Proposed Rule Change - Dyno Certification Frequency

[CARVAL Motorsports]

My turn to chime in. If you look through the archives, you will see that this same sugegstion appears just about every year in the off season.

I am going to caution you and everyone. These rules have worked fantastically well. With the current undercurrents flowing through GTS, I would be very careful as to what if any change you may wish to present. You may find that you get more than what you bargained for.

As Scott Good suggested, in the grand scheme of things, the dyno certification from a monatary point of view equates to about a tank full of race fuel. If you turn your view around just a bit, utilize your dyno visit to assure that all is well and as assumed with your motor/drivetrain.

Please, be very careful.

[vinnymac]

I think we should leave it alone and continue to require an annual dyno plot. Our entire series is based on those numbers and I think the discipline of maintaining/verifying the results is a good thing.

[Jay Goldfarb]

As the GTS director in Florida, I would support not having to do a dyno run each year. I do feel that there should be a form that each driver has to fill out certifying the he or she hasn't made any changes to the car that would result in a change in HP or Torque.

 

Also, the dyno cert form should have a section to give weight of vehicle with driver.

[CARVAL Motorsports]

As the GTS director in Florida, I would support not having to do a dyno run each year. I do feel that there should be a form that each driver has to fill out certifying the he or she hasn't made any changes to the car that would result in a change in HP or Torque.

 

Also, the dyno cert form should have a section to give weight of vehicle with driver.

 

Jay,

 

Does Florida generally provide a trackside dyno at its races for impound? My take is probably not. How do you propose that you are going to ever govern your competitors and protect from cheating? That form you are proposing would be meaningless.

Why list weight with driver, it would vary too much just on fuel supply alone. Do the calculation from rwhp/class for minimum weight required, that is all that is needed.

 

Great Lakes GTS Director RET.

[911.racer]

Who cares how often. As long as you do not go over on the dyno. I would not mind stated Hp. Why do we need to be held to the exact number the dyno said once.

 

As I said in the 4% rule, if my car makes 230 on the dyno on dyno day maybe I want to say it makes 235 so I am not in trouble on race day.

 

Of course my MO this year has been to limp in a car with bent valves, a broken oil pump, cracked compression rings, more bent valves. I think that was it. The good news is that it only caught on fire once this year.

 

Ed Baus

Porsche 911

[Jay Goldfarb]

Carl:

 

Florida hasn't had any trackside dyno's yet. Up to area directors to decide if we can afford. We do have scales for checking weight coming off the track. We rely on dyno sheets supplied and weight declared. If car weight is less than declared weight for determing class than you know the rest... DQ

 

This is one reason why I want a section added to the dyno certification form to declare weight with the driver or car owner signing to attest to weight. The other method would be as you alluded to which is a minimum weight for the vehicle with driver after coming off track for each hp to meet the power to weight ratio for a class. My understanding of the rules is that the driver has to declare a weight for their vehicle.

[Lemming]

My vote is for no change, the system seems to work well!

[JSG1901]

My vote is for no change, the system seems to work well!

I agree, there is no reason to change the current system.

 

If Florida races want to use a different, less-stringent system, as Regional Director I'm sure you can make that decision. However, that same set of loosened rules would and should not apply to those same racers when they travel to another region's races.

 

This, in many ways, is the same question as the one about making an exception for the guys who own GT3 Cup cars and can't afford tp dyno them: It's a simple set of rules that have worked incredibly well for some time now. We SHOULD NOT be messing with them because a few people want to play but don't want to jump through the (minimal) hoops.

[MCain]

I'm in agreement that a yearly dyno is a good thing, but I think we could reword it a bit if you all think it is a good idea. Currently the rule reads as follows:

 

"It is required that all entrants have their car dynamometer certified before entering their first GTS

Challenge race of each season."

 

If your first race is the last one of the season, you will have to get a new dyno in a month or two for the first race of the next season. I have that exact situation with a racer here in my region who came into the series in October and will have to get a new dyno cert in January.

 

Do you think something along the lines of the following would be an improvement?:

 

"To be eligible to race in GTS, it is required that all entrants have their car dynamometer certified, at minimum, within the preceding 12 month period."

 

Thoughts?

[Lemming]

Martin,

 

I don't really have any issue with the "12-month" rule, other than to say that it will be much more work for the directors to keep up with. Are you going to check the dates on all dyno cert forms before each race to make sure that all racers are legit for the race?

 

I deal with this issue all the time as a editor-in-chief of a scientific publication. When a person subscribes to our Journal in the middle of the year, we either give them the back issues for that year or give them the option of starting with the first issue of the following year. Why? It's just too much work to keep up with. I think you will find the same.

[mmills416]

All I care about is a Dyno at Nats. If you are in the top 3 at nats you should be on the dyno and scales.

