http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25334&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

Start with my post (hotshtsr20). These PT rules are teh sux0r.

So far, no one's really answering the question, so everyone who runs in PT, please keep asking for clarification on this in that thread.

That's a bit recockulous. What they should do is break into two classifications-

-basic ROM daughterboards (free)
-daughterboards that extend the functionality of the ECU (points)

A basic ROM board is no different than the allowed 'chipping' of an ECU.

Just to clarify your thread a bit-

Neither the B13 or B14 use a simple ROM chip. The ROM is actually part of what's called a 'multi-function' or 'versatile' memory chip. The chip doesn't just contain the ROM for the ECU, but also the RAM and added peripherals for the processor. This isn't just a simple off-the-shelf part, these were made pretty much just for these ECUs. So it's not just the fact that the part is one time programmable (OTP), its also unobtanium. They're also surface mount parts, and were not intedended to be removed. This is way Nissan has the external memory header mapped out on the ECU board- it's intended to run an external ROM board when the original program isn't going to be used.

If your really geeky and want to read about the versatile memory on the B13 ECU, I've posted the datasheet on my webserver-

http://www.calumsult.com/calumsu/disassembler/docs/M6M72561J.pdf

If basic ROM boards were not allowed for the B13 you could technically either socket the versatile memory and find new chips (good luck with that, but JWT has done this before so it is marginally feasable) or get your hands on a factory ECU with a factory daughterboard (I own one, but good luck finding a second one or buying mine!). Either solution would be hideously expensive compared to the cost of a simple $105 basic ROM board, and totally silly. For a B14 your SOL, I've never seen replacement chips for it or a factory ROM board. Again silly when you can buy an aftermarket ROM board for $105.

This is a B13 ECU with a factory ROM board. I'd be happy to sell it for the right price. $1000 sounds good to me. :)

http://www.sr20-forum.com/usergallery/5449e37eb629956.jpg

In regards to two comments-

Keep in mind that ALL JWT ECUs must be sent back to JWT for other programs (at a $100 cost each).

...that's not strictly true. I could reprogram a JWT ECU and really there are tons of other people that could work it out if there was a good ($$$) reason, but your right in spirit.

Of course we're speaking hypothetically b/c no one REALLY seems to know what jwt is doing.

Lol, that was true in like 1997, but what do you want to know?

Yeah. In regards to the JWT comment, I was trying to make the ECU seem more harmless... :D

BTW, mind if I copy some tidbits from your post over there?

Gotcha. Sure, copy away.

Wow. I'm still confused after reading all that. To clarify, is Calum's ECU a free mod or not? Is the Realtime assessed differently than the ROM chip reflash version? I planned on ordering one in the next few weeks.

And I must apologize, I believe I brought out some of the "you must live with it because you have an SE-R and it's already the most awesomest car ever" comments Greg made. I know a local guy around here who runs Neons was trying to compare his car to the SE-R (me, the only Great Lakes SE-R I know of) and say how he needs more power, etc. I believe Greg told him to pound sand, but it's probably still fresh in his memory.

I think it's getting a little too picky when you're talking about the inner workings of the ECU, if it's in the original case, working in conjuction with the factory equipment, and not adding extra capability (like something ridiculous like adjustable on the fly fuel pressure or something), then it should be assessed the same points.

Edit: The comment you made about adjusting the timing and running an SAFC and getting the same output isn't really correct because you can't adjust the timing curve, just the base timing. I know Greg Amy was able to get ~155whp (Dynapack) with stock cams and good tuning. I don't think you'd be able to get near that without adjusting the timing curves. True?

So how is that any different than a Hondata, Chrome, or Zdyne?

So how is that any different than a Hondata, Chrome, or Zdyne?

My point exactly and that's what I posted on nasaforums.

We need to put some pressure on NASA to give us a ruling on this. The issue is a simple sub-board that is used as an adapter. The function is what you would expect to get from the 0 points reflash.

Any idea how to proceed to NASA? Greg ignored my direct question on the NASA national PT board.

Edit: The comment you made about adjusting the timing and running an SAFC and getting the same output isn't really correct because you can't adjust the timing curve, just the base timing.

Oh, I know. I was just pointing out that timing and fuel are open, but not together in one box.

because the 'daughter board' can be used as an entirely additional component to the ecu; for example, on my Hondata Kpro ecu (in my honda racecar); i opened up the ecu to look at it when i got it back; an entirely additional board and socket had been added to the main board; on this 'daughter board' were all kinds of capabilites -- not only was there a jack to plug in a laptop and make your own changes, but you could data log, and have traction control, and two step drag race launching, and nitrous control, and 'boost in gears' control, and a host of other cool stuff!

Here's the deal- everything Todd mentions here for reasons why a daughterboard should cost points, with the exception of being able to make quick changes, can either be done or has already been done by altering the factory program-

-extended data logging - has been done on the older 8-bit Nissan ECUs and could be ported easily to the B13/B14
-traction control - never been done, but but definitely doable
-two step drag race launching - already done for the B13/B14
-nitrous control - obviously not applicable, but doable. You've got extra outputs to scavenge on the ECU that won't be used on these cars (AIV, A/C disable, etc) so adding a switching function is easy (and has been done)
-'boost in gears' control - gear dependent stuff has been done on the older 8-bit Nissan ECUs and could be ported easily to the B13/B14

So restricting the use of a daughterboard doesn't prevent any of that stuff, it just means that any competitor that wants it can get it but must spend $$$ having someone custom write some firmware for them, and then spend more $$$ to either get a factory rom board or replacement versatile memory chip.

