ECU rules

[HastyHorn]

There I was just plodding (slowly) up the hill, when I reached the crest and was faced with the dreaded "slippery slope".

I am actively exploring the use of the latest Yamaha R1 (2009, cross plane crankshaft model) and I realize that I am at a decision point.

The stock US version of the R1, while an interesting machine lacks the firepower of the latest offerings from Honda, Kawasaki and Suzuki (CBRR, ZXR and GSXR). In fact it is shy about 10 HP in most comparative tests. Strangely, that missing HP is available in the European version and the R1 compares quite favorably in their group tests.

Here's my series of questions based upon my analysis of the FB ECU rules and the situation which is beginning to reveal itself.

1. It is my assumption that using the stock OEM ECU with what I would describe as "work arounds" is well within the letter and spirit of the stock ECU rule. By work around I mean that if I can "fool" the ECU into believing that the engine is in, say third gear, all the time and that as a result the engine runs much better. Is that is entirely fair and legal?

2. Adding (note not substituting for) an exterior device (similar to a Power Commander) that by-passes some of the HP restrictions built into the stock ECU (for noise and street legal EPA standards). Is that fair and legal?

3. Re-flashing the stock OEM ECU to re-configure the operating maps internally. Is that fair and legal? That capability is built into some of the stock ECU's for adjustment at the dealership level

4. Using a stock ECU from another venue (the European street legal version). Is that fair and legal?

5. Eliminating the variable intake tract length device. Is that fair and legal?

6. Eliminating the "fly by wire" aspect of the fuel injection system...for example, operating the throttle body butterflies manually instead of letting the ECU operate the butterflies. Is that fair and legal?

7. Using the factory racing ECU, note: not an after market ECU but a Yamaha supplied racing ECU that is purchaseable by the General Public. Is that fair or legal?


Hasty Horn

HastyM@AOL.com

[Dave Gomberg]

There I was just plodding (slowly) up the hill, when I reached the crest and was faced with the dreaded "slippery slope".

I am actively exploring the use of the latest Yamaha R1 (2009, cross plane crankshaft model) and I realize that I am at a decision point.

The stock US version of the R1, while an interesting machine lacks the firepower of the latest offerings from Honda, Kawasaki and Suzuki (CBRR, ZXR and GSXR). In fact it is shy about 10 HP in most comparative tests. Strangely, that missing HP is available in the European version and the R1 compares quite favorably in their group tests.

Here's my series of questions based upon my analysis of the FB ECU rules and the situation which is beginning to reveal itself.

FB rules: H.4.C. 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.

1. It is my assumption that using the stock OEM ECU with what I would describe as "work arounds" is well within the letter and spirit of the stock ECU rule. By work around I mean that if I can "fool" the ECU into believing that the engine is in, say third gear, all the time and that as a result the engine runs much better. Is that is entirely fair and legal?

Yes.

2. Adding (note not substituting for) an exterior device (similar to a Power Commander) that by-passes some of the HP restrictions built into the stock ECU (for noise and street legal EPA standards). Is that fair and legal?

Yes.

3. Re-flashing the stock OEM ECU to re-configure the operating maps internally. Is that fair and legal? That capability is built into some of the stock ECU's for adjustment at the dealership level

Yes.

4. Using a stock ECU from another venue (the European street legal version). Is that fair and legal?

No.

5. Eliminating the variable intake tract length device. Is that fair and legal?

Probably (as long as it is entirely external to the engine).

6. Eliminating the "fly by wire" aspect of the fuel injection system...for example, operating the throttle body butterflies manually instead of letting the ECU operate the butterflies. Is that fair and legal?

Yes.

7. Using the factory racing ECU, note: not an after market ECU but a Yamaha supplied racing ECU that is purchaseable by the General Public. Is that fair or legal?

No.

And I bet none of my answers surprise you.

Dave

[RussMcB]

I just took a quick glance at the rules and did not see a requirement that the ECU be US spec. Did I overlook it?

Go for it, Hasty! :-).

[jjstecher]

I'm with Russ I see nothing outlawing the use of the European ECU. The YAC ECU yes but the Euro one I see nothing preventing it. In fact if you can find Yamaha selling a production model with the race ECU then you can use that per the rules.

I'd love to see it and hear it Hasty!

[RussMcB]

BTW, Hasty, why do you care if it's both fair and legal. Just go for legal and screw the fair part! :-).

Glad you're contemplating to move to FB.

