Calling all SpecBoxers...
11-30-2011, 09:47 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
(Rant over, but we do need to get this kind of info/interpretations out to everyone I know of a few cars (mine was almost one if them) that had these removed)...
Bill, thanks for posting, that's good insight. I think more communication is critical to keep this moving as originally intended. I sent an email to Bob for a new 986/996 Spenc Racing Forum don't know if that's the right path maybe mod can jump in.
Bill, thanks for posting, that's good insight. I think more communication is critical to keep this moving as originally intended. I sent an email to Bob for a new 986/996 Spenc Racing Forum don't know if that's the right path maybe mod can jump in.
11-30-2011, 09:47 PM
#62
Have loved the club, I've been around since I was 12 years old. I'm on the membership committee, tech station list, bring in and support members all the time. Hard pill to swollow right now after being around the club for 13 years. Just got the bad news today, 2 days before round #16/17 of the 17 round season...
12-01-2011, 01:44 AM
#64
Eric,
It sounds like the "intent of the rules" is to prevent anything inside the ECU box from being modified. It sounds like you used a technicality, that is not in the "spirit of the rules", to justify a modification to the computer system. While "engine management" may not mean the entire ECU box to you, it makes sense that was the intent of the rule.
There must be more going on here than you are stating because I can't imagine that you would lose the Competition Committee vote 7-0 and then lose an appeal to the Board of Directors if it was as simple as you have presented. Especially if you had received an okay to do this previously. Someone had to be around that knew about it.
Knowing the Spec Boxster rules and the idea behind them, it would seem hard to get any approval to modify the contents of the ECU box. It would be impossible to police too.
It's a tough ruling but it does not sound unfair.....
Scott
It sounds like the "intent of the rules" is to prevent anything inside the ECU box from being modified. It sounds like you used a technicality, that is not in the "spirit of the rules", to justify a modification to the computer system. While "engine management" may not mean the entire ECU box to you, it makes sense that was the intent of the rule.
There must be more going on here than you are stating because I can't imagine that you would lose the Competition Committee vote 7-0 and then lose an appeal to the Board of Directors if it was as simple as you have presented. Especially if you had received an okay to do this previously. Someone had to be around that knew about it.
Knowing the Spec Boxster rules and the idea behind them, it would seem hard to get any approval to modify the contents of the ECU box. It would be impossible to police too.
It's a tough ruling but it does not sound unfair.....
Scott
Last edited by winders; 12-01-2011 at 02:05 AM. Reason: Spelling
12-01-2011, 02:27 AM
#65
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott, there are several things that in my opinion effected the ruling on Eric's car. A) No inspection of his car was done after the protest was raised and no discussion with Eric was done on how the immobilizer was removed beyond that another competitors ECU would not work in his car because there was no wiring to plug in the corresponding matched immobilizer to that ECU or key to swap key heads, all three must match for the car to run in stock form. B) Due to this lack of understanding of what was actually done to Eric's car, miss information could have been given to the Comp Committee who voted on this as many of them were not at the event, have never looked at Eric's car in depth, and did not talk to Eric before ruling. C) When the appeal was heard by the Board of Directors of the club, many of the Board are not technically trained or mechanics and there could have been difficulty in explaining the intricacies of modern Porsche electronics as they are not commonly understood in addition to the burden of overturning a unanimous decision by the Comp Committee regardless of the reliability of the information given to the Comp Committee before they ruled as none of it came from Eric.
In my opinion the diction in the written rules allows this mod as the Engine Management System (EMS) and Engine Control Unit (ECU) are different and no mention of the ECU is ever made in the rules only the EMS. The EMS is a part of the ECU but the ECU is not the EMS system if that makes sense.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that removing an expensive to replace piece of the anti theft system to improve reliability (key head gets damaged or lost car won't start in stock form or water gets in the car over night and cooks the immobilizer which is under the drivers seat in stock cars) is not "in the spirit" of the rules.
Eric's season is over but this really need to be clarified to prevent these BS DQ's in the future. The immobilizer was the single largest reason I didn't build a Spec Boxster when I sold my 993 RSR followed by reliability concerns with the engine and trans.
