44cup.com Forums :: View topic - Proposed rules for Super Cup

DrFranz wrote:

3. The whole chip issue is a PIA to all. I've also heard that more creative guys have a complete second hidden DME box somewhere remote in the car that is actually controlling everything. The stock one is in place for inspection, but does nothing. Is that possible?

.

racin44 wrote:

The DME removal won't work. Piggyback computers intercept the stock signal, tell the DME false information, and then the DME reacts to the false info and sends the signal that the piggyback intends to have the DME send to the injectors, etc. Only way to start the car with DME removed would be if the car was running solely on an aftermarket computer in a stand-alone fashion.

DrFranz wrote:

...... Having said that, and from my less informed perspective, I have three comments/questions, which may have zero validity:

1. Why do the Turbo S's get more boost? Seems to me that they are the main problem.

2. A lot of guys already have lightweight flywheels installed. Why make them retrofit the stock one? I'd like to see LW flys approved, it's a good modification. (Plus I have one on the bench that I was planning to install!).

3. The whole chip issue is a PIA to all. I've also heard that more creative guys have a complete second hidden DME box somewhere remote in the car that is actually controlling everything. The stock one is in place for inspection, but does nothing. Is that possible?

Most importantly, I like this rules package, it seems to be simpler and more clear, and I'm really looking forward to next year with it. Well done, DD.

MBuck951 wrote:

........ Is there ever a point where "can't find anything = it is not there" or is it always "can't find anything, so it still must be hidden somewhere" . . . .

Author:	johntorg [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
Turbos S cars have more boost and hp from the factory. They have a K26/8 turbo, while the non-S cars have a K26/6. I agree with you on the lightweight flywheel. It doesn't change HP, just engine response, and is a step backward and a real PITA if you have to remove it. I also agree with you on the chip. Serious cheaters will find a way around it anyway.

Author:	Garylimey [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
DrFranz wrote: 3. The whole chip issue is a PIA to all. I've also heard that more creative guys have a complete second hidden DME box somewhere remote in the car that is actually controlling everything. The stock one is in place for inspection, but does nothing. Is that possible? . The inspector can remove the DME and then try starting the car. It's an old trick that someone I know saw a bunch of car's get caught with years ago.

Author:	racin44 [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
The DME removal won't work. Piggyback computers intercept the stock signal, tell the DME false information, and then the DME reacts to the false info and sends the signal that the piggyback intends to have the DME send to the injectors, etc. Only way to start the car with DME removed would be if the car was running solely on an aftermarket computer in a stand-alone fashion.

Author:	Garylimey [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
racin44 wrote: The DME removal won't work. Piggyback computers intercept the stock signal, tell the DME false information, and then the DME reacts to the false info and sends the signal that the piggyback intends to have the DME send to the injectors, etc. Only way to start the car with DME removed would be if the car was running solely on an aftermarket computer in a stand-alone fashion. That's my point exactly, if the car starts then their is a 2nd system in place.

Author:	racin44 [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
But it could not start and still contain a piggyback computer doing the same job...

44cup.com Forums http://forum.44cup.com/

Proposed rules for Super Cup http://forum.44cup.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=542	Page 2 of 4

Author:	MBuck951 [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
How do I prove I don't have one of these clandestine systems? Is there ever a point where "can't find anything = it is not there" or is it always "can't find anything, so it still must be hidden somewhere" . . . . John, How do you know your 118k mile car is stock?

Author:	Director [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
DrFranz wrote: ...... Having said that, and from my less informed perspective, I have three comments/questions, which may have zero validity: 1. Why do the Turbo S's get more boost? Seems to me that they are the main problem. 2. A lot of guys already have lightweight flywheels installed. Why make them retrofit the stock one? I'd like to see LW flys approved, it's a good modification. (Plus I have one on the bench that I was planning to install!). 3. The whole chip issue is a PIA to all. I've also heard that more creative guys have a complete second hidden DME box somewhere remote in the car that is actually controlling everything. The stock one is in place for inspection, but does nothing. Is that possible? Most importantly, I like this rules package, it seems to be simpler and more clear, and I'm really looking forward to next year with it. Well done, DD. Thanks Frank. Answers : Q1: No evidence the S is the main problem. All cars have their own challenges. Q2: Mistake, will revise to allow any flywheel. Q3: Sure, you could have 5 dme's in the car along with a supercharger and a nitrous bottle in use. But as with all unallowed parts, someone needs to look at the car and question it when they see it. However, all of these are a bit easier to spot then an extra wire used to switch maps -- which is the reason for the one map chip.. ps. On the subject of inspections, the Comp Committee with its team of scrutineers is being discontinued for next year. Was a great idea, but ended up being near useless in 2010 for improving the inspections of cars in the various Cup Chapters. The burden for having inspections done of cars will fall back on the Directors.

Author:	DrFranz [ Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
Well played, DD!

Author:	Director [ Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
MBuck951 wrote: ........ Is there ever a point where "can't find anything = it is not there" or is it always "can't find anything, so it still must be hidden somewhere" . . . . Mike. Sure. I've never thought you had something hidden somewhere.

Author:	MBuck951 [ Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Proposed rules for Super Cup
Sorry Dave, my post wasn't directed at you. Just get the sense that even if I get the approved chip and do everything else asked to be compliant, it will not appease all competitors. I know I only have to convince you I am legal technically, but ideally I want everyone to feel that way. May not be possible.

Page 2 of 4	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/