Here we go: ECU rule modification

[DonArm]

Ok, I would like to present to the FB community (PLEASE only individuals who currently own and drive an FB, individuals who are in the process of building their FB, chassis and engine manufacturers) 4 variations to the current ECU writing. The following suggestions are what I have come up with after doing some research concerning the issue. I have read all of the threads on Apexspeed that I could find, speaking with current FB owners, speaking with a number of chassis manufacturers and a couple of engine manufacturers.
I think everyone in the class is concerned with a number of issues, a few being
a) Cost containment
b) Allow as many engines in the class as possible to keep things interesting.
Remember there were six different chassis's in the class at the Runoffs, having that many engines would be great.
c) Not having to consistently upgrade to the "latest and greatest" motor to stay running at the front.
d) Not having a shortage of engines, that could potentially increase cost. The way the ECU rule is currently written it limits a level field for other engines and increases the cost of trying to use them (piggyback standalone needed to make them run appropriately).
e) Keeping the playing field level concerning the performance of the engines.

We all know that the Suzuki is currently the dominate engine due to the fact that it is easy to place in a car and run without much hassle.
This will more than likely change with the newer engines coming out, and probably with all of the newer motorcycle engines that will be coming out.
Other people have made some attempts to introduce other engines into the class without a lot of success due to one issue or another.
I think that a fair alternative to the current wording (btw the wording is incorrect concerning input and output of how add-on units modify the signals. They modify the OUTPUT not the input signal going into the ECU) of the ECU rule and would keep cost down, hopefully allow any engine to run in the class and be easy to police for cheating. The alternative would be to allow ANY motorcycle factory produced ECU to be used.
The HRC Honda ECU is $975, that includes the ECU, data cable used for tuning and the tuning software. The Yamaha racing ECU kit is around $1000, Yamaha guy's please chime in with a more accurate number if you have it. The Kawasaki racing ECU is somewhere in the range of the others. I honestly have not found one for the Suzuki but I would imagine it exists, if not the Suzuki is flashable which in actuality could be considered a limited standalone. I have not researched the Euro bikes.
Yes these ECU's would be considered standalone since you could remove the stock factory ecu and replace it with the factory racing ecu.
But there are differences between these and a traditional standalone such as Pectal ($3900), Motec ($2800), Vipac ($2000), DTA Fast ($25-2800). First and most obvious is the price. Second, the motorcycle manufacturer racing ECU comes with a base map to get things started. This eliminates the cost of having to find someone to come up with a base maps, it also adds a levels of safety in that you are less likely to have a catastrophic engine failure because of a bad tune.
Here are a few other justifications and advantages for allowing any motorcycle manufacturer ecu that have been brought up to me.

- High cost to make the more modern street bike ECU’s work. Motec, Pectel are very expensive.
- Factory racing ECU’s already have the factory’s preferred settings set to the fuel, thereby removing the necessary testing and catastrophic failure risk associated with getting a Motec or Pectel to work.
- Some manufacturers ECU’s can be reflashed, which costs additional money – and some manufacturers ECU’s cannot be reflashed, thereby allowing a performance advantage to those engines whose ECU’s can be reflashed.
- Allowing the factory racing ECU’s simplifies the installation, reduces the risk of catastrophic failure, and evens the playing field between engines at cheapest cost.
Below are 4 different suggestions for new wording of the ecu rule.

Current Wording:
The stock ecu shall be used . The ecu fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify the inputs to the ecu (e.g. Power Commander....) may be used. Standalone ecu's are not permitted

Proposal 1
Any factory (BMW, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki etc..) produced motorcycle ECU may be used. ECU's may be reflashed.
The ECU fuel and timing maps may be modified.
If the factory racing ECU is used you must be able to produce a copy of the software used for tuning the motor to verify that electronics are compliant with current rules, i.e.. no traction control is being programmed, etc.....
Devices that modify the outputs from the stock ECU (e.g. Power Commander, Stand alone ECU’s used only as a piggyback unit, Bazzaz units, etc..) may be used.
A stand-alone aftermarket ECU (e.g. Motec, Pectel) may not be used by itself.

