^^^^^^ yes I think they will

 

I meant it more tongue in cheek than it obviously read, I wasnt and havent reported anything.
I am in the middle of dartmoor freezing my *** off using my mobile and I am struggling to find smiles.
You got your heater on Alan? May have to pop in an sit in front of it

 

Most diehard EcuTek mappers have already invested a lot of time as well as money in the software and built their reps with EcuTek. The majority may feel that swapping to OS would be some kind of climb down and might never entertain OS. In fact some of these mappers may well have started with EcuTek and moved on to others ECU's, and equally vice versa.

Some may well swap or incorporate OS if they start to lose significant amounts of business. Others may just start advertising instead if they felt the need to. Some might keep EcuTek for 99/00 cars and use OS tools to map newage and onwards. I've heard of a UK mapper already using EcuTek and OS side by side but i'm not sure that EcuTek would condone this.

All i know is mappers that first start to make their reps on OS will no doubt move onto other aftermarket Subaru related ECU's and will be just as well known as EcuTek mappers. This of course will take time and sufficient tenacity to hang in there and persevere while others about you are doing their best to hinder your progress.

So long as you keep to your ethics, provide the best service you can, and above all be professional.... you'll get there in the end

We'll see what happens in the fullness of time. Let your mapping do the talking

 

I couldn't imagine being on dartmoor as beautiful as it may be on such a freezing cold day as this. Jogging on the spot may help

No worries Simon

 

We have, it is 20 degrees in our office, lol.

 

lol returned to the car

 

Lol. He is not the only one that is not an auth trader in this discussion.

 

No one has to be to take part in the discussion though

 

Indeed.

 

Firstly my apologies for the very long post, I obviously have nothing but time on my hands today.

For me the issue of Open Source v EcuTek is a straight forward thing. When I invested in EcuTek software open source did not exist so there was no choice to make other than “do” or “don’t do”. As OEM ecu mapping became more widespread its limitations also became more understood.

I always smile when a thread extolling the virtues of one or the other appears as it appears difficult to find what can be considered an independent view of the two sides. Certainly this thread doesn’t appear, on the face of it, to be any different.

My contribution to the discussion then...
I think any serious tuner has to keep him(or her)self aware to what alternatives are being offered in his market area, different software can offer different opportunities and one set of tuning tools may contain a feature or option that’s lacking in another. I am very R & D orientated and devote a lot of my personal time to this, even this morning I spent a couple of hours with Iain Litchfield finally resolving an issue for one of his customers that has been dragging on for months and has had several other “notable’s” involved without success. How that was done I will come back to as it is relevant to this thread.

So I have all the open source software and hardware that is available and what needed to be purchased was purchased. I have spent some time looking at what it can and cannot do and have also used it to access, for information, more than a few vehicles, I am sure that others have and are doing the same even if they will not admit to it. I wanted to have freshly obtained files for comparative study, those available on the internet may, or may not, have been adjusted away from the norm.

As I am an EcuTek user I have obviously been able to compare rom information using the two methods side by side, like for like map comparisons are tedious but never the less given the amount of increasing attention that open source is getting then since “knowledge is king” it is necessary.

My concerns about open source software are orientated in two areas, one is technical effectiveness and accuracy, the other is a concern for the customers of those people who use open source to map vehicles without really understanding the implications and effects of what they do in any detail. Clearly in this respect there are differing levels of expertise involved, there are good and bad tuners on both sides judging from what I have seen in the past.

From a technical perspective, without getting into detail, my back to back assessments demonstrate that there is some inconsistency in what EcuTek software reports compared to the Open source option, this mainly relates to definition linkage in respect of what is considered valid for a given parameter or map. Having come across this, I have made some effort to sense check what I have been used to seeing and so far have not found anything to support that differences I have found in the open source derived rom files are actually correct. The fact that there are differences means I have, so far, treated open source with a degree of “suspicion”. Simply put I have not been prepared to take a chance on a customer car given I have EcuTek.

Before people get emotional over that, this is my view of things, cars are being remapped using open source and it can do a job. If a customer wants to use open source software for data logging purposes then my view is that there should be no real reason not to use it, I have no hang ups over that and a lot of my customers do this. There are also many individuals I am sure, who have decided they want to adjust their own rom files and do so to their own satisfaction, in that respect, they are happy to take responsibility for anything that may occur as a result.

