heeltoer Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Hey all, At the last NASA TT event (thill 11.11-11.12) every TT car underwent a tech where I revealed that my stock ecu was reflashed (dynoflash) and that I have made changes to the camber through the factory offset bolt (this setting is used to fix factory alignment issues). This was the ruling made by the norcal nasa tt director. Since you have stock OBDII electronics that can and have been reflashed, you must take +8 pts for a turbo model. You must also take +2 points for the camber adjustment (that is mentioned in your owners manual). This brings you to 43 mod. pts. and bumps you to TTA. You will not receive pts. from last weekend. Here is the relevant text from the classifications form: Engine My interpretation Reflash was performed by dynoflash.com, reprogramming was done through ODBII port of the stock ECU which was already regrammable so- Performance chip or single generic ECU non-reprogrammable reflash—turbo or supercharged engine +4 What ruling came down to for every reflashble ecu (pretty much every car on the market since '00): Reprogrammable ECU chip, reflashable computer, or aftermarket computer system that can directly control engine timing maps and/or fuel injector pulse, allowing fine-tuning: 1) at the track +6 nat. aspirated, +11 turbo/supercharged 2) elsewhere +5 N.A., +8 turbo/ S.C. (Do not also take points for performance chip/reflash) Suspension My Interpretation: Since this is a factory adjustment specified in the factory repair manual, there is nothing modified about the camber bolt. What ruling means for all cars that offer factory alignment adjustment: Add, replace, or modify camber plates or bolts, shims, steering knuckles, or struts for simple camber adjustment only (ex. slotting of single knuckle or strut bolt hole)(retail available camber plates may allow slight caster adjustment that remains within factory specs) +2 Needless to say these are pretty disparaging rulings especially since 1. both of these modifications are part of the car from the factory and should have been considered as part of the base classing and 2. they have made it super easy to "cheat" since NASA isn't going to have the ability to check for factory ODBII code anytime soon. If you were planning to compete in NASA TT next year please remember to get your EVO or any car with the above two factory features teched, or just assume your evo is in one class above where you class it. Quote
StealthTT Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 So to me that reads the difference between 4 points and 8 is "fine-tuning". I think the intent is to differentiate between a basic/generic tune that is available for flashing versus an in-depth tune that tweaks every ounce of performance out of your specific car. It's fairly vague and I'd be scared if the 4 points meant being moved a class. I plan to leave a buffer for anything I think I'm even slightyly iffy on. -------------------------------------------------------- If you did not modify your stock camber bolt such as slotting then I don't understand how you were assessed points. Just to make it perfectly clear all you did was adjust the camber bolt, not modify it? For what it's worth, I hear rumors that camber will be free in 2007. Just curious and it's irrelevant, but how much camber were you able to dial in? The most I can get is 1.8 on my Dodge Stealth with the stock camber bolts. -------------------------------------------------------- If you get 2 points taken off for camber, by my count you are still bumped into TTA because of the flashed ecu points. I'm just playing amrchair quarterback, but I think I'd have asked for a ruling on the difference between the 4 points and 8 if I knew I was on the cusp of bumping a class. Quote
Members Shawn M. Posted November 17, 2006 Members Posted November 17, 2006 I'm just playing amrchair quarterback, but I think I'd have asked for a ruling on the difference between the 4 points and 8 if I knew I was on the cusp of bumping a class. It wont matter because my gut feeling is that with next years rules, there will be a buttload of cars in TTU that were easily in TTC this year! Thats just me tho. Dont quote me boys, I aint said s***. Quote
kbrew8991 Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 you shouldn't have been assessed the points for the camber bolts as I understand the rule.... but I'm in a similar situation and was assessed the 2 points so who knows Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 17, 2006 National Staff Posted November 17, 2006 He should be assessed the points for alteration of camber in '06, but you can see why we are ditching it and just making camber free for everyone in '07. ECU reprogramming points will become more simple also, unfortunately, at the expense of those that did have a generic-type reflash or chip in '06 (like the guys with Dodge SRT4's who can only purchase a reflashed ECU through the manufacturer since nobody has broken the code to be able to reflash the OEM computer.) Quote