Edit- Not that I'm complaining, I would be happy to do any of the above, for a price of course. I'm sure JWT or Dave Dunn etc would have the same answer. Once the firmware is written (and time is spent on a dyno with a RT ECU getting the fuel/timing stuff tuned) I could easily build a B13 ECU that from a visual inspection would be indistinguishable from a stock ECU (B14s are SOL). Heck, it would even be dead easy to make stuff like launch limiters, traction control parameters, switching points, etc changable on the fly via the CONSULT port (just put base variables in the ROM, then have them updatable to parameters in the RAM space). Actually this sounds like a fun project, I encourage NASAs draconian rules!

Here is the text of the rule......

ECU reprogramming and chips are now a No-Points modification. The OEM ECU/PCM box/housing/hardware must be used, though.

So it looks like the Accessport for the WRX would be legal because you simply plug it in and reflash the stock ECU.

BUT for the SER do we have to take points because of the daughterboard or b/c we are using a chip installed by a vendor? It sounds contradictory b/c the first sentence says "chips.... no points...".

In the second sentence it says "OEM....hardware..."

So, can you legally replace the chip if you don't use a sub-board as an adapter?

I know a local guy around here who runs Neons was trying to compare his car to the SE-R (me, the only Great Lakes SE-R I know of) and say how he needs more power, etc. I believe Greg told him to pound sand, but it's probably still fresh in his memory.

A fully prepped NEON doesn't need any power. We had two of them come down from the great lakes region last year and Fandozzi's Neon had more power than my SER. He also won both races that weekend.

Honestly, I think that the most important thing for me from the JWT ECU is the higher rev limiter. On a dyno the difference is about 6 peak hp.

I still think I could use a stock ecu + wideband + SAFC + Dyno and really bump up my hp if I wanted to. I would still have the crappy rev limiter, ***.

NASA rules are so much better and easier to interpret than SCCA rules...


;)

So, can you legally replace the chip if you don't use a sub-board as an adapter?

If they say 'chips' then the answer has to be 'yes'. No Honda etc is 'chipping' their ECU and re-writing the original non-rewritable chip (they all replace the chip with a rewritable chip), so the rule has to be making 'chipping' legal. If it's 'no' its a silly rule.

The rule ought to read something like-

Factory ECU reprogramming via replacement ROM chips, reflashing, or simple ROM boards are now a No-Points modification. The OEM ECU/PCM box/housing/hardware must be used.

What are they specifically trying not to make legal?

I'm not sure. I think it's more of a case of "well, the rule's written, and we don't want to change it" than anything else.

Question, do most manufacturers use OTP EPROMs? If that's the case, then every car with a "chip" is illegal as well unless they can be reprogrammed through the OBD port, since there was a hardware change.

**EDIT** I assume it would be cake to make an ECU automatically cut power by a little bit if it detects its not on a dyno (i.e. only 2 wheels are spinning)? We've got some factory RX-8s here that run away from FWD cars (FWD cars are allowed more power:weight than RWD) that are at the power:weight limit on the oval at CA Speedway.

Question, do most manufacturers use OTP EPROMs? If that's the case, then every car with a "chip" is illegal as well unless they can be reprogrammed through the OBD port, since there was a hardware change.

Yea, virtually all of them use OPT PROMs- they're cheaper. I think that's got to be what they mean by the ambiguous word 'chips' in the rule- that you can replace those chips with erasable versions.

**EDIT** I assume it would be cake to make an ECU automatically cut power by a little bit if it detects its not on a dyno (i.e. only 2 wheels are spinning)? We've got some factory RX-8s here that run away from FWD cars (FWD cars are allowed more power:weight than RWD) that are at the power:weight limit on the oval at CA Speedway.

That would be tricky on a B13 or B14 because you don't have individual wheel sensors, but what I would on a B13 or B14 if you were going to cheat like that is simply have the ECU setup so that when the car is first turned on it retards the total timing by X degrees (so just the same as retarding it on the distributor), then when it sees some command from the CONSULT port it takes that retard out. So now the car will be under the power limit when you first start it until you issue the magic command via the CONSULT port (which would take all of 10 seconds to do before a race).

Ooo, even better you could just change it so the timing retard function is triggered by the position of the diagnostic screw, then you don't even have to connect your laptop up.

But yes, that kind of silliness is pretty easy for anyone that has a good working knowledge of how the firmware works and has the tools to change it.

The best method would be to default to shit power on startup, since they probably seal the ECU and OBD port for inspection.

I am more talking of the newer cars with integrated ABS/wheel sensors, etc. I know RX-8s automatically cut power on a dyno from the factory to keep that poor rotary alive, making this power:weight rule almost unpossible to enforce. You could probably do this with any car, and it would be especially effective on factory turbo cars.

Oh yeah, one more: wouldn't connecting the knock sensor to a switch accomplish the same thing?

And, do you know if not having a knock sensor at all has any affect on timing with a 72lb JWT program?