September Fastrack

[Bill Miller]

Boy, are we seriously drifting off the range here...

Bill (Planet 6), I accept your thesis as reasonable, but I think it's flawed. As I noted above, if that was the intent of the rule then there would be no need for the notation within the ECU rules, as it's already specified in the opening paragraphs. This means one of three things: either the rule was poorly written (NO WAY!!!!), it's actually redundant to the opening paragraphs, or there were other reasons behind that rule.

I'm taking Door Three, Alex.

Andy comes out and states, in effect, the sensor have to be the same as stock. Josh states it's a matter of range (binary versus analog). Others above imply the sensor has to be the same physically. But let's take this logically; are you telling me that if you're using a MoTec or a HalTech, or a MegaSquirt, or whatever, that the sensors you're using to feed that beast - with the exception of TPS and MAP - must all be stock, using the stock voltages and stock ranges? So, you really believe that the intent of the rule as stated is that if you install a Haltech ECU into your car, you can ONLY use the stock sensors and add only a TPS and MAP? Be careful of your answers here.

Door Three basically says that the interpretation of the rule is to keep you from adding additional sensors to your car that, with the exception of TPS and MAP, were not original equipment. This would, for example, preclude you from adding a crank angle sensor. It does not, however, preclude you from replacing existing sensors (i.e., water temp, oil pressure, IAT, etc) with sensors that have the same function (e.g., measures water temp, measures oil pressure, measures intake air temperature) but may be reasonably different in terms of physical characteristics and characteristics of sensing. Thus, one can replace the OE water temp sensor with a Bosch sensor that measures within a different voltage range and/or possibly a wider range and/or tighter tolerances.

Thus, we go full-circle back to the wideband sensor issue. Given the allowance in the ECU rule for replacing a sensor with one that has "equivalency", and given that an O2 sensor's function is to sense the level of O2 in the system, and given that per Door Three we are OK with folks replacing other sensors with equivalent sensors but may have different ranges and/or tolerances, it is not a very large leap of faith to state that a wideband O2 sensor is an equivalent sensor in that it measures relative oxygen level yet it measures over a wider range with tighter tolerances.

To take a position contrary to this means that NO other sensors may be replaced with any parts other than what is described in the opening ITCS paragraphs (what Josh is stating) and thus:

- GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 last sentence is wholly redundant and confusing, thus we now expect the ITAC to immediately address this discrepancy by recommending this sentence to be stricken from the regulations entirely, and
- Anyone that is using sensors that do not meet the OE specifications of the parts as delivered with their vehicles is operating contrary to the rules and should immediately discontinue using them and re-adjust their Haltechs/MoTEC/Megasquirts to use OE sensors only. Furthermore, anyone whose car came stock with a MAP and TPS may only use those stock items; you may not replace them with ones more-compatible with your ECU (no allowance in the rule to replace, only "add").

Fun, huh?

Just to toss in more confusion, for those of you saying you can't add sensors other than a TPS and/or MAP, are you stating that adding a baro read solenoid or a temperature sensor - or any other kind of atmospheric measurement device - directly on the board of the ECU itself is illegal (and was thus illegal prior to the ECU rule being opened up)? If you say it's Ok to do so ONLY if it's on the board, why can't you do it as part of the "virtual ECU" (tm, Bill Miller) given that there's no physical or geographical limitations to what an ECU can be?

I know what you think the rules say. I know what you think the rules mean. But that ain't what they are...and if you think this is the only rule in the ITCS with this kind of clever ambiguity, well, you ain't readin'...

GA

And here's where I think your thesis is flawed Greg. I would contend that what is bolded is indeed the case. I really can't believe that you're arguing something like this from the position of what you believe the intent to be. And not that it really matters, but I believe the intent was to keep the stock sensors w/ stock ranges and voltages. The rationale that we were given for the allowance of open ECU's was that they were hard (impossible?) to police. The half-stepped it w/ the 'in the stock, unmodified housing' BS. So, my interpretation is, sure, go ahead and use whatever ECU that you want, but other than a TPS and a MAP, you have to use stock (or their equivalent) sensors, which to me, means stock ranges and voltages.

