Jump to content

2010 GTS Rules


ianacole

Recommended Posts

NA engines really should not be affected by this rule, with or without tuneable EFI.

 

We have two tunes for our NA motor, one for GTS4 and one for GTS5...there is a 76 hp/14 lb feet difference between the two. Adjustable engine management most definitely has an effect on NA cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

hopefully not first off, but I imagine some creative use of seal tape might force them to be real damned creative if they were doing something untoward

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

Agreed, very easy for the crew to make changes to the tune before getting on the dyno.

 

My point is that if we are not going to use a standard dyno for the certification sheet, then why bother with the certification? Obviously this issue is a dead horse, so I'll quit beating it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Crawford

 

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.

 

Great point and I aggree... it is not the best system, but thats what we have. I believe the GTS director is responsible at that point to make sure all protest rules are followed. Thats all I can do as a racer. It will be an inconvience for all parties involved... I do think this ( protest) will make a racer think twice about bending the rules... who wants to be called a cheater and or proven a cheater...

 

Its all we got. It is very hard for many many people to get to a certain brand dyno, I am lucky a dynojet is at my back door.... when I'm not blowed up

 

Fc

 

Fc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Crawford

 

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.

 

 

Agreed, very easy for the crew to make changes to the tune before getting on the dyno.

 

My point is that if we are not going to use a standard dyno for the certification sheet, then why bother with the certification? Obviously this issue is a dead horse, so I'll quit beating it

 

Tim,

 

you need certification of some type on Hp and weight, you know that. If someone wants to cheat... they will. This system we have, as I see it, just trys to keep everyone honest, is it perfect .. no. This is amature racing , keep it all in perspective.

How many folks did you want to protest this year.... I think 3 maybe. If I was that unhappy I would consider moving on to another group...... however I would have a tough time finding a place better than GTs and the local Nasa folks. Hang in there

 

Fc

Your Friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tim,

 

you need certification of some type on Hp and weight, you know that. If someone wants to cheat... they will. This system we have, as I see it, just trys to keep everyone honest, is it perfect .. no. This is amature racing , keep it all in perspective.

How many folks did you want to protest this year.... I think 3 maybe. If I was that unhappy I would consider moving on to another group...... however I would have a tough time finding a place better than GTs and the local Nasa folks. Hang in there

 

Fc

Your Friend

 

No, only one that was using a non-dynojet certification, everyone knew the car was classed incorrectly, but nothing was done about it. The car now appears to be classed correctly, but I believe that was corrected by Mid-Atlantic, not by SE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Crawford

 

Tim,

 

you need certification of some type on Hp and weight, you know that. If someone wants to cheat... they will. This system we have, as I see it, just trys to keep everyone honest, is it perfect .. no. This is amature racing , keep it all in perspective.

How many folks did you want to protest this year.... I think 3 maybe. If I was that unhappy I would consider moving on to another group...... however I would have a tough time finding a place better than GTs and the local Nasa folks. Hang in there

 

Fc

Your Friend

 

No, only one that was using a non-dynojet certification, everyone knew the car was classed incorrectly, but nothing was done about it. The car now appears to be classed correctly, but I believe that was corrected by Mid-Atlantic, not by SE.

 

I saw the dyno sheet and saw the weight he claimed.... I am not the director, so I don't want to speak out of turn.... but my math put him in 3rd. However as said thats not the only car.

My point was if one wants to cheat they can, anywhere, keep this in perspective. Nothing was done because .... his dyno sheet (legal) and weight claim put him in 3.There was nothing to do He moved back up to 4 voluntary, retuned his car changed weight... he said he did not want the clould above his head. He still runs a Mustang dyno. So if he is still cheating do you want to persure it furture. Or because he is out of you class he is ok.

And this is not the only car you have had issues with. Its like I tell my beloved dog, even if I knows he will not bite, if he continues barking, he will never make friends.

 

Fc

Still ur buddy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K in PA

Thanks for the clarification Ian. I understand what you are saying. I suppose the rule language inconsistency is just something I picked up on, and is not an issue in general.

 

I really am looking forward to racing with NASA, and GTS in particular. I have been away from the track longer than I wanted, and miss it very much. When I looked into my options for returning, GTS was the hands-down winner as far as simplicity and fun-to-run. I can start small (slow) and work my way up, if and when I choose, without having to worry about my car being disallowed due to performance upgrades. It looks like NASA came up with a great system.

 

Thanks again.

 

Jim K

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K in PA

Thank you for the correction Mr. Watts. I had not really considered "de-optimizing" as a means of opening up opportunities to run in slower classes. Great idea.

 

I also have never built or run a car with the performance levels your car obviously has, which clearly has more room for adjustment.

 

Jim K

 

NA engines really should not be affected by this rule, with or without tuneable EFI.

 

We have two tunes for our NA motor, one for GTS4 and one for GTS5...there is a 76 hp/14 lb feet difference between the two. Adjustable engine management most definitely has an effect on NA cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the correction Mr. Watts. I had not really considered "de-optimizing" as a means of opening up opportunities to run in slower classes. Great idea.

 

I also have never built or run a car with the performance levels your car obviously has, which clearly has more room for adjustment.

 

Having electronically adjustable dual VANOS (cam timing) certainly helps with being able to setups two different tunes with different power peaks. It's nice to show up to the track knowing you can pick the class with the best competition on a given weekend. 30 seconds to upload a new tune, a few minutes to change from slicks to DOT's, a little bit of weight adjustment with fuel, and we can either run in the middle of the GTS5's power/weight or right at the top of GTS4.

 

That said, the reasoning for the declaration rule is to prevent someone from running GTS4 with a "GTS5" tune and then switching back to the GTS4 tune before going to the dyno at the track to have their power checked. It's simple to do and could be something as easy as a "fan switch" on the dash.

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...