I got started talking about how the different tuning companies are approaching the task on a different thread. Given that it was not the subject of that thread and that I was curious about others opinions, I thought I’d give the conversation its own thread.

Near as I can tell, and I am an outsider here, there are vastly different approaches or philosophies in use by the different reflashing companies. H R&D leaves you to WinOLS, Dude does the freeware editor, Hymee does the nice GUI editing package and Cobb does the super nice top shelf package. The solutions are almost priced in that order as well. I think the pricing goes something like Dude, R&D, Hymee and Cobb.

My comments here are directed towards the Dude approach as I think it most applicable to the largest number of people. Their freeware editor allows an average guy with tuning knowledge to work with the PCM. There is also a channel back to them to have “stuff of interest” added. The idea behind this is based on the simple fact that a broad range of people with varying interests can get a lot of work done to the betterment of everyone. It is my hope that the Dude tools will get a whole bunch of people loose with OLS trying different things (yes, there is a pure bin import to the Dude tools so you can blow your files on a car). The Dude stuff gets you a good starting point with which to work that will be good enough for most people while actively supporting those who what to look deeper and play (like me). For example, I’ll be working on the EU checksum if it is different and giving that back to the Dudes for free inclusion in their software.

If you’re a real nerd, and I say that fondly, there are a lot of reasons to decompile. One of the biggest is to identify what the designers were doing with each map. The biggies are all known in the freeware package. It is my hope that the curious out there will add to the knowledge base. The average guy can tune all he wants and need know nothing of decompiling if he does not want to. Map editing is the primary goal. If you do want to play, the support is there.

With respect to sharing files, the Dude stuff will come with “starting places” for naturally aspirated and forced induction as their contribution. You can send your disk based files wherever you like. It is my hope that the RX-8 community will share and, by doing so, we will all learn. What we have been missing is the physical interface and a simple freeware editor and that is why I’ve been pushing the Dude guys to actually sell their stuff.

 

I found this kind of interesting as well, MM mentioned in the AP thread that his tunes will be 'locked'. I'm guessing this will be unique to the Cobb AP in that it will refuse to download firmware with specific values in a memory address? I understand protecting your time and investment in individual tunes- but if the purchaser wants to share what tune they're running, should you really have a say in the matter?

I'd rather a tool not try to protect me from myself, and if your business(RB flash comes to mind) sustains on people not being able to edit or copy their own hardware's software settings then maybe rather than trying to stop them from doing so.. you would be better off looking at changing what you're getting customers to pay for.

In the end, whats to stop someone from using a different reader to pull the firmware(and associated settings)?

 

For those that are concerned - most of the reasons are not so much copyright protection as much as protection of the engine.

If a pro tuner tunes a specific vehicle; the tune is for THAT car; the more aggressive the tune the more this holds true. Should you then move it to another car and blow the engine; all of a sudden it was Jeff/AP/EFIDude etc's fault.

Bad press travels a lot faster than good press; and we all love drama. So let the pros help you; help yourself.

As for my personal philosophy; and as an extension PPO2's vision: Physics = physics; so a tuning MODEL will be the same across most vehicles with similar characteristics - the real trick is too apply that model to each engine and operator. Thus my software; and what I hope becomes a real viable middle ground between a true ragged edge tune and a crappy base tune from the factory.

 

If I were to guess, I would think Cobb is doing something to obfuscate the security feature. The comment that even the dealer can not reflash a Cobb car would point that way. This approach should slow down all but the most determined hacker.

No matter how you slice it, the person that makes the decision to put a file on a car is the "Tuner". It could be a professional shop using top drawer tools to install files he/she has a hundred man hours in or one of my club friends that got a file from one of his buddies. The question is, how good is the judgment and talent of the Tuner in question and how willing are the non-professionals going to be to own up to their mistakes? The tools are the gun but you are still the person shooting the engine.

I like to hack on my stuff and I am willing to pay the price for my mistakes. That is one reason I am a fan of the more open tool set. If I were making my living selling tuning I would have different requirements. I would want the most sophisticated tools money could buy as it would allow me to concentrate on my value add (tuning) and provide the best time efficiency when it comes to developing my tunes. The real shame is that, once you have developed your files using high end tools, you'll find it hard to move to a more cost effective distribution method. Normally, tool vendors will try to lock you into using their tools to distribute files for continuing revenue which is perfectly understandable. The shame comes from spending so much time to develop tunes and then being restricted in how you profit from them (or having someone else profiting with you). I am not bashing a good business model so please do not read my comments that way. I am just lamenting the way things are. It would be ideal if you could develop on one set of tools and distribute on another. I would think being proficient in WinOLS is about the only way you can to that at this point in time.