[Daryl DeArman]

FB rules: H.4.C. 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.

Regarding the advice you received on question #3: I don't see an allowance in the rule to reflash the ECU to accomplish anything other than changing the fuel map.

You may add devices which modify the inputs....might as well be a piggyback ECU.

The IT guys dealt with this for awhile. Finally threw their collective hands in the air and realized they were better off allowing aftermarket stand alone ECU's. Through the use of various methods of modifying inputs, piggybacking other ECU's within the stock ECU housing, they were accomplishing the same thing the rules were trying to prevent. Albeit, with more work and expense.

Not sure what the FB rules are trying to prevent.

[RobLav]

Wow - this is some "funny" timing since I've been researching which piggyback system to get (been running the stock system... and it is running too lean).

The re-flashing of the ECU is outside what we intended in creating the rules, but we did not foresee this issue. And since there is no way (or very unlikely) to determine if a car's ECU has been re-flashed to a different map, it makes sense to me to:

ALLOW ANY ECU!

My view of Hasty's questions are different:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes - (rules do not specify a US engine)
5. Yes - rules allow any intake, even carbs
6. Yes - any intake
7. No

Since it's clear that just a few answers to Hasty's questions show significant differences, we have a problem.

Simplify this mess and:

ALLOW ANY ECU!!!

And while we are at it, how about limiting the engines to the big 4?

[VehDyn]

Simplify this mess and:

ALLOW ANY ECU!!!

And while we are at it, how about limiting the engines to the big 4?

I would agree with the "allow any ECU" comment.

How about limit it to the big 4 plus 1. The new BMW bike is competitive on price and horsepower with their new 1000cc sportbike. It would be cool to have a bmw in the mix. Of course, who knows when they will show up in the "wrecked" market.

[glenn cooper]

are gonna be a very hard find. Probably THE least crashed bike out there.
When you factor in:
BMW's are not made in really huge production #'s compared to Hon/Suz/Yam/Kaw's
AND Your basic BMW rider is probably THE most experienced, best trained, most mature (semi-elderly!), and not likely to be engaging in the behavior that enhances our supply chain.

I think the cost of someone doing up a Desmosedici Ducati is keeping that scenario from playing out, but in a world of 70k FF's, who knows.

GC

[HastyHorn]

I'll speak to this issue once more. It doesn't take a crashed unit to provide a good, even great engine for our venue. It DOES take a monetary commitment and time to recover your investment. Buy a new bike at the best deal you can manage (for me, and during these times, at cost or slightly below cost is possible).

Carefully remove the engine and all the essential parts that you need. Find the appropriate Forum (there is an R1 Forum and a BMW Forum) and advertise a brand new rolling chassis for half the cost of your investment. Think that no one would be interested? Try and buy a complete set of front forks...they aren't available and if you were to build from an insurance settlement the dealer would have to buy the individual parts and assemble. Very expensive to do. BMW riders who do fall down would jump at the chance to buy a complete rolling chassis AND end up with the extras (after repairing their damage).

If you had to build a bike from parts (at customer retail) a $14K bike (likely price of the new BMW 1000) would be over $60K. The labor cost would be even more and a bike constructed by a dealer from component parts would be of questionable quality...they just don't have the experience. Hell, Yamaha doesn't build their own forks. Kayaba builds them and sells the assembly to Yamaha, same for throttle bodies.

If you don't want to sell the rolling chassis but take your time and sell the individual parts you can make most of your investment back (basically engine ends up dirt cheap). It's important to have a TITLE and be willing to supply a copy to everyone who buys anything and, of course, the Title will follow the frame.

Frames are often written off in any Insurance Inspection....it's very hard for a dealer to tell if the frame is tweaked...thus frames are almost always included for replacement after any kind of accident.

I speak as someone who has done this several times...I currently own TWO brand new rolling 2009 R1 chassis's which I will advertise for sale in the near future...not on this Forum.

Now, if everyone did this the market would be flooded but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. The expensive part is solving all the electronic and oiling issues that arise with the use of a new (untried) engine.

Hasty Horn

[RussMcB]

I think, like the IT situation, it makes sense to allow any ECU's in FB.

One reason I think it's OK is because the manufacturers are already getting about as much HP as possible, and FB rules already allow changes to override the deficiencies. So, I don't think a special ECU is going to make an engine significantly more powerful than a new engine with Bazazz, Power Commander V, etc.

I don't think it's a bad thing if someone can throw a lot of money at something and get a small gain.

