Wiring Harness

Ron, two years ago I think the Comp Board "opened up" the ECU rule and made ECUs free so long as they fit in the original ECU housing. I agree, this is a significant change from stock, but I think the COB just gave up on trying to police it because it was nearly impossible to do. I don't know if that is a good reason for a change, but it is what happened and the result is that chipped cars did get a significant (in my view, as - admittedly - the driver of a carbed car) advantage over the older tech carbs.

Some people on this board who (a) know far more about these things than I and (B) whose opinion I value argue fairly persuasively that the ECU rule just allows EFI cars to do what carb car drivers can do: vary air fuel mixture via needles and jets.

But I disagree, somewhat. ECU/EFI cars can precisely plot air/fuel mixtures over rev ranges and have the engine tuned to respond better to race conditions. With a jet/needle adjustment, you are making a rough, static adjustment to a constantly changing environment.

My two cents anyway.
 
I guess that I'm guilty of assuming that since the ABS and radio circuits are separate, they wouldn't be installed if the optional equipment weren't there. I don't have the stuff for the heated seats, for example - no switch and no harness ends that would terminate where it should be - but maybe I'm making a bad assumption.

If the circuits in question were integral to the main harness, I'd agree with your premise (apr67). If it were determined that the City Golf stripper model that didn't come with a radio did NOT have the harness, it would be fair game under the up-/back-date rule, right?

The Motec situation is entirely different because there is a rule in place that specfically authorizes the replacement of the ECU guts. Not that I think it's a GOOD rule, mind you. It's a dumbass rule as written, making some economical answers illegal while making really expensive ones OK.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to confess that I'm still conflicted about the, "If I can remove Part X, then I can remove the wires that make Part X work" interpretation.

K
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
Are you sure....the gauges are free, but I do not see in the letter of the rules that you can replace the sending unit wires (if you are using electrical gauges)
Click to expand...

Apparently you are not used to electrical gauges. They must use their own (matched) sending unit.

Originally posted by cherokee:
would you have to use the same lighting on your old guages. We are talking about bulbs here not gauges.
Click to expand...

Well, if the bulbs come with the gauges you need to be able to wire them up. This is not the least bit controversial.

Originally posted by cherokee:
What I am saying there are gray areas in the rules everywhere and you can lay your car out as you see fit.
Click to expand...

I agree that what happens in the tent is what matters. IMHO the wording of the rules allows you to replace a faulty wire in the harness. If you are just going to run additional wires, and this is deemed acceptable (and I'm starting to see some rationale here), then I'm going to just create a new harness for the things I need hooked up and only use that. Period. That will become the standard for IT, not because I did it, but because that would be the smart methodology. It's rules creep, but if we are going down that road, may as well shift into high.
biggrin.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I think there is a WORLD of difference between repairing a problem by running a couple of parallel wires - with the OE harness still there - and building a new one that doesn't replicate the original.
Click to expand...

Please define the difference. I say there is absolutely zero. Remember, if it says you can, you bloody well can. So if I can run parallel wires, I can run them for every wire I need (honest, I repaired the entire harness).

Originally posted by Knestis:
I've never advocated for removing "wires that you don't need," except to the extent made possible by the removal of optional equipment.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I'm not saying anything different.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Geo, it seems to me that the "spirit" in this case is embedded in the connotative meaning of the word "repair." It's certainly allowed that we may REPAIR a wiring problem but it is NOT allowed - by the meaning of the word - to "repair it away" and put in its place an assembly that does not fulfill the functions of the original.
Click to expand...

Don't be wishy washy here Kirk. Either we are in this with both feet or we are not. You are trying to define this as you would like it to be. And your definition of repair is just as weak. Step back and think about it. If I repair my entire useful harness, how can you find me illegal? Spirit has nothing to do with it. Spirit is something rules makers need to consider so they write rules that meet the spirit of their intent. Failure to do so creates unintended consequences. So, if we can run an extra wire as a repair, I can repair my entire harness. Period. Trying to rule otherwise will be a huge boondoggle (like my wiring harness
wink.gif
).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to confess that I'm still conflicted about the, "If I can remove Part X, then I can remove the wires that make Part X work" interpretation.
Click to expand...