There is another very good reason why I continue to use the EcuTek software, technical trust aside, EcuTek supports its dealers in a way that the open source community never could, speed of reaction to provide customer solutions when specific problems are identified is superb.

A couple of weeks ago a customer drove down from Sheffield to get his Legacy B4 remapped, he had, at my request, checked the ecu part number in advance and it should have been supported, when I plugged in to check things out the software said “no”, it was yet another new variant of a rom family that was thought to be completely identified, this was on a Saturday afternoon. We are stuck, car cannot be mapped, it’s possible to dump out the rom for identification and then adding into the software but this requires the support of EcuTek as there are security matters involved, a phone call to one of the EcuTek Directors resulting in him going to their premises in order to support the dumping, within 40 mins I had the rom file out, the customer then left without remapping as I needed to email the file to EcuTek for inclusion.
This I did on Saturday evening, early Sunday afternoon I had a new beta of Flash99 in my inbox with the upgrade complete, I was able to test a week later as I was travelling back past Sheffield from a weekend mapping in the North, box ticked and the car was properly remapped over the Xmas weekend.

The second example relates to the car I mentioned earlier, this vehicle had been acquired and then modified and remapped by an open source user, the modifications did not complement each other and the car would have been at the time virtually undrivable at low injector pulse widths.
The solution used was appalling, fuel pressure was increased to lock the fuel trims against the stops, this resulted in the car now driving smoothly but with so much fuel that the engine ended up a wreck. At this point I was asked to become involved and it became apparent that the customer would need to spend out a significant amount of money replacing parts already supplied in order to overcome the issue.
I had now remapped the car to run sensible afr’s and on load, the car’s behaviour was fine, however on low IPW’s drivability was appalling, this included idle behaviour as well.
The engine was replaced with a Cosworth based upgrade, run in, then again remapped, drivability still stubbornly impossible. The fundamental problem was rpm surge at idle and light throttle even when cruising.
We wanted to bottom out the root cause of the problem before the engine was replaced thus avoiding any risk to the new unit. The maps that could influence and assist in the resolution of the problem without recourse to new parts were not available in the software, discussion with EcuTek identified what could be needed, it only remained for them to do it. Given the severe problems that they are currently experiencing following the fire there appeared to be little hope of a speedy upgrade coming available, it was estimated that 8-10 hours of programmer time could be needed to properly identify and expose what was needed.
Plans were then made to return the car to the customer so that it could await the possible solution. Then out of the blue at 19:35 on 23rd December an email arrives containing a beta version of Flash2004 containing the required map definitions to provide access, the car was not returned as planned, this solution was successfully tested and implemented this morning, the car is now running perfectly normally.

So what relevance.. I guess for me the relevance is straight forward, by using EcuTek software I have rapid access, even under unsociable conditions, to solutions that allow me to support my customers. In both the above cases the open source community could not have offered any support at all and both customers would have been let down. Ok so open source does not work for the MY99-00 ecu’s, that’s true, EcuTek is the only current option but that simply reinforces the support point, even when in a monopoly position the support is there.

Everyone likes a “deal” and open source mapping doesn’t carry the overhead that EcuTek mapping does, however ...

The issue of locking ecu’s is, I freely agree, contentious, it’s unfortunate that EcuTek have been forced to implement such measures, as has already been pointed out if a customer wants to take his car to an open source tuner following an EcuTek remap he just needs to get his mapper to flash back the standard rom file and that process can go ahead, obviously the open source mapper does not then have access to the other tuners work, but why would he want that? (lol).

It’s my view that this is probably the most aggravating thing in the whole debate, I totally agree with the concept of free customer choice, I don’t agree with having other tuners benefit from my hard work though, but few tuners would.
In an ideal world the rom file in the ecu would be protected from access by another tuner (which ever tuning tools are used) but it would allow over programming at any time with another tuners map, this would be “ecu specific” security protecting the work of one but allowing any other tuner the ability to map the car from scratch.
Now that EcuTek tuners do have the ability to read roms out, only our own if EcuTek mapped, we are able to freely access and read the open source maps that have been programmed as well, so the boots on the other foot somewhat.
Open source was never intended to carry security, which belies the whole concept. Once it starts then you will have “locked” ecu’s on both sides as we are.
Given EcuTek have decided to implement the alternative security strategy then I believe the most used argument will have no basis.

