speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I agree - spark, fuel, boost - it's all you need. And the problem is that the rules currently allow for many cars to do this without taking ANY points, while other cars have no ECU tuning capability and have to take 3 points to do the same. In my opinion, this is an inconsistency in the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I agree - spark, fuel, boost - it's all you need. And the problem is that the rules currently allow for many cars to do this without taking ANY points, while other cars have no ECU tuning capability and have to take 3 points to do the same. In my opinion, this is an inconsistency in the rules. Good thing life is always fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It's not a hard solution, separate out the range of S2000 that have the crappy ECU and drop some lbs off their listing. Or we can make ECUs a free mod and have anyone not on a hp/weight reclass dropping $$$ on Motecs and crap to be competitive. Yay Or you could seek out a hp/weight reclass for yourself and use whatever you want to use for power and the rules don't have to change one bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This smells like Mugen hardtops... Does anybody know the percentage of TT cars that absolutely cannot tune their stock ECUs, vs. the percentage of TT cars that can tune their stock ECUs? While I have no scientific data, I suspect that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% vs. 99%. With that being said, is a TT-wide rule change, based on a very small minority, the right idea? If anything, it could be taken into consideration with the car's base classification. It's probably not enough to drop an asterisk, but maybe you could get 50 lbs back (the weight reduction equivalent of +3 points). Or, if you don't like the engine modification points, then you could always install an ECU of your choice and get a base re-class (based on HP and MCW) from Greg. Frogs and warts, frogs and warts... Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clydesdale Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I agree. The only reason I chimed in is because the WRX was pitched as a magical purple unicorn that has some whiz-bang ECU in it that was limitless. Its not. If you want a purple unicorn buy an Evo. Take this for what it's worth: TTB* WRX STI reclass 268hp, 3235# TTB+5 WRX STI base class w/ 100 octane tune 300hp, 3260# (Evo can probably do better) TTB* C5 Corvette base class w/ tune 305hp, 3246# What idiot would ever reclass a WRX? My guess is that Greg has taken some consideration when assigning base classing to a car with a flash capable ECU. Not so with reclassing in my opinion. I still say that all cars should dyno; that would pretty much make ECU a moot point as well as any other modification that provides disparate performance gains. As for Rob S. and the torque curves, I think he has a point, but if the torque curves yield the same area across the same usable RPM ranges then I would believe the cars will have fairly close performance regardless of where the peak occurs. Another thing to consider is that higher torque at higher RPM facilitates overcoming drag at high speed-- you just don't have a gear at 120+ mph that will take advantage of any low end torque. It works great off the corner in 3rd gear though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It's not a hard solution, separate out the range of S2000 that have the crappy ECU and drop some lbs off their listing. Or we can make ECUs a free mod and have anyone not on a hp/weight reclass dropping $$$ on Motecs and crap to be competitive. Yay Or you could seek out a hp/weight reclass for yourself and use whatever you want to use for power and the rules don't have to change one bit Sure I have an s2000 and it would be nice to be able to tune my ECU. I kinda wish I didn't display that in my signature, because some of the people on here are rude and don't ever listen to anything s2000 owners has to say. Anyway, I guarantee you the S2000 is not the only car in this predicament. Can I name them, no. Does it matter? no. The idea is to have a FAIR rule set. Granting some cars the ability to tune for zero points and denying it to others is wrong. Period. Yes, taking into account base classing would be a good way to do it, but it was not done that way. You worry about everybody running out and buying ECU's, but perhaps half the people you run against already have some sort of open OEM ECU anyway and are using it against you! Or are you one of those people? That would certainly explain why you're so against this idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Whoa there killer, I'm on your side in that yes, I see the same inequity you see. I am offering reasonable solutions that can be suggested to Greg and implemented if he so chooses. If there's anyone to be angry at it sure as crap isn't me PS - I garundamntee you that my 90s Toyota ECU has much less tuning capability than what's in your car. I haven't needed to touch it yet as I'm relatively happy with the a/f ratios and I'm on a hp/weight reclass and don't need to touch the ECU to hit the numbers I've been given anyway. But fire away if it makes you feel better PPS - I think you'll find if you do some searches that I often take the stance of "less rules creep" when it makes sense. Opening up ECUs to be points free is definitely rules creep, and it's not nessecary to open them up when there are a few other viable soltions to implement instead (imho). The free mods list is already too lengthy and too costly I feel. No need to add to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Whoa there killer, I'm on your side offering reasonable solutions that can be suggested to Greg and implemented if he so chooses. If there's anyone to be angry at it sure as crap isn't me PS - I garundamntee you that my 90s Toyota ECU has much less tuning capability than what's in your car. I haven't needed to touch it yet as I'm relatively happy with the a/f ratios and I'm on a hp/weight reclass