Engine Rules - ECU

Regarding stock ignition timing

Mainly I posted this to see what the FB community thinks about altering the ignition curves in the stock ECU's. In my experience it seems the rule below is sometimes interpreted as "you may flash the ecu and change what you wish"

So now, on to this rule:
"The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed.
Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander)
may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted."

This is not written very well but I'll try and stick to the point. Unless you're a rule twister changing the timing curve via flashing the ECU is illegal and very easy to check by the way.

I think it's common knowledge that since we're allowed to pour higher than pump octane fuel into these cars that there is probably a gain to be had by advancing the timing.
One way to clearly (as the rules are written) do this would be to make a nifty little device that interrupts the crank position signal and offsets it. This would fall under the "Devices that modify inputs to the ECU". Should this kind of thing be allowed? I don't think so.

I would prefer that the timing remain stock as delivered from the factory in every way.

Allowing the timing to be changed does nothing for the "good of the class" as a whole, at best it's worth a few horsepower but one could spend a ridiculous amount of resources getting the most out of changing it just to decrease the reliability of the engine.
I think it should fall into the idea of keeping the engines "stock" which makes some attempt at them being reasonably reliable, to be realistic they don't last too long as it is. Why allow anything that doesn't increase the attractiveness of the class?

In closing part of the reason I've posted this is because of talk of alternate ECU's. I'm assuming if anything goes that route the stock engine map adherence in it's entirety would be thrown out. I truly believe this would be a bad idea only serving to increase the amount of engine failures at the classes expense by departing from the "stock" engine idea.

Cheers,
Don Conner

just about every bike manufacture makes a "kit" or "Race" ECU. Would this be allowed? I doubt anyone would know the difference since it is legal to reflash the ECU and they look exactly alike. I don't condone cheating but I'm not exactly sure this can be considered cheating. This would also help get a few of the motors that are "electronically challenged" get into the game

Debate has been going on for a long time. Look through the FB section and posts and you will find several threads on this subject.

But yes Factory race ecus should be allowed as they don't really give you any more advantage over a flashed unit but allows the flexibility of the units that cant flash the stock unit.

I disagree, my post is more specific and I should have put ignition timing in the title of the thread so I did my best to correct that. I didn't post this as a generic ECU discussion, yes there are plenty of posts, but I'm pretty sure not one post exists regarding adhering to stock timing.
To be more clear do you think factory race ecus should be allowed with no restriction or only if they have the same ignition curve(s) as the OEM ecu?

Race ecu should be allowed, most every manufacturer has one. I've talked to some of the engine builders that flash ecu and there is really no gain increasing/advancing top end ignition timing. Which brings the question, do the factory stock ecu settings have "too much" advance built into the top end of the power curve to be used in a car weighing 100%+ than a bike. We all know that excess timing ramps up temperatures, could that be one of the reason our cars carry considerably more water and oil than a bike. could that be one of the reason our cars overheat and offer short lived performance, a street bike and a racecar are slightly different, just a thought.

a racecar should have a race ecu, not a factory stock street ecu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Conner

I disagree, my post is more specific and I should have put ignition timing in the title of the thread so I did my best to correct that. I didn't post this as a generic ECU discussion, yes there are plenty of posts, but I'm pretty sure not one post exists regarding adhering to stock timing.
To be more clear do you think factory race ecus should be allowed with no restriction or only if they have the same ignition curve(s) as the OEM ecu?

---

Ok Don,
You are allowed to "REFLASH" the stcok ecu this meaning you can change the internal programming of that ecu to be what ever you want want it to be to allow your motor to what ever you want it to. You are also allowed to "Piggyback" other types of units PCM, Bazzaz, Dynojet etc. Many interpit that in different ways so you wont get any direct answers on that here as I don't believe anyone was ever protested on that to determine a definition.
Now you can disagree but all this has been hashed before in other posts but at the end of the day you will be right back where you started with no clear answer.

But if your only question if you are allowed to change your timing then the answer is Yes.

If someone was to protest an ignition curve, how could that be done, have not seen a spec for the whole ignition timing table in a factory service manual. Doubt that a tech shed inspector will know what to do when faced with such exercise. I hate to see someone use a timing light and rev the engine, most engines have MAP based curves so it would be trivial to establish the curve with no load on the engine.

The K7/K8 ecu with the Woolich software, can modify timing curves down to the tenth of a degree, I've only seen that on the internet. Woolich software also allows changing the whole fuel curve, rpm cut... so at the end of the day, Woolich unlocks the factory ecu and turns it into an aforementioned race ecu or almost stand-alone. BOOOM Woolich also has an application for the monster Kawi engine.....

http://www.woolichracing.com/products.aspx

My reference to protest was not to the curve or programming but rather to the whole "Piggyback" portion.

Nowhere do the rules say you can "reflash" the ECU. It says as mentioned before "the fuel map may be changed" There is a big difference.

To answer your question JR I'm quite sure any competent bike shop for and brand would be able check out an ECU also for instance an ECU could be plugged into a bike or engine and dynoed with the ecu's built in output logged to compare to a stock unit. This is no different than having to send off cams to get checked out due to a lack of available specs. Granted this wouldn't be common to do but honestly outside of the runoffs someone could easily run an illegally oversize engine and unless protested it's unlikely it would ever get checked out.

