ECU Rule Change Poll

[turboICE]

Regarding built to the limit. I think classing, weight and cost considerations should all be based on the assumption that all cars will be built to the limit of the rules (even if this counts against my desires).

From a competitive spirit standpoint I think to the extent possible for the participant (i.e. budget for most of us) built to the legal limit is an obligation.

 

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 09:56 PM
Decoded:  I would rather we had NO allowances or full lattitude to do what we wanted provided you didn't violate other rules (traction control etc.)  I voted to allow only stock.
AB

[snapback]66027[/snapback]​

The problem I see is with the newer (OBDII) cars, that are running right now and in the future in IT. 90% of the cars won't be able to be raced unless you keep everything and I mean everthing stock no headers, no intakes, no pullies, no motor work. The cars will set off check engine lights all the time and some will slip into limp home mode ( loss of major power ) with any major IT prep.

Trust me the last thing I want is to spend more money on race cars, but some rules need to keep up with the times.

 

[Joe Harlan]

OBDII cars will end up being the easiest to crack and recode due to the ability to flash them in car. SEE all the Diesel truck flash kits. YOu can program them to ignore the second o2 sensor for cat heat ect. I have been working on the 350z stuff since 03, It isn't that hard to race a late car.

 

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 22 2005, 05:38 PM
OBDII cars will end up being the easiest to crack and recode due to the ability to flash them in car. SEE all the Diesel truck flash kits. YOu can program them to ignore the second o2 sensor for cat heat ect. I have been working on the 350z stuff since 03, It isn't that hard to race a late car.

[snapback]66360[/snapback]​

Joe,
It's not as easy as you might think at least in the BMW, Porsche world. I have no expericance with Asian Import cars (some models might be easy), but I can tell you it's only going to get harder and harder to flash these cars, making a car not see a O2 sensor by using a SIM isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cars going into major limp mode when you do any modifications to them, beside very minor modes ex: cat back, air filter.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 22 2005, 03:04 PM
Joe,
It's not as easy as you might think at least in the BMW, Porsche world.  I have no expericance with Asian Import cars (some models might be easy), but I can tell you it's only going to get harder and harder to flash these cars, making a car not see a O2 sensor by using a SIM isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cars going into major limp mode when you do any modifications to them, beside very minor modes ex: cat back, air filter.

[snapback]66364[/snapback]​

Jeff, I am telling you. when the need comes about it will happen. It really again does not matter cause T1 to T5 is coming. 10 year life span on these cars. Currently they have to remain emissions compliant. The cars you are talking about will be run there for at least 5 to 7 years. There will be more people than you can shake a stick at beaking the code on this stuff. As long as there are hot rodders and computer geeks there will be somebody working on cracking the code on this stuff. Second as more cars go to flyby wire throttles I don't want to see the average hack trying to adapt a freaking 16bit haltech to it.

 

[turboICE]

One way you could look at it is that CARB knows all too well how easy it is to reflash current ECUs.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/fro1968-2.pdf

(4.6) Software Calibration Identification: On all vehicles, a software calibration identification number (CAL ID) for the diagnostic or emission critical powertrain control unit(s) shall be made available through the standardized data link connector in accordance with the SAE J1979 specifications. A unique CAL ID shall be used for every emission-related calibration and/or software set having at least one bit of different data from any other emission-related calibration and/or software set. Control units coded with multiple emission or diagnostic calibrations and/or software sets shall indicate a unique CAL ID for each variant in a manner that enables an off-board device to determine which variant is being used by the vehicle. Control units that utilize a strategy that will result in MIL illumination if the incorrect variant is used (e.g., control units that contain variants for manual and automatic transmissions but will illuminate the MIL if the variant selected does not match the type of transmission on the vehicle) are not required to use unique CAL IDs.

I can't find it now but there is also a government requirement regarding making protocols for ECU access available for a reason I can't recall right now, but there were discussions on how it would essentially ease the hacking of ODBII ECUs.

For many models you don't even have to chip them or physically access the ECU at all - reflashing is done through the communications built into the OBDII port. Dealers distribute manufacturer reflashes this way already. With EcuTek my Subaru can be tuned on the fly and once I am happy just reflash the PROM through the port to retain the settings - and all emmissions CELS and responses (including for instance EGT limp home codes in the older WRXs) can be disabled.

