One thing we have to make clear in our letters by the way is that we're not trying to get KPro to work. It seems that the SEB might have had some issues with this that it could lead to other provisions. We are asking for the use of any ECU including standalones but still not allow changes to any sensors on the car that would make the stock ECU not work (i.e. the conversion needed for KPro). The litmus test should be if I swap my stock ECU back in there in impound, the car should run properly without throwing any codes. I think that would make a fair compromise and the rules very clear cut so people couldn't start getting crazy with crank sensors, MAP sensors, and secondary wide band sensors.

 

I wrote my letter, had quite a bit about 'why', possible draw backs (turbo cars and boost), and pros/cons of the following:

a. Car must have ability to run and provide stock OBD functionality w/ a stock ECU installed (does not need to be present during competition)
b. No modification, replacement (i.e. wide band O2 sensor in place of narrow band) or addition of sensors allowed.
c. Alternate ECU must plug into stock harness with no additional wiring that bypasses the stock harness (adapters between stock harness and the replacement ECU are allowed)

 

Not an S2K owner, but an STR MX-5 driver, so I sort of have a dog in this fight. While I'd enjoy the flexibility of an open/standalone ECU (and the power I might be able to find to keep up with you guys a little better), I wouldn't like the expense. There may be inexpensive (or less expensive) standalone solutions for the S2K (not sure--not my field) but I haven't found any for the MX5, aside from stuff that would require lots of DIY, which means time, of which I have even less than money.

And allowing standalones for the rest of ST could have very expensive/unintended consequences, too, even compared to the expensive piggyback solutions. All it takes is someone finding out that a $5K MoTeC ecu is a competitive advantage before we're all stuck in an upward spiral of costs or people start bailing on the category. For that reason, I don't think the standalone thing will ever happen in ST. It's not like the S2K (both AP1 and AP2) hasn't already proved to be a highly competitive car in the class anyway, regardless of whether a few specific years may have a slight advantage/disadvantage in one area or another on certain courses.

 

Ap2 can use flashpro.....which is a standalone.

 

It simply bypasses the rule because it requires no sensor changes and is inside the stock ecu housing.

 

That's not why. You could fit a Motec inside the stock housing, but that isn't legal because it doesn't do the OBD2 stuff which is required.

It's because Flashpro modifies the values in the factory ECU, but the OBD stuff remains functional.

 

Curious - Did they ever look at making flashpro for AP1's? I wasn't around these forums way back when, I wonder if Hondata considered it.

 

Yes, not possible without knowing some Honda code. Something about the AP1 & AP2V1 ECU's are locked from Honda and can only be hacked if you know some kind of a code or something. I saw a post by Hondata regarding this very question.

Edit:
Here's the post I'm referring to. Don't recall where I read about some code being needed.

https://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/731...t__p__21322815

 

The cable-throttle ECU's aren't flashable, unfortunately. Nobody has reverse engineered the particular chip, so you can't socket them like you can with an older Honda ECU.

 

A standalone for the S2k is about $1200 +tune. People are spending that plus some to do a half-ass piggy back right now and sacrificing the reliability of their engine. Don't they make a megasquirt for the miata for about the same price point? What are you guys doing now in terms of power to keep up with the AP2s (06+ S2Ks) that can run the current (and even previous ruleset) legal flashpro and put down around 235whp on the dyno with STR mods and a tune? All we're really saying is to allow standalones to the extent that it is comparable in performance and limitations to a standalone like the suggestion MattP outline above.