove something thad distinctly does not give a performance improvement...I personally like my washer bottle...cleans the winshield off when it rains during enduros...
C'mon, Andy: you don't remember the Great Bloody Motec Battle of 2004? We lost of lot of good men there...
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...p?showtopic=497
Kirk, you are the coolest guy I know today. Anyone that didn't nod their head in agreement with this post is either 15 years old or hasn't been around SCCA for very long.
I think I'm just going to pull up a lawn chair next to my bud here and watch the show. Need another Corona, Kirk? The limes are over there on the cooler... - Greg
new guy here, so dont yell at me,
i just bought a car, (85 crxsi) , and i can clearly see that a washer bottle removal would be advantageous for my car. it sits directly underneath and in front of the air filter assembly, with it gone, i could easily direct another 25-40% more fresh air right into the air intake. that being said, i do not think its fair to remove it, because many other models do not have them in this convienient location, and the weight difference would be nothing compared to the difference in airflow...
i am just getting a start in road course racing, and i have chosen IT because it is affordable, that was the main decision maker... so if the rules creep gets out of hand, and IT becomes almost or as expensive as production, then what would be the selling point of IT then? I just dont understand why some people are trying to turn IT into production, I must ask those people, why not just build and go race a prod car now?
I really think that excessive rules creep would kill this class off entirely, but thats just a new guys perspective..
i just bought a car, (85 crxsi) , and i can clearly see that a washer bottle removal would be advantageous for my car. it sits directly underneath and in front of the air filter assembly, with it gone, i could easily direct another 25-40% more fresh air right into the air intake. that being said, i do not think its fair to remove it, because many other models do not have them in this convienient location, and the weight difference would be nothing compared to the difference in airflow...
i am just getting a start in road course racing, and i have chosen IT because it is affordable, that was the main decision maker... so if the rules creep gets out of hand, and IT becomes almost or as expensive as production, then what would be the selling point of IT then? I just dont understand why some people are trying to turn IT into production, I must ask those people, why not just build and go race a prod car now?
I really think that excessive rules creep would kill this class off entirely, but thats just a new guys perspective..
Ron Earp
Administrator
I find that this has been an interesting discussion. It has had a lot of valid points drawn up by either "side" and I really liked Tom's boxing description of IT sparring - definitely a highlight of humor in the thread.
I was thinking about the ECU rules whilst at the gym this afternoon. I really don't like the open ECU rule and I really think the ITAC/CRB that allowed that rule to happen did not think ahead at all on that one. To me, one of the "younger" guys brought up on ECU cars most of my life, I think this outcome of stuffing Motecs in stock boxes was 100% predictable. Be that as it may, I don't like the open ECU rule. I agree with Joe H. on this one, put the ECUs away and let's go racing.
But, we've got to think ahead for the future of IT too, at least, I hope we do.
I'm familar with D/L Jetronic systems, Ford EEC-IV, and some of GM's setups. I think most of them fairly simple, are known quantities, and you can do a fair amount with them easily (more or less). But, some of the newer systems, Ford's EEC-V for example, require a good bit of compromises and work arounds to avoid MIL/ECU lights, limp home modes, etc. due to things such as the checking of O2 sensors before and after catalysts (there are fixes for this) and other things. Not many Fords racing but you get the idea. I assume some of the Honda systems are becoming less friendly to modification too, but I'm not sure since I do not know Honda EFI systems at all.
The point is, newer OBD-II systems are in some ways very easy to work with due to standardization of data output and displaying real time data, but in some ways are harder to deal with due to manufacturer specific issues with programming for performance. If this does become a serious impediment (I've not done enough research for future IT cars to know if it is or not) then it'll be hard to get new cars into IT, and, if we can't get new cars into IT then IT will die a slow and painful death. We all don't want to race 325s, CRXs, Integras, 240sxs, 240z, TR8s, and, heaven forbid, Jensen Healeys forever.
We might need an open ECU rule so that if you can get your Whatsamafloozit GT Type R to run worth a dang with the header, open exhaust, and whatever else you've got going on, then you could at least slap a Megasquirt/Motec/Accel/TWM/Wolf 3D (there are a lot of options besides Motec) on it and have an option to get it to run well.
I don't like an open ECU rule, but if for some reason future cars for IT get to be very difficult or impossible to prep for race duty then and open ECU rule for the future of IT might be useful.