If it's open it's to tempting to leave alone also and I'm thinking ahead here let's say we get restrictors and now that changes things and maybe changes the way an engine responds to timing? So now where only the fuel map is allowed to be changed and that's fairly easy and can be done at the track it's a whole different matter to try and detect detonation before damage occurs. And if the argument is that "who cares it won't make any difference" wright or wrong then why even have it on the table in the first place? Would it not be better for the class to consider it left alone and pretty equal (all factory timing is based on the same available pump gas and compression for that engine)

Don,
Then I suggest you go to a race and protest anyone that has a and engine builders sticker or any other name on them as I am pretty sure the majority will be "reflashed" even if its only to change the fuel mapping.

Good luck!

I see what you are saying Don. IMO rewrite the rule to allow for open ECUs or stock ECUs with any flash. I do worry a bit about someone going nuts and hooking up a full Motec system if the rules were wide open but I would think the gains would be minimal anyways.

"I am pretty sure the majority will be "reflashed" even if its only to change the fuel mapping."

I don't think I'm getting my point across here "Flashing" the ECU as you state to change the fuel mapping seems totally true to the intent and the letter of the rules as long as the ignition timing is not also changed. I wouldn't protest someone for having their fuel curve changed in the ECU it's specifically allowed by the current rules as they're written!
Agin I'm talking about the ignition timing here as stated before.

About the cooling of a converted FC car, when the VD chassis had the unrestricted Zetec making about 165-170hp the cooling on well maintained pro cars was marginal with the power at that level and assuming a bike engine that revs twice as high making slightly more power still and very likely less efficiently due to the high revs and add onto that the extra heat put into the oil from the gearbox section and the revs! It's amazing one would cool properly with standard VD sidepods. I think for a high powered bike engine the heat output is just higher than an FC engine even if everything is spot on timing and fuel wise. When our car ran hot at the autobahn test cutting the shift point 500 revs made a huge difference in the oil temp and to some degree the water.

The reality is that there is not an ecu or tune out there that is going to add 10
HP to your engine. The stock time is very, very good. Greg spends a lot of time trying to find 1-3 hp on a tune, mainly playing with the fuel curve. The Suzuki's do not seem to like timing advance either. We tried a lot of stuff last month and we ended up with stock timing.

The ECU's should be open for merely simplicity reasons. As the bikes get more and more electronics, it becomes more difficult to make them run in a car. A stand alone would help a lot in that area.

Again, the worry of someone spending $5k on dyno time and finding 10 hp on timing curves is a non issue.

J.R.O

If the rules are ever opened up I will defiantly hook up a full MoTech System but for now we cannot. But I agree the engine builders are re flashing the ecu's. It's what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Conner

About the cooling of a converted FC car, when the VD chassis had the unrestricted Zetec making about 165-170hp the cooling on well maintained pro cars was marginal with the power at that level and assuming a bike engine that revs twice as high making slightly more power still and very likely less efficiently due to the high revs and add onto that the extra heat put into the oil from the gearbox section and the revs! It's amazing one would cool properly with standard VD sidepods. I think for a high powered bike engine the heat output is just higher than an FC engine even if everything is spot on timing and fuel wise. When our car ran hot at the autobahn test cutting the shift point 500 revs made a huge difference in the oil temp and to some degree the water.

---

You might like our new side pods for the VD !
much bigger oil cooler and a larger water rad keeps a 250 HP Zetec .. (really Unrestricted) cool ... 210-220 Oil temps instead of 250+ water still at 190 or so .. on a pretty warm day !

call me any time to discuss !
Greg
(408) 832-3114

One real side benefit of going to aftermarket ECUs like MOTEC is simplicity. The MOTEC only needs 3 inputs and is easy to troubleshoot...Stock systems are a nightmare. No horse in this race but I raced mini sprints for 10 years with both stock appearing and open ECUs...Open ECUs ultimately prove to be less expensive just from adding up all of the problem races spent trying to troubleshoot stock systems at the track.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I thought I would resurrect the discussion given that things are changing on the engine supply front.

I hear much talk lately of the dwindling supply of Suzuki engines and the work involved in getting alternate engines to run properly with the stock ECU in a car application. I know that aftermarket engine management has been discussed before but I think the idea got little traction due to the perceived high cost. Does every one realize that a high quality aftermarket engine management system could be had for less than a grand? I have used ProEFI on other projects and have been really impressed. Domestically sold and supported and OEM quality level,. Take a look at the Pro48 ECU from ProEFI:

http://proefi.com/info/product-list/ecus/

Add in the required custom wiring harness, CAN bus cable and wide band O2 sensor and I think you are in the $2500 range (closer to $2K if you already have an O2 sensor). If we all standardize on one engine management system, volume discounts could be possible. This system could be used on ANY engine and I think has the possibility of lower overall cost since the pool of potential engines will be much greater. Plus if you want to change engine type, you can re-use the engine management system.

Has the time come yet?

I may be a newbie to the class but it has baffled me why this rule is in place. It would seem to me that to increase the availability of engines and therefore keep costs down, an open ECU rule should be put in place. I would like to see the following for engines - an open ECU, and a rev limit. Both of these would tend to keep costs in check by increasing the availability of engines and prolonging their lives. Currently you have to be willing to blow you engine to be competitive. A rev limit of say 12,500 would increase time between rebuilds and level the field a bit.