I think the rule is pretty clear in that respect. Replace OEM sensors w/ equivalent. To me, if it's got a different operating range, it's not equivalent. I really don't understand how people can argue that they are the same.

I know Andy used essentially your logic to add the vacuum line to his then 'stuff it in the stock housing' ECU. Hey, there's a MAP sensor on this thing, and since I'm allowed to stuff it in the box, I am allowed to use it. That means I can run the line to it. And since it wasn't an electrical connection (the rule at the time expressly stated that all electrical connections had to be made through the stock plug), it was wide open, so long as he didn't have to drill a hole in the housing to get it in. I didn't agree w/ it then, and I don't agree w/ it now, but Andy and I have agreed to disagree on the matter. My point is, just becasue you've got enhanced functionality w/ your new ECU doesn't mean you can change the characteristics of the sensors that feed it. I'll have to check again, but I think the language about changing resistance values was removed when the open ECUs were added. Regardless, even that language didn't let you change the sensors, it just let you add resistors.

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.

No Steve, what the rule says, is that you have to use an OEM MAF, any of the other sensors may be replaced w/ an aftermarket equivalent. Just because you don't have to use a stock NB O2 sensor, doesn't mean that you can open it up and use an aftermarket WB O2 sensor, you're limited to a stock or aftermarket NB O2 sensor.

As someone pointed out, if they weren't different and didn't so different things, nobody would ask to use a WB over a NB.

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

Steve,

Look through the ITCS, you'll find plenty of cases where something is not allowed unless fitted as original equipment. That's just the way it is. As many have said over the years, you pick your car with all its warts. Just because Enzo Dumbledorf's Borgward XS came w/ a WB O2 sesnor, crank fired ignition, etc. stock, does not mean that you can slap that stuff in your Puddlebee. If that's the case, I want to be able to rip the CIS out of the Rabbit GTI and drop in a full MegaSquirt system. But thanks for playing.

And honestly Chuck, how can you in one breath say that two items are the same, then in the next say that one will do something in a given situation that the other one won't? I guess the appropriate line here is, all O2 sensors are not created equal!

One final thing to Andy et al, the cam shaft example was mine (Kirk acknowledged it), not Kirk's. No big deal, just don't want someone getting wrongly credited for something.

I do have to say though, the logic and the mindset at work here, is similar to what was used to push through open ECUs.

 

[Ron Earp]

I know Andy used essentially your logic to add the vacuum line to his then 'stuff it in the stock housing' ECU. Hey, there's a MAP sensor on this thing, and since I'm allowed to stuff it in the box, I am allowed to use it. That means I can run the line to it. And since it wasn't an electrical connection (the rule at the time expressly stated that all electrical connections had to be made through the stock plug), it was wide open, so long as he didn't have to drill a hole in the housing to get it in.

How so "it was wide open"?

What happened to "If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't"? Seems to be running the line would have been illegal under that old axiom of IT.

My interest is academic because as I've stated on this forum I'm for opening the ECU rules wide open, sensors and all so that we avoid this nonsense.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

How so "it was wide open"?

What happened to "If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't"? Seems to be running the line would have been illegal under that old axiom of IT.

My interest is academic because as I've stated on this forum I'm for opening the ECU rules wide open, sensors and all so that we avoid this nonsense.

Since Bill didn't agree with my application of the rules, he won't be able to explain me thinks.

There are plenty of things that the rules say you can add. What is assumed is that you can add what you need to in order to make those things 'function', so long as they do not also do something specifically illegal. Things as simple as wiring/plumbing your allowed gauges or adding bracketry to your custom intake, etc.

In my ECU scenario from a couple years back, the summary of the rule was simple. Do anything you want inside the stock ECU case but you must use the factory ECU connectors. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor. So for it to 'work', it neded to be electrified and plumbed just like a gauge would. Running a vacuum line through an existing unmodified hole in the ECU housing allowed me to 'power it up'. I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time. Some stock housings could fit aftermarket ECU's, some couldn't...some ECU's had more ability than others - and those were hugely expensive...etc...

