ianacole Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The rules for 2010 have been finalized and can be found here: http://www.nasagts.com/rules/2010%20GTS%20v1_1.pdf. Let the discussions commence Quote
B.Watts Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Going forward, it would be helpful to highlight any changes. IIRC, BMW Club Racing highlights changes from year to year in yellow and any mid-season changes in another color. It makes it easy to quickly see changes and to track changes over time. Quote
DBrehm Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Hey What happen! My poor old Merkur is no longer allowed to run in GTS Quote
Lemming Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 So, other than rewriting the equation for determining classes, where there any other changes? Quote
FlyingDog Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I've wondered this for a while and maybe it has been discussed before, but I missed it. Mini being included in BMW made me want to ask... Are Audi and VW considered the same manufacturer for engine/chassis matching purposes? Quote
Lemming Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I've wondered this for a while and maybe it has been discussed before, but I missed it. Mini being included in BMW made me want to ask... Are Audi and VW considered the same manufacturer for engine/chassis matching purposes? Might be able to throw Porsche into that mix as well Quote
Bruce L. Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 when I first looked at the formula for when torque>HP, the superscripted "*.5" looks like it is trying to indicate a square root. The text before it is unambiguous. bruce Quote
rlipner Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Really surprised to the Mini in there. Yes, it's owned by BMW but then would you allow Lambo in because it's owned by Audi? If the answer is yes then the definition of German Touring Car is a misnomer. Now, having said that I personally don't care if we have a EI (Euro Iron) vs AI (American Iron) type classification but GTS is simply not correct. Ask a 100 people what country does the Mini represent and I would be very surprised if something other than Britain is the answer. Quote
cstreit911 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I've wondered this for a while and maybe it has been discussed before, but I missed it. Mini being included in BMW made me want to ask... Are Audi and VW considered the same manufacturer for engine/chassis matching purposes? Might be able to throw Porsche into that mix as well No. Even though a particular brand of car may be under a holding company that owns several marque's, engine swaps are only allowed within a badged and titled marque. In other words just because VW made some engines for Audi, doesn't mean you can swap engines between them. Ex. If the engine you want to install in your Porsche was installed by the factory in a car badged and titled as a Porsche, you can use it. If the engine you want to install in your VW was installed in an Audi, and NOT installed in a car titled and badged as a VW, even though it was owned by the same company at the time, you still cannot use it. Quote
FlyingDog Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Since most (all?) of the current VW and Audi (and Cayenne) V6s are just evolutions of the VW VR6... what defines and engine? Bare block? Short block? Block and heads? What parts can you swap between them before you violate the engine rule? Quote
gimpstang Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Hey What happen! My poor old Merkur is no longer allowed to run in GTS This kind of pisses me off. The Merkur was sold a a german marque and was assembled in germany. Why does this not qualify as a german car? I've been building a GTS car out of a merk for a year or so now. Banning them without a good reason is really going to irritate me. Quote
cstreit911 Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Don't worry guys, there is no way we're going to ban existing members cars. Gimpstang, PM me your email address would you? Quote
Fred Crawford Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Hey What happen! My poor old Merkur is no longer allowed to run in GTS This kind of pisses me off. The Merkur was sold a a german marque and was assembled in germany. Why does this not qualify as a german car? I've been building a GTS car out of a merk for a year or so now. Banning them without a good reason is really going to irritate me. Thats what it looks like...... maybe someone should look at this. You are not the only Merkur around.. Fc Quote
sstecker Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Really surprised to the Mini in there. Yes, it's owned by BMW but then would you allow Lambo in because it's owned by Audi? If the answer is yes then the definition of German Touring Car is a misnomer. Now, having said that I personally don't care if we have a EI (Euro Iron) vs AI (American Iron) type classification but GTS is simply not correct. Ask a 100 people what country does the Mini represent and I would be very surprised if something other than Britain is the answer. honda is #2 and ford #3 in the British Touring Car Championship Quote
RSCoupe Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Really surprised to the Mini in there. Yes, it's owned by BMW but then would you allow Lambo in because it's owned by Audi? If the answer is yes then the definition of German Touring Car is a misnomer. Now, having said that I personally don't care if we have a EI (Euro Iron) vs AI (American Iron) type classification but GTS is simply not correct. Ask a 100 people what country does the Mini represent and I would be very surprised if something other than Britain is the answer. honda is #2 and ford #3 in the British Touring Car Championship But I believe the DTM is a german only marque series. (Audi and Mercedes Benz at the moment, and Audi, Opel and BWM in the past). Edited November 17, 2009 by Guest Quote
cstreit911 Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Fred, et. al. We are looking at it. Quote
ianacole Posted November 18, 2009 Author Posted November 18, 2009 Rules have been updated to include the Merkur...check the original link for highlighted changes. Quote
Lemming Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I'm still disappointed that the yearly dyno does not have to be on a Dynojet. If that's the case, why even bother having a dyno at all, let's all just make up a number until someone decides to protest or the NASA dyno's you. Of course, the latter will never happen in the SE, hell, we won't even weigh you. Quote