Proposal 2
Any factory (BMW, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki etc..) produced motorcycle ECU may be used. ECU may be reflashed.
The ECU fuel and timing maps may be modified.
If the factory racing ECU is used you must be able to produce a copy of the software used for tuning the motor to verify that electronics are compliant with current rules, i.e.. no traction control is being programmed, etc.....
Devices that modify the outputs from the stock ECU (e.g. Power Commander, Stand alone ECU’s used only as a piggyback unit, Bazzaz units, etc..) may be used.

Proposal 3
Only factory (BMW, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki etc..) produced motorcycle ECU may be used. ECU may be reflashed
The ECU fuel and timing maps may be modified.
If the factory racing ECU is used you must be able to produce a copy of the software used for tuning the motor to verify that electronics are compliant with current rules, i.e.. no traction control is being programmed, etc.....
No other device may be used.

Proposal 4
Any factory ecu may be used. The ecu fuel and timing maps may be changed. Devices that modify the outputs to the ecu (e.g. Power commander ....) maybe used.
Standalone ecu's may not be used.

The biggest issue that I keep hearing when it comes to this is cost, as you see a manufacturer ecu is less than the cost of a new set of tires.
As most people should know there is not to much to worry about with being able to use the traction control that is in the motorcycle ecu electronics, although no one thought that pneumatic paddle shifting would be an issue either.
Let's see if everyone involved with the class can make focused concise suggestions concerning this issue and not go off on tangents.
Resolving this will, I think, remove a lot of the hesitation that some people may have about joining the class, and in turn help the class grow.


Please vote above.

Thanks,

Don

[Nicholas Belling]

you really should have made an option 5 for open ecu rule.

I feel alot of people would be choosing this option in a poll.

[Wren]

you really should have made an option 5 for open ecu rule.

I feel alot of people would be choosing this option in a poll.

Any rule that allows stand alone ecu's as a "piggyback" is an open ECU rule.

I am glad that it is not allowed under the current rules.

[allof6]

Factory supplied (oem) ECUs rather it comes thru the racing division or on the Bike should be acceptable. If it is readily available to the general public and has a part number it should be allowed.

Aftermarket standalone should not.

Define Traction control.

[Thomas Copeland]

I'm with Nicholas on this. Only ECU rule that makes real sense is open ECU. Add a 5th proposal for open ECU and I'll vote in the poll.

[RobLav]

Any rule that allows stand alone ecu's as a "piggyback" is an open ECU rule.

Factory ECU's that are reflashable also makes for an open ECU rule. We are already there. May as well make the rule wording reflect the current reality.

[JohnPaul]

Factory ECU's that are reflashable also makes for an open ECU rule. We are already there. May as well make the rule wording reflect the current reality.

Rob is correct. What is the use of making a stock ECU rule when everyone reflashes them anyway. Im not really sure on the wording of an ECU rule but I personally think that an ECU rules that allows use of all engines is the right one.

[starkejt]

Not everyone reflashes their Suzukis. I can think of several that haven't because it doesn't offer much beyond what changing your fuel pressure does. Plus, even with reflashing, you still have to "trick" all of the various unneeded sensors and interlocks out of the harness. There is a big difference between a reflashed ECU and a full-on standalone ECU that an open ECU rule would allow.

The main thing that I don't want to happen is for everyone to get tied to 07-08 (or 09) Suzuki engines because they are the only ones that are easy to get running on the stock ECU. It's already non-trivial to find good, non-rebuilt engines. Open ECUs would be fine with me, but if some people are afraid of the full standalones, is there any harm in allowing the factory racing ECUs so guys can run a Honda or Yamaha?

[Mike B]

The main thing that I don't want to happen is for everyone to get tied to 07-08 (or 09) Suzuki engines because they are the only ones that are easy to get running on the stock ECU. It's already non-trivial to find good, non-rebuilt engines. Open ECUs would be fine with me, but if some people are afraid of the full standalones, is there any harm in allowing the factory racing ECUs so guys can run a Honda or Yamaha?

Yamaha runs fine on the stock ECU.

[starkejt]

Yamaha runs fine on the stock ECU.

