Jump to content
116svvh

Is GTS a Power to Weight or HP to Weight Series?

Recommended Posts

116svvh

I propose we come up with a formula to account for torque to eliminate the BMWs' competitive advantage. Otherwise, BMWs are going to dominate the podiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole

We could assess weight penalty points based on a numeric value of each letter then summed based on the lengthe of the name...you know A=1, B=2, C=3, etc., then multiplied by the wieght compliance factor (say 2lbs for every point)

 

Porsche = 84 numeric points x 2lbs per point = 168lbs added

Bavarian Motor Works = far too many to count so lets just call it 400 numeric points = 800lbs added

VW = 45 numeric points = 90lbs added

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911

I support this decision fully. I am adding a rider to this bill. We should also add in weight penalties for ABS and traction control and a reduction in weight for the age of your car. Say 1 lb. for every year old it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Waite

It's a good thing we been using the term "P" cars so freely. That looks like 16 points to me!

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole
It's a good thing we been using the term "P" cars so freely. That looks like 16 points to me!

 

Brad

 

Actually, P-car sums to 38 (not including the "-", which we'll have to count as 46 pts.), so that puts you at 84pts, or 168lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116svvh

I was thinking the way to make the series more fair is to limit the rear tire size on BMWs to 205's. That way all the torque they have won't do them any good but their HP would still be usable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemming

I thought it was a weight to HP series otherwise you would be dealing with more decimals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCain

Porsche drivers get all the chicks, so leave us BMW guys our pity podiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Simard

The formula is an average of HP and TQ. Doesn't that already account for high TQ/low HP cars?

Has everyone here been doing that or have you used only the HP number in your classing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3
The formula is an average of HP and TQ. Doesn't that already account for high TQ/low HP cars?

Has everyone here been doing that or have you used only the HP number in your classing?

 

It's only an average if your Torque is higher than your WHP. If not then classing is based on WHP.

 

 

-Scott B.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemming
The formula is an average of HP and TQ. Doesn't that already account for high TQ/low HP cars?

Has everyone here been doing that or have you used only the HP number in your classing?

It's only an average if your Torque is higher than your RWHP. If not then classing is based on RWHP.

-Scott B.

 

I think quite a few people have been averaging even when HP is greater than Torque. At Barber this year there was a car running GTS3 that was pulling me down the straights like I was standing still. Started talking to him and compared HP and weights between our cars. He had 30 hp more and weighed 80lbs less. When I suggested that he car should then be classed in GTS4 based on wt/hp, he said that was only true if he didn't average his HP and torque, the latter of which was substantially lower. Needless to say, he ended up adding over 100lbs of ballast before the race

 

What I'm getting at is, I think racers need to be educated better on this rule and the directors need to scrutinize the dyno's when they are received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911

Personally I think that TQ should be factored into the equation always.

 

A 200HP car with 199# of torque is going to be faster all things being equal to a 200HP car with 100# of TQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cwbaader

Frankly, I think the hp+torque/2 sucks.....period. It classifies certain cars (mainly mine) to a class higher than it should be. NASA is the only classification where I have to run against SCCA classified ITS and ITR cars and even if I were to optimize my car for the class (actually pretty close according to the current rule) I have no chance on the straights. CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole

Would you like to have the ratio methodology opened to debate as a proposed rule change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Waite

Please no more rule change suggestions! Give it a rest guys.......we have a great set of rules that work very well.

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3
Please no more rule change suggestions! Give it a rest guys.......we have a great set of rules that work very well.

 

Brad

 

+1 Agreed.

 

Lets not start down a steep slope of trying to change rules that works so well for all, just because a few guys choose to run cars/set-ups that aren't the best fit for their class. Especially when trying to run two different series with a compromised set-up(which by the way is what I do).

 

 

-Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Child
Please no more rule change suggestions! Give it a rest guys.......we have a great set of rules that work very well.