I do hope, for the sake of the class, that HP will be capped at some point soon.

[VehDyn]

I agree, Russ. At least you generally take your aftermarket ECU with you when you change an engine (even brand) so its not thrown away every time.

I was reading the article about the new BMW and the comparisons to other models. The quotes from a manufacturer was that he thought the horsepower was at the limits of what they expect and they were focusing on weight and aero. More horsepower was making the bikes too difficult to handle. Of course, they have probably been saying this for while too.

[Matt Conrad]

Hasty,

I don't see a problem with your project as you described all the different variables vs. current FB rules. Using the Euro-spec engine/ecu isn't specifically addressed by the rules and as long as the parts are "stock" I feel you are OK. Using the Yamaha "racing" ecu will probably get you in trouble though.

As far as allowing "Any ECU". No Thanks. I really don't want to see the ECU's and electronic systems in F1000 cars exceeding the price of the entire motor. I think there's plenty to play with given the current rules.

Matt Conrad

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't think it's a bad thing if someone can throw a lot of money at something and get a small gain.

As far as allowing "Any ECU". No Thanks. I really don't want to see the ECU's and electronic systems in F1000 cars exceeding the price of the entire motor. I think there's plenty to play with given the current rules.

I see both points. If you make it difficult/expensive to get a few more horsepower what happens? If you make it too easy what happens?

Would you rather have an ECU that is good for 5 HP but cost $5000, so very few people do it, but the cost delta to run up front is now even greater?

Would you rather have an ECU that is good for 5 HP but cost $1000, cheap enough that many more people would do it, making it more of a must have if you want to be anywhere but the back?

[HastyHorn]

Let me make my situation a little more clear.

I have an OEM U.S. ECU system version which we are working with. If we can produce reasonable HP with "work arounds" then I'm home free for running in FB should I so desire. The question of whether these work arounds would be legal was a real question. While this method has been used successfully in D Sport I wasn't sure whether similar methods had been used (and approved) within the FB community. The ECU rules do not clearly delineate what can be done through fairly crude input (or output) modifications.

The OEM U.S. fuel maps internal to the ECU can be altered (slightly) using the stock dash. While it seems obvious that these changes would be allowed it isn't specified within the rules but considering what the addition of a Power Commander can do it seems logical that OEM adjustments would fall into the same category. While we are on the subject of Power Commanders and their ilk I would point out that they also offer devices that allow ignition variations as well. Some of the latest devices can do both or either. Does the addition of an ignition altering device violate the FB rules?

Does this adjustment of the stock map constitute "reflashing"?

Does the removal of the air injection systems (common on most of these machines) constitute a violation? Block off plates?

I have a European ECU system which we are working with. The use of this system is not as easy as it might first appear. All the Big Four motorcycles come with an "immobilizer" system. Either the key or the key switch is matched to the to the ECU. The ECU will operate only if it receives the "chipped" signal from this system. So far, this system requires the installation of the European wiring harness as well. Expensive and inconvenient. It's very possible that we can simplify the wiring harness to the point that the US wiring harness can be used as a basis for the simplified harness as long as one uses the Euro main switch and/or key. In other words we might be able to make such a swap cheaper and a little more convenient.

I have a Yamaha YEC "racing" ECU (and dedicated "racing" harness, including a communication cable necessary to hook your computer up). I didn't (don't) think that this would be a legal device in FB but it does give us standards to shoot for. In addition, this project can go in the FB direction and/or the D Sport direction. The outcome of the experimentation will drive which direction we end up going.

It's also possible that the performance, regardless, of what ECU is used just won't cut it. If that case I will reinstall the engines in the bike frames with significant improvements to performance, one with the Euro parts and one with YEC parts.

A dry sump system (based largely on the old R1 system) has been developed.

A stand alone ECU (MOTEC?) is not an easy (and certainly not cheap) solution particularly if you are the first one to use the combination. The stand alone needs to learn the best settings, this requires a LOT of time on a dyno with a MOTEC specialist. Those who have gone this route have not been entirely satisfied. How many stand alone systems do you see being used in D Sport?

One thing that will occur. I will make whatever information that is derived (that doesn't end up someone else's work product) available to anyone who asks.

Hasty Horn

[Daryl DeArman]

Hasty,

I think you are reading too much into it. The rule allows for "devices that modify inputs to the ECU"

You may alter the fuel map by any means you wish.