Thanks, I didn't know the 09 model with cross-plane crank did.

[JohnPaul]

Not everyone reflashes their Suzukis. I can think of several that haven't because it doesn't offer much beyond what changing your fuel pressure does. Plus, even with reflashing, you still have to "trick" all of the various unneeded sensors and interlocks out of the harness. There is a big difference between a reflashed ECU and a full-on standalone ECU that an open ECU rule would allow.

True not everyone flashes their ECU's but since you basically have the option to it's not really a stock ECU.

The main thing that I don't want to happen is for everyone to get tied to 07-08 (or 09) Suzuki engines because they are the only ones that are easy to get running on the stock ECU. It's already non-trivial to find good, non-rebuilt engines. Open ECUs would be fine with me, but if some people are afraid of the full standalones, is there any harm in allowing the factory racing ECUs so guys can run a Honda or Yamaha?

I agree 1000%, the rules need to be writen so any 1000cc engine can be used.

[RobLav]

Don's post centers on the argument to allow the manufacturer's racing ECU's. This seems to be the best overall compromise to get other engines on the track while not completely opening Pandora's box.

you must be able to produce a copy of the software used for tuning the motor to verify that electronics are compliant with current rules, i.e.. no traction control is being programmed

I'm not sure what that means though... nor why the wording is necessary. You'd need to define "traction control" because I can think of a few methods of getting traction control just sitting here. Maybe simply eliminate the use of rotational sensors between the chain and the rear tires. Eliminate the ability to compare the rear tire rotational speed with engine speed / gearing.

That new 2011 Kawasaki (which is the engine I'd use if I come back) has "traction control". In my opinion, this engine should be legal.

[Wren]

Factory ECU's that are reflashable also makes for an open ECU rule. We are already there. May as well make the rule wording reflect the current reality.

No, it's not. There is a lot more programmability in a stand alone ecu. I doubt that anyone is going to be able to do something like making an alternative set of throttle bodies work with a reflashed stock ecu.

The rule as written is fine. I will change my opinion when we have an actual problem.

Rob is correct. What is the use of making a stock ECU rule when everyone reflashes them anyway. Im not really sure on the wording of an ECU rule but I personally think that an ECU rules that allows use of all engines is the right one.

Not everyone reflashes them. I wouldn't pay $1 extra for a reflashed ecu.

[Mike B]

you really should have made an option 5 for open ecu rule.

I feel alot of people would be choosing this option in a poll.

I'm with Nicholas on this. Only ECU rule that makes real sense is open ECU. Add a 5th proposal for open ECU and I'll vote in the poll.

What logic are you two basing this on?

[RobLav]

I will change my opinion when we have an actual problem.

Wren - you don't recognize the problem because you are not spending the money on engines to run in FB. Other engines like the Honda and Kawasaki are not going to work without funky piggyback systems which in my view are strongly bending the rule.

I wouldn't pay $1 extra for a reflashed ecu.

Again, that is not your money to run in FB. And your viewpoint is centered around your experience working with the Suzuki. My 07/08 Yamaha with the reflashed ECU was significantly quicker than without. (Of course, I got around 3 laps!)

[JohnPaul]

I don't see anything in the rules that say no traction control. Am I missing it? Anyway, the traction control on a motorcycle (one rear wheel) probably wouldn't be an advantage anyway since it wasn't designed for 2 wheels.

[Wren]

Wren - you don't recognize the problem because you are not spending the money on engines to run in FB. Other engines like the Honda and Kawasaki are not going to work without funky piggyback systems which in my view are strongly bending the rule.

People not being able to run certain manufacturers is not a problem, in fact it is the solution to point c in the OP.

Right now there are cheap, easy to make work motors available for FB, so there is not a problem. These motors also last a long time.

The English language is yet to invent words to describe my lack of sympathy for people who want to pioneer a new installation of a motor and have problems. If someone wants to be the first one to use a motor in FB, then they should be prepared to blow up at least 5 motors while they figure it out and figure on $10k in the extra crap that they are going to have to design and build to make it work. Expecting otherwise is naive. It will not do anything good for FB to have people who don't really know what they are doing out there trying to pioneer their own installations and constantly come back on the hook and blow up motors. FB is just now getting over the perception of having hand grenades for motors.