StealthTT Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 He should be assessed the points for alteration of camber in '06, but you can see why we are ditching it and just making camber free for everyone in '07. So was he assessed two points for 1)altering camber by adjusting the stock camber bolt? or 2)adjusting the camber outside of factory specs? I understand the rule is changing, but if I understand your ruling, I think it'll help me understand other parts of the CCR. Because to me the pertinent section reads "add, replace, or modify". Did he modify it by turning it to change his camber? Thanks. Quote
heeltoer Posted November 18, 2006 Author Posted November 18, 2006 changing the orieentation of the camber bolt got me -1.8 up front. Factory manual says up to -2 is possible. How is it possible to enforce these kind of rules if from the factory the car could have this much camber? Same could be said of the ECU changes, this ruling seems to be a specific hit against cars that just happened to have more after market support. Ive read elsewhere Greg mentioning that some cars are just better suited. The evo just happens to be a case in point. Of course the number of cars that can't be reflashed is now the minority. Plus enforcement with the "fine-tuning" rule is next to impossible. Even if every NASA region bought every ODBII reader for every manufacturer are we going to take the time to learn each cars factory tuning specs? I would have been happy to apply +8 if that was the only option. But with the current ruleset it feels like more of a bait and switch. Quote
IGZOSTD Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 So The way I see it , reflash is a reflash .If you have have a hand held programer , or lap top, you need to pay the points as I have . I have a N/A car that has good support from the aftermarket , should I pay agian for the good support , I think not . I have not had my car dynoed but I don't think the reflash added much but definetly helped the drivability , Some cars have a lots of suport in the aftermarket , some have very little . There should be no discrimination here . I'm not in favor of the free camber though , How about free brake pads ! my stock pads fallapart in 20min. Just like the camber , aftermarket pads are a must have for proper setup AND safty , so how about free pads and more of a point hit for Big Brakes . My big problem is the short time that we have when the new rules take affect . We should have a years notice as to new rules . Steve Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 18, 2006 National Staff Posted November 18, 2006 Yes, brake pads will be free also. And, if you wait to compete in Arizona in December '07, you will have a year to build a car (for one event.) Rich: If a modification is not specifically allowed by the rules, it is prohibited. A permitted item cannot be modified to perform either a prohibited function, or the function of an item that would otherwise be assessed points under the modification rules. 10) Add, replace, or modify camber plates or bolts, shims, steering knuckles, or struts for simple camber adjustment only (ex. slotting of single knuckle or strut bolt hole) So, did the car come with -1.8 degrees of camber from the dealer's lot? No. The intent of the rule is clearly to assess points for those that are benefiting from having increased negative camber. Anyone that suggests that we should be able to research the 5000+ vehicles that have been classed in the approximately 700 model groups, and attempt to determine which of those vehicles come with a factory adjustment for excessive negative camber vs. those that need to change camber by factory or aftermarket shims or bolts needs to volunteer to do that job. And good luck to him. Quote
IGZOSTD Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Well if I wait till Dec. 07 then you would have an easy win Greg . It might not sound like such, but my hats off to you for all your hard work . I know you have a tough job here , and the pay is awsome . Quote
IGZOSTD Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 And THANKS for the FREE brake pads . Now if we could work on free R compounds , that would be great Quote
hagakure Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Greg, What if you have aftermarket calipers and pads that are SMALLER than stock? take the points for th ebig rotors, but If I run the RacingBrake caliper and pad kit for my car they are actually smaller than stock...should I be penalized for this? The pads are actually 1/3 smaller...this si the kind of stuff that get's murky. Percy Howard Quote
heeltoer Posted November 19, 2006 Author Posted November 19, 2006 So, did the car come with -1.8 degrees of camber from the dealer's lot? No. The intent of the rule is clearly to assess points for those that are benefiting from having increased negative camber. Anyone that suggests that we should be able to research the 5000+ vehicles that have been classed in the approximately 700 model groups, and attempt to determine which of those vehicles come with a factory adjustment for excessive negative camber vs. those that need to change camber by factory or aftermarket shims or bolts needs to volunteer to do that job. And good luck to him. Greg, Here is the appropriate page from the EVO 03 factory manual. Page 33A-8 There is no way for you to enforce this rule. How are you supposed to prove that this camber didn't come from the factory? There are any number of ways a person could get this modification without his/her knowledge (e.g. during serivce) and, yes, it is possible to get this from the dealer lot. Just ask them to do it before taking delivery. Finally how do you define "excess" camber? Are you going to now make a rule that no car can have -2 degrees from the factory? Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 19, 2006 National Staff Posted November 19, 2006 He should be assessed the points for alteration of camber in '06, but you can see why we are ditching it and just making camber free for everyone in '07. And, dealer and factory OPTIONS are assessed points. The car comes with -1 degree of camber. Setting it up with -2 degrees is an OPTION. Some Audis come with two different control arm attachment points--increasing track width. We assess them for using the alternate (wider) settings as well. Quote