 

Brad

 

Agreed. I'm afraid that we're creating the perception that its open season on our rules set which has been proven to work very well. If we keep this up we're going to start scaring racers away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

How about a penalty for last names ending with itz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911

Ian,

 

Yes I would like to see it. We should be a Power to weight series, not a HP to weight series. However NOT this year. We have enough to manage at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cwbaader

YES...YES...YES Car classifications should be based on industry standards. NO one else, I repeat, No ONE Else classifies on this basis.

 

I am, of course, concerned with my car. With the current classification, I run against ITS and ITR cars with SCCA classification. I have no chance. All I want is a relatively level playing field.. to be able to be competitive in my class. Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole
Ian,

 

Yes I would like to see it. We should be a Power to weight series, not a HP to weight series. However NOT this year. We have enough to manage at this point.

 

Thanks Chris, and I completely agree. Next year we will have a formalized process for proposal, discussion, and acceptance of rule changes that is straightforward, communicated to all, and allows feedback and input from sources other than the forums here. A lot of the suggestions that have been mentioned in these rule change discussions will be included (open period for discussion to include a forum poll to determine if it should be presented to the rule committee as a proposed rule change is an example of one that I really liked), to include emailing all GTS participants of the proposal period/deadline, where to go to comment, etc. so we provide the opportunity for all concerned to get involved in these discussions. I have suggested to John that this type of change process be included in all series rules as GTS isn't the only group going through this now (and if this process is similar across all series, it may merit inclusion in the CCR since it will be a universal approach to dealing with rule changes).

 

My intent in getting these discussions out on the table is to get the line of communications open and to get these issues resolved before we go into the build season (for those of us who live in regions that don't get 365 days a year of sunshine and have events in the first part of January). My recollection of last year was that the rules for the 2008 season came out fairly late in the first quarter of 2008 (again, my recollection, I may be mixing activities) and that there was some frustration as a result of the delay. I would like to have the rules finalized and published by the beginning to middle of December so there is no question as to where we stand and we can get under way with (re)building our cars and focus on the upcoming season.

 

I must say, that while these discussion may be disconcerting to some, I am overwhelmingly pleased with the outcome. The predominant voice of the GTS competitors is that "our rules are fine the way they stand and we don't want to see any changes for this upcoming year." This demonstrates that the series is on firm footing and the back and forth discussions show that the competitors are still engaged in assuring it remains a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer

Maybe a year of research into this matter. It would be very intersting. Really, it is power to weight, not horse power to weight. Hp is a calculation that takes RPM into the equation. I am not sure how that effects the overall power of the car and how that converts into straightline speed.

 

I know that I would rather have as much torque as Hp which simply means that I have more power in the lower part of my RPM band range than in the upper.

 

All this coming from a guy that showed up for nationals with a motor tuned to 233 tq and 234Hp.

 

I have three thoughts about rule changes. The first is that there should not be any this year. The second is that the proposed rule should researched completly, and the thrid is that it should not be decided by a web forum democracy.

 

Thanks

 

Ed Baus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RSCoupe
Would you like to have the ratio methodology opened to debate as a proposed rule change?

 

No.

 

Lets not start down a steep slope of trying to change rules that works so well for all, just because a few guys choose to run cars/set-ups that aren't the best fit for their class. Especially when trying to run two different series with a compromised set-up(which by the way is what I do).

 

-Scott B.

 

+1 agreed. I think it's getting a little out of hand, especially with the transition going on. Best to keep it simple for the next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dillehayd
Would you like to have the ratio methodology opened to debate as a proposed rule change?

 

Absolutely NOT! Not ever, in fact. Guy have and are building cars to the current rules. Guys have and are spending lots of money and time developing packages based on the rules. Major philosophical shifts in the rule - and this would absolutely be one - penalize people who did good work with lost time and increased cost. Rules creep is a huge, huge, huge downer and it's completely unfair.

 

We all have or had the same opportunity to build to the rules. Just because somebody else did it better doesn't mean we just change the game. I can think of few things more fundamentally unfair.

 

That this suggestion has any potential at all to be an "official" rules proposal scares the hell out of me.

 

And for the record, a car making 30lbs/ft more torque but 10rwhp more than me just started racing in my region. There is a very real likelyhood he's going to whip my tail. A torque+rwhp/2 setup would benefit me greatly and I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...