September Fastrack

  • Thread starter Thread starter xr4racer
  • Start date Start date
There is NO specific prohibition against "wide band O2 sensors" anywhere in the rules. The response published in Fastrack should NOT be interpreted as being such a prohibition.

K
 
frnkhous said:
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).
Click to expand...

And no where in the rules does it say that you can tie open gauges to an open ECU, which is waaaayyyyy more important. Remember, IIDSYC.YC.


I also agree w/ Kirk's take, there's nothing in the rules that prohibits a W-B O2 sensor. But there's also nothing in the rules that allows you to connect it to the ECU. Just because the ECU is open, doesn't mean you can connect it to whatever you want to. Otherwise there would have been no need for the language about the new MAP and TPS sensors, and their wiring. You could have just as easily installed MAP and TPS sensors and sent the data to 'gauges'.
 
More food for thought

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
Click to expand...

How are they not equivalent? So changing a preasure or temperature transducer that has a different operating range (aka using GM sensors that are common in aftermarket ECUs) is not equivalent?

And while there:

The engine management computer may be altered or
replaced.
Click to expand...

But how do you wire it to the vehicle? Using the original ecu connectors? Or in the "replacement" of the engine management computer (EMC) the connections are allowed to change?


Derek
Wanting to know before the stock ecu ends up in the trash can.
 
My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.
 
seckerich said:
Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Comp Board should take a look at the state of HP and Formula VEE before thinking that all change is bad. My last race at LRP, I think there was one car in HP! If Formula VEE had been to morph naturally into Formula First then we might have healthy VEE fields today, instead of a zillion VEE's for sale on the forum. Most folks can't afford to convert their cars and the existing parts supply(blocks,etc) is drying up.

Mazda recently stopped making rotor housings for the Ist gen(12a) engines(after 30 years). Will the Comp Board rule that we can't replace our engines with 13b's and doom the cars to extinction?
 
This is somewhat of a rehash of the issues tGA raised.
  • Is a connection from the ECU to a logging system allowed? I use a Palm Pilot connected to the serial port of my Megasquirt to record a log of its data.
  • Would a concurrent connection from a WBO2 to the logging system be allowed? It certainly is allowed when the logger does not connect to the ECU. Of course the problem is that there's no way to police the direction that the data flows between the logger and the ECU.
I have the low budget version of Steve's arrangement - WBO2 connected to Megasquirt connected to Palm Pilot. I don't find it necessary, nor even desirable to use the WBO2 signal to control mixture in race conditions. A well-tuned ECU can achieve desired mixture in open-loop mode for those conditions, so my ECU is configured to not use it. For me, the risk of engine damage due to a defective sensor signal outweighs any preceived benefit. However, it's very valuable for logging purposes to confirm correct operation, or when still tuning the ECU. I always log WBO2 in test sessions, and can disconnect it for competition, but lately I haven't bothered. From a practical standpoint, how would anyone know whether I ran with it connected and disconnected it on the trip from the track to impound?

If question #2 above were deemed legal, it would require a system beyond my logging budget. I achieve the same result with my "not approved" configuration with much less expense and hassle.
 
JeffYoung said:
My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.
Click to expand...

#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.
 
Logically speaking (haha) one yes and one no is still a no... The statement would be false. So if you want to truly follow the rules to a "T" if your data logger is in your ECU you are SOL but feel free to have a seperate WBO2 gauge with separate wiring...
 
Bruce, you can run the 13B in ITS where the GSL-SE is classed... The VIN rule being abolished would permit most 12a powered 1st gens to swap over to S. The early cars might be SOL though... :/
 
If the point is that it is hard to police, then yes, it would be in certain applications. But that doesn't change the legality...or lack therof in this case. Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.

I suppose a substantial tear-down could uncover it. Not any different that say a piston or connecting-rod issue...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Not allowed to be connected to the ECU.
Click to expand...
"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."
Originally Posted by Bill Miller
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?
Not allowed to be connected to the ECU.
So what's the difference (legality) of providing a not allowed (vacuum)tubing signal (old ruleset)to be "connected" the ECM vs a non allowed (WBO2)wired signal?
there's grey and there's fog, methinks. phil
 
Ok, guys....I'm at Baber this weekend and don't have the original request with me. I will post it Sunday night so all can see the original request. I have slept way too many times to remember the wording, but it was based on a decision sent to another racer in B'ham, and that decition was quoted. The reason I requested the WBO2 was that the decision he received was that the sensor was illegal. Now, I run a WB for my megasquirt...on the dyno. I will go on track in closed loop/learn mode and burn that to the controller and disable the WBO2 for the race and use it simply for data logging. It is an easy switch inside the MS software. If you don't think that is compliant, please do protest as personally I feel the CRB is incorrect in stating that the NB and WB perform different functions. IMHO, since sensors are free, they should be allowed. I'll post the request Sunday evening. Chuck
 
Thanks for the clarification Andy.

/edit: didn't see Andy's comment re: policing.

Duc:

How are they not equivalent? So changing a preasure or temperature transducer that has a different operating range (aka using GM sensors that are common in aftermarket ECUs) is not equivalent?
Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question. How are they equivalent if they have different operating ranges? Look at it this way, you have two cams for the same motor. One has a lift of .420, the other has a lift of .450. Same came, just 'different operating ranges'.

Phil,

I went through that years ago. Andy and I have agreed to disagree.
 
Last edited:
frnkhous said:
#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.
Click to expand...

Goes back to the 'allowed mod performing a prohibited function' clause. You want to wire a non-approved sensor to your ECU (which just so happens to have built-in data logging), I'm sorry, but the burden would be on you to prove that you're only using the signal for data logging.
 
Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.
 
Bill Miller said:
I think you answered your own question. How are they equivalent if they have different operating ranges? Look at it this way, you have two cams for the same motor. One has a lift of .420, the other has a lift of .450. Same came, just 'different operating ranges'.
Click to expand...

So what is the purpose of this D.1.a.6:

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
Click to expand...

To allow for non-oem sensors? Aka NAPA brand O2 sensor vs. OEM? So running non-oem compataible sensors (aka drop in to OEM EFI system) is illegal?

It is a lot easier to sync the O2 data up with the engine data if it is all sampled in the same device. And many of the systems do allow for two O2 sensors, once could be used for Closed loop (narrow band) and the other for Data (Wide Band). The solution is easy to test for by just disconnecting the WB during a dyno run.


The engine wiring and connectors are free per D.1.a.7:
7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.
Click to expand...
Is it safe to assume that includes the ECU and it's connectors?

Sorry for all of the ECU questions. There is two projects that I will be working on shortly taking two different routes, one a modifed factory ECU (that did not belong in the car), and another that will probably be standalone ecu. I want to make sure I understand all of the rules on these before implementing. The biggest implication would be having to run both narrow (close loop equivalent) and a WB sensor.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.
Click to expand...
unless a WB O2 was original equipment on that car.

Fixed that for you (I hope you agree). WB O2 was not declared illegal, just not equivalent to narrow band.

[Edit] Original post confused what was Andy's quote and what I added.
 
Last edited:
the emperor has no clothes

Who cares anyhow? It's too late to make any practical difference now. Or does this community just enjoy ego-driven aggranizement?
The possibilities for making IT engine management development uber technical and expensive got out of the barn a year or so ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top