Now as these cars begin to filter into IT over the years it will be really interesting to see if those who have proprietary, OBD0, OBDI and older OBDII ECUs no one has hacked (and some never will not enough interest in them) will still be happy not being able to take an aftermarket and plug it into their OEM harness.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 22 2005, 04:06 PM
One way you could look at it is that CARB knows all too well how easy it is to reflash current ECUs.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/fro1968-2.pdf
I can't find it now but there is also a government requirement regarding making protocols for ECU access available for a reason I can't recall right now, but there were discussions on how it would essentially ease the hacking of ODBII ECUs.

For many models you don't even have to chip them or physically access the ECU at all - reflashing is done through the communications built into the OBDII port. Dealers distribute manufacturer reflashes this way already. With EcuTek my Subaru can be tuned on the fly and once I am happy just reflash the PROM through the port to retain the settings - and all emmissions CELS and responses (including for instance EGT limp home codes in the older WRXs) can be disabled.

Now as these cars begin to filter into IT over the years it will be really interesting to see if those who have proprietary, OBD0, OBDI and older OBDII ECUs no one has hacked (and some never will not enough interest in them) will still be happy not being able to take an aftermarket and plug it into their OEM harness.

[snapback]66372[/snapback]​

Ed the issue will be the cost of the aftermarket to become carb compliant. Last talk with AEM about the 350z was it was going to be too costly to be carb compliant. The cool thing about the OBDII stuff is (my understanding) the ability to have multible programs in the same ECU. This is one fo the reasons that SCCA is looking at open factory ECU rules in SS which we already have in T1/T2.

 

[turboICE]

Oh, I know that it brings a whole other realm of issues for street applications and compliance of stand alones - I was more using it to point out that it is easy enough for people to reflash OEM ECUs that CARB wants to know if the ECU has been reflashed to even a one bit variation from an OEM scheme. It shouldn't matter to IT whether the stand alone is OBDII compliant. It really will be easy to tune current cars' ECUs whether anyone has done it or not is another matter. I am sure that it is feasible to hack any current ECU to deal with any modifications permitted in IT. At IT prep levels I would rather reflash the current OEM ECUs than use a stand alone anyway because unlike the older OEM ECUs the new ones have pretty good resolution in their maps and you are starting with a setup designed to work with the signals available.

As far as two tunes as an example with the Subaru the space and addressing doesn't exist for two different sets of maps to be flashed - but there is enough that with a 100% TPS signal and hitting the rear defog button I can have an across the board shift in bootst, fuel trim and timing on the fly. And this shift can be set and reset via what I believe would be a permitted data logger.

 

[turboICE]

I can't think of any current OEM ECUs in the limited realm I am aware of that have the space and addressing for a second set of fuel trim and timing maps at this time. I am pretty sure they use all the space available for increased resolution.

Oops meant to edit.

 

[dj10]

3000 members and 59 voting?? Well I thought this was a great idea.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 24 2005, 08:41 AM
3000 member and 59 voting?? Well I thought this was a great idea.

[snapback]66570[/snapback]​

What? Thats about the normal participation level in this club.

 

[turboICE]

Except for the fact that the sample was not taken in a truly random fashion - the sample size would be considered pretty close to statistically significant enough to arrive at conclusions regarding the distribution of views among the population of forum members (which may or may not reflect the distribution of views of all IT participants).

And as with all statistics could be presented several ways (all +/- some polling error a quant could give you):

One could say that 76% don't like the rule the way it is now and want to see it changed.

On the other hand it could also be said that 66% do not want a rule that would be more open than today's wording (as is or more restrictive).

And 42% want a change eliminating the possible use of anything other than the stock main board.

As I have said eliminate the use of aftermarket ECU for all or make it easier for all to use them. But at the same time I don't want to see stock only engine control logic.

The problem with eliminating the use of aftermarket ECU for all as I see it is how to word it in such a way as to not prevent intended permitted data table changes. Because when I say eliminating the use of aftermarket ECU for all I mean eliminating nonOEM components that affect the speed, storage, logic applied and operating functions that are not OEM. Only permit modifications which alter the data tables from stock.

Hard to police I know - but as time wears on to some extent I can see where this "hard to police" stuff allows rules creep for those willing to spend the money. If someone is going to cheat they are going to cheat. Writing a good rule should not be avoided because it can't be policed. I believe that the vast super, ubber majority of participants will follow the rules even if they know they won't get caught (or maybe I have to believe that or why would I want to run in these classes since my intent is to follow the rules) of course with the exception that there are an awful lot of short shifters out there.

But policing aside I don't see a way to make a good rule for it so allow us all reasonable access to aftermarket ECU's on the stock harness.