Proposed 2003 Linear Index Classification System

[Bubblecar]

Thank you Dave and the entire Classification Commitee for all of your work and effort.

I have not had time to make a detailed examination of your proposals - but on the surface - it looks very well done.

I am sure there will be many cases where individual cars may prove troublesome - but so it is with ANY and ALL classification schemes.

I am fullly in favour of proceeding with the proposed changes - now for the upcoming season.

Any misclassifications that may arise would likely be less than the overall improvement this proposal would bring to the class structure.

Nick

[TYSON]

Uh Oh.

I have a couple questions. If I replace the stock turbos and manifold with aftermarket, do I have to count points under rule 4 AND rule 20, or just rule 20?

After looking at my first question, do I have to count points under rule 18? It would be impossible to use the stock boost control system. Also rule 15 'Substitution of the ECU', would affect the boost pressure control system. Am I counting points under two rules for the same modification?

If the answer is yes for all of these, I have a problem. I need an emergency cage install AND fire supression.

The wording of rule 22 allows someone with a non-turbocharged engine to add a turbo for less points than someone upgrading a car with a stock turbo, unless rule 22 supercedes rules 20, 19, 18, 5, 4. I hope it does.

Not trying to pick on anyone, these are just things that may come out during the year if you get new people or newly modified cars. I am not worried about being competitive as a rookie, I just would like to prevent myself from being disqualified before turning a wheel.

[Chris P]

The wording is very preliminary with its purpose to allow the SOLO community to see what we have done.

I'll let one of the turbo guru's answer your questions.

[Taylor]

Yeah the ECU stuff and boost modification stuff should possibly be altered somewhat...

I also noted that non turbocharged cars can add a whole system that's less points than turbocharged cars installing a new system.

Bascially my gripe is with the ECU and Boost Mod points.

I have a Fuel Computer and I have an MBC (Manual Boost Controller).

This is 8 points. Or two whole class jumps for me! I needed the fuel computer because I was running WAAAAY too rich. What else can ECU replacements do? Because I'm concerned I might be getting knocked 5 points when my Fuel Management Computer is really only worth 3 points since it's only "half" an ECU upgrade.

However all that said, theres the dyno to fix things for guys like myself who haven't done optimal mods. But rather mods of convienence or the like. Especially when it comes to turbos. Perhaps I can find out why my ECU causes the car to run so rich when many guys with my car are able to turn up the boost sans-Fuel Management. Busted O2? Should get a code for that though eh?

Anyhow.. yeah I like the system.. case you don't remember, I was the one arrogantly TELLING everyone (i.e. the neysayers) it was the right system to go with at the Workshop.

[Taylor]

Tyson: What are you driving anyway?

[addbhp]

Maybe I'm blind, but didn't see a listing for 1985-1989 Toyota MR2's that are N/A. Not sure of weight, but their 112HP. I know of a couple of people that are thinking of running these.

[Dave]

Mark, it's possible we haven't added that car since we've never had one compete yet. I'll add one now and post the updated Excel file here (in Zip format).

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave]

Mark, I've added the 87-89 naturally aspirated MR2 to the spreadsheet. According to MSN Carpoint this car had 115 horsepower and a curb weight of 2350 lbs. If your information conflicts with this, please check your owner's manual and let me know what it says. Anyway, using the data from Carpoint the 89 MR2 has a starting PI of 53.6, in Touring 2. I based the suspension rating for this car on the MR2 supercharged version, but if you have knowledge that the naturally aspirated version has a lesser suspension design (ie. lacks roll bars, has a less performance oriented drivetrain, etc.) please let us know and we'll research it further so that we can correct the suspension rating accordingly.

Attached is the updated spreadsheet in zip format.

Cheers,
Dave

[TYSON]

Taylor, classify your fuel only controller as a fuel system upgrade which is included in rule 22. I wouldn't call it an ECU which means; engine control unit. It can not control your engine.;
)
I prefer to replace the entire ECU, as the fuel controller is an additional gadget that has to be working properly for your car to work. They are fine if you are only in need of fuel adjusment and would like to keep the stock ecu. Saves you money, too. My car just happens to have an adjustable ECU available that is very similar (Plug N' Play, honestly!) to the stock in function. So I took out the stock one and mounted this in its place. No need to mount additional gadgets and have them interface properly.

[Taylor]

Tyson: But my car is ALREADY Turbo. So it doesn't fit under 22.

BTW, I know what an ECU is. And yes, ECU's handle air/fuel mixture. In a turbo, it would also effect timing! And probably a half dozen other things I can't think of right now. Technically the HKS Controller I use is a modification of the ECU, as most fuel computers are. This particular one tricks the ECU so the mixture changes. Tells the ECU that the intake has registered so much air so that it compensates with more or less fuel! Piggyback system.

I suspect even my Fuel Cut Off which also tricks the ECU could be considered an ECU modification...

hmm maybe not, I may not actually have that connected to my ECU.

[TYSON]

Ahh, I see rule 15 does say modification. You be FUBARed

Maybe they'll let you go on the the manual boost controller if you set it to stock boost and you can't reach the control from the driver seat.

I wasn't knocking you about not knowing what the ECU stood for, I was only giving you ammunition for your tech inspection pleading. It doesn't help now though.

If all else fails, you can just race me in the non-competitive-in-over-your-head-why-didn't-you-buy-rcompounds-instead-of-moving-your-battery,-fool!! class. You'll kill me though. That's if I can even get in.

I see you have checked out the other thread and can see my reluctance to post what kind of car I have.

[Taylor]

Tyson: Email me then.

Naw I wouldn't set the MBC to stock boost.. I was really just trying to make a point about a fuel computer only changing one aspect of an ECU when most ECU upgrades or mods I typically think of are physical chip replacements or reprogrammed chips. Not a piggyback system like mine that only does 1 thing, alter A/F mixture.

But like I said.. regardless, I have the dyno chart on my side. So it's really not a beef about the system, rather some suggestion..

I still think there should be a separate line item for upgraded stock sized turbos. I dunno maybe it's just common to me because I'm used to the MR2 message boards.

[ADAM]

the rules are such that we assume if a boost control device is put in....we assume you are going to use it to your advantage..and with 10rwhp per psi on a small engine...boost controllers are powerfull little devices

[TYSON]

If my upgraded ECU controls the boost to any level I want, do I have to hit myself with the whole 8 points instead of 5?

[ADAM]

yep.....

any form of boost control is points....poking holes in wastegate lines...electric boost controllers...manual ...fish tank valves...ecu boost control....whatever...

if the boost is adjusted from stock form....its boost control....

any modification to the ecu is points. whether it is timing, fuel control..ect...

modification to the ecu and boost control...on even stock turbo setups can be very potent...as the stock injectors are usuallt no where near 100% duty cycle..so there is alot of room for power..