Most people know that EcuTek are in the process of bring out their Race upgrade to the software for MY06 onwards, that will be a truly professional solution tried and tested thoroughly in advance of use, I am personally very much looking forward to this, so much so that I have just purchased a MY07 Hawkeye Sti.
I see lot of R & D sessions looming, I hate having to use customer cars to gain experience.
It was planned to be available now, however the resulting problems following the fire has put the program back by at least a month I think, it will be well worth waiting for, as a message to my customers I plan to make this available within my standard remap cost if requested, for existing customers a map upgrade at a nominal amount will suffice.

Finally, I see that reference has been made to a car which is thought to have a maf scaling concern, reading the posts it appears to be the White MY07 Sti originally owned by Dan Rhodes, a relatively heavily modified car including uprated engine put together by Tilley’s. This is a car I remapped, I can confirm that the Deltadash plots of the day did produce the numbers mentioned. IIRC it was pointed out to Dan that this sort of check is a guide and that the car could show up to 30 bhp lower on a rolling road depending on how it was run, also, and this is a point I always make, road measured torque numbers are always much high than those rolling road derived, this relates to application of load, the way a car accelerates on the road is the correct load impedance and a rolling road should mimic that, few do though.

No interest in opening the debate again, I map on the rollers whenever it’s appropriate to do so BUT always the car gets road adjusted afterwards.

So back to the maf, this car is/was fitted with an 80mm induction kit, I appreciate some tuners struggle with these but, for me, its bread and butter, I used this kit on my own twin scroll car for three years during which time I developed the maf scaling factors and offsets to a very detailed level. The gm/sec numbers that result are simply numbers, points on the curve, they do not relate to real gm/sec values at all, to consider what they are then ratio the value read by the ratio between standard and the 80mm maf tubes, then you have the true value, so in this case the actual max vale of air flow is more like 485 gm/sec, which is enough with headroom of course. In addition I actually tested and validated the conversion on a proper BS848 air flow rig.

I agree with Andy, the maf will support this car and its mods. The speed density option that will become available should make the full load tuning more straightforward.

Suggest looking at vehicles fuel system for root causes of the previous engines problem if it was considered to have run too lean. I do know that the original owner had the car back on mineral oil earlier this year in an attempt to improve oil consumption, probably not relevant but I always log anomalies.

Have a great evening whatever you are doing

cheers

Bob

 

Some very interesting points there Bob.

Are you able to build XML rom definitions for ecutek or inherit the defs from similar roms ?

 

^^^^^^ *gulp

 

I would just like to make it clear that my engine failure was not caused by fuelling or mapping issues. My engine had no compression and very high leakdown figures not to mention ridiculous oil consumption. I decided it would be more cost effective to remove and strip the engine before it decided to let go. I have been told by the people involved in reboring and rebuilding my engine what caused the problems and it WASN'T BOB RAWLE'S MAP.

 

What else would you do on the last day of the decade?

Possible reason for that may be that most of the people who have enough of an interest in the subject to get involved in an in-depth discussion have interests, or at least loyalties, on one "side" or the other. You're a bit of a rarity in being a tuner primarily associated with EcuTeK who openly acknowledges to looking at the options. There's somewhat of a contrast between your own position and, for example, Scott earlier in the thread, who has outlined the questions he was asked when applying to become an EcuTeK agent. Clearly, TeK would be biting off their own noses in trying to sanction you in any way for what you've said today.

Without knowing which parameters you're talking about, it stands to reason that if you put two groups of people in different rooms, both disassembling the same source firmware, it should soon be obvious to both sets exactly what offsets within the binaries contain map data, and which contain code.

However, it's an almost inevitable consequence of the structure of the ECU, and the nature of reverse engineering, you're highly likely to find differences of opinion on exactly how the bare hex values in the maps relate to real world numbers. Even something as simple as turning a byte value into a percentage introduces the opportunity for a bit of variation. As you say yourself the mass airflow values are a case in point.

Provided the conversion formulae used in each package are internally consistent - and ultimately result in the ROM being changed in the way the mapper wants, the actual units used across two independently developed editing packages are likely to be a little divergent. The only time it causes major problems is when one individual tries to seamlessly swap between one system and another. I guess that's an argument in favour of EcuTeK co-operating with opensource. Or using bare hex instead of interpreted values.

Your comments re. TeK's speed of response are noted Bob, but the 99/00 vs Newage/Hatch system tends to illustrate another aspect of the practical effects of the monopoly.

