September Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

...I think your logic fails is that you've got a case where the request to allow a W-B O2 sensor was not approved.

...and where I think your logic fails is that regardless of how they chose to handle that request, it's totally irrelevant. What happens with requests to the ITAC/CRB are completely and wholly irrelevant to the rules as written, especially given they were not published in the Technical Bulletins area. What is relevant is what the rulebooks says, and that ruling as published in Fastrack made ZERO change(s) to the GCR.

...what's going to happen when you disconnect [the wideband]?

Well, if I'm smart - and I am - I'm going to program my system to accommodate the very distinct probability of a sensor failure, thus dropping back to a known, conservative map to allow me to finish the event.

See where I'm going w/ this yet?

Yes: a dead end.

 

[Bill Miller]

Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.

Steve,

That was my point. The way FT reads is just.

2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

Says nothing at all about using the WB to feed the ECU. The request is for the allowance of a W-B O2 sensor. Says nothing at all about what kind of function Chuck wants it allowed for. And by the same token, there is no qualification in the CRB dis-allowance that would allow it to be used in specific situations (i.e. not connected to the ECU).

If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.

 

[Bill Miller]

Well Greg, given the way the response in FT was stated, you could make the case that a WB O2 sensor is currently not allowed (otherwise I would have expected a "rule is adequate as written" type response). Although, the free gauge and free ECU wiring does seem to say that you can have one.

As far as the failsafe map, touche'.


My whole point is, I think they need to clarify what they mean. It's just one more case where the GCR (and in this case, the ITCS) is inconsistent.

/edit

Maybe someone from the ITAC will weigh in on this and shed some light on it.

 

[seckerich]

Bill as Greg stated it was a denial to a request to use a wide band O2 in place of the narrow band. Unless it is a technical bullitin or from the court of appeals it is irrelevant to todays rule book. They did nothing to change the gray area Greg is exploiting. Your factory computer (if you have one) runs in both open and closed loop. Any replacement can do the same. I understand what you want it to say but it doesn't. Anyone is still free to run the WB setups as a stand alone gauge by todays rule book. I datalog every test session in my Motec and disconnect the O2 to race.

 

[Bill Miller]

Bill as Greg stated it was a denial to a request to use a wide band O2 in place of the narrow band. Unless it is a technical bullitin or from the court of appeals it is irrelevant to todays rule book. They did nothing to change the gray area Greg is exploiting. Your factory computer (if you have one) runs in both open and closed loop. Any replacement can do the same. I understand what you want it to say but it doesn't. Anyone is still free to run the WB setups as a stand alone gauge by todays rule book. I datalog every test session in my Motec and disconnect the O2 to race.

But that's not what's printed Steve. It says 'allow use of a W-B O2 sensor', nothing about 'in place of' anything. I know that the response talks about a W-B functioning different than a N-B, but it also says that the use of one is not approved. As I said, I think some clarification is needed. It's this kind of casualness w/ language that's gotten things so out of wack in the GCR. Not sure why they can't be a little more specific about things. Agreed re: point about TB and CoA.

As far as a gray area, there is none. I looked in the ITCS, and I don't see where wiring to the ECU is free, as Greg claims. I see that you can modify or replace the computer, and that you can add a TPS and its associated wiring, as well as a MAP and its associated wiring. The MAF can't be changed, and other sensors can be replaced w/ equivalent units. It goes on to state that wires in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced. Clearly, a W-B O2 sensor is not equivalent to a N-B O2 sensor.

Greg can use his ECU to do data logging, but please show me where the rules allow him to run additional wires to it, other than for a TPS and a MAP.

 

[Greg Amy]

...I don't see where wiring to the ECU is free, as Greg claims.

Given that "The engine management computer may be altered or replaced" and there's no further limit to what that "replacement" may be, my "ECU" design consists a "box" with wires emanating from it. I also use a couple of "piggyback" sub-computer processors mounted externally in other boxes to that main box (in similar design to the implicitly-allowed Unichip, for example).

Thus, my "Engine Management Computer" is a series of boxes all connected together by a custom wiring harness; within one of those boxes I also choose to mount my data acquisition "gauge" system/receiver/logger. Into that latter DA "gauge" box I input my wideband sensor. What happens inside my ECU is all "free". - GA

 

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

You can put your data acq. 'gauge' inside your ECU, but there's still nothing in the rules that lets you run additional wires to that ECU. It's your choice to put your data acq. 'gauge' in a place where you're not allowed to run extra wires to it.

If your arguement is that since 'gauges' are free, and you choose to locate it w/in the confines of your ECU, that you're allowed to run additional wires to it, that's what I would call 'strained and tortured' at the very least. It's either your data acq. 'gauge', or it's your ECU.