[116svvh]

All I care about is a Dyno at Nats. If you are in the top 3 at nats you should be on the dyno and scales.

 

In 2006, I got a dyno in September and then again in January. No big deal. If getting a dyno in October and January is too much for someone, they can wait until next year to race. The rules are the rules. The more exceptions you make, the more complicated it gets for everyone. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the dyno rule as written.

 

Overall, I think the rules are great as written. They are short and simple. Not difficult to understand or interpret. If you want the rules to look like the tax code, keep modifying them for every potential circumstance or complaint.

 

If someone is concerned about performance advantages due to some loophole that is being exploited, great, let's look at it. Otherwise, I say leave well enough alone.

[Keith Andrews]

I agree with many above the current rule is appropriate. I think you could add some words to the original certification that you are certifying you will not modify the hp/wt performance of your car for the calendar year and compete. I suppose you could add some teeth to those that might violate this rule. X number of races suspension etc..

[ELEPHANT1]

Whether you changed anything or not, you could have a variance of 5-10rwhp from one week to another. I think a bigger rule proposal would be to change the 4rwhp allowance to a percentage.

 

I have yet to see this in our region. Maybe a few hp variance but never 5-10 from one event to another. I guess the ones I've seen have always been swinging through their variance cycle at the same point each time. ; )

 

I still think more and more it's operator error/variance. Course that is only my opinion based on admittedly limited data in this region.

 

As for this rules request.....I just can't see why once a year is a big deal. I'll be doing it anyway, and probably more frequently than that, so I guess whatever. My vote, not that we're voting per se, is to not change it.

 

Cheers.

[ELEPHANT1]

All I care about is a Dyno at Nats. If you are in the top 3 at nats you should be on the dyno and scales.

 

ABSOLUTELY! Heck, probably top 4 or eve 5. Though I understand the logistical problems with this. I just don't understand how a class based on W/HP cannot have this checked at the National Championship event.

[ELEPHANT1]

I'm in agreement that a yearly dyno is a good thing, but I think we could reword it a bit if you all think it is a good idea. Currently the rule reads as follows:

 

"It is required that all entrants have their car dynamometer certified before entering their first GTS

Challenge race of each season."

 

If your first race is the last one of the season, you will have to get a new dyno in a month or two for the first race of the next season. I have that exact situation with a racer here in my region who came into the series in October and will have to get a new dyno cert in January.

 

Do you think something along the lines of the following would be an improvement?:

 

"To be eligible to race in GTS, it is required that all entrants have their car dynamometer certified, at minimum, within the preceding 12 month period."

 

Thoughts?

 

That seems like an excellent compromise. The only stipulation would be that, and the competitor should/would want to do this anyway, is to require it if there is a rules classification change. Some of you know there was a similar change to BMW CCA rules regarding annual tech's.

 

Cheers.

[MCain]

Martin,

 

I don't really have any issue with the "12-month" rule, other than to say that it will be much more work for the directors to keep up with. Are you going to check the dates on all dyno cert forms before each race to make sure that all racers are legit for the race?

 

I deal with this issue all the time as a editor-in-chief of a scientific publication. When a person subscribes to our Journal in the middle of the year, we either give them the back issues for that year or give them the option of starting with the first issue of the following year. Why? It's just too much work to keep up with. I think you will find the same.

 

You could be right, and I'm fine leaving it the way it is if there isn't much demand for changing it. My suggestion is a little nitpicky.

 

I don't think the logistics would be too difficult for me, though, especially if we require racers to have a copy in their logbook. All I would need to do at tech is look at the date of the dyno and see if it is current. If not, bump the car to GTSU. I'm used to dyno sheets trickling in over the season anyway as new cars come in or from returning cars that don't make the first races.

 

Really though, either way is fine by me. Just thought I'd float the idea...

[dillehayd]

MCain, I know who you're talking about. If he has a problem with dynoing in Jan, tell him to call me for the unofficial "tough shitsky" discussion.

 

Hell, I'm sure I'll talk to him in the next day or two and make sure he knows the touch shitsky conversation is coming.

[sstecker]

i dont have my nasa membership card but i think it has the month of membership. dyno date must be >= membership date? not sure but it may make paperwork easier - look at member card, look at dyno date.

[MCain]

MCain, I know who you're talking about. If he has a problem with dynoing in Jan, tell him to call me for the unofficial "tough shoo-shiddily-diddily" discussion.

 

Hell, I'm sure I'll talk to him in the next day or two and make sure he knows the touch shoo-shiddily-diddily conversation is coming.

 

He hasn't complained, and as much fooling around as he likes to do with his car, I bet he'd want to redo his dyno anyway.

 

Like I said, not a big deal either way really.

