Another rules question

[jpreston]

Since there's currently so much rules discussion going on, I figured I'd go ahead and ask a question I've been wondering about for a while. I'm in the process of building a BMW and am generally new to the GTS scene, so excuse me if this has been hashed out before.

 

Why do the current rules require calculation based on wt/hp OR wt/hp+tq, and not solely the latter? It seems that there's quite a bit of time/effort/money put into running larger engines and maximizing torque to suit the current rules. It seems to me that classing all cars by wt/hp+tq would eliminate some cost and complexity from the series, while also doing a better job of making smaller, more fuel efficient motors competitive (something that's never bad in racing today.)

Edited December 17, 2010 by Guest

[sprytel]

[rabbit_diesel]

According to my understanding, when GTS first implemented a rule about weight to power, it was entirely WT/HP. Nothing about torque.

 

My speculation is that the racers facing a rule like that, began turbo-charging their engines in order to make a flat horsepower curve from some relatively low RPM on up to redline. I further speculate that someone, or some group, wanted to put a handicap on these engines, and the notion they came up with was 2*WT/(HP+TQ).

 

I can see why some handicap for some turbo-charged engines might be desirable, but in my opinion, the 2*WT/(HP+TQ) is a mistake. It applies an excessive penalty to engines that have their peak power at low RPM, the lower that RPM the worse the penalty; and high RPM engines get little or no penalty.

 

If one is willing to have a high RPM engine, one could have a flat HP curve from 5252 RPM to as high as one wanted to wind it. This is a loop-hole in the rule.

 

Will

[scottbm3]

According to my understanding, when GTS first implemented a rule about weight to power, it was entirely WT/HP. Nothing about torque.

 

My speculation is that the racers facing a rule like that, began turbo-charging their engines in order to make a flat horsepower curve from some relatively low RPM on up to redline. I further speculate that someone, or some group, wanted to put a handicap on these engines, and the notion they came up with was 2*WT/(HP+TQ).

 

I can see why some handicap for some turbo-charged engines might be desirable, but in my opinion, the 2*WT/(HP+TQ) is a mistake. It applies an excessive penalty to engines that have their peak power at low RPM, the lower that RPM the worse the penalty; and high RPM engines get little or no penalty.

 

If one is willing to have a high RPM engine, one could have a flat HP curve from 5252 RPM to as high as one wanted to wind it. This is a loop-hole in the rule.

 

Will

 

You do a lot of speculating.... The person that actually implemented the rule had a turbo powered car !

 

-Scott B.

[cstreit911]

Here's the thing Rabbit (and anyone else)

 

We are aware that the calculation isn't perfect... ...it would be challenging indeed to create one that leveled all things. ...but the fact is that it is clear and understandable as is. If one chooses to take advantage of it and build a 19k RPM motor, well okay. You just spent $90k to win a $5.00 trophy.

 

All aspects of GTS are like this. You balance your budget against your desire to win said $5.00 trinket.

[JSG1901]

Wait...you guys get FIVE dollar trophies? Damn.

[cwbaader]

Chris, I have already voted against this with my check book. A lot of verbiage was wasted on this subject in the last two years to no avail. This is the only series I have run that grossly misclassified my car.

 

 

There is more talk about GTS becoming a money class. Well, HELL YES!!! It was envisioned that way and the the hp/tq rule exacerbates the problem. I have said before, all we, as racers want, is a level playing field. Think about it. Chuck

[JS154]

I can see why some handicap for some turbo-charged engines might be desirable, but in my opinion, the 2*WT/(HP+TQ) is a mistake. It applies an excessive penalty to engines that have their peak power at low RPM, the lower that RPM the worse the penalty; and high RPM engines get little or no penalty.Will

 

This is where it becomes self correcting - the high rpm engines are inherently going to have a lack of torque, which is it's own penalty.

 

examples: Honda S2000, BMW E30 M3. The high revving, high relative hp cars have low torque. Stockish E30M3 will run in GTS2 - with 189rwhp and 145rwtq. What are the BMW E36 cars in GTS 2 running for torque? Lots more.

 

GTS3 - same thing. E36 M3's - cars runnning in BMW CCA I-Prepared

 

I'm talking about WT divided by the average of (HP+TQ). This would defintely average things out and level the paying field, but I don't see it realistically happening.

[scottbm3]

Chris, I have already voted against this with my check book. A lot of verbiage was wasted on this subject in the last two years to no avail. This is the only series I have run that grossly misclassified my car.

 

 

There is more talk about GTS becoming a money class. Well, HELL YES!!! It was envisioned that way and the the hp/tq rule exacerbates the problem. I have said before, all we, as racers want, is a level playing field. Think about it. Chuck

 

Try a Spec series, and when you do, you'll find out it's not level either. As for Money class, well if you want to be competitive you'll have to spend money in just about all forms of racing. It's just the nature of the beast these days no matter what club or series.

 

 

-Scott B.

[jpreston]

I hoped this thread wouldn't turn into the usual argument about GTS allowing too much spending, but I'm not surprised it has. Sigh.

 

All that I'm arguing is that, in order to have a competitive car, the current rule requires spending in an unnecessary way. I'd like to run a 1.8L BMW 4 cylinder in my car, but the more I think about it and the more people I talk to, it seems that (without a turbo, at least) I'd be shooting myself in the foot by trying to run it against the Porsches that run GTS1. They all have 2.5-2.7L 4 cylinder engines, and I'd be significantly down on torque. If all engines were governed by the same wt/((hp+tq)/2) calculation, I'd have a much better chance without having to go to a six cylinder.