BTW- the funky piggyback systems are not bending the rules, they are breaking them.

Again, that is not your money to run in FB. And your viewpoint is centered around your experience working with the Suzuki. My 07/08 Yamaha with the reflashed ECU was significantly quicker than without. (Of course, I got around 3 laps!)

Proven on the dyno?

I don't see anything in the rules that say no traction control. Am I missing it? Anyway, the traction control on a motorcycle (one rear wheel) probably wouldn't be an advantage anyway since it wasn't designed for 2 wheels.

It is a general GCR rule and a class has to specifically allow it for traction control to be allowed.

[DonArm]

To everyone posting if the following does not apply to you:

(PLEASE only individuals who currently own and drive an FB, individuals who are in the process of building their FB, chassis and engine manufacturers)

Please be respectful of others in the class and don't post. Or if you feel the absolute need then be respectful and NON-CONFRONTATIONAL.

Thanks

[allof6]

BTW- the funky piggyback systems are not bending the rules, they are breaking them.

Please explain your thoughts behind this.

The rules state the following "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."

Thanks in advance.

[Wren]

Please explain your thoughts behind this.

The rules state the following "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."

Thanks in advance.

Obviously things like Bazaaz and PC are legal as they are specifically allowed. Yes, the wording is incorrect and needs to be changed to outputs, but that doesn't change what the rule actually means. If anyone would write a letter to the CRB, I expect that the wording would be corrected under their authority for clarifications.

I don't know what people are doing to make the Kawasaki work, I didn't even know that people were trying to make it work in a car. With the Honda, the way to make it work is to use a stand-alone ECU and borrow a 12V power output from the ECU. That way the stand alone ECU is only powered on when the stock ecu is powered on. Everything else from the stock ecu is terminated and doesn't do anything. The engine runs entirely off of the stand alone. The reality is that the stock ecu could be replaced with an on-off switch. I may have some of the details wrong, but that is the general idea.

I doubt that the intent of the rule against stand alone ecus was meant to read: "Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted unless it is switched on by the stock ecu." Terminating the outputs from the stock ecu is very different from modifying them. If this method of operating ecus were actually legal, we could close this thread now as the racing ecus could be operated the same way.

[John Mosteller]

"Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted"

This was in the rules to keep the $5000-$10000 stand alone ECU's out(ie Motec,Pectel,Haltec etc).

If we would have wanted to permit these ECU's to be piggybacked then we would have made the rule something like "Standalone ECU's may only be used when piggybacked"

[allof6]

I have read this over and over and I would change my vote to proposal 3.

[Wren]

Has anyone tried to make a factory racing ecu work in a car?

The problem with the Honda is something to do with the rear wheel speed sensor coordinating with the MAP sensor or something like that. When the rear wheel speed from the smaller tire doesn't match what the ecu is seeing from the inlet air it sends the bike into limp home mode and retards the timing and richens the mixture.

If the Honda racing ecu does the same thing, then allowing them in doesn't solve anything.

[JohnPaul]

"Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted"

This was in the rules to keep the $5000-$10000 stand alone ECU's out(ie Motec,Pectel,Haltec etc).

If we would have wanted to permit these ECU's to be piggybacked then we would have made the rule something like "Standalone ECU's may only be used when piggybacked"

what exactly does a $10,000 ECU do that makes it soooooo expensive? would it really be that big of an advantage? (better be for that money)

[John Mosteller]

A lot of the cost is not the ECU itself.You can get the lower priced Motec for about $3000 but then someone has to make a wiring loom,figure out what sensors are needed,install in the car,work out a base map etc before you can even begin to dyno tune the engine.If you are unable to do this yourself you will probably be paying someone.I had Motec change a couple of switches on my steering wheel and it was over $800 plus shipping, so the costs add up fast. The more expensive systems allow sequential 3d fuel and ignition curves for individual cylinders for instance. If things like that make a difference. (which they may as the engines get more complex) I know there was a discussion on multiple blown R1 engines in a car that they were blowing the same cylinder on.One of the ideas on the cause was not getting all the exhaust primary tubes the same length making that cylinder need a different fuel curve or it could be some other issue with the stock system that caused that cylinder to run hotter.In the motorcycle it might not be an issue as they don't have the wide open throttle loads that we have. As the new engines with more power come into the picture it may take a more complex system to deal with different issues.

