onralz Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 One of the options when utilizing fuel injection is the changing the chip to change the parameters of the processor. This can be done in the car by using a switch, wires, or changing a chip. The concern here is during a race, someone can change something between the time of coming off the track, and going to the dyno. Using a sealing method whether it be a special tape, or a strap would eliminate this possibility. I don't know if this should or shouldn't be made a rule, but something that the directors could look at in future to elimate this as an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 NASA TX officials sealed our computers using that special "tamper proof" tape. Worked great and I still have mine on there, no pics as I don't have the digital camera handy but I'm sure Todd Covini and/or Adam Ginsberg could chime in about where they got it and how much $$ for a roll of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Come on Mark - can't you read JWL's note. The thread should be called "2005 Rules - Processor Sealing"... (Sorry Mark, after agreeing with you so much, I had to give you crap about something....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Scott- Fixed it so you can't give poor Mark any grief! This is a good idea and TX was the experiment. We have the tape and we will use it next year. Hopefully it works to prevent any monkey business, but no one was cheating before, right? -JWL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 It's very easy to hide the "switch" within the harness, and sealing the processor does not solve this problem. While I agree that processors should be sealed, how do you solve this other part of the problem?? I don't have an answer - I'm just wondering if anyone one does have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 If a competitor uses a switchable processor, the additional wire will be evident - it has to exit from the processor. This is true if you run one of the "burned" swtichable chips from AutoLogic, or use an EEC-Tuner, TwEECer, etc. For the cars that ran a regular, non-switchable chip ( we don't have any switch-chip cars in TX...yet ), we put a piece of tamperproof tape over the chip, and around the EEC ( where the cover comes off ), as well as marked it with paint. For those cars that had an EEC-Tuner, we used tape in the same areas as listed above, as well as sealed off the DB9 serial connector at the end of the wire, and marked that with paint as well. GM cars can use LS1Edit, and IIRC, it plugs in via the diagnostic port. We can seal that port in the same fashion. The tape was provided by JWL/RF, and worked very well. IMO, it should be implimented across the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Adam - You're not being creative enough. Maybe years of working in some pro series has shown me how to really cheat... Bring in a NASCAR tech inspector, and ask them how they check for traction control for instance. It'd knock your socks off. They remove the entire harness, including ALL electronic devices from the car, pin out each harness, do continuity checks on the harnesses (to check for small devices hidden within the harness), they cut open the MSD boxes and coils, etc, etc..... They've even X-ray'ed distributors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASA Jim Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 In the SE-R Cup we have a similar power-to-weigh rule. An integral part of modification is making changes to the fuel injection computer, so we've faced this issue for a while, but haven't had any problems with it. While we know people can tinker and have switches for different programs (in fact all of our SRX turbo cars have multiple programs with an external switch for different fuels- and they use the same computer), it will be obvious if a competitor is cheating. If someone out drags you on a straight-away by a big margin and then rolls into the dyno and lays down the same curve and numbers as you do then you know something is up. I think a good check besides the tape will be a visual one- watch the cars on the track. If it is obvious someone is faster, then you can more closely examine the car for some trickery. But with cars all running a similar power to weight ratio, there won't be a lot of variability in speed between fully built cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbolx Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Sealing is great and all, but it still won't stop someone who's sincerely dedicated to chaeting in this manner. There are plenty of other ways to make the car dyno one power level and deliver another on track. Trigger temps from unused sensors, traction control inputs from the stock system, etc... Having done EFI calibration professionally for several years, I've learned all kinds of ways to get the car to do what I want when one input is screwed up. It doesn't take an external switch to make it happen. Bottom line is that it should be fairly evident if someone pulls from another car in a "drag race" down the straight if both got a good run from the corner at the same power/weight. This is one area of the rules where a lot of honesty from the competitors is what it's going to take to keep the field level. As the calibrator for a couple of this year's winning cars, I welcome anyone to check up on my work. Heck, you can borrow the chip out of my personal AI car next year if your combo is close. I'd be happy to help inspectors know what to look for if it'll keep the field level and happy, but common sense should indicate if one car stands out in the power department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustic Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 GM cars can use LS1Edit, and IIRC, it plugs in via the diagnostic port. We can seal that port in the same fashion. I would have to object to the sealing of the diagnostic port.... for the very reason that it's a diagnostic port. If I need to trouble shoot or if I want to check to make sure my O2 sensors are working properly, I'd like to be able to do that without being accused of cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 And what about cars that use aftermarket engine management or a carburetor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onralz Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 Come on Mark - can't you read JWL's note. The thread should be called "2005 Rules - Processor Sealing"... (Sorry Mark, after agreeing with you so much, I had to give you crap about something....) AAAHH! Sorry guys. Thanks for fixing it John. Scott, Bite me! I posted in haste as I had to be back to work. Not all of us get to sit around and check the internet all day like some specific Ford engineers. Kudo's to NASA and the Texas guys (thanks Adam) for getting this started. It certainly isn't a perfect scenario, but it is a deterent and that always helps. What's a carburetor V? Is there a way to seal the port in an aftermarket management system? The only one I am used to is the DFI and you can seal that from getting a lap top to hook up to it. If you need to change something at the track, I would think that you could just check with your director and he can re tag it for you. That would keep anyone from thinking you are cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I would have to object to the sealing of the diagnostic port.... for the very reason that it's a diagnostic port. If I need to trouble shoot or if I want to check to make sure my O2 sensors are working properly, I'd like to be able to do that without being accused of cheating. Does LS1Edit give the user the ability to diagnose engine sensors/functions, or is it's sole purpose to change variables? My ( albeit ) limited understanding is it's sole purpose is for changes/tuning, not diagnostics. