2006 Rule Book Posted!!

[WillM]

Don't know exactly what these parts are called, but the restrictor goes here:
...
where the black intake hose goes into the engine, you take out the 4 hard-to-get-at bolts holding that silver metal part on, and it goes in there.

Christine

Thanks Christine, a picture is worth 1,000 words. That silver metal part with the 4 hard-to-get-at bolts would be the throttle body.

[Stynger]

That's what I thought.

On another note, the Air flow meter is replaced with some aftermarket ECU's which are allowed in ST now. So if you have an AFM does that mean you cannot use an aftermarket ECU? I always thought the throttle body was the restrictive element on purpose and the AFM or MAF was sized so that it would not be the restriction.

On spec cars that have to run a restrictor plate, where does it go in the system?

I think realistically you guys have to realize your class is ST. There needs to be some restrictions (pun intended) in the class.
If the TB is the restriction and not the AFM then what's the problem? Just leave it in line.
The biggest problem you have is adding sensors (if you disable the AFM, you will need a MAP) In the present rules this has not been addressed so is probably illegal.
Then again, you could add 2 or 3 tornado's into your fancy new "air filter," why not integrate a map sensor?

[WillM]

The biggest problem you have is adding sensors (if you disable the AFM, you will need a MAP) In the present rules this has not been addressed so is probably illegal.

Sensors are in integral part of the ECU. Sensors come with the ECU, are attached to the ECU, and are required for its function. The ECU rule allows hardware replacement:

"...software or hardware replacement or changes of the factory ECU is permitted."

That's my $.02 anyway. :-k

[Stynger]

Sensors are in integral part of the ECU. Sensors come with the ECU, are attached to the ECU, and are required for its function. The ECU rule allows hardware replacement:

"...software or hardware replacement or changes of the factory ECU is permitted."

That's my $.02 anyway. :-k

So you are saying, if sensors are an integral part of an ECU, and you are allowed to change the factory ECU you can add (or change) sensors (hardware) to facilitate that change?

Like when you change gauges, sensors are changed for their function.

Should you keep the stock sensors in the "air cleaner" per the rules or does the ability to change hardware supersede it?
Is this rule a concern of unrestricting the air flow?

[WillM]

So you are saying, if sensors are an integral part of an ECU, and you are allowed to change the factory ECU you can add (or change) sensors (hardware) to facilitate that change?

Like when you change gauges, sensors are changed for their function.

In a nutshell, yes. However I would not say that sensors are legal because they facilitate ECU swaps. The sensors are allowed because they are part of the ECU hardware.

Should you keep the stock sensors in the "air cleaner" per the rules or does the ability to change hardware supersede it?
Is this rule a concern of unrestricting the air flow?

The ST intake rule specifically states that "air flow sensor must remain stock as delivered", so I do not think any other non-specific rule could supercede it.

From what I understand, the stock air flow sensor wording in the rule is indeed to control restriction. There was debate on whether the restriction is at the throttle body or at the air flow sensor. I believe that is why both the TB and AFS are included in the rule.

If part of your point is that the requirement of the air flow sensor adds complexity to the understanding of the rule, than I agree. :salute: The air flow sensor is more of a restriction than the throttle body in some cars, but not in all. I would have left the air flow sensor part out. More and more cars these days don't even have flapper-type air flow sensors, or any air flow sensors at all (drive by wire). :-k

[Grippy]

So, if the only reason to remove the AFM is to change to a MAP which may be required for an ECU swap (which is already legal) what is the big deal?
You will not gain anything from removing the AFM because you still have the stock throttlebody, but you will make gains from the ECU. We should just leave the AFM out of the rule.

[HerbD]

So you are saying, if sensors are an integral part of an ECU, and you are allowed to change the factory ECU you can add (or change) sensors (hardware) to facilitate that change?

Like when you change gauges, sensors are changed for their function.

In a nutshell, yes. However I would not say that sensors are legal because they facilitate ECU swaps. The sensors are allowed because they are part of the ECU hardware.

NO. That was NOT the spirit of this rules change.

This rule change was to allow the same thing as "swapping chips", as
was allowed under the old rule. You may replace JUST the CPU
module, or reflash the firmware in your existing CPU module, but
this rule change does not give you carte blanche to replace all the
sensors in the car, for instance, to do a complete aftermarket
system.

[Stynger]

Herb,

Is there a reason the intent or spirit of the rule is not written with the rule itself? It sure would save a lot of speculation and interpretation of a rule.
It seems as time goes by and technology changes, the rules take on different meanings.
The intent of the rule is forgotten and interpretation gets creative.

Ideally this could start this year with the new rule changes and continue with each change as time goes on and the intent is fresh in everyone's mind.

Just a thought. I know it's a little more work, but could actually save time and aggravation in the future.