Again, goes back to allowable mods performing prohibited functions. Getting that wideband signal to your ECU is not allowed, doesn't matter if you data acq. system is inside the ECU box or outside the ECU box. Just because you think you can legally get the W-B signal 'inside' your ECU (which I don't agree with) doesn't mean that now you're free to do w/ it what you want. Just because you think you're clever, and don't think you can get caught, doesn't mean it's not cheating. I really don't see where there's any gray area here that you think you're exploiting. You're getting a signal to the ECU that's not allowed. Doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you go through to get it there.

 

[Greg Amy]

...there's still nothing in the rules that lets you run additional wires to that ECU.

Yes, there is: ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6: "The engine management computer may be altered or replaced". It does not further limit what that replacement may be.

The disconnect between you and I here is that you are assuming that the engine management computer is a small, neat, tidy, enclosed box with everything all inside said box, held together with a cover and four screws, and bolted underneath the dash panel. I am not. There are no limitations to what that "engine management computer" must be, how big it must be, how many pieces/parts it must consist of, where or how it must be mounted. Hell, if I wanted to I could install a 10GB Ethernet network on my floorboard, using 12 networked PCs controlling my engine management functions.

Once something is allowed, it is free unless otherwise limited. The Roffe Corollary.

Again, goes back to allowable mods performing prohibited functions. Getting that wideband signal to your ECU is not allowed...

Yes it is: The ECU is free. Data acq is allowed. The wideband can be installed as part of a gauge/data acq package that is integral to the ECU. Since the ECU is free there can be no prohibited functions being done inside there. It's all legal to the letter.

Again, if you disagree, I challenge you to prove that it's prohibited. Secondarily if deemed so, you'll also need prove that it is, in fact, being done.

Just sayin'.

I know this is frustrating, Bill, and I know we're going in circles. Problem is, you would be forced to prove something you cannot, so while you'd LIKE the rules to say "A", they in fact do not. I know what the INTENT of the rule is, but that ain't what it allows, and proving "intent" with a modification is 100% impossible ("sorry, that absolutely wasn't my intent").

You know that when you "open" something you need to CAREFULLY THINK about what you're opening, because it don't take much for Pandora to get curious...

GA

P.S., I'm done, Bill. I can't reveal all of my obvious picks, nits, and trick but am enjoying seeing you back in the fray providing your thoughts.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Chuck, care to weigh in with your original letter and thoughts? That may shed some light on the issue for everyone.

The way it's posted doesn't change the rulebook. WB sensors are not specifically allowed as additional items with regard to the ECU rule.

 

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I don't care how many pieces your ECU is made up of. But, they all are contained in one 'virtual box' that has limits on what you can attach to it. You're allowed the stock sensors (or equivalent replacements) and two additional connections, one for a TPS and one for a MAP. Adding a connection to an additional sensor is not allowed (remember IIDSYCYC?). I don't care if data acq. is allowed, you can't put it inside the ECU 'virtual box' and used that as a justification for creating a new connection to the ECU. You're using circular logic to justify your position. Just because one thing is allowed, doesn't mean that you can piggyback it w/ something else, as a back-door way of getting a signal in.

I'm really surprised that you're arguing it from this position.

 

[Bill Miller]

Hey Chuck, care to weigh in with your original letter and thoughts? That may shed some light on the issue for everyone.

The way it's posted doesn't change the rulebook. WB sensors are not specifically allowed as additional items with regard to the ECU rule.

Interesting that you say that Andy, because I don't recall it being specifically allowed to add a new vacuum 'signal' to the ECU, back when it all had to be done in the stock, unmodified housing. Yet you seemed to feel that it was perfectly legal.

 

[Greg Amy]

Your points are valid, Bill, but:

I don't care how many pieces your ECU is made up of. But, they all are contained in one 'virtual box' that has limits on what you can attach to it.

Show me in the rules where those limits are specified.

Remember, IIDSYCTYC no longer applies, since 'emc may be...replaced' and there are no further restrictions on what that replacement may be. It is, in all intents and purposes, free, wide-open, and unrestricted, both in form and in function...

Discovering that limitation is the ONLY saving grace for your position.

 

[tom91ita]

Good Gosh!

Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!

I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.

Charlie

you've got a stopwatch? i need to catch up!

but back to the wide band, we do not know the question or context. if the question was "can i feed an aftermarket wide band to the ECU?" that should not impact the use for gauges or data logging............

 

[Bill Miller]

Your points are valid, Bill, but:


Show me in the rules where those limits are specified.

Remember, IIDSYCTYC no longer applies, since 'emc may be...replaced' and there are no further restrictions on what that replacement may be. It is, in all intents and purposes, free, wide-open, and unrestricted, both in form and in function...

Discovering that limitation is the ONLY saving grace for your position.