bbyevo Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 It seems nobody reads anymore.... I know, let us make our own rules, then everyone will be happy. Seriously, I think Greg and his team (you do have a team don't you??) have done a pretty good job with the rules and trying to cover all the nuances of a mixed series like this. Nothing will ever be 100% fair, but as long as they keep striving to make it as close as possible I'll be a happy camper. Quote
Members Shawn M. Posted November 20, 2006 Members Posted November 20, 2006 It seems nobody reads anymore.... I know, let us make our own rules, then everyone will be happy. Seriously, I think Greg and his team (you do have a team don't you??) have done a pretty good job with the rules and trying to cover all the nuances of a mixed series like this. Nothing will ever be 100% fair, but as long as they keep striving to make it as close as possible I'll be a happy camper. Yeah, he has a team of lawyers writing the rules for 07. Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 20, 2006 National Staff Posted November 20, 2006 Yeah, he has a team of lawyers writing the rules for 07. Nope, just a team of body guards for when the rules come out. Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 20, 2006 National Staff Posted November 20, 2006 Actually, the Regional TT Directors all have the opportunity to have input into the process if they desire. The rules are ultimately written by yours truly, then reviewed and revised after consultation with the NASA Executives. Rules are not official and published until the final version is approved by the NASA executives. Quote
Members Shawn M. Posted November 20, 2006 Members Posted November 20, 2006 Yeah, he has a team of lawyers writing the rules for 07. Nope, just a team of body guards for when the rules come out. Thats another reason why you pay me, my CCW is still valid...... Quote
Dave Bongiovanni Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I personally think this is one of many cases of TT rules being both poorly written and poorly interpreted. Luckily, NASA recognizes this and is rewriting the rules for the better and continuing to evolve this phenomenon at a admirable pace. However, the interpreters will not change, and in fact are no different than the interpreters for most race organizations. What they all have in common, especially among multi-make classes, is that they generally don't know the cars as well as the owners, and they don't know, or refuse to acknowlege, the rules as intricately as a well prepared racer. Luckily for us racers, the operating procedure is that the rules are the rules, as written. If there is no ambiguity in the rules, then they have to be enforced as-written. It is my moderately experienced and usually worthless opinion as a NASA tech official who has been teching race cars to both well and poorly written rules for years that both these rulings are not consistant with the rules as written with no ambiguity, and now we all know what that means... As far as the reflash, the NASA TT rules states that "Cars may be upclassed as defined below at section 6.3 based on vehicle MODIFICATIONS." Nowhere else does it say that points are assessed for stock, non-optional equipment beyond the base class. This part is clear and unambiguous. Now to the points. Reprogrammable ECU chip, reflashable computer, or aftermarket computer system that can directly control engine timing maps and/or fuel injector pulse, allowing fine-tuning: 1) at the track +6 nat. aspirated, +11 turbo/supercharged 2) elsewhere +5 N.A., +8 turbo/ S.C. (Do not also take points for performance chip/reflash)" This doesn't apply, since there is no modification to allow fine tuning at any location, unless you go out and purchase, install, and/or utilize the equipment neccesary to modify the vehicle. Therefore the four point rule is in effect: Performance chip or single generic ECU non-reprogrammable reflash—turbo or supercharged engine +4 This rule should apply, and because it specifically uses the term reflash, it clearly addresses the reprogrammable nature of a stock ECU, and additionally implies the intent that you cannot change maps without purchasing another reflash at a location outside the track. Unambiguous on its face, and therefore not really arguable by anyone who actually read and studied the rules. And John Anderson, 2006 NorCal TT Director ruled as such with my Evo way back in the beginning of the year, so it looks like TT might need a better method of keeping track of the admittedly formidable number of issues that arise with