[Jay Goldfarb]

I would like to see dyno runs that done in December be good for the complete next year. In Florida we currently do accept dyno runs done in December of the previous year. Our reasoning has been that with the holidays and an early January event (Jan 10 & 11) it is difficult to get drivers to complete their runs. This year we will do the same. If I have a new driver for our December event his dyno run would be accepted for the 2009.

 

I would like to see this incorporated into the new rules.

[streak]

This is my first time with Nasa and GTS and I had my car dyno'd 3 times. The first two were shockingly high. Ridiculously high. In fact, according to that dyno shop my stock 86 911 3.2 only lost 1hp from the crank to the wheel. That's a mechanical impossibility.

 

I had read the warning on the GTS site that dyno's can vary 30 - 40% but I didn't believe it.

 

Maybe their dyno was adjusted to make engine builders feel good

 

The difference between dyno's with no atmospheric correction necessary was 20hp! That's an unacceptable margin. I was about to add 132lbs to the car or run GTS3 in a 200hp 3000# car! There's just no possible way that on Thursday my car was making 206 hp and on Tuesday it was 186hp.

 

I don't have any answers as those who are more experienced have a better handle on how this works but one bad dyno really screws things up and a legitimate percentage allowance makes sense to me.

[Lemming]

This is my first time with Nasa and GTS and I had my car dyno'd 3 times. The first two were shockingly high. Ridiculously high. In fact, according to that dyno shop my stock 86 911 3.2 only lost 1hp from the crank to the wheel. That's a mechanical impossibility.

 

I had read the warning on the GTS site that dyno's can vary 30 - 40% but I didn't believe it.

 

Maybe their dyno was adjusted to make engine builders feel good

 

The difference between dyno's with no atmospheric correction necessary was 20hp! That's an unacceptable margin. I was about to add 132lbs to the car or run GTS3 in a 200hp 3000# car! There's just no possible way that on Thursday my car was making 206 hp and on Tuesday it was 186hp.

 

I don't have any answers as those who are more experienced have a better handle on how this works but one bad dyno really screws things up and a legitimate percentage allowance makes sense to me.

 

I'd find another dyno, I've done quite a few over the last two years and have not seen it fluctuate more that 2-3 HP after the atmospheric correction.

[RSCoupe]

The biggest differences in dyno readings is between different dyno brands. Dynojet dynos read notoriously high when compared to dynos by Dyno Dynamics, Mustang, etc., which is why the rules state you should have you certification done on a Dynojet (I forget which model). It also depends on what correction factors are used, which the rules also recommend.

I had my last car tuned on a Dyno Dynamics dyno, with zero correction factors, and it put down 356 hp at the wheels with a medium tune, on a hot day. The operator told me that if I ran the same setup on a Dynojet, it probably would have been 425 hp, or more, at the wheels.

Dyno types, settings, maintenance, and the operators are very important in keeping things consistent.

[Trackrocket]

I say let the dyno rule be. If you join up with the series towards the end of the season, you'll have to have a current dyno...and you'll have to dyno again for the next season - period.

 

I'm from a region that doesn't dyno at the track too often - as a matter of fact I think I've seen it twice. I always volunteer for a dyno run at the track because of variance...at the 2008 Nationals, I received the largest variance I've ever seen with my car.!

 

Thankfully my weight figures were "off" and I was a bit heavy that weekend.

 

THIS, from the SAME DYNO as last year's Nationals!! ...there was an 8hp difference between Nationals 2007 and Nationals 2008 and I hadn't even changed a spark plug in that period of time. The only "modification" that was made was maybe 12 weekends of beating the sh__ out of the car...so, if anything, should've shown LESS power - eh?

 

Anyway, I agree with the guys who say "Don't fix what aint broke".

 

As for the variance rule, I'd go for a percentage, but NOT 4%?? ...that would allow a 9hp variance for my car...more like 3%, maybe lower??

 

"You better believe every P car and E30 M3 will be protested before they get off the trailer!"

 

As for the guy who is considering running in GTS2 who says he'd protest an E30 M3 or a Pcar before it got off the trailer - you haven't even raced against us yet...so hold your tongue - you might be surprised how well your car does against a well setup GTS2 car.

 

While I have factory HP, I have almost EVERYTHING that is allowed in GTS...a wing, a front bowplane, you can shift your weight around to balance the car (however you chose to do it...lighter body panels/lexan windows or moving batteries, etc.) ...and lower gearing. You want to make a car quick out of a turn?? ...it costs BIG bucks. So let's not overgeneralize about WHAT car belongs in GTS2, I ran in GTS2 for almost 4 years without any compliance issue.

 

Sorry, didn't want to sound like I'm trying to start a good "bickering" - just thought I'd clear up something with regards to the "spirit" of running in GTS...it's all HP -vs.- weight so that leaves A LOT of factors WIDE open...just ask Carl.