You may do anything you want to the inputs.

Aftermarket ECU's are permitted---the only condition are that they not be "stand alone".

To borrow a comment from a frequent poster an another racing forum "If it says you can, you bloody well can."

[RussMcB]

I sure hope the Power Commander Ignition Module and blocked off emissions are legal because, well, I have this friend and he has them on his F1000...

Hasty, I hope your experiments are encouraging and push you towards FB. Sounds like you'll be another positive addition to the class. The many variations really make this a special class, and the people are great.

[RobLav]

Section H.4 of F1000 rules:

"The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (eg, Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone aftermarket ECU's are not permitted.

Carburation and fuel injection are unrestricted.

H.5 Air inlet system is unrestricted.

H.7 Electrical system is unrestricted within following limitation..."


The way I see it, Power Commanders and ignition modules are legal. Air induction block off plates are legal. Flash type ECU re-mapping for ONLY FUEL is legal.

The way I read that, re-mapping of flash type ECU's for ignition alterations is illegal.

This is impossible to police.

So what is a "stand-alone aftermarket ECU"?

Is the YEC unit a "stand-alone" unit? What if I use the stock ECU and alter the input parameters by using the YEC unit? Sounds legal to me...

The ECU issue should really be broken down into two components:

1) Hardware

2) Software (mapping)

It seems we allow any (software) mapping in a stock ECU, given the flash type preponderence. So why not give everyone this capability?

Allowing any ECU would simplify this problem as well as keep costs down. I just priced the Power Commander USB at $259 (best I've seen) and the ignition module at $299. That's $559 for the pair to get me somewhere near the flash type ECU capability. Whereas I can buy the YEC ECU unit for about that price...

And why not allow a 2009 Suzuki ECU on any older engine? It's probably cheaper than buying a Powwer Commander and ignition module.

Keeping the rules as they are now leaves the older and cheaper engines at an increased disadvantage. I don't think this is what we want.

My conclusion, over and over every time I go through it, is to allow any ECU.

[VehDyn]

You're right Hasty. Although I see people using Motec data acq in DSR, I am only aware that Ted James has used it. I don't know if he uses it on the WF1.

Quickshoe, interesting interpretation. So you can have any ECU(Pectel, Bazzaz, etc) post stock ECU and it is legal?

[glenn cooper]

Hasty what are you gonna stuff the Yama-mill into?

GC

[Daryl DeArman]

Quickshoe, interesting interpretation. So you can have any ECU(Pectel, Bazzaz, etc) post stock ECU and it is legal?

By my interpretation, which is worth absolutely nothing, an ECU "post" stock ECU is no longer modifying the inputs of the stock ECU--it is further processing the outputs---I don't see an allowance for that.

Installing a non-OEM ECU prior to the stock ECU is certainly legal.

I don't know how you can have more than one functioning ECU in a circuit where one is dependent on the other and define either one as a stand-ALONE ECU. Whether the housing reads Pectel, MoTec or Power Commander for that matter is irrelevant.

My thought process in exploring the grey areas of such rules has always been--1) what legal advantage can I gain? 2) How much is it going to cost? 3) If it does prove to be an unintended consequence and the rule is subsequently changed to prevent whatever I did--how difficult and expensive will it be to conform to the new rule verbiage? In other words, am I going beyond a point of no return?

[RobLav]

I have a way around using the stock ECU. Rule says the stock ECU shall be used. So I'll use it to run the gear indicator and/or the fuel pump.

And then I'll use a stock 2008 Yamaha R6 ECU to run the fuel injection.

Rule says fuel injection is unrestricted. Since the fuel injection cannot run without an ECU, then the ECU is part of the fuel injection system, therefore unrestricted.

Rule says electrical system is unrestricted (... with limitations). Fuel injection and ECU are part of electrical system, especially given the entire system is all connected by wires. Since it is unrestricted, I can use any ECU.

Viola! 2 methods to show I can use another ECU.

Time to order that R6 ECU. What difference does it make? The 07-09 Suzuki will still make a lot more power than my 06 Yamaha.

[HastyHorn]

Glenn,

The really stupid part of this whole exercise is that I don't know what I'm going to do with the finished product. What has/is driving me is a. an inordinate fondness for Yamaha product and b. a desire to provide more alternative engine choices.