 

However, there is the point of the car owner being able to make modifications to his tune after seeing a Pro-Tuner.

The Pro-Tuner does not "OWN" the ECU of the RX-8 owner. Nor does a Pro-Tuner have the right to control future modifications done to the car of the RX-8 owner.

The RX-8 owner paid for specific expertise of the Pro-Tuner, not given the Pro-Tuner exclusive right to his ECU (forever) or all future modifications of the flash on his ECU.

So for instance a RX-8 owner gets the RacingBeat flash. Then he decides to install air intake, exhaust, and maybe the mazsport ignition. In this situation, the RX-8 owner would like to tune his car and would like to get a re-flasher to do it himself.

You can't "lock" the flash of the car owner so he can't make changes to his own car's ECU. Whatever OBD-2 device should allow the car owner to record and edit the flash.

The issue would be for the RX-8 owner to attempt to display the RacingBeat flash publicly for download or re-sell RacingBeat's flash as his own work. It is the RX-8 owner that is liable for his/her actions and not the re-flasher device or company.

EFIDude, Cobb, or any re-flasher also has to be careful of blowing an existing map on the car. If the re-flasher will not allow the RacingBeat flash to be edited than the user will have to try to load some other flash. The result could be very problematic.

Far better to allow the user to modify whatever map they have presently that is working properly on their car. Than to start blocking access to flashes and loading flashes that may cause problems.

It is a simple issue to allow a user of tuner software to "lock" his work or allow his work to be freely used. It is better to give the user of the tuner software the choice. However this hold true for future tunes.

However, it makes no sense to try to go backwards and retrofit a restrictive solution because 4 and 5 years ago there were no re-flasher and very few tuning solutions.

The point of a re-flasher like EFIDude, Cobb, Hymee, and whatever comes next is that it is for everyone and not just a Pro-Tuner tool to only make them money. Otherwise, don't sell the re-flasher to the public and only sell it to Pro-Tuners. Which as you know, the "public" will look for another solution.

 

SoSonic
I think I follow you and agree with most of what you said. Maybe a happy mid point would be agreeing with your Tuner to give you the disk file as well so you could continue to work with it. At least in this way the Tuner would be an active participant in providing the product for further modification.

Hey, pro tuners out there, how do you want to see all this happen? This stuff really affects you guys more than it will ever affect me.

 

No, that would not be a mid point. It is not the RX-8 owner's responsibility to protect the profits of a Pro-Tuner. Pro-Tuner's do not have ownership over an RX-8's owner ECU or what modifications the owner can or can't make to his car (including ECU).

What will be practical on upcoming re-flasher and tuner software is for a tuner, regardless of who it is, to be able to "lock" his "map edit" so that it can't be shared. To "unlock" the file, the user must pay the tuner a license fee.

The tuner software can offer this "lock" and "unlocked" option. However, it would be better if the software/re-flasher company does not try to control what a RX-8 owner can or can't do with the ECU of his own car.

If the tuner created a "locked" flash, than the tuner software should not allow it be edited, without an "unlock key from the tuner". However the RX-8 owner should be able to copy it to the re-flasher or overwrite it with another flash.

However, I suspect that few people would want to deal with this. In an environment where re-flashing tools and maps are available, many people would learn how to make changes themselves. A community of "shared" knowledge of how to edit maps and tune would develop. There would eventually be many free maps that RX-8 owners could download and use.

The only reason why people tolerated the previous situation before in the RX-8 community is because there were NO ECU flash tools available. There were NO freely available maps and there was a very small community to evaluate maps.

You had to use 3rd party EMU tools. Which required expertise in and led to experts who knew how to use those tools. Often such experts would be Pro-Tuners that would charge people a fee to tune their cars. Such Pro-Tuners would be "secretive" about their knowledge or not make their map edits publicly available. Which was hard to do anyway with 3rd party EMU tools and differently configured RX-8s. Also, many Pro-Tuners often only got involved with FI type applications.