I was thinking about the ECU rules whilst at the gym this afternoon. I really don't like the open ECU rule and I really think the ITAC/CRB that allowed that rule to happen did not think ahead at all on that one. To me, one of the "younger" guys brought up on ECU cars most of my life, I think this outcome of stuffing Motecs in stock boxes was 100% predictable. Be that as it may, I don't like the open ECU rule. I agree with Joe H. on this one, put the ECUs away and let's go racing.
But, we've got to think ahead for the future of IT too, at least, I hope we do.
I'm familar with D/L Jetronic systems, Ford EEC-IV, and some of GM's setups. I think most of them fairly simple, are known quantities, and you can do a fair amount with them easily (more or less). But, some of the newer systems, Ford's EEC-V for example, require a good bit of compromises and work arounds to avoid MIL/ECU lights, limp home modes, etc. due to things such as the checking of O2 sensors before and after catalysts (there are fixes for this) and other things. Not many Fords racing but you get the idea. I assume some of the Honda systems are becoming less friendly to modification too, but I'm not sure since I do not know Honda EFI systems at all.
The point is, newer OBD-II systems are in some ways very easy to work with due to standardization of data output and displaying real time data, but in some ways are harder to deal with due to manufacturer specific issues with programming for performance. If this does become a serious impediment (I've not done enough research for future IT cars to know if it is or not) then it'll be hard to get new cars into IT, and, if we can't get new cars into IT then IT will die a slow and painful death. We all don't want to race 325s, CRXs, Integras, 240sxs, 240z, TR8s, and, heaven forbid, Jensen Healeys forever.
We might need an open ECU rule so that if you can get your Whatsamafloozit GT Type R to run worth a dang with the header, open exhaust, and whatever else you've got going on, then you could at least slap a Megasquirt/Motec/Accel/TWM/Wolf 3D (there are a lot of options besides Motec) on it and have an option to get it to run well.
I don't like an open ECU rule, but if for some reason future cars for IT get to be very difficult or impossible to prep for race duty then and open ECU rule for the future of IT might be useful.
Joe Harlan
New member
The reality is once the OBDII stuff comes in those of us that are working iwth it now will have most of the cracks figured out. Also the OBDII stuff is much more self adaptive than anything is previous models. Ron I will ask that you refrain from using words like a slow death. These kinds of words tend to make this class not look healthy. IT is headed for it's greatest period of growth since it was created based on some of the early moves made by the adhoc. There will be enough new stuff classified to keep it interesting long after the 240z has rusted its way back to the earth. I believe that the wording for modifying an OE box is out there and I will be working on a rule to present to the adhoc. Even though the basic technology is becoming more affordable that does not mean that it belongs here. Mikuni side drafts are cheap but you still can't run them on the 260...Basicly I see open ECU's as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.
Once again IT is healthy and has a good 10 year outlook today. There are lots of classes that cannot say that.
Well, the worst rules creep for me is the endless "safety" rules.
Take a few seasons off, and you get to modify your cage, get new belts, get new window nets, get new helment etc.. Hardly worth it just to take a 20yr old car around the track 1/2 as fast as I drive my street car. Bah! - $1,000+ down the tubes, only to do it again in a couple years.
I simply don't belive any of the stuff is really protecting me better than a little common sense on what needs replacing and when.
Take a few seasons off, and you get to modify your cage, get new belts, get new window nets, get new helment etc.. Hardly worth it just to take a 20yr old car around the track 1/2 as fast as I drive my street car. Bah! - $1,000+ down the tubes, only to do it again in a couple years.
I simply don't belive any of the stuff is really protecting me better than a little common sense on what needs replacing and when.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Sorry, but I have to take issue with a few points here...
If you are referring to the soon to take place door mods, then I would imagine you could meet the requirements for a few hundred, and it is the only mandatory change that has been placed on the books in over a decade..
Under $200...
Under $100....
Not needed for years at a time, and even so, an appropriate one runs $300 easily..
You drive your street car around corners, chcuking and jiving at over 1.2Gs??? Right next to other cars? Nice commute you have...
No. Add it up.....the cage rules rarely change....10 years between changes, thats about $33 a year....and a helmet every 5 years, thats $60 a year, net (not actually the rule, but ...) toss in $35 a year....belts are $100 a year if you go high end, ......it adds up...to $230 a year. What's a set of tires? $800...a fuel bill for the weekend? $300....Hotels for a weekend? $160?....you get the idea...the whole cost of being "safe" is pretty minor in the big picture....