I believe I'm correct in thinking that the core functionality available to EcuTeK mappers on 99/00 hasn't changed in years - barring the compatibility updates of the sort you described just now. Meanwhile, we've had all sorts of new toys worked on for the newage and hatches - culminating in this RaceROM project.

Obviously the hardware differences on the newage ECUs gives latitude for development that the older boxes lack, but there is an obvious question: Would TeK ever have got into developing "value added" stuff on the newage ECUs if they hadn't been effectively forced into it by the open sauce brigade popping up, doing it first, and giving end users a positive, functionality-based reason not to get an EcuTeK map, over and above cost differences?

Has the cost of the 99/00 user licence been reduced in recognition of the fact that development appears to have ceased (and Tek must have recuperated the development costs many times over by now)?

Denying someone access to his or her own property is more than contentious - especially when apparently introduced without prior notification. Does a TeK customer have to sign a licence agreement (or some similar form of words) when you map, and if so, was the licence small print updated when the "locks" were introduced?

Is that something you guys in the network will voluntarily do on your own time as a goodwill gesture, or does Tek acknowledge or compensate you in any way?

Agree with you 100%. The practical problem is that EcuTeK have developed an entire industry in which the only form of "security" was the fact that they initially held a complete monopoly on the market.

The minute someone else worked out how to reprogram the ROM, almost everything EcuTeK have done, or will do, on this hardware platform is wide open to being pilfered/nicked by others. In an ideal world, ethics would be enough to prevent that happening, but they only go so far when the world and his wife can see that not only did Tek make a business out of it, so did their agents. By your own success you have set yourselves up as targets.

Although, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before one of the open source evangelists finds the tweak they discovered last month being dissemanated on some forum or other, so it will cut both ways.

I said this back about 20,000 posts ago. You can do all of that, no problem. But you can't do it with the controllers you find in your typical automotive engine control unit. And, the moment you try to lock something down, the moment you set someone trying to work it out, so you'd better make sure your security is comprehensive, and upgradeable.

Moot point. These ECUs were never intended to carry security, and neither, to any significant degree was EcuTeK. You are never going to be able to tack security of any significant sort - let alone the intelligent, layered variety you are discussing, onto the microcontrollers and microcomputers currently running car engines, they simply aren't designed to do it.

Any countermeasure that TeK attempt will likely be subverted within minutes by anyone with the determination to do so - and once the word is out, the word is out. Sure, you can build an aftermarket ECU, and equip it with all the tokens and encryption, and secure data links to secure software within the PC if you want, but that isn't what EcuTeK, so far at least, have been about.

Also, if you spend a load of R&D time and money developing an aftermarket ECU with all that complexity hung on it, none of which has any practical benefit to the end user, how do you justify it all (and the price it would sell for) in a market in which the likes of Solaris, Simtek, Motec and co are already established?

Mind you, going into hardware development would be one way to get one-up on the open sauce community - redefining what the word "Ecutek" actually means, as well as redefining the firm's business model. Would be interesting to see.

The suggestion that the open sauce side will go to locked ECUs is an interesting one. I can certainly see a time when some of the tuners might wish it was a reality - but by the same token, the very idea is contrary to the OS ethic - and there would no doubt be an equal and opposite reaction from other corners as a result.

Right, feckit, my head hurts. Merry new year all!

 

Same to you Splitpin and same to all!!

May all your heads throb tomorrow morning due to other reasons....Self inflicted of course!! I won't be as i'm dosed up on Anti-B's so please have one or two....Or even three for me. Cheers!!

 

Phew, I'm exhausted just reading it all.

"I'm all ouuuut!"

 

DITTO!!
What's really interesting though is that some "entities" seem to forget the origin of the programs being altered and the hundreds of man hours spent to develop maps with guarantees and no locks. Naturally, warranty is void after alteration, but I don't see them here complaining about stolen/ hacked software information. OS is not using acquired information for personal gain, but rather, giving the community an alternative.
It's Thursday evening.... Full Moon... New Years Eve...
2010 is going to be interesting!

 

Someone else did say that back in post #18 We would be blinkered not to.

All Ecutek licence costs are equal. In a similar way to most tuner custom mapping sessions are equal in price, some extreme cases may take days to get right, others just a few hours. I think customers prefer fixed price work but that may be an area to explore and may help differentiate between the genuine tuners out there versus the 'plug-in' and fingers crossed it works "lappers" (tm) That's not aimed specifically at any OS guys posting on here, more the "any car mapped for £250" type ads that you see pop up on the google ads.