For NA, much of what was being done is changing when fans turn on, raising rev limits, or taking off speed limiters (in countries like Japan that have them). For such simple changes, Pro-Tuners would charge arguably outrageous rates. Simply because there were no tools for RX-8 owners to do it themselves.

Furthermore, the likelihood that people would want to share a specifically tuned car's map is low anyway. Because each car is different. So what will work on one car may not work on another car. That means precise and high-level tuned maps are not what is going to be available. Slight to moderate safe changes will be what people want.

There is still need for Pro-Tuners, because often they are the ones installing FI kits and then tuning the cars to work properly with their kits. This is something beyond what the average RX-8 owner can or wants to do, thus they pay a Pro.

However, small changes like fans, rev limits, idle, etc... are more what RX-8 owners would like to do themselves so locking a tuner flash to do this is ridiculous. You don't need a "Pro" for this. The expertise of the "Pro" is better suited for serious FI upgrades.

A "Pro" wanting absolute "control" over slightly modified maps, safe tunes, and their user's ECU is somebody trying to get "easy money". The place for the "Pro" is highly tuned maps to match the FI kit they installed (which they then got PAID for). However, it still does not mean they own the RX-8's owner ECU forever more. If a re-flasher/software company wants be only on the side of Pro-Tuners than they should not sell their tools to the general public and only to Pro-Tuners.

 

The ProTuner doesn't own anything but his own work.
If he wants to lock up his work so that it is not elaborated upon, that is his own decision.
If the end user wants to build on a tuner's work, than he should have every expectation to not have the tuner want his intellectual property co-opted.

Think of it this way:
A musician is hired to play on a record.
After he performs, he is paid and dismissed.
Then, the producer takes the performance of the musician, changes the sound of it electronically (or not) and then takes credit for the performance.
He then puts it out there and other professional musicians also acquire the performance, change it a little (or not) and sell it as their own.
Why would anyone hire the original musician if his best work is out there for free?

My take on it is this: The tools are out there. If you are competent/comfortable tuning you engine, then do it. I certainly try to make that as easy as possible by explaining exactly how to do it.
But if you are not, why should I have my work given away or utilized by other for-profit tuners?

 

this is going to be the wordiest unnecessary argument ever ...

 

True.
Its an intellectual exercise that won't change anything.

 

Settle it over a round of DDR... problem solved.

 

That is how the local gangs here do it

 

Our crew is more OG.... minigolf or beer pong...






Yo.

 

DDR?? Dance Dance Revolution?
That is so 20 minutes ago.
I think the current hit is "Guitar Hero III" or something.

 

I played GH3 with my son and his friend but I provided the real bass guitar backing tracks to their two guitars. The kids thought it was cool to hear real bass backing them up.

Uh-oh, I trhink I hear Team coming.......I gotta run!

 

Are you calling me old Jeff???

 

Leaving video games for a moment-

I am beating this dead horse for a very practical reason. There are at least two "normal" options out there to add a layer of protection to what may or may not reasonably be called intelectual property. I happen to think the discourse on what tuners should and should not own and control is VERY HEALTHY and worthy of the ink. For this response, I will concentrate on the mechanics of protection under the assumption that protection is warranted.

The first approach to protecting PCM contents is to obfuscate the access to the PCM so that no one else's tools can access PCM contents. This is the origin of the comment "even the dealer can not reflash your car". The tuner gives you a backup file on disk and the tuning tool company makes sure the disk file is encrypted and tied to your VIN. You can muck with your PCM all you want and put the tuner's file you bought back on the car when you are done. However, the tuning tool will not let you open the tuner's file without the files encryption password (which, presumably, the tuner has not given you).

The second approach is for all tools to honor a no read statement in the data section of the file in question. All tools could access all PCMs but the user could only create a VIN locked encrypted backup of the PCM contents if a no read was present. All tools would not allow access to the no read file for edits under any circumstance.

In reality, only WinOLS supports the no read option for very practical reasons. If you leave the PCM open for reading by any tool, you have exposed one tool company’s knowledge about firmware structure to all the other tool providers. It is one thing to get in the door of a PCM. You may be lucky enough to stumble upon the code to do so but it is an entirely different matter to know what to do with the firmware/data structure once you've got access. Just ask anyone that has played with the PCM data in OLS. Tuner's may have hours to a hundred hours in their tunes. Tool companies have hundreds to thousands of hours in their understanding of firmware and real time operating system structures so you can understand why they want to lock up all that work.