Maybe, or maybe not...but can you show me that everyone in the SCCA has the common sense? I have seen that they don't.
That said, I DO agree that we are sliding down a slippery slope run by lawyers and liabilty consultants, and it sucks. Particularly the whole racket the SFI has going...
But...so far, the actual "cost" to the average racer has been pretty minor compared to both the big picture and the benefits.
This may not be the right place to ask this, but it occurred to me while I was reading this thread so here goes.
How come nobody seems to care about the new rules allowing the air intake track to be pretty much free as long as you keep the stock air flow sensor and wiring harness and suck air from the stock location or in the engine compartment? People are all over removing the windshield wiper stalk, but a free air intake is ok? Maybe it's just me, but allowing a free air intake would seem to be moving a lot more down the evil path than some of the other things mentioned here. Yet nobody seems to care. Why?
David
How come nobody seems to care about the new rules allowing the air intake track to be pretty much free as long as you keep the stock air flow sensor and wiring harness and suck air from the stock location or in the engine compartment? People are all over removing the windshield wiper stalk, but a free air intake is ok? Maybe it's just me, but allowing a free air intake would seem to be moving a lot more down the evil path than some of the other things mentioned here. Yet nobody seems to care. Why?
David
Renaultfool
New member
QUOTE(Joe Harlan @ Dec 17 2005, 05:24 PM)
Basicly I see open ECU's as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.
Wow, Joe! Get off the sauce!
A bigger alternate carb equals more air flow.
An alternate ECU does not change the air flow.
Air flow is what determines the maximum available power for any engine; therefore restrictors, the only thing that works.
The ECU is tune up stuff, jetting, timing, redline or speed cutoffs.
The newer cars cannot race without allowances in this area.
There just isn't any other reasonable choice for most cars now unless you want to retrofit all cars back to Weber 32/36s. Now that would make them all equal.
Carl
Basicly I see open ECU's as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.
Wow, Joe! Get off the sauce!
A bigger alternate carb equals more air flow.
An alternate ECU does not change the air flow.
Air flow is what determines the maximum available power for any engine; therefore restrictors, the only thing that works.
The ECU is tune up stuff, jetting, timing, redline or speed cutoffs.
The newer cars cannot race without allowances in this area.
There just isn't any other reasonable choice for most cars now unless you want to retrofit all cars back to Weber 32/36s. Now that would make them all equal.
Carl
because a lot of peple here are bozzos! Youbetcha! This intake duct rule is pure BS and if I'da seen it coming, I'da raised hell about it. NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF IT, now or ever! (I didn't see it because I let my membership lapse after trashing my car at ARRC, and didn't get Fastracks for a while)
Joe Harlan
New member
Carl, are you freakin kidding? if your gonna quote somebody use the whole thing not just one part to argue about. I am no born yesterday dipstick. I understand well what an engine need to work. I also understand how and why an open ECU rule would be similar to giving an open carb rule. Lets just say if we gave the 240z 44mm mikuni's but limited the air to the factory cfm that the SU's would produce. Do you really think I couldn't build more average power out of a much more refined carburator? Give a break. Peak HP is Peak HP BFD when everything is close it is average HP that wins races period. I have never said that we should go back to STOCK unmodified ECU's I believe that has been clearly stated many times in what I have posted and i can assure you there is no sauce around here.
Oh and BTW....a 240SX with a 58MM throttle body could make up to 300HP on that throttle body. I would contend that most EFI cars have more air available than they can use with their OE ECU's and cams ect. But I would guess a renault mastertech knew that...
zracre
New member
I agree but it seems unfair to people running cars with airflow meters...us honda people can put whatever honking intake on we want because the metering device is basically the throttle body...the old rule seemed to leave the people with airflow meters without shiny intake pipes and a way to relocate the source of intake air...an imbalance that made change iminent...
Renaultfool
New member
"Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand". Recorded by many bands in the 60's. Music Machine, Jimi Hendrix, Vanilla Fudge to name a few. Maybe if I could program some Jimi into my ECU it would help!
Do the folks on this thread really think that going back to allowing modification to the stock computer is the answer. You will still have the "haves" and the "have nots" because some ECUs are easy (cheap) to modify and some are not.
As the cars become more sophisticated we will be less able to do it ourselves, therefore encouraging high priced aftermarket parts for the cars that are popular enough for some company to engineer them. The rest of the fringe cars and/or less funded drivers, will be where they are now, running at the back.