Anyone I have spoken to does it free of charge in their own time.


Andy

 

Welcome to SN!

Are you ready for the ride?! It's a bumpy one...

 

Just to offer my opinion regarding this curious notion that open source software is less reliable than commercial software. Just because the ECUTek Marketing team don't publish their fault list to consumers, doesn't make it more reliable than Open Source. Given the below 'extreme' examples, I postulate that there is a significant probability that ECUTek software is less reliable than Open Source software (Note that I've not seen the full 'known bugs' list from ECUTek, so I'm speculating!):-

Linux is Open Source and is demonstrably more reliable than Microsoft OSs, the latter having had 100s of millions of pounds invested. In fact, for two decades, Microsoft ran their website on open source Linux.

A little known fact about Solaris operating system software (not the formerly named ECU), is that it's developed in the Open Source community as OpenSolaris and, many months later, sold by Sun Microsystems as Solaris - the most reliable commercially available operating system software available to enterprise computing in the world.

Back to the rather more primitive world of microprocessor controllers; if I used ECUTek software when remapping my car that would be '51 maps' X 'Cost of ECUTek License'. What would that be? £7500ish? ...Not bloody likely. And I've NEVER had any problems with Romraider, despite the published bug list. Granted I've only used it fifty times which, given all the features one might use, isn't really that much...

So, just to play Devils Advocate , anyone who thinks paying for software somehow magically makes it more reliable than free software - Not true. I speak with authority. I work for Ericsson these days and we get paid rather more than ECUTek to develop software. We have literally thousands of highly qualified professional developers working on many business and mission critical projects. Does getting paid make our software more reliable than open source? Definitely not. Do we tell our customers and give them the bug lists? Do we F**k.

Regarding ECU locking, the Denso ECUs are designed to be lockable, contrary to what has been said been said by some. However there's a diagnostic connector on the board, in some of them, which can bypass it completely. Not readily known about as one would have to pop a hole in the plastic case to use it. Not that I'd bother personally. I have the tool to unlock ECUTek'd ECUs.

As an aside I would suggest that the whole 'Commercial VS Freeware' debate is somewhat moot. When I started to learn about ECU mapping, I very quickly discovered that, for me, it was all about understanding the complexities of combustion, carbon chemistry, partial pressures and electronic fuel ignition systems. Debating the software is like arguing over what colour screwdriver to use when learning to build an engine. The professional tuners here (and I'm not one) will have intimate knowledge of fuel ignition systems and how they can be adjusted safely and effectively.

Whether the tuner uses commercial or open source software? I don't give a rats what colour his screwdrivers are. I'm paying him for his expertise...

 

You only pay for the license once..

 

Are you talking about the bdm port??

 

Can't recall the name of it. Ages since I looked. Went nosing after I got some info from Denso. It's a little block of freestanding pins like a mini centronics connector near the back of the bread board.

 

That's the BDM port and par for the course. Developers have to have some way of making changes and recovering/flashing firmware. They don't use an OBD port.

Been known about for a long time but it also involves hooking up other parts of the board as well. That's how Tactrix (manufacturer of the Tactrix Cable - Colby Boles) recover your ECU when you've bricked it.

 

Yeah I know Andy - I was bearing your earlier words in mind when I wrote the post - as I said, Bob's a rarity, not unique.

I was trying to highlight Scott's comments about the use of open sauce stuff apparently being used by Tek as a contributory reason not to grant an agency. By contrast, there's no way in a million years they're going to say anything to the likes of Bob and yourself. Seemed to be a bit of a double standard.

Yeah, I was asking purely as a question - without anything being implied. Again looking at things from a purely technical point of view, there appears to be a significant difference in Tek's cost base from, on the one end, Flash99, which appears to be pretty much locked now, and the RaceRom compatible cars where there's obviously ongoing development and expenditure, and where, in the final analysis, an EcuTeK reprogram will. over and above actual mapping changes, provide an enhanced codebase with more functionality than the ECU has as standard.

That isn't the case on the 99/00 cars where the only thing that appears to be altered is the map data itself - unless of course the tuner decides to start from a different iteration of the base code.

I can see the logic in flat-rate charging - especially as far as the mapper's time is concerned, but as you say there would appear to be some leeway for Tek to tweak certain elements of the pricing structure to offer better perceived value for money.