In my opinion the diction in the written rules allows this mod as the Engine Management System (EMS) and Engine Control Unit (ECU) are different and no mention of the ECU is ever made in the rules only the EMS. The EMS is a part of the ECU but the ECU is not the EMS system if that makes sense.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that removing an expensive to replace piece of the anti theft system to improve reliability (key head gets damaged or lost car won't start in stock form or water gets in the car over night and cooks the immobilizer which is under the drivers seat in stock cars) is not "in the spirit" of the rules.
Eric's season is over but this really need to be clarified to prevent these BS DQ's in the future. The immobilizer was the single largest reason I didn't build a Spec Boxster when I sold my 993 RSR followed by reliability concerns with the engine and trans.
12-01-2011, 02:51 AM
#66
Evan,
I hear what you are saying. But, I don't think his mod would be allowed by the PCA or NASA either. The intent of the rules is such that the ECU not be modified as to keep costs down and to prevent cheating. It follows that any Spec Boxster ECU should work in any other Spec Boxster. If Eric's cars would not run on a bone stock ECU, that is a real problem from a rules perspective.
The right path to take is to get the mod approved or to not do it. If Eric had really done that, would this thread even exist?
Personally, I don't like rules that are this restrictive which is why I would not race in such a class. I really feel for Eric on this. It's terrible that so much time and money has been put into a project compromised in such a way.
Scott
I hear what you are saying. But, I don't think his mod would be allowed by the PCA or NASA either. The intent of the rules is such that the ECU not be modified as to keep costs down and to prevent cheating. It follows that any Spec Boxster ECU should work in any other Spec Boxster. If Eric's cars would not run on a bone stock ECU, that is a real problem from a rules perspective.
The right path to take is to get the mod approved or to not do it. If Eric had really done that, would this thread even exist?
Personally, I don't like rules that are this restrictive which is why I would not race in such a class. I really feel for Eric on this. It's terrible that so much time and money has been put into a project compromised in such a way.
Scott
12-01-2011, 02:55 AM
#67
Removing an immobilizer is a reliability improvement. Immobilizer boxes, the ignition housings, and the electronic keys are all prone to failure. Much more so than a high quality toggle switch. They also cost about $700 to replace the entire set, and can't be done without programming from a factory computer. You can keep switches in the spares box and a pair can cost $40.
Improving the reliability also improves the safety. Happy to have an easy to operate switch that you can reach while securely strapped into the car. It can come in handy you happen to fail the components while on track during an offroad excursion or car contact and find yourself stranded in a peculiar position.
Don't forget to pull the key out of the ignition, or the battery goes dead. And don't forget it at the hotel, or back home, or drop it, or you're not going anywhere. The ignition housings themselves are prone to failure and were updated with a Porsche Technical Service Bulletin to that affect. We replace them WEEKLY in the shop on street cars and always have them in stock.
Really? an immobilizer? Has nothing to do with performance enhancement. Changing your DME chip and programming would certainly not be in the spirit of the rules. My car has passed every test on performance, and my ECU can easily be put in any car and it will run. Unlike other ECU's with an immobilizer code required for it to run the car, so you have to switch more components to make it work. So you can dyno or lap it in another car if you wanted. Ideally, they could all be that way so we could pick numbers if you wanted to be really fair about it and get Porsche Cup style.
Good rules should not require you to define "intent" of the rule. If you don't want the box opened, seal them, trade them, list a part number to not modify, list that the ECU should not be removed, open, tampered with etc. There are lots of items in that ECU. DME is what runs the engine, and performs engine management and performance functions. Immobilizer is an anti-theft device.
That's it. What sparked this is I've been winning events up and down the west coast and beat some really quick guys. The day before I qualified on pole over a former grand-am DP driver that failed the dyno with 10+hp advantage (197.5) and was found to be using race gas. Then beat him in the race afterward, and my car dynoed the lowest of those checked at 186. NOT ONE competitor of mine has protested my car in the last year and a half, or up to this point. They have driven door to door with me, in my car, or myself in theirs and they know why I'm fast. This came from two of the comp committee members present that day, one being the owner of the shop who's name is spread across the back of that DP driver's car.
It sounds to me like they used a "technicality" to DQ a car that had been proven on the dyno to have no performance advantage from a modification that I believe is in the "spirit of the rules". The car has been running in this configuration since May of 2010 and has been openly discussed. The ruling of 7-0 was determined before I even got home from the track, and they never actually inspected the car, or ECU, or anything. Only 3 members were present, the others got a story from one side.
