ECU Flash rev limiter etc

[1973cb750]

I tuned a deluxe today first time doing a deluxe what a ride

---

his stock was 4 bike lengths behind my tuned 14 not its about 1 bike length when running them to about 100 mph

Oooh! Now do an EX! 

  i have done 2 ex's one ran great and the other the fuel map was slightly off   I have found the ex may have a half year diff in computers. I have removed the speed limiter raised the rev limter  and removed the restrictions ie the retarded timing in the first few gears but if you have a ex and want that done you would need a power commander and do the fuel your self the best option would be a auto tune set up or have it dyno tuned for the fuel side 

---

---

his dlx stock to my standard tuned was a vast difference my 14 would have 4-5 bike lengths on him to 100 mph now tuned its about a bike length diff i do have a open exhaust on my with a header and no cat

[Beardo]

Are we allowed to talk about this??

---

I meant that to be smaller...much smaller. BUT, now seems appropriate.

[1973cb750]

new forum new rules

[Beardo]

So, you are saying the gag-order has been lifted?? LOL

[MagnaRider]

I'd hope so myself! Considering this isn't a super popular bike, what's the downfall of discussing it?

[1973cb750]

So, you are saying the gag-order has been lifted?? LOL

Not sure i may be on thin ice lol

[Beardo]

So, you are saying the gag-order has been lifted?? LOL

Not sure i may be on thin ice lol

Already?!?! LOL

[1973cb750]

More than likely ive never been one to skate in the ring of law just on the outskirts one could say

[Beardo]

More than likely ive never been one to skate in the ring of law just on the outskirts one could say

Much appreciated!!

[Whoops]

Warning, this is a long read with lots of quoted text from the actual Congressional Final Ruling documents made available on the US Copyright.gov website as it pertains to gaining access to and the modification of the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a vehicle. If you want the key points, just read the red highlighted text.

The moderators for the original CB1100 forum made the decision to prohibit the discussion of ECU modification which, based on the DMCA rulings, was overly-cautious in my opinion. Discussing the subject is certainly not a violation of US Copyright law. Even if it were somehow infringing on Honda’s intellectual property, Honda would need to submit a DMCA Takedown Notice to the forum AFTER they determined that their IP was being infringed upon. Something that isn’t possible given the current rulings on vehicle ECU modifications. As it relates to discussion on this forum (and the old in my opinion), this type of discussion should not be censored.

What follows is a deep-dive on current US Copyright rulings as it pertains to accessing and modification of the programming inside the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a vehicle based on my interpretation of the US Congessional Librarian rulings. Just a quick primer on copyright as it pertains to circumventing computer programs that are encrypted or otherwise protected from modification. In 1998 Congress added section 1201 to Title 17 (Copyright Laws) that made it unlawful to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Every three years the Congressional Librarian is authorized to adopt temporary exemptions that will take effect for the next three year period. Rulings relevant to ECU flashing were made in 2015, 2018, 2021 and again in 2024. The US is currently under the rulings enacted in 2024 and earlier unless previous exemptions were revoked or modified.


In 2015, modifying a vehicle ECU became legal in the 2015 final ruling so long as the vehicle still meets existing regulatory requirements, such as the EPA pollution laws. The text of this ruling is quoted below and  can be found in PDF format here https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10...-27212.pdf

6. Proposed Class 21: Vehicle Software—Diagnosis, Repair or Modification

Modern automobiles and agricultural vehicles and machinery are equipped with systems of interconnected computers that monitor and control a variety of vehicle functions. These computers are referred to as electronic control units, or ‘‘ECUs,’’ which are protected by TPMs. EFF requested an exemption to permit circumvention of TPMs protecting ECU computer programs for the purposes of diagnosis, repair and modification of vehicles. The Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law (‘‘IPTC U.S.C.’’) proposed two similar exemptions for agricultural machinery specifically.

Based on these petitions, the Office included the following proposed exemption in the NPRM:

Proposed Class 21: This proposed class would allow circumvention of TPMs protecting computer programs that control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle, including personal automobiles, commercial motor vehicles, and agricultural machinery, for purposes of lawful diagnosis and repair, or aftermarket personalization, modification, or other improvement. Under the exemption as proposed, circumvention would be allowed when undertaken by or on behalf of the lawful owner of the vehicle.

