Jump to content

Rule Change: Section 3.0 (GTS classing)

rabbit_diesel

By rabbit_diesel
in German Touring Series (GTS)

 Share

Shall GTS rules adopt the following...  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Shall GTS rules adopt the following...

    • 1) The GTS classing rule used to be weight divided by only horsepower, and should still be. Adding the (HP+T)/2 handicap section was a mistake; get rid of it.
      3
    • 2) Do not change the rule -- keep the (HP+T)/2 handicap as it exists.
      36
    • 3) Change the rule to be weight divided by the average horsepower between the RPM of peak horsepower and 25% less RPM -- keeping most cars in the same class they are currently, but moving the current outliers to an appropriate class.
      5
    • 4) The weight to power ratio is just an approximation of the acceleration capability of a car. For classing purposes, just measure the actual acceleration capability in seconds to reach a specified distance, then class the cars according to that.
      1
    • 5) Change the rule to apply the (HP+T)/2 formula to all cars -- give a great boon to high RPM low torque engines.
      5
    • 6) Whatever -- I do not care.
      1
    • 7) None of the above.
      1

Recommended Posts

scottbm3 Newbie

scottbm3

Posted
Posted

The rule is simple and works well for majority of the racers. Probably why 70% have voted to leave it as is. Folks always want to change rules to make a couple of cars more competitive. Not a good idea in my opinion. Each class has a range to fit your car in. Just because it doesn't fit at the best end of the class formula is not a reason to change the rules, but probably more of a reason to change your build and or class. Nothing guarantee's your car will be competitive. This is not a spec class. Just my opinion, ymmv.

 

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sstecker Newbie

sstecker

Posted
Posted

a turbo motor can easily ramp up fast enough so that under your proposed rules the 'average' is lower than the curve

 

peak hp 252 5800rpm

hp at 75% 4350: 150hp

average rule=202hp avg

current gts ruleset = 252hp

 

from 5k to 7500rpm hp is 20 to 50hp above the average

 

dyno_small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel Newbie

rabbit_diesel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
a turbo motor can easily ramp up fast enough so that under your proposed rules the 'average' is lower than the curve

 

Wow! The part of the curve that I named is not very representative of your engine, and probably not for a good many others. Like I wrote in paragraph #4, if someone can demonstrate a part of the curve that better represents the capability of an engine, that is reasonably easy to use, let's use it.

 

Based on your horsepower curve, it looks like averaging several points around the peak HP would be more representative. Sure wish I had a stack of horsepower curves on which to do testing, so that a set of points which would do a good job on all GTS engines could be found.

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RSCoupe Newbie

RSCoupe

Posted
Posted

This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

It would be much easier to change the cars to the rules, than to change the rules to work for every car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottbm3 Newbie

scottbm3

Posted
Posted
This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

It would be much easier to change the cars to the rules, than to change the rules to work for every car.

 

Well said !

 

 

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSG1901 Newbie

JSG1901

Posted
Posted
This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

Amen, brutha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel Newbie

rabbit_diesel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

It would be much easier to change the cars to the rules, than to change the rules to work for every car.

From what I am told the GTS classing rule used to be only (weight / HP) --- and then there was a big argument about adding the part about (2 * weight / (HP + torque). The people wanting the bit about torque, won and got it inserted.

 

Back then, were you against adding the bit about torque? Were you then telling the people that wanted the bit about torque 'tough, change your car, instead of fixing the rule'?

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RSCoupe Newbie

RSCoupe

Posted
Posted
This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

It would be much easier to change the cars to the rules, than to change the rules to work for every car.

From what I am told the GTS classing rule used to be only (weight / HP) --- and then there was a big argument about adding the part about (2 * weight / (HP + torque). The people wanting the bit about torque, won and got it inserted.

 

Back then, were you against adding the bit about torque? Were you then telling the people that wanted the bit about torque 'tough, change your car, instead of fixing the rule'?

 

Will

 

That was before my time, but if I had been around then, yes, that is what I would have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottbm3 Newbie

scottbm3

Posted
Posted
This seems to be overly complicated for an easy rule set. Keep it as it is. If your car doesn't work, change it.

It would be much easier to change the cars to the rules, than to change the rules to work for every car.

From what I am told the GTS classing rule used to be only (weight / HP) --- and then there was a big argument about adding the part about (2 * weight / (HP + torque). The people wanting the bit about torque, won and got it inserted.

 

Back then, were you against adding the bit about torque? Were you then telling the people that wanted the bit about torque 'tough, change your car, instead of fixing the rule'?

