[QUOTE=joecycles]Not to stir up the pot here but I am curious to what people think of this idea. I do expect some people will not like it but just an outloud thought here:

With all of the talk about dual mapping and chips and electronics....What if the rule said stock DME's only (no chips or any other electronic devices that enhance performance)?

I need to check the rules but at one time SCCA would not allow these items (though now they have this whole deal going with aftermarket injection systems). I also realize that a lot of people have spent a lot of money tuning their cars and getting specialized chips. My situation is a little different as I am still using a stock chip (early car and early DME so the options are a little tougher to update it unless I solder in a chip or mix/match the box with a BMW board for a plug in or update to a later harness, etc.).

Just curious. It seems a lot of people are spending a ton of green getting cars right on the edge. If there are not electronic provisions allowed then it could tighten up what can be done (in theory).

Fire away! by the way, I look forward to running with you guys again next year. I had a hell of a time at VIR! It's always great to get out to the track!

Joey Sullivan
#29 944 cup :beer: [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Director]

Hey Joey:

I dont get the impression alot of people are spending a ton of green, just the few guys at the top of the results. And generally I have found that those guys spend more then the rest of the field regardless of the application, whether it be chips, engines, tires, suspensions, etc. To date we havent found a way to limit how much someone spends on their racing habit. But we have tried to tighten the field in other ways when they make sense for the series as a whole.

When we first started the series, Stock PCA classes could not use aftermarket chips, so the front runners spent a ton of money on Milledge engines and the like to get the few extra HP they wanted. Of course from the beginning, PCA Prepared and SCCA cars allowed aftermarket chips, so we did also. A few years ago, we decided to let the racers with Stock cars, who couldnt afford or didnt want to spend the money on the expensive engines to get some cheaper HP with aftermarket chips and get them closer to the PCA Prepared and SCCA cars. So that's one of the reasons we are where we are.

Reversing rules changes, such as chips in PCA Stock cars, is generally thought to be unsetlling to the series and always comes with some fallout that is deterimental. So for this reason I'd be not inclined to back up to the chip rules a few years.

But even if we did reverse the chip rule for PCA Stock cars, we would still have the problem with taking chips away from PCA Prepared and SCCA cars because these cars could then not crossover from PCA Prepared classes or SCCA to theCup and back without changing their car set up each time. This series was built on that crossover ability and we still hold true to the concept.

Another problem, as previously discussed on the forum, is that a stock chip can still be used to manipulate HP/TQ if someone were so inclined, so doesnt help in that way.

What we are attempting to do with the additional restrictions on TQ numbers, as discussed on the forum, is to lessen the impact of chip mapping options and discourage the inclination to build engines with illegal mods.

Hope this helps better understand why we are doing what we are doing, eventhough some may disagree. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=joecycles]I understand completely. It makes sense. I personally am not a fan of sealing the boxes as I have seen ways around seals (I used to run Spec Racer Fords and those guys have a lot of tricks up their sleeves for the "seal" issue). I am up in the air about the chips, though I do find it frustrating that a lot of drivers have multiple boxes they can change out for different performance gains (and to keep it right on the edge). The ability to cross over series is a great benefit (especially for us that sometimes run SCCA or PCA).

I do think you have some good dialogue going on here which is very healthy for the series. I appreciate the explanations. I think you are doing the right things (that can be done reasonably) to keep things tight and on track.

Joey Sullivan
#29 944 cup[/QUOTE]

I am looking into a foil type seal for use on the 944 DME box. My only concern is that once I dyno test the participants cars I would like to be able to quickly and easily check that the DME is one that has been on the dyno and verified. The concept would to have a foil seal that wraps around the box seam and over the FQS switch port. Damage to the seal due to tampering would be DSQ and re-testing at the dyno required. I would put my initials on the seal after installation, and competitors can bring as many ECU boxes to the dyno as they like. Greg F

Greg,

At my work we use a tamper evident seal that utilizes an aluminized backing that when removed breaks into a checkered flag type pattern (half stays where applied and the other half comes up with the tape) and it leaves a residue behind and makes it relatively impossible for someone to try match the pattern when reinstalled. I can send you some samples to review if you want.

I would be very interested. The group here in the NW was small last year but we have had a lot of interest for next year going forward and I would like to keep a good handle on Tech. Greg

http://44cup.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=3551

I have already arranged everything needed including serial numbered seals at no cost to a driver except for shipping. Read through this thread, I think you will like it. The guy is also willing to come to an event to do the chip check and seal at the track.
I did a poll with SC driver's for this, 16 out of 19 drivers said they would do it.

Greg:

The question raised on ECUs was not the capability to seal the ecu, but to know what u are sealing is legal or that the mapping in the ecu could be switched to alter performance from outside the ecu. There was no known way to do that and for that reason we are not going this direction in the series.

I guess I do not understand the direction we are going well enough. Here in the NW it is not possible to arrange for on site dyno inspection...there are no mobile dyno's here. If the box I find in the car after qualifying or a race has a seal, is not within reach of the driver, and has nothing what so ever plugged into the coding plug they are good.
If I find a broken seal, ( that I had intended to place over the FQS switch port and parting line of the box), any change to location of ECU or anything whatsoever connected to the coding plug the competitor will be DSQ'ed for that session. I have been doing the dyno testing at the start of the season, and even with a healthy discount from the Dyno shop it is $50 each car plus the time and expense to get there. My only goal here is to insure that an ECU that is in the car has been on the dyno and verified. Greg F

Per the Cup rules, we allow use of the coding plug provided the driver declares use prior to the race on the Cup Tech Form.

The concern is the mapping of the ecu can be changed with a switch wired to the ecu or with the use of a remote switching device. If a driver can effect the switching of the mapping, the sealing of the ecu is rendered useless.

There are no pins on a Motronic ECU that can be used for this other than the coding plug wire pins, and I am still not certain that this is an effective method to cheat. Far more likely would be the use of the FQS mechanism that allows diferent maps to be utilized. I will check on this but once again I am pretty certain that wires would have to be added to the ECU separate from the 28 pin connector. The last option would be through the altitude compensator circuit, using the altitude comp. wiring to effect fuel mixture. Most of the mods or cheats that effect fuel mapping are of little consequence, the ignition timing would be more of a concern to me.
For now it would be easiest for me to not allow the coding plug to be wired to a switch, but to allow it to be connected per the factory method provided it is still in the stock location in the passenger footwell. The limits placed on power and torque are good to restrict the mechanical parts of the engine, ( or at least the willingness of competitors to spend money there..) I just would like an easy visual method to police the ECU's to discourage the obvious ploy of just plugging in another one after testing. Greg F

Greg:
I have no objection to sealing the unit if that works in your environment in the NW. I would do the same here in the East if I thought it would prevent manipulation of the mapping, and related performance of the engine, whether that be too increase or decrease power on the track and/or on the dyno.