It's to your collective credit that you do that off your own bats but leaving aside issues over whether Tek should by rights be reimbursing you for the time taken to remove their questionable lock, it raises another interesting question. Surely if you are flashing a bog standard OE firmware image onto the customer's ECU, thereby returning it to the exact same condition it was in prior to receiving the EcuTeK remap, isn't he, morally at least, entitled to a refund of the licence fee?

Seems to be another of the unintended consequences of this whole "locking" palaver.

 

It depends what you mean by "lockable" but as has already been said, you are largely incorrect. The microcontrollers might have fusebits or some other mechanism on them that is designed to prevent ROM erase/reprogram, but the key point is that these mechanisms, if activated, are non-reversible.

Reprogramming the processor at runtime via serial I/O is only one way of rewriting the ROM, and even if steps are taken to alter or disable this, the other avenues remain in play. All of the processors we're talking about offer an alternative method of in-circuit programming - as it's the alternative that is used to program them from new in the factory. In most cases the test points on the PCB to allow access are still accessible for anyone with the inclination to work the circuit out.

Whether it's called a BDM port, RSIF, HSD or whatever the manufacturer might term it, there's always a way in that will defeat anything that might be done to disable reprogramming via the diagnostic interface. The idea that these processors can be selectively "locked" just isn't true in practice - at least as long as we're talking about general purpose microcontroller families of the sort currently being used.

 

That's one of the reasons EcuTek gave me for not allowing me a dealership. I'm already using OS/ECUedit software so they don't trust me, coupled with, I don't have permanent premises to work from so until i do..., and i'm too close geographically to Zen Performance.

Using OS is how i started, being mobile you don't need premises, and my personal/business ethics prevent me from stepping on my good neighbours toes. I don't want to p155 anyone off and certainly not Paul Blamire, he's a genuinely decent bloke!!

So how was Simon allowed a dealership baring in mind he doesn't have premises and is mobile only, and as has been posted on this thread by someone already, he used OS software before EcuTek, plus Sanspeed and CPL are just a stones throw away??

The money EcuTek charges for a dealership 'represents a considerable investment from their dealers' (their words), which i was more than willing make. Are EcuTek so blinkered and up themselves to think that someone would genuinely waste their time with free software when they've just paid thousands for a franchise and the latest commercial kit.

I don't know how long Simon has been an EcuTek dealer so i presume EcuTek didn't have quite so many reasons to say no back then, but even if they said yes now i'd happily tell them where to plug their flash cable.

It's their loss, not mine.

 

Hi there new best buddy Francis. A word to the wise.
Sometimes, when you're doing business with someone, you have to trust your instincts and go with a person you believe is going to help promote your ideal as well as take care of the complete interests of the end users.
Ecutek certainly don't believe it's you now, do they?

If I were you, I'd get back in my box, close the lid for a while, then just get on with business quietly and hope nobody thinks less of me for all that bile.

We make a point of getting on with other tuners/mappers as it's a very small and incestuous world out there and life being short, we'd rather rest easy with folk.
Well, most of them..

 

I'd just like to clear up that this was approx 18 months ago and it was clear to Dave at ECUTEK that my main interest was Flash99.
The deal was offered to take on Flash99 and Flash2002.
This IIRC (emails are on my other PC) was going to cost me approx £6000 but I would have to agree to stop using OS.

I did consider it and worked out the time taken to start getting a return on this investment.
The amount I map on a part-time bassis mean't that this would take a while and I wasn't sure I wanted to commit my time to this to the detrement of my young family.
This was also at the start of everyones money struggles, so I chose not to persue.

As it happen's I have, since September/October decided after 4 years to stop trading as Polar Performance due to changes/promotion and Full Time work commitments.....funnily enough as design Authority for Military Flight Software applications......and yes they do have 'bug lists'........

I am also now enjoying the time I can spend with my family and own car, and attending club events/meets without my laptop, toolbox, wideband and detcans...it's so much more relaxing

 

Dude, the bottom line is that EcuTeK is a business not a democracy. They can make their rules, change them, bend and break them at any time they want. It does, as mentioned earlier, seem a little random, but ultimately that's their prerogative.

Maybe they are that blinkered and up themselves, maybe there were other reasons that we are not aware of (and that were not obvious to you) why you were declined. Ultimately, any business owner can choose whether or not to deal with a potential client - just as you can decline the opportunity to remap a car if you had a feeling, of any sort, that it was going to cause you problems down the line. Just one of those things - and as you say, you don't need 'em nowadays anyway.