[Thomas Copeland]

Evenually F1000 will have to have open ECU's because it'll be the only way to unlock these newer bike engines and get them to work in a formula car.

[Jnovak]

Evenually F1000 will have to have open ECU's because it'll be the only way to unlock these newer bike engines and get them to work in a formula car.

Good idea, then we can for certain add another $5k to $10K to the cost of racing at the front. This will be great for FB & will certainly enhance the future growth of the class. In fact I bet that if we try hard enough we can actually get the cost of FB up to where it is competitive with FA costs

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Thomas Copeland]

It may not be our choice. It may be that we'll need to have piggyback or open ECU's out of neccessity.

The only reason it seems to me that we haven't done the obvious already (have an open ECU rule) is because we have a couple of older model engines in the Suzuki and Yamaha that we can currently use with stock ECU. Once the supply of those are exhausted and there are only newer bike engines available we won't have any choice. We'll have to have open ECU's.

These new bike engines some of them simply won't work properly in a racing car with the stock ECU. I know because I've just spent the better part of a year and thousands of $$ finding that out for myself. You may get the engine to run but it'll be crippled somehow. And you'll be constantly fiddling with it to get it to run effectively.

From what I've heard there are ECU's we can use that are under $1,000. So I'm not sure about this 5-10K price tag some are describing.

I've also heard that some are worried about what, traction control? if we had open ECU...I really don't see that as being an issue either.

What I do see is that this class has a serious engine supply issue. And it's going to get worst and worst unless the rules allow those of us that want to go through the hassle of developing an engine for this class have some room to do just that.

Right now I wouldn't spend 1 second or 1 penny trying to develop the BMW, the Kawasaki or any other of the newer bike engines available. With only stock ECU's allowed there is very little chance of success to get any of them to work properly or at their full potential in these formula cars. And if you did the amount of time and money you spent would never be recovered. So it's just stupid to even try.

I guess we can go on hoping and praying that the supply of 07-08 Suzuki's and Yamaha's are always going to be plentiful, or we can take a more pro-active approach and start looking at what it'll take to keep this class filled with a ready supply of various engines. Because right now I don't see there being enough engines out there to keep this class even operating let alone being able to allow it to grow.

[Wren]

Evenually F1000 will have to have open ECU's because it'll be the only way to unlock these newer bike engines and get them to work in a formula car.

The time is coming when stand alones are going to be neccesary. It just is not here yet.

[Thomas Copeland]

But do we wait until it's too late? Or start thinking about it in advance? I'd rather not wait for the crisis. I think it's going to be needed sooner than people think. The idea is to start thinking about it now, not after it's reached critical.

[RussMcB]

But do we wait until it's too late? Or start thinking about it in advance? I'd rather not wait for the crisis. I think it's going to be needed sooner than people think. The idea is to start thinking about it now, not after it's reached critical.

To help understand the potential crisis, what is your best guess about when it will be needed and why?

[Thomas Copeland]

I see the need now.

To get an engine fully developed for F1000 takes about 1 year. If we are able to start now we might be able to have something we could offer to F1000 by mid-2012. The longer we wait, the more this timeline gets pushed out.

If we wait until the end of the year we won't see new engines available until mid 2013. That's a long time to stretch out the supply of these older engines.

(by "we" I mean anybody that might undertake such an effort)

.

[RussMcB]

I see the need now.

To get an engine fully developed for F1000 takes about 1 year. If we are able to start now we might be able to have something we could offer to F1000 by mid-2012. The longer we wait, the more this timeline gets pushed out.

If we wait until the end of the year we won't see new engines available until mid 2013. That's a long time to stretch out the supply of these older engines.

(by "we" I mean anybody that might undertake such an effort)

.