You would have to know what the various harness that came with the car included and select the configuration that best matches your needs.

In the case of the Sentra SE-R, I know when I bought my 91 road car new with no options, it was pre-wired for radio and speakers. The main harness had half the wiring for cruise control which wasn't offered on the car in any configuration in 1991 (but was in the NX2000 that shares the platform and wiring harness). I know there is more, but that's what comes off the top of my monkey brain.

So, if you really are a rules nerd who wants to stay 100% legal, you have some homework to do.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
"No, that's not a piggyback ECU - that's a 'wiring connector.' Seriously - see how the wires connect to it? Really. Don't look at me like that. What? WHAT!?"

I think there is a WORLD of difference between repairing a problem by running a couple of parallel wires .

I've never advocated for removing "wires that you don't need,...
Click to expand...

Ok kirk I did anticipate that example. though your dramatic flair was unexpected
smile.gif


I know you did not advocate replacing harnesses, I am.

is there any logic in allowing it with cars that do not have engine management systems. I mean it is the old cars that have the bad harnesses and will not benefit from them.
dick

[This message has been edited by dickita15 (edited August 24, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
I have a question along the same vein.

I thought I read on a thread here on the board that BMWs are running MOTEC engine management units. I am familar with these and what they are capable of. Is this true that this is allowed?

To me, this looks to be one heck of a bigger change than patching/altering/repairing/or replacing a wiring harness, especially on a simple car like I have. ECUs are unlimited but replacing a wiring harness with a safer setup is difficult to get through the rule book? That makes no sense whatsoever, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Well.......

The rule states you must use a stock, unmodified wiring harness, ECU connector, and ECU box. What goes on inside the box is open (anything goes). So, people are gutting stock ECUs, replacing the guts with Motecs, and wiring up the Motecs to the stock connector.

If it says you can, you bloody well can. (not that I like this personally)


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Ron, there's one thing you may have failed to consider that will answer all your questions, rules interpretations be damned: I'm fairly confident that you could build a brand new wiring harness from whatever materials you choose, and not a damned soul in the paddock will have any CLUE as to its legality. After all, it's not like they can compare it to the OTHER Jensens in the paddock...

I suspect you'll be just fine.

Greg
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
I have a question along the same vein.

I thought I read on a thread here on the board that BMWs are running MOTEC engine management units. I am familar with these and what they are capable of. Is this true that this is allowed?

To me, this looks to be one heck of a bigger change than patching/altering/repairing/or replacing a wiring harness, especially on a simple car like I have. ECUs are unlimited but replacing a wiring harness with a safer setup is difficult to get through the rule book? That makes no sense whatsoever, IMHO.
Click to expand...


Ahhh....you are very wise oh young one!....

Indeed the logic is questionable.

Here's the timeline of the logic.
Year 0 ...IT is invented...rulesmakers allow, sometime in the early days, the rejetting of carbs, and the adjustment of timing from stock. Precedence set.

We all race happily, and cars are classed at weights based upon expected performance of "IT improvements".

A car is classed that utilizes an ECU. The rulesmakers eventually look at precedence, and allow "replacement ECU chips" but it is strongly suspected that things are being done in the ECU box that are beyond that, and are very tough to police. Eventually they crumble and write a rule that allows whatever you can jamb in there, as long as you use the stock wire.

And the train comes off the tracks. Why? Because cars that were classed BEFORE this change had their weight set based on now incorrect horsepower and drivability assumptions. They WIN because they run at their "Pre Motec" weight (lighter), but get the benefits of such a system. The loser is any car that can't take advantage of an ECU upgrade.

Theoretically, cars that have been classed post the ECU rule change will not benefit as the board has set their weight based on assumptions that the competitors will gain greater HP with the better ECU.


A classic example of time, technology, a voluntary scrutineering staff, and hundreds of affected cars creating a conundrum, and the rules makers wiffing....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 24, 2004).]
 
"A car is classed that utilizes an ECU. The rulesmakers eventually look at precedence, and allow "replacement ECU chips" but it is strongly suspected that things are being done in the ECU box that are beyond that, and are very tough to police. Eventually they crumble and write a rule that allows whatever you can jamb in there, as long as you use the stock wire."