Proponents explained that circumvention of TPMs protecting copyrighted computer programs in ECUs may be necessary to make noninfringing uses of those programs to diagnose and repair automobiles and agricultural equipment, and to make modifications, such as enhancing a vehicle’s suspension or installing a gear with a different radius. They assert that vehicle owners are entitled to use the computer programs in ECUs to diagnose, repair or modify vehicles as a matter of fair use, or under section 117. EFF argues that absent an exemption, vehicle owners must take their cars to authorized repair shops, or purchase expensive manufacturer-authorized tools, to diagnose and repair their vehicles. Similarly, IPTC U.S.C. explained that TPMs restricting access to computer programs that run agricultural vehicles and machinery place the livelihoods of farmers and other business owners at risk, because vehicle owners must sometimes wait significant periods of time before their disabled vehicles can be repaired by an authorized technician.

The proposed exemption was opposed by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers (‘‘Global Automakers’’), Auto Alliance, Eaton Corporation, GM, John Deere, and Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (‘‘MEMA’’). In general, opponents argued that an exemption would not facilitate noninfringing uses, and was unnecessary in any event because vehicle owners have alternative options, such as manufacturer-authorized repair shops and tools. They also asserted that the proposal presented serious public health, safety and environmental concerns. For example, users might circumvent in order to avoid restrictions on vehicle emissions imposed by federal and state law.

In light of the commenters’ observations, the Copyright Office notified DOT and EPA of the pendency of the rulemaking. DOT and EPA, as well as California ARB, responded with varying degrees of concern about the potential impact of an exemption. EPA opposed any exemption, while DOT and California ARB expressed significant reservations. The agencies’ concerns were focused on potential adverse effects on safety and the environment. For example, EPA explained that vehicle modifications are often performed to increase engine power or boost fuel economy, but that these modifications increase vehicle emissions and thus violate the Clean Air Act.

In contrast to these other agencies, NTIA fully supported adoption of the proposed exemption. NTIA believed that an exemption was necessary to allow consumers to continue to engage in the longstanding practice of working on their own vehicles, and that the non-copyright concerns raised by opponents and other agencies could be addressed by those agencies in the exercise of their respective regulatory authorities. NTIA acknowledged, however, that a delay in implementation—as recommended by the Register and discussed below— might nonetheless be appropriate to permit other agencies to consider and prepare for the new rule, and urged that any such delay be as short as practicable.

Based on the record, the Register recommended granting an exemption. The Register concluded that reproducing and altering the computer programs on ECUs for purposes of facilitating diagnosis, repair and modification of vehicles may constitute a noninfringing activity as a matter of fair use and/or under the exception set forth in section 117 of the Copyright Act, which permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make certain copies and adaptations of the program. The Register also concluded that owners of vehicles and agricultural machinery are adversely impacted as a result of TPMs that protect the copyrighted computer programs on the ECUs that control the functioning of their vehicles. The Register further found that while two of the statutory factors weighed in favor of the exemption (availability for use of copyrighted works and impact on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research), and two of the factors were neutral (availability for use for nonprofit archival, preservation and educational purposes and the effect on the market for or value of copyrighted works), the fifth factor—under which commenting parties and federal agencies raised serious safety and environmental concerns—tended to weigh against an exemption.

Overall, the Register concluded that while from a copyright perspective proponents had made the case for an exemption, based on the record, the exemption needed to be carefully tailored to address a number of concerns. Accordingly, the recommended exemption excludes computer programs in ECUs that are chiefly designed to operate vehicle entertainment and telematics systems due to insufficient evidence demonstrating a need to access such ECUs, and out of concern that such circumvention might enable unauthorized access to creative or proprietary content. The exemption also excludes circumvention ‘‘on behalf of’’ vehicle owners, as a broader exception allowing third parties to engage in circumvention activities on behalf of others is in tension with the anti-trafficking provisions of section 1201(a)(2) and (b). Moreover, by passing the Unlocking Act—which amended section 1201 to allow unlocking of cellphones and other devices to be carried out by third parties ‘‘at the direction of’’ device owners—Congress indicated its view that extending the reach of an exemption to cover third-party actors requires a legislative amendment. The exemption also expressly excludes acts of circumvention that would violate any other law, including regulations promulgated by DOT or EPA. Finally, in light of the significant concerns raised by DOT and EPA, the recommended exemption will become operative twelve months from the effective date of the new regulation to provide these and other potentially interested agencies an opportunity to consider and prepare for the lifting of the DMCA prohibition. Acknowledging the views of the NTIA, the Register determined that a twelve-month delay was the shortest period that would reasonably permit other agencies to consider appropriate action.

Accordingly, based on the Register’s recommendation, the Librarian adopts the following exemption:

Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.

