Boost controller rule proposal

[rajito]

I submitted this proposal through the web site:

-- Rulebook section --
X. STREET TOURING
Section 5.

-- Proposed rule --
5 d. Adjustable boost controllers, both manual and electronic, are permitted for turbocharged and supercharged vehicles.

-- Comments --
Rule 5b currently states:
In cars using computers, aftermarket chips may be substituted. [...]

Many aftermarket chips achieve power gains by increasing the boost. Rule 5b permits aftermarket chips, and does not forbid boost control through the chip. An adjustable boost controller achieves the same thing, either manually or electronically.

---------------------------------

I have heard about discussions in the past regarding this, and would like to get an open discussion going (this is a forum, after all )

Alternately, we could prohibit any form of boost control in ST, but it will be impossible to detect when done through an aftermarket chip/reflash.

Thoughts?

Raj

[ctkag]

I agree with one addition - a mechanical boost controller should not be mounted where it may be adjusted by the driver (i.e. not cockpit-mounted).

We all know of a couple of cars that have ECU map modifications or reflashes running in classes that prohibit 'aftermarket chips' - just we have no way of checking or enforcing that. Maybe language needs to be added to those classes that clearly states that remapping or reflashing is prohibited. Won't stop it though.

-Keith-

[ctkag]

Another thing I would like to see is allowance for aftermarket blowoff valves. We all know that blowoff valves are noise-making devices and are - if anything- performance de-enhancers for 90% of the cars that use them. The only place where they make any difference is on a car that already has had turbo or intercooler mods and subsequently would be allowed to have a different BOV (i.e in SP).

-Keith-

[mossaidis]

(I keep imagining the STi guys drooling in the corner. If so, it's not hard to see why.)

So, you're proposing that the turbo/sc cars can have increased level of boost. I thought ST was a handling and brake mod class with minor HP "enhancements". I believe ECU mods in ST are meant to allow new rev limits, better fuel curves and ignition timing changes. In reality, allowing increased boost levels in ST will make for an EXTREMELY unfair advantage in favor of turbo/sc cars.

For example, a SSB '03 VW Beetle GL 1.8 turbo make 150 hp. If you allow boost increase in ST, this now ST3 VW will make 220+ hp, a net gain of over 70 Hp. You can perform all the ECU mods on my ST3 '92 Honda Civic and you'll only get 7-8 hp for a "massive" 133 hp. I know COM can not guarantee competitiveness, but this would be ridiculous.

[Mark Swinehart]

Isn't the 1.8 turbo VW a SSA car?

[mossaidis]

We all know of a couple of cars that have ECU map modifications or reflashes running in classes that prohibit 'aftermarket chips' - just we have no way of checking or enforcing that. Maybe language needs to be added to those classes that clearly states that remapping or reflashing is prohibited. Won't stop it though.

-Keith-

Almost every racing rule book states that if your performed mod is not mentioned then IT IS NOT LEGAL. I am not the rules chair, but I would say that the guys running with reprogrammed ECU in SS should just move up to ST or go back to the stock ECU program. Unless it's a turbo/sc car, then IMO it belongs in SP.

It would better served if they moved up to ST/SP and proved themselves better drivers driving a just barely ST/SP car than driving a questionable car in SS. If winning is that important to them, they should visit their local laser tag arena and play "war" against the 7-year old birthday party to make themselves feel better.

On the other hand, I know COM is not meant to be super competitive, but it is. I seen drivers argue pretty intensely at each other just before a time trial over one driver's legal tire choices. Basially one driver had wets, the other didn't. I honestly thought pushing would ensue. It didn't, which is good, but it proved to me that COM drivers take this seriously.

Personally, I would hate to think someone else in ST is braking the rules just to get an edge or simply because they can get anyway with a mod because the steward would not notice it. What would it prove anyway? Your cheating and your time trails are better than anyone in your class? And then want? Your bragging rights don't mean crap.

Play by the rules, don't bend them and have fun.

I don't think any changes should be made in SS rules. Again, if it is not mentioned in the rules, IT IS NOT A LEGAL MOD...

Section IX: "Showroom Stock automobiles will compete in an "AS DELIVERED" configuration with preparations and modifications follows (in other words, if it’s not explicitly permitted here or in section VI, it’s not legal in Showroom Stock) :"

[mossaidis]

Isn't the 1.8 turbo VW a SSA car?

Mark, your're right. So, I get a little excited about these things.

Then I'll revise my example. I'll use a '85 BMW 325e, a SSA car that benefits greatly from a ECU upgrade. Stock 325e makes 140 HP. The same model with ECU changes will upgrade it to 164 HP, still not even close to the potential 220+ HP from an boost upgraded VW turbo.