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We sealed the hoods after the last race on Sunday, just as cars were being loaded on the trailer. We marked distributors, heads, valve covers, exhaust equipment, and sealed EEC's/EEC-Tuners throughout Saturday and Sunday. If a competitor had come to us, and requested we remove the tape so he/she could hook a laptop up to the EEC-Tuner because they were having a problem, we probably would have refused - the EEC-Tuner cannot be used to diagnose sensors. However, once it's sealed at the end of the day Sunday, a competitor would not be permitted to remove the tape/seal until he/she was at the dyno, with a series official. Break the seal/remove the tape before it gets to the dyno, and the previous weekend results are DQ'd. Scott - granted, I have no pro experience, and little amature experience as well. The processes you mentioned - have they EVER occured at a NASA event? Doubtful - there isn't any mentioned about tearing down components in AI ( CMC specifically states there is NO teardown, section 7.7 ). Don't tip your hand about the GAC team you work for..... Aftermarket engine management - without seeing a specific brand at an event, I can't speak to being able to "seal" it. I'm sure there is a way, however. With a carb, marking the fuel bowls/metering plate would give indication of someone changing jets. I'm not sure how we could mark the A/F mixture screws..... The CMC dyno sheet has a spot to indicate what jets are being used - the same sheet could be used across the US for AI competitors. AAMOF, we use the CMC dyno sheet for the all CMC and AI guys in TX. As Mark stated, it isn't perfect. Hell, the pros know how to cheat, too, right Scott?? Having the deterent helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Unfortunately my teamate’s car has a carb. on it and neither of us really know how to tune it. All I can say is that it is very sensitive and can fluctuate drastically. For the most part it has been a headache. It does work reasonably well, but because it likes to do it’s own thing and we don’t understand it entirely it really can come back to bite us on the dyno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Bolt one of these on it. Mine has been flawless and easy to tune. Zero problems. http://www.holley.com/HiOctn/ProdLine/Products/FMS/FMSC/f0-80785.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Ah....glad to see Monroe chime in. Vageli - my CMC car has a carb, and I love it for it's simplicity. Then again, I'm a carb guy from wayyyy back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 If you need to change something at the track, I would think that you could just check with your director and he can re tag it for you. That would keep anyone from thinking you are cheating. Mark's comment caught my eye this evening ( I'm not picking on you Mark, just your comments... ). Something I'd like to point out - when you dyno a car at a shop, and receive the dyno sheet, you must present the car at the track in the exact same configuration as it was tested at the dyno. Charges that could affect power output aren't allowed. That means you can't so much as change spark plugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onralz Posted September 20, 2004 Author Share Posted September 20, 2004 Yeah, I should have worded it as check something instead of change something. I was referring to someone wanting to check the diagnostics as was mentioned earlier by Rustic. For a guy with a carb, how do you know so much? I can't even spell carb, but I can spell EFI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Checking diagnostics is one thing - the EEC-Tuner and TwEECER isn't capable of this, nor is the early version of LS1Edit. If someone wanted to "check" something, we would probably allow it ( we don't want a competitor to damage anything ), but would seal the port/hood and require a dyno session. That goes for an EEC-Tuner, LS1Edit, TwEECer or similarly equipped car. As for my EFI vs. carb experience.....my daily driver for ~7 years ( until Feb of this year ) was a 1986 Mustang GT w/a Vortech blower pushing 375rwhp/385rwtq. I learned EFI when I wanted to modify that car - I did all the work to it myself. However, my carb experience dates back to when I was ~14-15 years old. And that was a loooooong time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I thought that the diagnostic port on the Mustang was used to "check" things. The port that the chip plugs into has no service usage from the factory (i.e. You can't pull codes from it or read sensors) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 In all the literature I've read, the port on the processor itself ( where a chip plugs in ) is labeled a "diagnostic port" on Ford cars ( and trucks, IIRC ). The ones I've looked at are from '86 to 2004. As you mentioned, you don't pull codes from there. That is, however, the port that would be sealed. The plug under the hood ( driver side, near the hinge ) is where codes are pulled from. Unless something has changed in the chip market, you can't make changes from that plug. No need to seal it. The GM cars have a port directly under the steering wheel/column to pull codes AND make changes to the processor, at least from the research I've done to date. TBH, I need to do more research on how changes are made to later GM cars, and Fords as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onralz Posted September 20, 2004 Author Share Posted September 20, 2004 In all the literature I've read, the port on the processor itself ( where a chip plugs in ) is labeled a "diagnostic port" on Ford cars ( and trucks, IIRC ). The ones I've looked at are from '86 to 2004. As you mentioned, you don't pull codes from there. That is, however, the port that would be sealed. The plug under the hood ( driver side, near the hinge ) is where codes are pulled from. Unless something has changed in the chip market, you can't make changes from that plug. No need to seal it. The GM cars have a port directly under the steering wheel/column to pull codes AND make changes to the processor, at least from the research I've done to date. TBH, I need to do more research on how changes are made to later GM cars, and Fords as well. Sounds good and thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 The GM cars have a port directly under the steering wheel/column to pull codes AND make changes to the processor, at least from the research I've done to date. Correct for 1993 and newer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Thanks for the information, Keith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 actually, that's 1994 and newer. The 3rd gen cars used a EEPROM and are nto programable via the ALDL port. The 1993 F-car (camaro / firebird) use the same thing. 1994 and up cars have a flash prom and can be programmed via the ALDL using a laptop, cable and software. -Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.