I really appreciate this dialog. Real tuning companies need to make real decisions about what they ship you. Some are long established and have developed their approach over many years. It is unlikely that dialog will affect their product; only market forces will bring change with them (and rightly so in my opinion). However, the new entries can be heavily influenced by reading this type of thread if only to hear the pros and cons of the different options.

Please, if you have an opinion, add it. Hearing both tuners and tool companies in the same thread is fantastic.

 

If the conversation offends you, please do not bother to read it.

 

Makes perfect sense to me and I would probably feel the same if I put the time Jeff has put into these files.

 

well here is where i like to put my foot down on the whole idea- thats MY car.

computer tools and flashes to the PCM are the exact same thing as wrenches screw drivers timing tights and carb jets.

if you work on my car You tell me what you did. if later i want to tweak it or have someone else do it i should be able to. If i want my friend to come over on sunday and we want to replicate (under the shade tree) what was done to my car on his- we get to do that and the mechanic/tuner who did my car has no say in it.

i paid him for a job and he did it. thats the end.

i personally feel that all the PCMs should be unlocked from the day you purchase the car and that the tool for modifying the pcm(tuning the car) should be as available from the OEM(either the car manufacturer or whoever makes the PCM for them) as the special filter wrench is.

seriously- what happens if a manufacturer goes out of business and your car needs tuning? or they just decide they wont support a car x years after its made?

as far as aftermarket companies-I understand the need for a company to make money. But instead of locking the flash installer to the car so you have to "uninstall" the tune/detune the car the device should be able to be "unlocked" for use on another car if someone pays a fee. That way i dont have to detune my car and i can sell the device. The new owner of the device can pay the fee and then use it to tune his car.

to me, Jeff's maps, Mazda's Maps, Darth Vader's maps are no different and should be no harder for the car owner to "see" than looking under the hood and see what jets are on what size carb and what the timing is set at with a light.

if i want to duplicate that on a second car for me , my son , my friend or some guy ive never met before i should be able to. you cant put a locked cover on my carb etc- you should not be able to put one on my pcm

 

To a degree I understand both perspectives but I tend to lean toward Zoom's view. My philosophy(and that which I use to guide my actions with BHR), which has been a point of contention with at least one other forum vendor, is 1) There are no secrets in this business and to try and "protect" them is a futile effort, and, 2) All this modding nonsense STILL comes down to human relationships and people are not necessarily paying for the exact tune as much as they are for the ease-of-mind that comes with knowing a reliable person did the tune in the first place. People can hack all they want into a PCM but that tune will still only apply to THAT car and THAT driver. When we tune, so much of what we are doing is making a particular driver's personal experience with their car one that they will enjoy and with which they will be comfortable. Look at what is necessary in leagues like NASCAR. Same track, same car but different drivers like different suspension and engine tunes.

BTW, patenting one's ideas and protecting perceived "secrets" are two different things. To patent/copyright a particular tune might be an interesting concept to argue about from many different angles.

 

I think there are different types of people that want different things...

I want to be able to play/look/alter etc...the ECU maps...more as an exercise in understanding..and for the mental gymnastics.

There are others that don't care...as long as it works....

Both camps will have there followers..and different company philosophies will fit into one or the other better.

I do not have a problem with companies and people protecting their work...as long as it is their work that they are protecting...

I don't think that protecting to cover up...or to hinder understanding is cool

 

Vote with your wallet.

If you want unlocked everything; then be willing to buy the tools that are transparent to you. Capitalism FTW.

The tune itself is not a product; it is a service - just like paying a mechanic to do your carb work for you. Additionally, by looking at the vehicles log data; reverse engineering a tune is not hard. But like Greddy's base tune; locking is also used as an electronic warranty sticker. If you remove the sticker then you are SOL.

Otherwise; people would monkey with the tune; break the car; re-flash the stock tune and cry for free help.

 

Kane has just veered into a topic that was a large portion of our discussions while I was in HI and why we are friends/business associates. Freedom, FTW!!

 

Ray, you are wearing Braveheart face paint right now - aren't ya?