Then in 2018, the following ruling was made specific to vehicle ECU’s. The full ruling PDF can be found here https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-10...-23241.pdf

5. Computer Programs—Diagnosis, Repair, and Lawful Modification of Motorized Land Vehicles

Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs that control motorized land vehicles, including farm equipment, for purposes of diagnosis, repair, and modification of the vehicle. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption to prevent owners of motorized land vehicles from being adversely impacted in their ability to diagnose, repair, and modify their vehicles as a result of TPMs that protect the copyrighted computer programs on the electronic control units (‘‘ECUs’’) that control the functioning of the vehicles. Indeed, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, which during the sixth triennial rulemaking initially opposed any exemption that would impact the software and TPMs in vehicles, now supports the exemption as striking an appropriate balance between encouraging marketplace competition and innovation while mitigating the impact on safety, regulatory, and environmental compliance. The petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption; each either represents or gathered information from individuals conducting repairs or businesses that manufacture, distribute, and sell motor vehicle parts, and perform vehicle service and repair.

In 2021, the following ruling was made specific to vehicle ECU modification. The 2021 final ruling PDF can be found here https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2...-23311.pdf

7. Computer Programs—Repair of Motorized Land Vehicles

Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs that control motorized land vehicles, including farm equipment, for purposes of diagnosis, repair, or modification of a vehicle function. The Office did not receive meaningful opposition to readoption of this exemption, and Consumer Reports submitted a comment in support of the renewal petition. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption. For example, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association ‘‘MEMA’’) stated that over the past three years, its membership ‘‘has seen firsthand that the exemption is helping  protect consumer choice and a competitive market, while mitigating risks to intellectual property and vehicle safety.’’ Similarly, the Auto Care Association (‘‘ACA’’) stated that ‘‘[u]nless this exemption is renewed, the software measures manufacturers deploy for the purpose of controlling access to vehicle software will  prevent Auto Care members from lawfully assisting consumers in the maintenance, repair, and upgrade of their vehicles.’’  The petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption; each either represents or gathered information from individuals or businesses that perform  vehicle service and repair. This existing exemption, as well as the existing exemption pertaining to repair of smartphones, home appliances, and home systems, serve as the baseline in assessing whether to recommend any expansions in Class 12.

Finally, in 2024 the following was entered into the final ruling which can be found in PDF format here https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2...-24563.pdf

10. Computer Programs—Repair of Motorized Land Vehicles, Marine Vessels, or Mechanized agricultural Vehicles or Vessels

iFixit and MEMA, The Vehicle Suppliers Association (‘‘MEMA’’), petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs that control motorized land vehicles, marine vessels, or mechanized agricultural vehicles or vessels for purposes of diagnosis, repair, or modification of a vehicle or vessel function. No oppositions were filed against renewal. The petitioners each represent or advise individuals and businesses that perform vehicle service and repair and have personal experience with this exemption through those activities. They  demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption. For example, MEMA stated that its membership ‘‘continues to see firsthand that the exemption is helping protect consumer choice and a competitive market, while mitigating risks to intellectual property and vehicle safety’’—particularly as ‘‘every year vehicle computer programs become more important and essential to today’s motor vehicles.’’ 49 In the 2021 rulemaking, the Register concluded that the ‘‘prohibition against circumvention . . . [was] likely to adversely affect diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of a vessel function for marine vessels,’’ as well as functions for land vehicles, including agricultural land vehicles such as tractors.

The Office did not receive any evidence indicating that these categories of vehicles and vessels should be treated differently in this proceeding.

In a nutshell, it is lawful to gain access to and modify the programming in a vehicle ECU so long as the modifications do not violate any other laws, such as EPA pollution laws. That’s the only way that tuning an ECU might be in a gray area. As we all know, the one source available to tune the CB1100 stopped modification of our ECU’s because they didn’t want to operate in that gray area.

Meeting EPA emissions laws are outside of the scope of this post, but since most states do not require motorcycles to undergo emissions testing, current EPA regulations regarding motorcycle emissions rely solely on the EPA rulings and requirements that were put in place for motorcycle manufacturers which they needed to comply with during the initial design and construction of the motorcycle. States like California or New York however, are likely exceptions to that statement since they have much stricter pollution laws than the rest of the country. Since the intent of this post was about gaining access to and the modification of the ECU as it relates to “tuning”, I am not going to go down the emissions compliance rabbit hole. If you want to read EPA rulings with regards to motorcycles, you can get started at the following website.
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emission...lution-non