 

Will

 

 

Your comment has been mentioned before and that's not the case. There weren't any big arguments about the Trq. rule. In fact I don't recall any arguments about implementing the rule.

 

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cwbaader Newbie

cwbaader

Posted
Posted

Scott...EXCEPTION...there were over 20 pages of discussion about this very subject. And as I understand it, they are no longer available on this site. I even wrote the then NASA director about the change and was referred to Mark, who basically said he did not care what racers wanted, the rule was going into effect and he did not want to discuss it any more. I think that would be called "rammed down your throat". Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottbm3 Newbie

scottbm3

Posted
Posted
Scott...EXCEPTION...there were over 20 pages of discussion about this very subject. And as I understand it, they are no longer available on this site. I even wrote the then NASA director about the change and was referred to Mark, who basically said he did not care what racers wanted, the rule was going into effect and he did not want to discuss it any more. I think that would be called "rammed down your throat". Chuck

 

Chuck,

 

I don't recall how many pages there were. Hard to believe 20, but if you say so. I do recall there only a few that were arguing against it. Probably the same 3-5 racers that are wanting it changed now.....

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cwbaader Newbie

cwbaader

Posted
Posted

What is even more interesting is that there are non GTS drivers arguing for/against the rule change. If you don't have a dog in the fight, respectively bow out!!!

 

Not the same several arguing against..some of those have gone back to series for which their cars were originally built. What some don't understand...if you can use one car to race competitively within a couple of organizations, that is great. However, if you have a car that was built for a particular organization (SCCA as an example because they are what everyone else copied) and NASA or any other organization forces you to change your car to meet their rules, where are you going to spend your money? My legislated class is GTS2. There were a grand total of two cars at the NASA nats. The last three SCCA races I ran there were a minimum of 12 cars in my class.

 

NASA wants to grow and prosper as do all organizations. If you make the classes accessible to more cars you will have more entries. Broaden your field of view and you will see more. Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSG1901 Newbie

JSG1901

Posted
Posted
My legislated class is GTS2. There were a grand total of two cars at the NASA nats. The last three SCCA races I ran there were a minimum of 12 cars in my class.

 

NASA wants to grow and prosper as do all organizations. If you make the classes accessible to more cars you will have more entries. Broaden your field of view and you will see more. Chuck

Note that there were 10 GTS2 cars at the Nationals in 2008. Economy and track location took their toll in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSirota Newbie

JSirota

Posted
Posted
Scott...EXCEPTION...there were over 20 pages of discussion about this very subject. And as I understand it, they are no longer available on this site. I even wrote the then NASA director about the change and was referred to Mark, who basically said he did not care what racers wanted, the rule was going into effect and he did not want to discuss it any more. I think that would be called "rammed down your throat". Chuck

 

Chuck,

 

I don't recall how many pages there were. Hard to believe 20, but if you say so. I do recall there only a few that were arguing against it. Probably the same 3-5 racers that are wanting it changed now.....

 

-Scott B.

 

Easy to settle. When did this discussion happen? The internet never forgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pocracr Newbie

pocracr

Posted
Posted
NASA wants to grow and prosper as do all organizations. If you make the classes accessible to more cars you will have more entries. Broaden your field of view and you will see more. Chuck

 

Well Said !!.......Kinda like "Build it and they will come"

 

Sergio

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel Newbie

rabbit_diesel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Easy to settle. When did this discussion happen? The internet never forgets.

I went to the 'web archive' of the GTS website, and looked. I found that the rule change adding torque came in with the 2006 GTS Rules; the 2005 GTS Rules did not have it.

 

Next, I went to the 'web archive' of NASA Forums. It appears that the GTS Forum was begun near the beginning of November of 2004.

2004/Dec/3 18 posts

2005/Feb/4 42 posts

2005/Mar/3 48 posts

2005/Jul/10 81 posts

2005/Oct/1 130 posts

2005/Dec/1 109 posts

2005/Dec/17 185 posts

2006/Jan/10 327 posts

2006/Feb/2 420 posts

2006/Mar/7 525 posts

 

Even though the 'web archive' did not have copies of the actual posts, we can see that during the period when the rule change might have been discussed that the rate of posting greatly increased. This could be seen as tending to confirm the statement of the witness that there used to be 20 pages of discussion regarding adding torque to the classing equation.

 

Back then, I had not even heard of NASA of auto racing fame. Consequently, I was not one of those advocating for either side.

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...