Greg,

If that were the case, there would be no need for the language regarding the wiring for the new MAP and TPS.

Let's look at a slightly different, but very related scenario.

The ITCS says that, if available, traction control must be disabled by disconnecting or removing at least 3 wheel sensor. However, what if the car didn't come w/ traction control? Using your logic, I could add 4 sensors for 4 'gauges', a speedometer for each wheel. I could then get that data to my integragl data acq. / ECU. Since things are 'free' w/ the ECU (per your contention), if the ECU used that data to say, modulate the fuel delivery, it would be perfectly fine. And if so, how would you prove that it was modulating the fuel delivery?

Do you think something like that would fly?

 

[gran racing]

Chuck, I'm with ya kinda. I have a Dash display....but it isn't working right now and I'm not so sure I care. Stopwatch? Eh. I'll see the times after the race or qual.

 

[Knestis]

What is meant by "on hold"? Waiting to publish the results or it might not move any further? I'm sure many of us would like to hear this from the comp board so we can voice our opinions. ...

That's what I don't actually know. Recommendations have gone in, answers have not come out.

While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out.

I said so much to our Board liaisons in our last two con calls, so I'm totally comfortable repeating it here: I don't believe that it's an accurate characterization of the situation to suggest that we are "reshuffling the entire deck" or making "major changes" (as has been suggested elsewhere). As Jake describes, we've made the "process" and the practices around it more repeatable, more consistent, and less susceptible to biases or manipulation. With the exception of a percentage FWD adjuster rather than big chunk subtractors, the MATH is essentially the same as what was theoretically applied during the Great Realignment - with its roots in (Hi, Bill!) the "Miller Ratio" born in c.2000 discussions in this very forum.

My personal take on the volume question is that IT racers are seeing that inequities - like very similar cars listed at very different weights - can now be rectified, so are requesting that we take a look at their issues. Like Steve (I think), I view that as a vote of confidence in the current situation. If it seems like there are a lot of "changes" being referred to the Board, it's because a lot of questions are coming in from members. The number of issues are finite, as are the lines in the ITCS, and I firmly believe that they will settle themselves down in short order - particularly if we implemented a "born on" date in each ITCS listing.

Now, my fear (old fart paranoid delusion, maybe?) is that some members might simply not be comfortable giving up the option of subjectively adjusting weights based on what they see on their local tracks. I've been watching the Club orient itself around that kind of thinking - what I called the "Doug Peterson Effect" in a response to a member survey back in the late '80s - for a quarter century. I hope I'm wrong about this.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not going to go back and forth with you Bill on an issue that we disagree on. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor (allowed) and required vacuum to operate...see George R. corrolarry. Did it through an existing hole in the housing. Some agree with the application, you don't no issues.

This is about adding a sensor specifically not allowed...by nature of only listing what IS allowed.

Chuck's letter asked the CRB to allow WB's because they did the 'same thing' as NB's...

 

[Bill Miller]

Not going to go back and forth with you Bill on an issue that we disagree on. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor (allowed) and required vacuum to operate...see George R. corrolarry. Did it through an existing hole in the housing. Some agree with the application, you don't no issues.

This is about adding a sensor specifically not allowed...by nature of only listing what IS allowed.

Chuck's letter asked the CRB to allow WB's because they did the 'same thing' as NB's...

Fair enough Andy, we'll continue to agree to disagree on that subject.

Just so I understand your position, you feel that a W-B O2 sensor is not allowed at all, or just not allowed to be connected to the ECU?

 

[raffaelli]

LOL....Someone have a binky for Mr Baker? (COA Appeal):026:

 

[frnkhous]

all right bill, why don't we make what greg is saying simple... take a motec computer and dash unit. Wire the wideband into the ecu/one data logger. Connect it to the dash/other data logger. Nothing illegal I can see as it is being used to provide gauges and is simply tied into the datalogger(the ecu's have one as well as the dash) The datalogger/ecu is simply the wideband control device for the dash display. No where in the rules does it say the open ecu can't be tied to the open gauges. Now police using the wideband o2 for tunning the car.. yeah not that easy. Now if your argument is that none of it is legal because you can't add a sending unit, then nobody with any datalogger is legal as all of them I know of either need a gps signal or a beacon, neither one of which is specifically allowed to be added. Now we just put ourselves in a nascar situation where you have the stuff and disconnect/remove it before the race. Steve is already doing that with the o2. It is pretty much a lost cause... IT rules are full of grey areas.. I'm still not sure that the mosers should have been dq'd The crx has a box in that area.. you are allowed to modify, remove, or replace.. if you cut a hole in that box are you still illegal? What makes that rule less important than the one that says you have to draw air from the engine bay unless it had another factory source(the box outside the engine bay).