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

 

[GTIspirit]

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

My thought on this, stated elsewhere in another thread, is to allow a standardized sensor set (e.g. crankshaft sensor, camshaft sensor, coolant temp, oil temp, MAF, MAP, WB02) so all cars are on a level playing field and afforded the same advantage of the open ECU rule. So older cars that didn't come with say a crankshaft sensor, WB02, or digital/analog MAF sensor, could add these items to be given the same opportunity to take advantage of the open ECU that newer cars are given. All makes and models would have to be studied to make sure the standardized sensor set was all inclusive, that something wasn't missed that would make a newer car "illegal."

I'm not advocating changing injection or ignition systems, you are stuck with what came on your car and you must adapt the open ECU to run those systems. But having certain sensors certainly would make it easier and cheaper to adapt the open ECU to run the stock ignition and fueling systems.

 

[Ron Earp]

My thought on this, stated elsewhere in another thread, is to allow a standardized sensor set (e.g. crankshaft sensor, camshaft sensor, coolant temp, oil temp, MAF, MAP, WB02) so all cars are on a level playing field and afforded the same advantage of the open ECU rule. .

I 100% agree with you and have stated the same. This is one of the potential rule changes that I feel affects "the big picture" of IT and would go a long way toward modernizing and leveling the rules set.

I feel this way for non-personal reasons - my car (260Z) can't take advantage of this at all and my next car, if there is one, WILL have a crank sensor, camshaft sensor, coil on plug ignition, etc. from the factory. So I have no dog in the race other than wanting the race to be equitable.

 

[lateapex911]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.

Now, those on the ITAC will hopefully tell you I'm not the 'lazy guy" on the committee, But we prefer to let the category run on as standardized set of allowances as possible, with the least amount of exceptions. Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

 

[JeffYoung]

I do have a vested interest in this as I have an older car that we are trying to adapt a new aftermarket ECU to. Without a full "modern" sensor suite, it's been a nightmare.

Bill, on thing on intent -- I have heard it stated repeatedly that one of the intents of opening up the ECU rule was to make it easier for all and to get rid of false "difficulties" like trying to stuff Motecs in stock ECU boxes.

By doing what we are doing now -- which is picking and choosing this sensor or that sensor (the MAP allowance is there because Megasquirt needed it to work) -- we haven't made it easier for all. RAther, we have created a whole new set of inequities.

I understand there may be unintended consequences of opening up the sensors. And I would like to hear a serious discussion about what they are. I certainly agree they could allow a competitor to increase the area under his hp/tq curve. But, we already have opened up that can of worms with open non-stock ECUs, and SOME (better) aftermarket sensors like the TPS and MAP (and now MAF) allowance.

At the end of the day, a motor's peak power is dependent on cams, compression, and architecture (CFM flow rates, etc.). Sensors are not going to improve that. The area under the curve? Yes, without doubt, but again, that horse is out of the barn.

There will be benefit to me in doing this, but at the same time, I really don't want someone else to have to spend what I spent (close to FIVE FIGURES) trying to make a "new" ECU work on a car that does not have a crank sensor, or a cam sensor or a wideband O2.

 

[Ron Earp]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

Really? I must have missed all of that in the ITR discussions about classing those cars. Who was the ECU expert that was adjusting weight on what cars had better factory ECUs and sensors?

For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.

True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.

There just aren't that many cases like Jeff's that would need sorting.

Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

Better to do in now in Process 2.0 instead of letting the inequity lie.

 

[JeffYoung]

As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

 

[lateapex911]

Good points guys. It's certainly an issue I can see many sides to.

 

[DavidM]

Where's the downward spiral icon?

 

[JeffYoung]

David, I do understand the legitimate concern that there are unintended consequences of this. But right now, we seem stuck in a "middle place" between stock ECU on the one hand and open ECU on the other that is inequitable to some cars and not others.

