TurboShortBus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm thinking outside of the box here...what's to prevent somebody who drives a Car X with a non-programmable OEM ECU from removing a programmable OEM ECU and wiring harness from a newer-year Car X, installing it all in the older Car X, and breezing through tech with it? While it's true that the +3 points per C3 should apply, it could easily go undetected and be skipped. I'm not saying that anybody would do something like this, but it could happen. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dans2k Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm thinking outside of the box here...what's to prevent somebody who drives a Car X with a non-programmable OEM ECU from removing a programmable OEM ECU and wiring harness from a newer-year Car X, installing it all in the older Car X, and breezing through tech with it? While it's true that the +3 points per C3 should apply, it could easily go undetected and be skipped. I'm not saying that anybody would do something like this, but it could happen. Mark not sure on other cars but on the S2000 the 06-09 is drive by wire. From what I understand you'd have to change most of the wiring, the throttle body/intake manifold and a load of other stuff. Basically it would be the same as changing a 04-05 to a 06-09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) After reading the rules again, this point is null and void. Edited November 10, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tut Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 This is almost moot since we have already decided to ban Mustangs, Corvettes, Miatas and I think all turbo and AWD cars. Whew, I'm still good then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 For OBD2 B-Series Honda/Acura all you need to do is install a "jumper harness" and an OBD1 ECU and blamo, fully tunable within the confines of "free tuning". After reading the rules again, this point is null and void. Your editing can't escape me...lol While the above sounds easy enough, it would be subject to +3 per C3. However, something like that might not easily be detected in a typical tech inspection, so I see where those +3 points could be improperly omitted on a set of classification forms. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 For OBD2 B-Series Honda/Acura all you need to do is install a "jumper harness" and an OBD1 ECU and blamo, fully tunable within the confines of "free tuning". After reading the rules again, this point is null and void. Your editing can't escape me...lol While the above sounds easy enough, it would be subject to +3 per C3. However, something like that might not easily be detected in a typical tech inspection, so I see where those +3 points could be improperly omitted on a set of classification forms. Mark lol got me. Similar scenario as the S2K: Say someone with an 1997 Integra Type-R depinned their ECU connectors and installed factory/OEM OBD1 ECU connectors, thereby making the OBD1 ECU plug directly into the cabin harness and eliminating the aftermarket jumper harness. Would that still be +3 even though the only thing aftermarket would be the chip within an OEM ECU and the rules specifically state Aftermarket computer system (any non-OEM “stand-alone” or “piggyback”): +3 naturally aspirated, +10 forced induction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Tech inspection is very difficult for ECU re-flashes, which is why they were made a free mod, and ECU enclosure trickery. This is why (against Ken's wishes) aftermarket ECU's should be included with re-flashes as a free mod (boosted cars are still given the +5pts). However this will only work if somehow area under the curve (torque monster engines and power plateau calibrations) is considered in defining "Power". Unfortunately the easiest way to accomplish this is to use peak torque as part of the "Power" calculation. The solution needs to address the majority, not the outlyers. It's not perfect but I feel it addresses the concerns (cars unable to re-flash, boosted car power plateau calibrations and purpose build NA torque monsters) of the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Similar scenario as the S2K: Say someone with an 1997 Integra Type-R depinned their ECU connectors and installed factory/OEM OBD1 ECU connectors, thereby making the OBD1 ECU plug directly into the cabin harness and eliminating the aftermarket jumper harness. Would that still be +3 even though the only thing aftermarket would be the chip within an OEM ECU and the rules specifically state Aftermarket computer system (any non-OEM “stand-alone” or “piggyback”): +3 naturally aspirated, +10 forced induction? Such a swap would likely fail to meet the definition of OEM and would be subject to the points for C3. But, it might be able to be snuck through tech that way, but if it is discovered, it would be considered to be a pretty blatant avoidance of the points. I'm not sure that such a swap would be permitted under the update/backdate rules, either (can't swap engine parts without Greg's approval). Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 We need to ban Vipers also...they have their own series... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 We need to ban Vipers also...they have their own series... Same for Ferrari...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clydesdale Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Step 1) All cars are base classed by dyno and weight Step 2) ? Step 3) Profit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Step 1) All cars are base classed by dyno and weightStep 2) ? Step 3) Profit Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 We need to ban Vipers also...they have their own series... Same for Ferrari...? Nah, they are not beating me regionally at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Nice South Park drop Randy. I had me a good chuckle! Ha Ha...Underpants gnomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 insert - my standard rant about peak torque being a bit meanginless and instead needing to look at torque in the rev ranges that are actually used on track instead - here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlfpkrcn1 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I can't believe I am goint to say this I agree with Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I can't believe I am goint to say this I agree with Ken Satan better get some ice skates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 insert - my standard rant about peak torque being a bit meanginless and instead needing to look at torque in the rev ranges that are actually used on track instead - here It's impossible because how would you define "usable rpm range" when it can be different car to car and it changes from stock with FD, cams, tune, etc. Some of which are free mods. Plus maybe you would consider a huge spike in torque at a low rpm out of the usable range on track but the driver short shifts as much as possible to utilize the torque. There are too many variables that affect "usable rpm range" and it's too subjective to write a rule around! The perfect solution is most likely cost/time prohibitive. However continuous improvement can be implemented for a step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 let them use the low RPM torque spike if they want, it'll be slow - how do I know? I had a car that was just like that, peak torque of 280wlbft at ~2100rpm with a huge drop off after that, 220whp at 5500ish. Guess what? It was fastest at the drag strip when shifted at 5700ish, not 2300ish. Horsepower is what moves the car along at speed... (and before the 'vette and Viper guys come in and say but but but our cars are torquey and fast - yes, they are - but all that torque means is you don't have to use as many revs to get horsepower out of the equation). fwiw I did submit the "shape of the power curve" stuff with my RCRs. I even agree with you about not going too overboard with a fancy formula. But automatically using a peak torque number is too simplistic however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 fwiw I did submit the "shape of the power curve" stuff with my RCRs. I even agree with you about not going too overboard with a fancy formula. But automatically using a peak torque number is too simplistic however. I'm glad we agree on the area under the curve needs to be considered. I can now enjoy the weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 - but all that torque means is you don't have to use as many revs to get horsepower out of the equation. And this equals area under the curve, which is my pt about torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 let - but all that torque means is you don't have to use as many revs to get horsepower out of the equation. And this equals area under the curve, which is my pt about torque. and the start and stop point of figuring out area under the curve is going to be defined by gearing. Peak torque may or may not fall outside of that start & stop RPM band which is my point nasaforums needs a :beer: or :itsallgood: kinda smiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I think we can agree that the NASA officals are not going to attempt to determine the "usable rpm range" for all the vehicles in the PT/TT list; cost/time prohibitive. We'll see what changes if any they come up with for next yr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Agree!! 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.