chuck baader
New member
Greg, my position, more eloquently explained.
Chuck
Chuck
JoshS
New member
Maybe I wasn't clear, because I didn't intend to state that ... I do believe that the wording could be a LOT more clear as far as what the allowances are for replacing, say, a water temp sensor with a different water temp sensor, and therefore, an O2 sensor with a different O2 sensor. I simply intended to try to describe what the real difference is between the two O2 sensors being discussed, and to pose a similar question using an easier-to-understand technology.
seckerich
New member
People are getting a little stupid in this thread. Back up and remember the conversations when the open ECU was proposed. One of the specific arguements to allow them was that only the high end units could be used in the box because they were capable of being linearized to stock sensors. It was argued that open ECU would allow lower priced units that used standard GM (Bosch) etc sensors. The rule specifically allowed a TPS to be added or replaced and Map to be added where none existed. The rule further states a list of sensors that must be stock and in stock location (MAF meter). IF it was meant to restrict the O2 sensor to stock it should be in that banned list with MAF. The rule further allows sensor plugs to be replaced. Why would you replace a plug for a stock sensor? You replace a plug for the allowed alternate. As it reads now it seems to be fair game. Love it or hate it that is what is written.
Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?
If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?
Also, there's the issue of being able to enforce and police this. I know on my WBO2 sensor, it has 2 outputs, either of which I can configure to be used as a Narrow-band signal. Good luck trying to prove/dis-prove someone claiming they are using there WBO2 configured for a narrow-band output going to the ecu.
If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?
NOTE: I don't care either way as I don't currently race in IT, just pointing out some info.
-s
If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?
Also, there's the issue of being able to enforce and police this. I know on my WBO2 sensor, it has 2 outputs, either of which I can configure to be used as a Narrow-band signal. Good luck trying to prove/dis-prove someone claiming they are using there WBO2 configured for a narrow-band output going to the ecu.
If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?
NOTE: I don't care either way as I don't currently race in IT, just pointing out some info.
-s
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
Primary reason: because the stock wiring and connectors are falling apart. We got lots of letters in the past from owners of older cars looking to replace their wiring and connectors because they were frayed, worn, or wouldn't stay connected, but new replacements were hard-to-impossible to get.
I agree, another reason might be to use non-stock but "equivalent" sensors, and certainly, to use a non-stock connector to the ECU itself.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It's a philisophical issue at that point. RR shocks on S2000's, larger that 8.5" wheels on some ITR cars, WB O2 sensors...stuff that comes stock on cars that are outside the dictated limitations. Some say no to the stock parts, some say yes, some say open 'er up. Depends on the rule and it's wording but you get the idea.
By the same argument, why not also allow the addition of say a crankshaft sensor? Most later cars that came from the factory so equipped are better poised to take advantage of the open ECU rule than say earlier cars with mechanical injection.
NOTE, that I'm not proposing to allow a free for all with ignition and injection systems, merely that all cars are afforded the same advantage that the open ECU rule allows by allowing common stock sensors to be added. So my position is that essentially sensors should be free, so long as the car still runs the stock ignition and fueling systems. And if the guys with carbs can figure out how to run an open ECU for better control, let them!
Ron Earp
Administrator
GTIspirit Said:
Joe with his coil on plug crank fired system with cam sensor might find out that cylinders #1, #3, #5 like 37 degrees of timing all in and #2, #4, #6 others like 34 degrees netting him 7 more rear wheel hp when the engine is at 193 F. Bob with a factory system without as sophisticated of a sensor array won't be able to tune in that fashion. Bob is stuck with a dizzy, no crank sensor, and flapper MAF on his car. He's SOL as he won't be able to get the area under the curve that Joe will, all other things being equal.
If we simply opened the rule up to allow any ECU, triggers, or sensors and kept the restriction that the stock throttle body must be intact and used, along with the stock air meter must be in the air flow path, then at least we could level the playing field for all the ECU cars. The rule would need a lot of careful crafting but it I feel it'd be the correct thing to do
The carb guys would be out of luck but hey, we're out of luck anyhow. It is 2009 and my carbed IT car is 35 years old from manufacture and over 40 years old in design.
By the same argument, why not also allow the addition of say a crankshaft sensor? Most later cars that came from the factory so equipped are better poised to take advantage of the open ECU rule than say earlier cars with mechanical injection.
NOTE, that I'm not proposing to allow a free for all with ignition and injection systems, merely that all cars are afforded the same advantage that the open ECU rule allows by allowing common stock sensors to be added.