What I really want to try to understand is what are the potential problems we get from opening up the sensor rule. Other than increased area under the curve, what potential problems do we get from this? I don't see any ability to increase peak power, so really there will be no change to the "Process" weighting of any particular car.

 

[GTIspirit]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

While I agree with that point if all cars were equal, the reality is that some cars are more equal than others. Some cars are clearly overachievers, and some are just not capable of keeping up. So would allowing a common sensor set create more of a disparity, or be more of an equalizer? Personally I think it would be more of an equalizer.

True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.

I totally agree with Ron on this. Not being privy to the process power and weight setting process I'm only assuming that there is no factor for stock ECU capability, especially not with the open ECU rule in effect now. But I can imagine there being a factor for fuel system and ignition type, but allowing a standardized sensor set wouldn't change this.

As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.

 

[Bill Miller]

Since Bill didn't agree with my application of the rules, he won't be able to explain me thinks.

There are plenty of things that the rules say you can add. What is assumed is that you can add what you need to in order to make those things 'function', so long as they do not also do something specifically illegal. Things as simple as wiring/plumbing your allowed gauges or adding bracketry to your custom intake, etc.

In my ECU scenario from a couple years back, the summary of the rule was simple. Do anything you want inside the stock ECU case but you must use the factory ECU connectors. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor. So for it to 'work', it neded to be electrified and plumbed just like a gauge would. Running a vacuum line through an existing unmodified hole in the ECU housing allowed me to 'power it up'. I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time. Some stock housings could fit aftermarket ECU's, some couldn't...some ECU's had more ability than others - and those were hugely expensive...etc...

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

And that's pretty much where we disagreed Andy. Since the rule specifically called out that all connections had to be made through the stock, unmodified connector, I think it was pretty clear that the intent of the rule was that they didn't want any additional signals going to the ECU. Because your connection was mechanical (vacuum) rather than electrical, you got a loophole that I honestly think wasn't considered.

I really don't want to get into re-hashing this again. I didn't agree w/ it then, I don't agree w/ it now, and I though you would have gotten turned down on a rules clarification. What I find most disconcerting about what you did, was that your very gray area was then used as a justification for opening things up. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of rules creep.

 

[ddewhurst]

Bill, your return is great.......... You keep these guys on their toes.

Are you doing the Runoffs?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

Soon as I get to the shop I will look up some wording from that rule. But I assure you, MY application had NOTHING to do with the rule being opened up. Motec's capability, cost and size was the crux of the issue. We all 'dreamed' we could put it back in the barn but found no way to do so without creating huge inequites. Ancient history...but please don't rewrite it.

 

[shwah]

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.

But since all of these cars can run a 4 window hall sensor in the distributor, they can still send a useable ignition signal to the ecu as is.

 

[lateapex911]

What I find most disconcerting about what you did, was that your very gray area was then used as a justification for opening things up. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of rules creep.

Not what happened. The horse left the barn when the ECU rule was "Free as long as it fits in the box". IIRC there are stock ECUs with vacuum lines running to the box. But that's really not that relevant. What WAS the prime motivator for the last change was the inequities of the rule, and the huge cost both finacial and other associated with the 'fitment' aspect.

Andy's little line had zero, nada, nothing to do with it.

 

[Ron Earp]

. IIRC there are stock ECUs with vacuum lines running to the box. But that's really not that relevant. What WAS the prime motivator for the last change was the inequities of the rule, and the huge cost both finacial and other associated with the 'fitment' aspect.

Andy's little line had zero, nada, nothing to do with it.

And this ties in nicely with what I'm trying to say now about opening the ECU rule up to allow a level field. You already did it with the first step of the ECU rule. Since some boxes has vacuum lines, some didn't, the rule was changed to allow MAP sensors so that it wouldn't be a grey area and folks would be on a level field.

That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

Ron

 

[shwah]

I disagree. When we get to this level of detail, we are discussing the 'warts' of a chosen model. We should not open up engine position sensors.

Says the guy who would benefit from such an allowance, but will make it work with a less accurate, but functional, trigger method.