[HerbD]

Herb,

Is there a reason the intent or spirit of the rule is not written with the rule itself? It sure would save a lot of speculation and interpretation of a rule.
It seems as time goes by and technology changes, the rules take on different meanings.
The intent of the rule is forgotten and interpretation gets creative.

Ideally this could start this year with the new rule changes and continue with each change as time goes on and the intent is fresh in everyone's mind.

Just a thought. I know it's a little more work, but could actually save time and aggravation in the future.

It sure looks like we're getting to that point. That's the problem with
rules in general. Two people can read the same rule and come away
with two completely different interpretations.

This sounds like a good topic for next weeks' Board meeting.

-Herb

[Mick]

I like the idea of stating the intent of each rule, but I don't think it belongs in the rule book. ..maybe it could be cross referenced to an appendix.

[WillM]

NO. That was NOT the spirit of this rules change.

Sorry, but as the author of this rule, I disagree.

The intent of the rule I proposed is to allow aftermarket ECUs. This, as far as I am concerned, includes the integral hardware that is required for it to function properly. As Les mentioned above - gauges are allowed in SS. What about the sensors that come with the gauges? They are attached to the gauges and are required to make them work. Are they not legal?

To get back on topic, here were the 3 original intake rules proposed in the November board/rules meeting:

COM Thread: Air Cleaner Rule Proposals

The 3rd option is the one that made it to the floor for discussion.

[HerbD]

NO. That was NOT the spirit of this rules change.

Sorry, but as the author of this rule, I disagree.

Well, then we definitely need to revisit this rule at the next
Board meeting. Unless I am very much mistaken (which, of course,
is a very real possibility), I don't think anyone expected this rule to
allow wholesale replacement of the engine management system.

[boltonite]

What started out as a rule to allow a cone air filter and aftermarket chip was not intended (IMO) to allow this intake
and this ECU. Just my opinion.

[WillM]

Hi Fred,

I agree with most of what you said. That intake and the advanced features of the Motec are not in the spirit of ST and in my interpretation of the rules, are not allowed. The intake above (although SWEET!) looks like it comes with a different intake manifold, which is illegal in ST.

The problem with the old ECU rule is that it favored some cars while
penalizing others. There is no factory ECU or upgrade for several cars. At the same time, other makes have factory performance ECU's or the stock ECU can be flashed for greater performance. The goal of the 2006 rule is to allow all cars with computers to benefit equally from the 'old' rule which only allowed chips.

I do not see a difference between chips, reflashes, and these types of ECUs. For that matter, I don't see a difference between any of the above and the basic features of a big-buck ECU like the Motec. They all do the same thing: they alter rev limits, timing, and fuel curves.

I apologize if my earlier posts were misleading or misinterpreted. The original intent of the rule did not cover 'advanced' feature of ECUs like the Motec. Traction control, addition of injectors, etc., were not the original intent of the rule and are not allowed in ST anyway.

I've had a great off-line discussion with a club member who brought the advanced ECU features to my attention. The original rule, as it was proposed, included wording which stated that the intent of the rule was to allow adjustment of rev limits, timing, and fueling through the ECU.

With the above in mind, if an ECU allows the exact same modifications as a chip or reflash, then I believe the three should be treated the same. Either they are all allowed, or none are allowed at all. Truth be told, as a Miata driver, I would be better off if none were allowed. Miatas are lucky to pickup a few hp from a complete ECU swap. Meanwhile, other cars in ST4, ST3, ST2 can benefit greatly from any of the above. Here's a prime example: $250 BMW chip.

That said, I think that chips, reflashes, and ECUs are totally acceptable for ST. If a competitor wants to spend $4000 on an ECU to get the same performance enhancement that another competitor can achieve with a $250 chip, then let 'em!

[HerbD]

I do not see a difference between chips, reflashes, and these types of ECUs[/url]. For that matter, I don't see a difference between any of the above and the basic features of a big-buck ECU like the Motec. They all do the same thing: they alter rev limits, timing, and fuel curves.

I apologize if my earlier posts were misleading or misinterpreted. The original intent of the rule did not cover 'advanced' feature of ECUs like the Motec. Traction control, addition of injectors, etc., were not the original intent of the rule and are not allowed in ST anyway.

And this is exactly the spirit of the rule we voted on, and I agree.

The problem I had was this part of the interpretation:

Sensors are in integral part of the ECU. Sensors come with the ECU, are attached to the ECU, and are required for its function. The ECU rule allows hardware replacement

I would argue that sensors are NOT an integral part of the ECU. In
particular, a fancy ECU like the Motec should be able to interface with
the stock sensors. While I personally wasn't thinking Motec when we
wrote this rule change, I agree that they should be allowed, provided
they are used with no other changes to facilitate their use.