I'm thinking about proposing just that. You've got a hodgepodge of cars in IT with all sorts of electronic engine control systems. Some have some sophisticated (normal for any new car) setup from the factory with coil on plug ignition, crank fired triggers, etc. These engines are going to have an inherit advantage for that ultra fine tuning that makes a difference in a 10/10th IT car and a 9/10ths IT car. NOTE, that I'm not proposing to allow a free for all with ignition and injection systems, merely that all cars are afforded the same advantage that the open ECU rule allows by allowing common stock sensors to be added.
Joe with his coil on plug crank fired system with cam sensor might find out that cylinders #1, #3, #5 like 37 degrees of timing all in and #2, #4, #6 others like 34 degrees netting him 7 more rear wheel hp when the engine is at 193 F. Bob with a factory system without as sophisticated of a sensor array won't be able to tune in that fashion. Bob is stuck with a dizzy, no crank sensor, and flapper MAF on his car. He's SOL as he won't be able to get the area under the curve that Joe will, all other things being equal.
If we simply opened the rule up to allow any ECU, triggers, or sensors and kept the restriction that the stock throttle body must be intact and used, along with the stock air meter must be in the air flow path, then at least we could level the playing field for all the ECU cars. The rule would need a lot of careful crafting but it I feel it'd be the correct thing to do
The carb guys would be out of luck but hey, we're out of luck anyhow. It is 2009 and my carbed IT car is 35 years old from manufacture and over 40 years old in design.
Last edited:
Eagle7
New member
Bill, you are refering to 9.1.3.C
Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.
I was quoting 9.1.3.D.1.a.6
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
As has been explained, when the new glossary entry for "equivalent" was added after 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 was in the book, the bolded sentence is now wholly redundant, and has made many previously legal cars now illegal. The only sensible interpretation (in my mind) is that the added glossary entry does not reflect the intent of the writers of 9.1.3.D.1.a.6. I believe this to be an unintended consequence of an attempt to add clarity to the GCR as a whole. In my opinion the bolded sentence needs to be rewritten so that it does communicate the original intent.
planet6racing
New member
Ah, OK Marty. Sorry for the confusion.
Re: should and what sense... not the wording change..
Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with ECUs from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally gaining significant horsepower why *should* it be illegal for carbureted cars to add an ECU and fuel-injection?
If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally run an alternate ECU/programing and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?
If some cars can currently have fuel injection and ECUs, how is it fair to disallow the replacement of carburaters for fuel-injection?
Answer: Because that's the car you built. If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally run an alternate ECU/programing and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?
If some cars can currently have fuel injection and ECUs, how is it fair to disallow the replacement of carburaters for fuel-injection?
If there are additional gains from the WBO2 sensor, then the process weight of those cars should reflect those gains. I.e. If the Stutz NB-Bearcat and the Stutz WBO2-Super Bearcat differ only in the o2 sensor, the Super Bearcat, when processed, should weigh more.
spawpoet
New member
"Answer: Because that's the car you built."
The same logic can apply to the Stutz NB-Bearcat. It wouldn't get WBO2, cause that's not what it came with. If the process can make an allowance for the NB vs. WBO2 variance in equipment it can just as equally make an allowance for carb'd cars vs. FI cars. Isn't the whole purpose of this exercise to keep cars as equivalent as is reasonably possible?
The same logic can apply to the Stutz NB-Bearcat. It wouldn't get WBO2, cause that's not what it came with. If the process can make an allowance for the NB vs. WBO2 variance in equipment it can just as equally make an allowance for carb'd cars vs. FI cars. Isn't the whole purpose of this exercise to keep cars as equivalent as is reasonably possible?
Eagle7
New member
Ouch! Please, no, not that word again!!!!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
While I would in no way trade my programmable EFI for a pumper, carbed cars are allowed a nice grouping of alternatives as well as any jets, needles and/or meetering rods. If you have an optimal upgrade with dyno time on jets etc, you know what kind of bump in power you can get.
spawpoet
New member
But all these options were available, and I would assume considered, when the process was originally run on the various carb'd vehicles, and before EFI cars had the advantage of the new ECU rules. I'm really fine with hearing that I get what I get with my carb'd car, but at the same time if I'm stuck with what I chose to run then somebody who's running a car that originally only came with a NB O2 sensor should also be stuck with what they chose.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
That's how it is now. We are all stuck with SOMETHING.
spawpoet
New member
I agree Andy, and I think it's the reason IT is so damned popular. I personally felt everybody should have been stuck with their stock ECU's (count me as anti rules creep), and I can't see where allowing a car that didn't come with a WB should be able to use one in place of their NB anymore than I can replace the SU's on my Z with a set of Mikuni's. Heck, I'm not sure I could tune the Mikuni's anyway.