Fred Crawford Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I'm still disappointed that the yearly dyno does not have to be on a Dynojet. If that's the case, why even bother having a dyno at all, let's all just make up a number until someone decides to protest or the NASA dyno's you. Of course, the latter will never happen in the SE, hell, we won't even weigh you. Dear Tim, Before I start let me remind you I consider you a friend. Love and kisses. I agree with you about the variance in dynos. However if a racer has a dyno and he is in weight...... he runs the class. Period. If you believe he is running more hp, because he has used lets say... a more friendly brand dyno..... then all ya have to do is .. protest. The procedure is in the rules. Put your money up. Thats all. As far as Seast we will start weighing folks more often... but as you know the dyno is were one could possibly streach the rules.. Just protest or just race.. fc Quote
kbrew8991 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 the RFA (request for action) form is very easy to fill out. Gimme a call and I'll walk you through it if you want Tim Quote
Jim K in PA Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Greetings. New guy here. I am not new to racing, but new to NASA and GTS. I just acquired a car to prep for GTS-1. Since the rules are the first thing one should be familiar with BEFORE preparation begins, I downloaded and read the updated rules. I would like a clarification of the following: 5.1. Cockpit adjustable engine management systems All adjustable engine management systems must be declared on the Dynamometer Certification Form. OK - there is an inconsistency here, as well as ambiguity. The section title refers to cockpit adjustable EM, while the body of the text only refers to adjustable EM. Which is the correct characterization? In establishment of similar car preparation rules that I have been involved with, such language usually refers to turbocharged engines. This is due to the fact that adjustable boost pressure, whether adjusted from within the cockpit or elsewhere, obviously has substantial effect on engine performance. Hence, restricting or eliminating such adjustments are prudent to keep things fair. (Sorry - it's the other four letter F-word). However, within the context of section 5.1, it would seem that a manual choke can be considered a cockpit adjustable engine management device. Other series have allowed the use of simple adjustments of engine management signals like coolant temperature, since the net effect on performance is rather small. The way section 5.1 is written, it seems open to much interpretation. However, perhaps I am overstating the issue, and should not worry about it? BTW, I am not preparing a turbocharged car . . . yet. NA engines really should not be affected by this rule, with or without tuneable EFI. Thanks for listening. The flame suit is on . . . Jim K in PA Quote
ianacole Posted November 18, 2009 Author Posted November 18, 2009 Greetings. New guy here. I am not new to racing, but new to NASA and GTS. I just acquired a car to prep for GTS-1. Since the rules are the first thing one should be familiar with BEFORE preparation begins, I downloaded and read the updated rules. I would like a clarification of the following: 5.1. Cockpit adjustable engine management systems All adjustable engine management systems must be declared on the Dynamometer Certification Form. OK - there is an inconsistency here, as well as ambiguity. The section title refers to cockpit adjustable EM, ... Jim K in PA Jim, Please take a read through this thread and see if it answers your questions: http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=31254. If it doesn't please let me know and I'll attempt to further clarify Quote
Jim K in PA Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Thanks Ian. I did read through that thread, and it does not address the first issue I had. The definition of "Cockpit adjustable" should be pretty straightforward. If you can change engine performance from the driver's seat, it should be declared. Yes? However, the rule title includes the word cockpit, while the body of the rule text does not. So, if I have a boost knob, ECM control, Flux Capacitor switch, etc. on the dash or anywhere accessible while driving the car, it must be declared on the dyno sheet, yes? However, if I have an adjustment for boost pressure located under the hood, or a switch to change sensor ohm values on the firewall, I do not have to declare it? Perhaps I am picking nits, since if I declare the presence of any performance modulating feature located anywhere on the car, I meet the letter of the rule. But, declaring such a device does not appear to have any effect on classification, and failure to declare such a device does not appear to have any consequences. If the intent of the rule is to prompt full disclosure of ANY performance modulating device relative to engine management located ANYWHERE in the vehicle, then the word "cockpit" should be dropped from the rule title, and the above language added to remove ambiguity. Please fill in what I am missing. Jim K in PA Quote
ianacole Posted November 18, 2009 Author Posted November 18, 2009 If you can make an adjustment to output power between the checkered flag and impound, the mechanism for doing so needs to be declared ... if that's a switch on the dash, you have a means of opening the hood and adjusting a boost controller while driving your cool down lap, or have a remote control fob for it (Revo software). For the most part, this means anything limited to existing within the cockpit. Do I declare my manual boost controller? No. Do I declare my ECU software even though it requires a laptop and connectivity to the OBD-II port? Yes - the engine parameters can be adjusted from the cockpit. If tech sees me at my car in impound with a laptop, they know I can be making changes that would alter compliance monitoring. If you choose to declare an under-hood switch, knob, adjustment valve, it certainly wouldn't hurt. Quote
Members Eric W. Posted November 19, 2009 Members Posted November 19, 2009 As far as Seast we will start weighing folks more often... but as you know the dyno is were one could possibly streach the rules.. Just protest or just race.. fc Fred, I agree, however, this presents its own issues. If you protest someone, are you going to follow them to the offsite dyno? Too many things can change between a race and a protest dyno. Although, if the point is to get the competitor to present dynojet numbers, I dont see why it is an issue. Other than you being out $100 for the cost to dyno the competitor. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.