Allowing a total replacement ECU such as the Motec (around $1,000) or the MegaSquirt (around $250) and many others that may be out there is a rather simple way to level the playing field for those who chose to buy in. The cost will probably turn out to be cheaper than trying to build a ship in a bottle, modifing the stock one as it were. It would allow everyone with an ECU to be on a level playing field. No, I do not have one. Stock Renix for me!
To keep things equal, if that is what we are going for, I just looked up some prices on the net. A race prep modified 32/36 Weber Carb is $625 from Pegasus and a race prep modified distributer for a CRX is $590 from King. So give me the race Weber and a race distributer, both of which are legal for some cars now and the total is $1,215. Oh wait, that is about what the Motec costs. So I guess it isn't about cost then.
Is it about adjustment? A clever lad can adjust their Weber across the entire rev range. Those who don't have the skills and knowledge to do so probably don't have the skills and knowledge to adjust their ECU either.
If you are trying to equal the performance in the ECU cars the only way to do it is to allow the aftermarket ECU, otherwise some will be able to get rid of speed controls, limp home modes and the like and some won't, so "factory stock" if you could police, it just won't work. Also, some will have access to modified chips, (find one for a Renix) some won't. We will still be where we are now, with an unlevel playing field.
To make the carb cars equal to the ECU/Injected cars is more difficult. They probably will never be equal. SCCA should just class them to the most appropriate group. How long can one expect 30+ year old technology to remain competitive anyway? Maybe give them a Motec and a throttle body the same size as their current induction on their stock manifold and have at it. Whatever, two valves will never equal 4 or 5. One cam will never equal two with variable cam timing, and on and on. It will never be equal.
It seems to me that most of the arguments against controlled progress are not well founded, looking at todays technology, and may be presented to maintain the status quo for particular cars that have an advantage now.
We need to look ahead, not behind.
Carl
Do the folks on this thread really think that going back to allowing modification to the stock computer is the answer. You will still have the "haves" and the "have nots" because some ECUs are easy (cheap) to modify and some are not.
As the cars become more sophisticated we will be less able to do it ourselves, therefore encouraging high priced aftermarket parts for the cars that are popular enough for some company to engineer them. The rest of the fringe cars and/or less funded drivers, will be where they are now, running at the back.
Allowing a total replacement ECU such as the Motec (around $1,000) or the MegaSquirt (around $250) and many others that may be out there is a rather simple way to level the playing field for those who chose to buy in. The cost will probably turn out to be cheaper than trying to build a ship in a bottle, modifing the stock one as it were. It would allow everyone with an ECU to be on a level playing field. No, I do not have one. Stock Renix for me!
To keep things equal, if that is what we are going for, I just looked up some prices on the net. A race prep modified 32/36 Weber Carb is $625 from Pegasus and a race prep modified distributer for a CRX is $590 from King. So give me the race Weber and a race distributer, both of which are legal for some cars now and the total is $1,215. Oh wait, that is about what the Motec costs. So I guess it isn't about cost then.
Is it about adjustment? A clever lad can adjust their Weber across the entire rev range. Those who don't have the skills and knowledge to do so probably don't have the skills and knowledge to adjust their ECU either.
If you are trying to equal the performance in the ECU cars the only way to do it is to allow the aftermarket ECU, otherwise some will be able to get rid of speed controls, limp home modes and the like and some won't, so "factory stock" if you could police, it just won't work. Also, some will have access to modified chips, (find one for a Renix) some won't. We will still be where we are now, with an unlevel playing field.
To make the carb cars equal to the ECU/Injected cars is more difficult. They probably will never be equal. SCCA should just class them to the most appropriate group. How long can one expect 30+ year old technology to remain competitive anyway? Maybe give them a Motec and a throttle body the same size as their current induction on their stock manifold and have at it. Whatever, two valves will never equal 4 or 5. One cam will never equal two with variable cam timing, and on and on. It will never be equal.
It seems to me that most of the arguments against controlled progress are not well founded, looking at todays technology, and may be presented to maintain the status quo for particular cars that have an advantage now.
We need to look ahead, not behind.
Carl
Fastfred92
New member
Carl, where do you shop??? I will take several motec's at $1000 per !! When I still had my evil e36 I was quoted about $6000 installed and I doubt the install was $5000.......
