jbrennen

iTrader: (1)

Sounds like you can take that argument from either side... How will the protestor/protest committee/tear-down inspector have a bullet proof method to verify that your ECU is not stock???

I'm not sure what the "burden of proof" rules are in Solo; like how they compare to US jurisprudence. Is there a presumption of innocence? Can you be forced to testify about your car?

As I see it, a protestor tells you, "prove that your ECU is legal." You tell him, "prove that my ECU is not legal." And neither one of you can do it. It's an impasse, and I would have to assume that your car would survive the protest unless you actually admit to illegally modifying the ECU. Any other result (like upholding the protest) would essentially open the floodgates for all turbo cars with ECU boost control to be protested every time they show up at an event. Street Modified, here we come!

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

I don't know that answer off the top of my head. But taking the conservative approach, I would say the burdon of proof is on you (assuming your under a protest).

I know that in the stock classes, it's up to you to prove that part "Y" is legal through some form of documentation from the factory (service manual, TSB, ETC). I assume it's the same deal for ALL classes.

That's easy. My response would be: "Your running illegal boost levels. Prove that they are the result of the allowed mechanical allowance and not from an illegal ECU".

How do you do that "in the field"?

Well that's true. That is why ECU reprogramming is so contraversal in STX. The fundemental problem is verification during impound. You can provide all the legal docs you want to apeal the protest, but if you can't prove it at the event, your going to lose. Does it suck? hell yes it sucks.... Other than going to SM, what are you going to do?

IMHO, the legality of ECU reprogramming in SP is driven more by politics than fact, just the same as where us SP competitors will end up next year.


[edit]
I am not against reprogramming ECU's in SP, just trying to find a better argument in support of it with forced induction cars...

jbrennen

iTrader: (1)

My understanding is that by presenting the Factory Service Manual for your car to the protest chairman, you shift the burden of proof to the protestor.

Note that the Evo's FSM doesn't specify the spring rates for the main suspension coil springs. If we follow your logic, anybody can protest an A Stock Evo for illegal springs and expect the protest to stick. An Evo owner can't prove that he hasn't substituted illegal springs -- at least not by looking at the FSM.

Requiring positive proof of all "stock" components will never work, because the manufacturer's don't document everything. They never have, and they never will.

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

hmmm... If the replacement springs didn't change the ride height, then you might be able to get away with it.

The proof is easy, just compare the springs to another stock EVO; they (the springs) all look the same right? If none are available then the burdon of proof is on the protester like you said.


(note: ) if you painted the replacement springs to look like stock, then the cheater might be able to get away with it too...

Proof positive is already required to distinguish between Port installed options and Factory installed options (options packages, stock parts, etc...) . Thank god that is something we EVO owners don't have to mess with.

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

As far as I can tell from the rulebook, there is no burden of proof standard and protests are not handled like litigation between two parties where at least one party bears the burden of proof. It seems that the protestor makes their complaint to the protest committee and the committee does their own investigation and has the final word (except for the appeal process).

I'd hate to be in the position of having a car that's running substantially more than stock boost and having to tell a committee or potential protestor that my stock ECU was reflashed by someone that told me they didn't change the boost parameters. In a way that's worse than having a UTEC with the boost wiring connected and the programming set to pass through the stock boost solenoid signals -- at least in that situation you could show them the programming. With a reflashed ECU you can't demonstrate anything. It would be much more reassuring to a protest committee and a potential protestor to be able to say that the ECU is stock and then point to a piggyback device where you can show them that the boost wiring isn't connected.

ACM

This does get interesting...

In theory, because the STi uses mapped boost control based on sensed air mass, an SP STi should not legally be able to use any of the typical piggyback S-AFC type of controllers as they modify the airmass signal. Presumably if one lowers the input air mass, the ECU will allow increased boost until the modified signal reaches the upper limit value ? This didn't matter in the past because there were no really competitive turbo cars with this setup, so nobody cared. Now with the STi on the scene...This is also true for a stock STi as well - who's to say a remap didn't allow an extra gramme or 2 per second to be ingested ? And if Technomotive can program a 1G to change parameters based on pressing pedals, who's to say the reflash didn't get reset by 3 quick taps on the brake pedal ?

The simple way with DSM/Evo ECUs is to wire an LED to the BCS leads, so that it energises when the BCS is triggered - this would prove that BCS control is still in place.

It pretty much is a non-issue with a 2G, as with its tiny turbo you could remove all boost control, weld the wastegate shut and you _still_ wouldn't make any more power :-) Probably melt the intercooler though !


This is a can of worms that's going to become a hot topic soon, I believe.


In many respects I think Sam is on the right path saying remove boost control restrictions completely, then reclass based on how fast the cars become. This way at least there's no policing issues.

Charles

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

hmm... Now that is interesting.... Actually that is a very good point. We should definately keep an eye on those pesky STI drivers....

I do miss my 2nd gen DSM with it's unported O2 housing and 25psi boost spike @ 2800 rpm... That gave one hell of a launch out of a corner...
I like rules that the SCCA put in place for T1 touring cars. In a nutshell, you must keep the factory mechanical boost control systems and ECU, but you can do what ever you want to the software. Reclass the forced induction cars as required. If we were allowed to do that we might have a chance against the corvettes in BSP.

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

I looked in the rule book too and found no reference to a "burdon of proof". But that said, you still should be prepared to provide that proof if you think you pushing the limits of the rules

CincyEvo

This will sound cynical, but the issue is do you want to win or do you want to be legal? Cheatin's a way of life in racing, even at the grassroots Solo level. If there is no easy way of verfying a rule violation, then that rule will be violated.

Maybe you are a good enough driver to offset the unfair advantage your competor has, or maybe running clean is more important than wining. Or, like a lot of folks, maybe you are such a slow driver, you can cheat all you want since you will never win anyhow and so there is no chance of being protested.

When I was auto-x'ing my Miata there was (& still is) a well known engine builder who could deliver a cheater engine that made 15-20% more power and never fail a protest. It was the price of admission if you wanted to win at the national level.

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

I want to win and be legal.

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

That is definitely not the attitude that we need posted in a public forum on a topic like this. There are already enough paranoid people that view the turbo AWD community as a bunch of cheaters in autocross without statements like this to reinforce that view.

broeli

iTrader: (19)

I don't think what CincyEvo stated will hurt anyones view on the Evo community..because everyone in racing knows that the rules are commonly pushed, bent, broken in all forms of racing. It doesn't matter if it is an awd turbo car or a natural asp. V8...they all do it. People that want to win will look for every single advantage they can get...and if they can get away with doing something that may be viewed as illegal, but give them an edge, don't think for a second they won't do it. That is just my experience of racing the past 10 years...and I have done/experienced everything from autox'ing with my Evo to heads up drag racing with my Mustang.