 

Putting a 6 cylinder in an E36 BMW isn't going to be a tough OR expensive job... that's not the concern. I just couldn't help but wonder why the rules are written the way they are during the whole debate. Using solely the wt/((hp+tq)/2) might not completely level the field, but it seems like it would do a better job than the current split formulas while making it easier for people that have cars built for multiple series to be competitive in GTS.

[pmilli319]

I hoped this thread wouldn't turn into the usual argument about GTS allowing too much spending, but I'm not surprised it has. Sigh.

 

All that I'm arguing is that, in order to have a competitive car, the current rule requires spending in an unnecessary way. I'd like to run a 1.8L BMW 4 cylinder in my car, but the more I think about it and the more people I talk to, it seems that (without a turbo, at least) I'd be shooting myself in the foot by trying to run it against the Porsches that run GTS1. They all have 2.5-2.7L 4 cylinder engines, and I'd be significantly down on torque. If all engines were governed by the same wt/((hp+tq)/2) calculation, I'd have a much better chance without having to go to a six cylinder.

 

Putting a 6 cylinder in an E36 BMW isn't going to be a tough OR expensive job... that's not the concern. I just couldn't help but wonder why the rules are written the way they are during the whole debate. Using solely the wt/((hp+tq)/2) might not completely level the field, but it seems like it would do a better job than the current split formulas while making it easier for people that have cars built for multiple series to be competitive in GTS.

 

I used a 1.8L in an E36 at the end of last year in Greatlakes region GTS1. Yes, I was down on torque, but I was fairly competitive. My car was about 200lbs overweight for the class. I was down about 20hp and 30ftlb of torque compared to the front running 944's in the region. I hope to close that power gap this year, but I'm sticking with the 4cyl.

[JSG1901]

Paul is being modest. He was more than "fairly competitive," finishing second in the first race and, in the process, beating the about-to-be-crowned Great Lakes Regional GTS1 Champ in his aeroed out 944. Take out the 200 lbs and he would be MIGHTY competitive with his 4-cylinder BMW.

[John Graber]

Yes, I was down on torque, but I was fairly competitive. My car was about 200lbs overweight for the class. I was down about 20hp and 30ftlb of torque compared to the front running 944's in the region.

In GTS1 DOT trim 200lbs is 10.8HP, not 20HP or 30ft/Tq. And we all know when someone says 200lbs. it was probaly more like 100. Only the SD would know since he had the official form.

 

That said, yes all of these things come into play, but a great driver can win in any of these cars. Oh and by the way, the E36 has ABS that the 944's don't, plus they had much more drag with the big wings they were hauling around.

 

Wt/HP&Tq is only one part of a very complex machine designed to go fast, but it is an easy target. How about.....

 

Shocks

Sways

Aero - wings, splitter, smoothness, undertray, side skirts, nose...

Roll Center

Suspension Geometry

Driver Experience

Wt/HP - high HP&Wt vs. low HP/Wt

Torque peak and curve shape - Engine Management

Brakes - size, thermal capacity, ABS

Transmission - gearing, LSD, shift speed

Tire - Patch, compound, age

Should I go on?

 

When someone builds a car maximizing the rules in all the categories beside HP/Tq then I will listen to the Wt/HP or Wt/(HP+Tq)/2 argument again.

[pmilli319]

Haha I thought you would chime in John.

 

I ran at 131whp last year and my car routinely came across the scales at 2610lb. So, it wasn't exactly 200lbs! I thought that you and ed dynoed at around 150-155hp late last year. So, that was my reference to hp difference and why it didn't add up!

 

Why is it so freaking cold? I want to go racing now!

[John Graber]

Glad you're staying in GTS1. I heard Enzo was helping a guy build a 318 for GTS1 too.

We should have a good group.

Oh, and I believe my ho/tq is like 148.

[jpreston]

I used a 1.8L in an E36 at the end of last year in Greatlakes region GTS1. Yes, I was down on torque, but I was fairly competitive. My car was about 200lbs overweight for the class. I was down about 20hp and 30ftlb of torque compared to the front running 944's in the region. I hope to close that power gap this year, but I'm sticking with the 4cyl.

 

Wow... I somehow hadn't heard of your car. Coupe, sedan, or ti? I'm glad to finally hear some good info from other GTS1 guys!

[JSG1901]

Jeff...we have an excellent GTS1 group in the Great Lakes region where, I presume, you'll do a lot of your racing. Be prepared to bring your "A" game, though, as these guys are very fast.

 

Both John Graber and Paul Milligan, who have weighed in above, are very fast and very serious about car prep but they are not alone. Ed Baus won the Regional Championship last year on the last race of the season by, I think, a single point and Christian Cook, Brant Giere and a host of others are pretty intent on putting themselves on the top step of the podium this year.

 

The good news is, if you can win in Great Lakes GTS1 you can win anywhere. The bad news is you have to earn it. Hope to see you out there in April!

[jpreston]

Thanks Scott. I'll definitely be out there some this year... shooting to have the car finished by April, but my fingers are crossed pretty hard right now!

[cstreit911]

As above: A few HP isn't worth sh*t compared to the many other things you can do.

 

A number of year ago I did a money shift in my car. "While I was in there" I added about 50HP. (+ 20%) I gained an average of 1 second per lap. The next year I put on better shocks, bushings, better tires, and spent a lot of time on suspension setup. I gained 2 seconds per lap on average.

 

I'll take any number of things over HP. I fact I haven't touched the HP in my GTS car since I started running in the series 4 years ago. The car continues to get faster. I'm learning (still after 12 years of wheel-to-wheel competion) but developing the more important things in the car as I go.

 

Once again, no matter HOW we write the rule, someone will always feel it is unfair to them.

 

The key is, build to the podium, don't try and litigate your way there. (Not suggesting that's what you were getting at, I know it was an open question.)