Std. ECU and spoofing

[gcdugas]

I know that the std. ECU has around ten maps to choose from. I also know that prior to the ECU rule that the teams were ever changing maps, TC parameters etc.

Not there are certain input metrics such as the lambda sensor (oxygen), intake air flow meter, intake temperature, intake humidity?, crank position, RPM, throttle position, engine load, fuel pressure etc. etc.

All these lead to certain output instructions such as fuel injector openness and duration, ignition advance etc.

Suppose that Ferrari, Toyota or BMW or whoever still research engine maps for various scenarios (optimal torque, optimal fuel economy, mild fuel economy max top end etc.) and their research shows that under condition "A" the ideal output would be different from the std. ECU by adding 1.5 degrees of ignition advance and opening the injector for X milliseconds longer or whatever. Wouldn't it be possible to place electronic processors in between the std. ECU and the various input meters (lambda sensor, intake air flow meter, intake temperature, intake humidity?, crank position, RPM, throttle position, engine load, fuel pressure) that would spoof the input before it reached the std. ECU in order to get the ECU to send the newly desired output to the various items such as ignition timing, injectors etc. in order to reach the exact "map" that they had before the ECU rules.

Or the spoofing could take place on the output side so when the std. ECU sends out an ignition timing signal to the magneto/plugs of x degrees advance at 16,450 RPM the "spoofing processor" changes the signal to x + 0.73 degrees advance at 16,450 RPM. At 17,800 RPM the spoofer could send the signal to read x + 0.105 degrees, at 15,600 RPM the spoofer could send out a signal of x - 0.212 degrees advance etc. This way all the input and output parameters could be individually manipulated using the std. ECU as a known quantity/baseline from which the spoofers would "correct" to get back to a fully customized ECU in effect.

TC would still be effectively nullified because wheel speed delta sensors are not regarded as valid inputs into the std. ECU.

[majicmeow]

No offense intended at all gcdugas, but I really don't understand where you are coming from...

Each engine manufacturer would have had to design custom engine maps for their particular engine to begin with. The standard ECU does not mean that each team runs a standard engine map. It is only the hardware that is locked down tight (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong)

Regarding the "spoofing" you were talking about. At different RPM's, depending on a multitude of sensor inputs, the ECU can change ignition advance/retard and fuel injector duration/PW when ever it needs! That is the point of an engine map. Timing is NEVER EVER fixed at a certain RPM, it is always dependent on load, temp, lambda, air density etc... Therefore, there is no need to "spoof" anything.

The software, AFAIK, IS FIA approved in order to make sure no un-lawful use of the hardware is being made, but the teams HAVE to have created engine specific hardware or things would just be a mess or unreliability!

Did I read you right there, or is all of what I just said meaningless? hehe

Cheers,
-Aaron

[gcdugas]

As I stated, there are around 10 available maps within the std. ECU. Before the ECU rule there were countless maps and they were always developing new ones. Some accent mileage, some accent low end torque, some accent high top end etc. You want to be able to tell your driver to switch to map "A" so he can stretch his fuel and extra lap or so during his stint without changing his driving style. Map "B" may give him low end torque out of slow corners while sacrificing top speed so he can maintain position at tracks like Monaco without using gobs of fuel.

But there is a finite amount of choices with the std. ECU. None of these are as ideal as a fully customized map anyway. The spoofing allows teams to get back to developing maps tailored to their engine and the circuit. It is almost cheating but not. There is nothing in the rules that says the signal to the injectors or the magneto/plugs cannot "change" along its route to read differently. I think spoofing would be a loop hole.

Spoofing allows them to circumvent the present limits of the std. ECU.

BTW, the std ECU rule is anti-green as improvements in fuel management systems and efficiency are always welcome. And we are always learning about combustion flame front propagation, chamber shape and other factors that play into determining ideal ignition and injector functions. And should a manufacturer want to place the injectors in the chamber itself rather than the ports (the theoretical ideal) everything within the ECU would have to be reworked. And experimentation with plasma ignition is also discouraged with the std. ECU. The std. ECU is anti-technology, anti-efficiency, anti-green, anti-anti-emissions since all development along these lines is curtailed. It sucks! It is another Mad Max N@z! rule.

[Extra300Pilot]

It is not possible to use the same 10 ECU maps for all teams' engines. That would imply that all would be using the same firing order, the same fuel injectors, same fuel pressure, same crank/cam position sensors, same ignitors, and on and on. So yea, while the teams can do map switching, it is between their own specific maps. There could be advantage gained by applying a piggyback device that might, for example, permit TC by cutting spark from the SECU, but unless the designers are complete idiots- that is easy enough to detect via the ECU.

[pgj]

Are the ten mappings programmable to match each engine?