I was wondering if there might be a real world (or expected) specific example of something that would not work with the current rules. Something like, "The 201x engine from <manufacturer> wont run in a car because of the <???> in its ECU. The current ECU rule will not work because ...".

You may be correct about the need, but it will help your argument if the statement about the need is not so generic. You claim it is needed now but it's not obvious (to me, at least) why you think so.

[Jnovak]

I have built customer cars that used a Motec. Yes, the Motec & dash cost $5K but the rest of the system, professionally built harness + all the sensors required & the initial programming etc the total cost was over $17K & I am not kidding, this was the real total cost. This did not include one penny for dyno work or for my additional labor associated with the system. This was simply the outsourced costs! The 2nd car cost approx. $10K for the Motec & the wireing.

Now that said there may be some way to build something similar for a much lower cost but I doubt very much that it will ever get down below $5 or $7K for the total system. Remember for example what a relatively simple system such as the Geartronics shifter costs. $5k minimum and it controls nothing but the shifter.

This sort of thing requires that a profit making business supports both the product & the development. Do you honestly think that any business can design, develop, program, market, sell & make a PROFIT for a complex product like an ECU for a race engine for less than $5k. If you do then you are nuts.

You guys who want all this extra "free" stuff need to open your minds to other solutions & I bet that they are out there given a bit of time. My suggestion is to let the class mature a little bit to see how things develop within the current framework of the rules. Remember that this class originated as a low cost way to go fast & I also suggest that we try to keep it within the original framework.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

I see the need now.

To get an engine fully developed for F1000 takes about 1 year. If we are able to start now we might be able to have something we could offer to F1000 by mid-2012. The longer we wait, the more this timeline gets pushed out.

If we wait until the end of the year we won't see new engines available until mid 2013. That's a long time to stretch out the supply of these older engines.

(by "we" I mean anybody that might undertake such an effort)

.

Let's see how many motorcycles have been sold in the USA. Here is a link:
http://knol.google.com/k/the-u-s-mot...orcycle_Market

This shows that motorcycle sales have been over 1,000,000 for many years. Of this 1,000,000 bikes/year sold in the USA it is estimated that about 10% are 1000cc bikes. Do you honestly think that the FB market (maybe 50+ engines/year right now) will use up the supply of these engines in the near term? Give it a break ther is simply no way.

The only reason you want new engines is to have the newest & the best. Leave it alone or price the class out of the marketplace.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Thomas Copeland]

You can have a zillion 1000cc motorcycles sold in the USA. Don't change the fact that we can only got 2 different types of engines working in these formula cars with any kind of reliability and the supply of those engines are extremely limited.

Not every 1000cc engine is suited for use for F1000. Just like not every pickup truck built is suited for monster truck pulls.

And you don't have to use the Motec ECU. Just because that is your ECU of choice doesn't mean that there aren't cheaper options available.

Why don't the rules let us at least try and put an engine together with an open ECU. If it's too expensive then no one will buy it. I know I wouldn't and nobody else should either. Why don't we let the market decide these issues instead of continuing to clumsily put up roadblocks to progress.

[Brands]

I'm inclined to agree with Jay. Can someone tell us exactly why a stand alone ECU is the only way to get one of these motors to run in a car? OK, a stock ECU may not be optimised but does that matter if we're all in the same boat? Are people blowing motors because of the stock ECU? I don't know enough on the subject. If a motor won't run at all out of the bike then surely you can't use it in F1000?

[Thomas Copeland]

I'll say it again. (maybe I have to keep repeating it every 1 or 2 posts)

The newer 1000cc engines will not work easily with stock ECU's. To try and get them to work with stock ECU's will cost too much money and time.

The supply of older 07-08 Suzuki's and these Yamahas are not endless.

[Evl]

How about either stock ECU or unrestricted carbs. Then people don't have to worry about having to spend $17k on an ECU, and you'll never run out of engines.

[Jnovak]

There have been over 20,000 GSX R1000 bikes sold in the USA for many years. Plenty of supply IMHO. I have a guy in Georgia who says he can get all we want. I am sure that rebuilding will be needed but we all do that in any case.

Thanks ... Jay Novak