this very large number of models and competitors. Second, the camber bolts. Again it comes back to the modification factor. The rules state "add, replace or modify." If you simply use the stock bolts in their stock adjustment range, there is no "add, replace, or modify", and therefore no points addition. The one thing that all competent racers have in common, and that is they know the rules inside out, upside down, and do what they can to educate themselves not just on the rules but also on the procudures for inspecting and appealing, who is doing the inspecting and ruling and how much they know about it, and how other sanctioning bodies interpret their rules. I usually know the rules better than the people who wrote them, because I'm a racer and that is one of the most important parts of my job. TT is no different from any other form of racing, so get used to it and learn how to deal. And don't beat up GG too much. He's probably a nice guy outside of his job, and he really did get f'd when he accidently got in the Neon line at the cool car store... Quote
Dave Bongiovanni Posted November 21, 2006 Posted November 21, 2006 I spoke at length with Larry Marsala, the chief scrutineer of NASA Norcal, and he said the following: There is no rule that says a car is assessed points for changing the camber to within the factory service limits. No modification. No points. A reflash of the ECU without the ability to reflash at the track is +4, regardless of the original capabilities of the car. Larry said that he agreed that the rules state that the original capabilities of the car are covered in the base class, and the +8 rule would only be assessed if you modified the ECU to further enable "FINE TUNING." So now we have the precedent set by John Anderson on my Evo way back in the beginning of the year, and the chief scrutineer for NASA Norcal, who has been reading rules and teching race cars for year, not to mention the guy who actually enforces TT rules for NASA Norcal and NASA Nationals, agreeing with this protest. I guess now we get to see whether we are playing to a ruleset or we are just playing puppet to someone's whim. Quote
JCraven Posted November 21, 2006 Posted November 21, 2006 Hmmm, follow this scenario. Racer 1 is protested by Racer 2. Racer 1 is found to be out of compliance by Tech by their interpretation of rule #55.67 Racer 1 is DQed but doesn't agree with Tech Racer 1 files an appeal with local office, who consult with GG and overturn local Tech. Isn't there some process like this defined? Quote
National Staff Greg G. Posted November 21, 2006 National Staff Posted November 21, 2006 A reflash of the ECU without the ability to reflash at the track is +4, regardless of the original capabilities of the car. Larry said that he agreed that the rules state that the original capabilities of the car are covered in the base class, and the +8 rule would only be assessed if you modified the ECU to further enable "FINE TUNING." And don't beat up GG too much. He's probably a nice guy outside of his job, and he really did get f'd when he accidently got in the Neon line at the cool car store... From the Dynoflash.com website: Since the unveiling of the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII on US shores we have been devoted to unlocking the potential for ECU tuning on this already powerful car. By focusing our skills on perfecting the individual tuning of Evo ECU's we are able to extract the most performance for each specific application. This same formula was used when we tuned some of the worlds fastest DSM's. Unlike most aftermarket ECU tuning; DynoFlash reflashes your ECU on your car with your mods on the dyno, or real time on the street. This allows us to extract the maximum horsepower on your car while also providing a tested margin of safety. Your car can be tuned to suit your driving style, special fuel types and other personal needs. With a team of experts ranging from DSM engine builders, DSM race car drivers, computer programmers, master technicians and ECU tuning experts you are guaranteed optimal fuel and ignition curves for your EVO VIII. Our tuning method begins with basic upgraded maps, which are fine tuned to suit your individual needs and to match your vehicle. Typical "Off-the-shelf" reflashes or piggy-back units are tuned to accommodate a broad range of modifications and often claim to "learn" your mods. It is impossible for these units to compare to the custom tuning DynoFlash offers. Now, from the TT rules: 11) Reprogrammable ECU chip, reflashable computer, or aftermarket computer system that can directly control engine timing maps and/or fuel injector pulse, allowing fine tuning: 1) at the track +6 naturally aspirated, +11 turbo/supercharged 2) elsewhere +5 N.A., +8 turbo/ S.C. (Do not also take points for performance chip/reflash) Enough said--get it? FINE TUNING Guys, don't beat up on DB too much, he's probably doesn't always act like he knows what he's talking about when he clearly doesn't. Also, FYI, the guy that enforces TT Rules in NASA NorCal is John Anderson. The guy that enforces TT Rules at the Championships is me. Race (TT) Directors enforce rules. Scrutineers give their opinions regarding rules interpretations to Race Directors, who then make whatever decisions they feel is correct based on those rules. When the