Admittedly the Kawasaki is a viable (perhaps even preferable) alternative to the Suzuki GSXR. If I had to predict the future I would suggest that ALL the future 1000cc SuperBike engines are going to get a lot harder to convert. Not that the Factories are deliberately making things more difficult for us, frankly, they probably aren't even aware of us. The difficulties of making these engines more powerful every year in conjunction with rules and regulations that get more restrictive every year has forced them into making the controlling electronics more difficult to defeat.

The makers of the Power Commander got into trouble last year (paid a $1,000,000 fine) for making their system TOO accessible. Riders are supposed to declare their intention to only use these devices when they are competing in closed circuit races. The Factories can't afford to make their EPA systems easily by-passed.

Back to your original question. Assuming that I can make this engine perform competitively in FB legal form I am considering (in no particular order) a Phoenix, a Stohr, and a Speads. Lest you conversion guys think that I am slighting you I TRIED to get my fat ass and enormous body into several conversions and it just wouldn't fit. I wanted Jeremy's or Russ's car (great deals for someone) but after trying to sit in Sean Maisey's conversion (he lives fairly close) I gave up on that.

If I can't go FB, then I will probably consider building a "Garage Queen" WF1. I'm not a great driver but I like having a car to go tinker with in the garage and very occasionally to race. I don't like long tows and so would probably limit myself to very local tracks. Fortunately, VIR and Summit are close.

Hasty Horn

[Northwind]

Hasty,

What ever FB you choose, we could certainly use a guy like you in F-1000.

[VehDyn]

A stand alone ECU (MOTEC?) is not an easy (and certainly not cheap) solution particularly if you are the first one to use the combination. The stand alone needs to learn the best settings, this requires a LOT of time on a dyno with a MOTEC specialist. Those who have gone this route have not been entirely satisfied. How many stand alone systems do you see being used in D Sport?

Out of curiousity, I set up a poll on the DSR site to see who used a Stand alone ECU versus stock that has been reflashed. So far, 30 people have voted with 20 using stock or reflashed, 8 using piggyback and 2 using stand alone. Interestingly, its been quiet with no comments. I guess of the 2 or 3 sources for engine tuning, they must just reflash and perhaps not offer stand alone tuning. I see some of the racing motorcycle teams using stand alones, though, but they have budgets. FYI.

[RussMcB]

Out of curiousity, I set up a poll on the DSR site to see who used a Stand alone ECU versus stock that has been reflashed. So far, 30 people have voted with 20 using stock or reflashed, 8 using piggyback and 2 using stand alone. Interestingly, its been quiet with no comments. I guess of the 2 or 3 sources for engine tuning, they must just reflash and perhaps not offer stand alone tuning. I see some of the racing motorcycle teams using stand alones, though, but they have budgets. FYI.

I'm surprised there are so many racers in the poll without piggy back computers, especially in DSR where most engines are not stock. In the motorcycle community, the general consensus is a Power Commander (or equivalent) will add power even for unmodified engines, and once you start modifying, the maps need to change to adjust for optimum AFR, Hard to beliwve so many DSR racers would be potentially leaving so much on the table.

I came across a good deal on a used Power Commander, and I'm looking forward to seeing how much it will help.

[Mike Devins]

Anybody have a before and after dyno sheet for their power commander assisted ECU. I put one on my Ducati a few years back and it helped with midrange but did nothing for the higher RPM's range that we would use in a racing situation.

Additionally it was a real POS and I had to remove it because it would occationally cause the bike to miss at 5500-6000rpms just about the point that you would have the bike over and your knee dragging. Back and forth with PC for firmware updates several times and no fix that worked. I finally pulled it off of the bike and put it back in the box were it still is today.

I would think that based on volume they have better products for the big jap motors but my experience turned me off to the PC unit.

[RussMcB]

If things work out, I hope to have that in a couple of weeks. No promises, but we'll see. Of course, my results may not be indicative of what anyone else my experience. So many variables ...

I got it for peace of mind, to make sure that I'm not doing any mods (exhaust, air box, etc.) that may throw off the air fuel ratio. It will be an added benefit if I get more HP.

I really like what I hear about the Bizazz, but it is not offered for my year Kawasaki.

[kmt63]

west used a pc leading up to the 06 run offs.this was on a gdre built 06/07 kawi.we soon learned that it didnt do much.so it was unpluged and not used.most people just use the stock ecu without any reflash.it is so optimized that you will not find any gain on the dyno.there is a member that posts here that is running a full motec on his dsr.claiming power gains from tuning on a chassis dyno.but that is big bucks for what you are getting in hp.