Even for larger displacement cars, a NA ECU upgrade will consistantly bring lower HP gains that when compared to higher boost levels on non-NA car.

Could anyone speak what HP increases would result from ECU upgraded Mustang V-8 vs a ECU and boost upgraded WRX?

[Mick]

At best a chip will net not more than 20hp in my car. (2.3 liter 4 cylinder)

I don't know enough about turbo systems to make a valid argument either way, but this does feel like rules creep to me.

[Mick]

Alternately, we could prohibit any form of boost control in ST, but it will be impossible to detect when done through an aftermarket chip/reflash.

It would also be pretty hard to detect if I installed cams in my car. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed. I don't think rule decisions should be based on how easy/hard they are to police.

[rajito]

Whoa whoa, what have I started?

The current rule, as stated, does not prohibit boost control. I quote again:

Rule 5b currently states:
In cars using computers, aftermarket chips may be substituted.

That's all it says. It does not say anything about what parameters the aftermarket chip is allowed to adjust.

I believe ECU mods in ST are meant to allow new rev limits, better fuel curves and ignition timing changes.

That could very well be the spirit of the rule, but there is no mention of any of those in the rulebook. If you argue that if it is not mentioned, then it is not allowed, then the rule will be meaningless since it would be just saying you can substitute a blank chip, in which case the car wouldn't even start

The reason I proposed we allow boost controllers is because the rule, as it is, allows boost control through aftermarket chips. Allowing boost control through chips, but not through boost controllers seems oxymoronic.

Hence I mentioned:

Alternately, we could prohibit any form of boost control in ST, but it will be impossible to detect when done through an aftermarket chip/reflash.

I also like your option in the other thread - move the cars with boost control one class up, but that's messier than just allowing or prohibiting boost control.

I don't think rule decisions should be based on how easy/hard they are to police.

I agree with that. Also, I do not think this is rules creep - it's more rules clarification

(I keep imagining the STi guys drooling in the corner.)

STi guys do that anyway, regardless of what the rules are =P~

Raj

[Mick]

The reason I proposed we allow boost controllers is because the rule, as it is, allows boost control through aftermarket chips. Allowing boost control through chips, but not through boost controllers seems oxymoronic.

I see your point but I think you're looking at solely from a turbo owners point of view. It doesn't seem oxymoronic to me at all.

As was stated earlier, ST is thought of as the handling class, no motor mods allowed. You're asking to make a special case to allow a motor mod for Turbo cars, for all intents a boost controller is a motor mod. If it is true that there is no difference between adding boost through programming or boost controller why make the exception?

If the goal is to keep the rules simple I don't think it gets any simpler than ST=No motor mods.

[DanDarcy]

Somebody asked what the gain in a Mustang is when it is 'chipped' . I have a 1997 cobra which is 305 h.p. if you chip it it will gain only 15 h.p. which is the same horse power the 1999 and up model produce as stock. You can not get any high power gains like you can by controlling boost. When you increase boost you increase compression. If you allow boost controll than I should be able to change pistons and heads to increase my compression, its only fair.
Dan D'Arcy
Mustang Cobra #310 ST1

[mossaidis]

Raj, my suggestion not to change any rules was for only SS rules. I certainly agree that ST rules need clarification.

So, I'll stick to my original proposed ST clarification... unless turbo drivers have any better ideas.

viewtopic.php?t=116

[rajito]

Mike, while ST is perceived as a no motor mods class, the rule as stated now does allow boost control by chipping. If that is acceptable to non-turbo owners, it's fine by me

I like this rewrite better: viewtopic.php?t=116

Raj

[sillyspheres2]

I submitted this proposal through the web site:

-- Rulebook section --
X. STREET TOURING
Section 5.

-- Proposed rule --
5 d. Adjustable boost controllers, both manual and electronic, are permitted for turbocharged and supercharged vehicles.

-- Comments --
Rule 5b currently states:
In cars using computers, aftermarket chips may be substituted. [...]

Many aftermarket chips achieve power gains by increasing the boost. Rule 5b permits aftermarket chips, and does not forbid boost control through the chip. An adjustable boost controller achieves the same thing, either manually or electronically.

---------------------------------

I have heard about discussions in the past regarding this, and would like to get an open discussion going (this is a forum, after all )

Alternately, we could prohibit any form of boost control in ST, but it will be impossible to detect when done through an aftermarket chip/reflash.

Thoughts?

Raj

Raj:

I proposed this last year, but was shot down at the BOD meeting. The rationale then was that they can actively police boost controller and thus keep the horsepower down (for safety purposes) while the upgraded boost via ECU was unpolicable, thus allowed.