rules clearly state on the first page of rules, that decisions will be made based on the INTENT of the rules and not by a constrained interpretation based on phraseology or verbiage, competitors better expect that in cases where they are trying to best the system, by getting performance advantages that everyone else is getting assessed for, that the ruling will not be in their favor. As far as the camber rule is concerned: These rules provide the NASA TT series administration a guideline to use when making decisions regarding NASA TT. The intent of the rules and safety considerations will be the overriding factors in making such decisions, as opposed to a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage. The rules shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition. A permitted item cannot be modified to perform either a prohibited function, or the function of an item that would otherwise be assessed points under the modification rules. An OEM adjustment bolt for camber up to -2 degrees may be on the car, but this was never factored into the base class of the car (as I mentioned above--you are welcome to research over 5000 cars for us, and find out which ones have the ability to obtain OPTIONAL increases in camber beyond the OEM set value (of -1.0 degrees for the EVO) so that we can then factor that into base classing). The intent of the rule was to assess +2 points for those cars benefiting from increased camber, which is so in this case. The factory preset is -1.0 degrees. Why, because that is the street setting. Most factory manuals list some method for adjusting camber for a vehicle, whether by shims, bolts, slotting, or other methods. That doesn't mean that it is a free modification or adjustment. If he had left his camber at the factory pre-set at -1.0 degrees, no points. We have assessed points for camber on every vehicle competing in TT that has benefitted from camber gain. Why would we make an exception for this one car? It's similar to those that would argue that their aftermarket coilovers (that they were already assessed points for) came with slots for adjusting camber, and that they didn't modify them. If the point of the system is to try and level the playing field, then the assessment is appropriate as +2 (in '06--once again, +0 in '07) Greg, this question is for you: In '07 will we actually be following the rules as written, or will the rules be erraticaly enforced on the inspectors' ideas on the 'intent' of the rules, as it has been this year? Real racing with real competitors requires stability in the rules and the ability for scrutineers to enforce rules based on the letter, not the intent. Scrutineers rarely understand all of the rules, and any rules which cannot be interpreted without understanding is useless as best, debilitating to the series at worst. Five different guys get five different answere on any given issue, and I don't actually think the current rules are unclear if you actually use the correct, english definition of each word. What is being done to address issues like the recent Evo ECU thread, in which the official ruling handed out by GG is contradictory to precedent and opinion of NorCal scrutineers, as well as the written letter of the rules? Our series is only debilitated by those "track lawyers" who insist on trying to get performance advantages that are clearly outside of the intent of the rules, by either twisting or abusing the phaseology or verbiage of a rule. I just addressed your "issues" in this EVO thread. And your statements that five different guys get five different answers on any given issue, or that our rules are erratically enforced is just more nonsense. We have followed the rules as written, including the rules that state that intent is important. If a competitor is unclear as to the intent of a rule, and finds that every other driver is getting assessed for a performance enhancement except for him, perhaps he should ask the TT Director for a ruling? This is what every driver is told from the start. As well, every driver is told that their TT Director can go over their car with them at anytime to help make sure that the car has been classed correctly. Now, one of the goals for '07 is to improve the rules and the ability to tech cars. If you don't like the rules when they come out, or our administration of them, feel free to stay out of competition until we have everything perfected to your approval. Quote
hagakure Posted November 21, 2006 Posted November 21, 2006 I'm not sure that this discussion is getting us anywhere. IT is turning into a semantic battle, and the powers that be (Greg G.) are going to make whatever decisions they see fit to make, regardless and how much verbal and semantic ammunition is thrown their way, logical or not. Quote
heeltoer Posted November 21, 2006 Author Posted November 21, 2006 Greg, Final questions so we are absolutely clear. And help us interpret future rules better. 1. Is DynoFlash reflashing the only package that is rated +8? Or is any reflashing of the stock ECU in Evo 8 03 - 05 going to be +8? 2. Could I have prevented the +8 (and gone to +4) by taping my ODBII port? 3. Also, if I installed one of these http://www.motec.com/products/ecu/control.htm#M400 Would that also be +8? Thanks, -yang Quote
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.