Take a look. Who do you think has the HP advantage here? I get runs on him up the hill in turn 8 because I never lift, and it finally allows a pass. http://youtu.be/218n5HAC4aM
Sorry to Hijack. But it's big deal to me, and I would think would be of concern to those others in specbox. Especially if there are others running in this configuration as mentioned above. I'm proposing some literature changes and clarification on the 2012 rules in this area within our group and it should help. I bought, built, and campaigned this car at a very high level to have the culmination of the year and a half long goal taken away for something lost in interpretation, intent, and spirit of the rules.
12-01-2011, 06:59 AM
#68
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SA Texas
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eric, did they DQ your cars for the whole season or for the one event in which the challenge was made? If it was the later was it that critical to your overall result? I know you are pissed and I would be too but wouldn't it more fun to simply comply with the ludicrous interpretation that has been made and then stick it up there **** on the track.
12-01-2011, 09:20 AM
#69
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Deep Downtown Carrier, OK
Posts: 5,297
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Eric, from 1,000 miles away, having seen your video two months ago and having read of your progress with these cars - I have to agree with your interpretation of the DQ.
As an outsider I'm bothered with this whole stinky mess. It reeks.
As an outsider I'm bothered with this whole stinky mess. It reeks.
12-01-2011, 09:27 AM
#70
Rennlist Member
SPB borrower/helper
A shame that a class growing in popularity is being affected by sanctioning bodies not getting on the same page as far as a common set of rules. Spec Miata manages it. You can run both SCCA and NASA with no changes. SPB should be the same.
Bummer on Eric's car. I understand why he did it. Those of us with older Porsches simply replace a bad ignition switch and move on. On these cars you have to match the switch, key, and immobilizer. PITA if one craps out at the track. If his car passed all dyno runs, had pump gas in the tank, and has no illegal components, he was not treated fairly. Especially since his car was run all season this way, and he had this mod in his build sheets and flyers. Sounds like politics played could have played a part in the ruling, especially if votes were cast without all information being presented.
A shame that a class growing in popularity is being affected by sanctioning bodies not getting on the same page as far as a common set of rules. Spec Miata manages it. You can run both SCCA and NASA with no changes. SPB should be the same.
Bummer on Eric's car. I understand why he did it. Those of us with older Porsches simply replace a bad ignition switch and move on. On these cars you have to match the switch, key, and immobilizer. PITA if one craps out at the track. If his car passed all dyno runs, had pump gas in the tank, and has no illegal components, he was not treated fairly. Especially since his car was run all season this way, and he had this mod in his build sheets and flyers. Sounds like politics played could have played a part in the ruling, especially if votes were cast without all information being presented.
12-01-2011, 10:01 AM
#71
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It seems both unfair, and at the same time a rules infraction. You removed something you can remove, but to do it you messed with the ECU which is clearly not allowed. I completely understand the frustration, but at the same time you have to realize that if you dabble near the edges of the rules, you could pay a price. JMHO.
Now, how about a Spec 986/996 forum Rennlist Mods?
Now, how about a Spec 986/996 forum Rennlist Mods?
12-01-2011, 01:35 PM
#73
It seems both unfair, and at the same time a rules infraction. You removed something you can remove, but to do it you messed with the ECU which is clearly not allowed. I completely understand the frustration, but at the same time you have to realize that if you dabble near the edges of the rules, you could pay a price. JMHO.
Bingo!!!!!!!
Eric, it is a tough roll that you got here but the truth is that it is really for the best as far as the "spec" nature of the class goes. It sounds like you are moving on to a class that fits your level of prep better.
Last edited by syncspeedinc; 12-01-2011 at 02:07 PM.
12-01-2011, 02:05 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
Gettting a dedicated Spec 986/996 forum on Rennlist would be a great value add to the Porsche spec racing community. With all the technical knowledge gained over the past 3-4 years and all the new builds going on now, it could become a powerhouse of good Q&A info and help to replace some of what was lost from Brad's site. I really hope this happens!
12-01-2011, 02:51 PM
#75
His car was protested and the mod was ruled illegal.
The simple fact is that all he had to do was run this mod by the Competition Committee to get approval. He did not or we would not be reading about this here. He opened up the ECU and modified the programming. Not something you do in a spec class without getting approval.
Scott