Jake, I started racing ITS is 1993 and as best as I recall there was no interim rule allowing aftermarket chips. NO ECU alterations were allowed but, as you accurately state, the suspicion was that some ECUs had been rechipped. If the job was done right it was indeed difficult to catch.
So one would think that the solution would be to legalize aftermarket chips or re-programming chips, etc. But NOOOOOO, they wrote a stupid and naive rule allowing the changes described above. I can't believe they ever contemplated anyone would cram an expensive MoTeC engine management system in there. But, then again, after the 3X remote shock experience, how could they have not? So you end up w/ a set of rules that allow a super-custom, $?000 EMS but won't let you, e.g., remove your headlight bulbs because it is "inconsistent with class philosophy." Forget logic.
 
I'm re-wiring, you'll have to protest me. Jeff helped me pull the dash and the wiring under there is fine. But, that doesn't run the car.

The stuff that runs the car, north of the firewall, is not factory and looks like it was wired by a monkey with access to lots of JC Whitney wire and assorted connectors. I am glad Jeff and I didn't stick the battery in and try to turn it over - the starter was straight wired to the battery harness with some 10 gauge wire.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/jensen/fire.JPG

So, I'll follow the original wiring diagram closely but I've got no choice if I want the car to run. To me these simple safety changes pale in comparison to running an entirely different ECU than the factory provided.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited August 25, 2004).]
 
ron i believe you are absolutly doing the right thing. I belive most all on this board agree. I also believe you did the right thing discussing it first so you understand all sides of the issue as well as possible. i am sure there is a voice inside that is saying you wish you had not brought it up but I think we all learn from such discussions. thank you
dick
 
What dickita said.

I always hear Mariachi music when I read his screen name, by the way...

"Another round of Dickitas for the whole table, por favor!"

K
 
I stand corrected. Sorry for the misinformation. Perhaps it was the lengthy gestation of the actual rule writing process, and the fact that the chips were in such widespread use that I remembered the situation incorrectly.

Chips per se' ARE consistant with the CP, although they are more powerful performance adjusters, and dynamic as well, than the static adjustments previously allowed.

If the timing of the rule change was handled better and the rule had been better controlled, the result would have been acceptable.

But you are right that what we have now is a joke gone awry.


Just don't call him the "Dickita banana"...he hates that...

wink.gif


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 25, 2004).]
 
I think the discussion is good and I'm glad I asked. Most seem to agree replacing the thing, repairing it, or even making a whole new one is no big deal. Only a one or two people see it as a problem, so, I'm comfortable with my decision. On any issue, there will always be a few who think differently and that is the spice of life.

The fact is, no matter what I do, there is no way you can argue I get a performance advantage. I just need to run my engine, read my gauges, and operate some lights. UNLESS you think that part of the British car experience means fighting in-car fires and I'll have a driving advantage in not having to deal with that! ;-0
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
Only a one or two people see it as a problem
Click to expand...

Actually in my case it's only methodology that is the issue. I am going to write to Topeka for a clarification because I'm serious about creating a new harness for the components I need and just installing it parallel with the stock harness if parallel wiring is legal.

Originally posted by rlearp:
The fact is, no matter what I do, there is no way you can argue I get a performance advantage. I just need to run my engine, read my gauges, and operate some lights. UNLESS you think that part of the British car experience means fighting in-car fires and I'll have a driving advantage in not having to deal with that! ;-0
Click to expand...

BTW, in case you've never been told this before....

Do you know why the British drink warm beer?

They have Lucas refrigerators.
biggrin.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
What dickita said.
I always hear Mariachi music when I read his screen name, by the way...
"Another round of Dickitas for the whole table, por favor!"
K
Click to expand...
crap, this was a unexpected turn of events
frown.gif
 
Bet I have something none of you fellows have in your wiring harness.

In the door there is a courtesy light. But, I bet it is different from yours. The one on the Jensen, from the factory, is powered by a "C" cell battery!!!! No s*&t!

Never seen anything like it, but I'm finding a lot of stuff on this car that fits that category.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top