and don't need to touch the ECU to hit the numbers I've been given anyway. But fire away if it makes you feel better PPS - I think you'll find if you do some searches that I often take the stance of "less rules creep" when it makes sense. Opening up ECUs to be points free is definitely rules creep, and it's not nessecary to open them up when there are a few other viable soltions to implement instead (imho). The free mods list is already too lengthy and too costly I feel. No need to add to it. I hear you, sorry if that sounded a bit cross. It wasn't all pointed at you anyway. Sounds like your Toyota and my car have the exact same tuning ability - absolute zero! I'm not really a fan of rules creep either, and for the most part am all for leaving them 'as is'. However, as much as I'm against 'rules creep', I'm more against 'rules inconsistency'. I think we have that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and I think the inequity can be addressed without opening up the free mod list, which would be win-win, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Mugen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and I think the inequity can be addressed without opening up the free mod list, which would be win-win, right? Alright, assuming one doesn't want a dyno reclass, how do you propose it can be addressed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and I think the inequity can be addressed without opening up the free mod list, which would be win-win, right? Alright, assuming one doesn't want a dyno reclass, how do you propose it can be addressed? get Greg to separate out your car's listing between the ones with the good tuneable ECU and the non-tuneable ECU which should recieve a weight or asterix break (probably the weight break). I assume you've asked for hp/weight reclass numbers and they came back unfavorable? I was afraid I'd get back poor numbers as well but they came back ok... about what I'd expect whp wise if I spend $texas on the free power mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Peak whp is only part of the picture. - whp increase over what range of engine speeds - torque increase over stock Boosted cars with reflashable ECU's take +5pts and can make +30whp and even more torque. Plus at 4-5K rpm it could be double the increase at redline. The graph I posted on pg55 shows the same peak whp at redline but 80whp and 100torque increase at 4K rpm on the pwr plateau calibration. This is definitely work more than +5pts. +5pts for an NA car is a header and aftermarket exhaust, which could make +15whp and +15torque if you're lucky. NA cars with reflashable ECU's => +0pts for +15whp and similar torque NA cars with non-reflashable ECU's => +3pts (aftermarket ECU) for +15whp and similar torque Defining "Power" as below would solve the pwr plateau calibration and maximizing torque issues whether pts based or a re-class. Plus it would level the playing field regardless of ECU (OEM or fancy aftermarket) and enable them to be a free mod for everyone! However boosted cars using straight pts still need to take +5pts because the whp increase with a re-flash or aftermarket ECU is still double that of an NA car......sorry! Power = (whp + wtorque) / 2 Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and I think the inequity can be addressed without opening up the free mod list, which would be win-win, right? Alright, assuming one doesn't want a dyno reclass, how do you propose it can be addressed? get Greg to separate out your car's listing between the ones with the good tuneable ECU and the non-tuneable ECU which should recieve a weight or asterix break (probably the weight break). I assume you've asked for hp/weight reclass numbers and they came back unfavorable? I was afraid I'd get back poor numbers as well but they came back ok... about what I'd expect whp wise if I spend $texas on the free power mods. I kinda doubt Greg would change the weight for the different S2000 year ranges, but you never know. Oh boy, he comes the hail storm... you shouldn't have brought that up! *_* No, I haven't asked for a hp/weight reclass yet - mostly because I would expect it to com back slightly unfavorable. Might be worth asking for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 you're not forced to run under the hp/weight reclass just because you ask for it. I hate hate hate this forumla, especially with final drive being open: Power = (whp + wtorque) / 2 Penalizes torque that isn't in a useable rev-range, and gives a break to low torque cars that can make up for that disadvantage already via gearing. Eff that in the ear, no offense. I still wouldn't be for it even if the final drive free mod were taken off the table (and that's a big one that should be pulled imho). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedengineer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Peak whp is only part of the picture. - whp increase over what range of engine speeds - torque increase over stock Boosted cars with reflashable ECU's take +5pts and can make +30whp and even more torque. Plus at 4-5K rpm it could be double the increase at redline. The graph I posted on pg55 shows the same peak whp at redline but 80whp and 100torque increase at 4K rpm on the pwr plateau calibration. This is definitely work more than +5pts. +5pts for an NA car is a header and aftermarket exhaust, which could make +15whp and +15torque if you're lucky. NA cars with reflashable ECU's => +0pts for +15whp and similar torque NA cars with non-reflashable ECU's => +3pts (aftermarket ECU) for +15whp and similar torque Defining "Power" as below would solve the pwr plateau calibration and maximizing torque issues whether pts based or a re-class. Plus it would level the playing field regardless of ECU (OEM or fancy aftermarket) and enable them to be a free mod for everyone! Power = (whp + wtorque) / 2 I agree rob. Perhaps another way to do it though would be to record the average hp over a range of RPM. Either of those would be better ways to do it, problem is, how complicated do we want to make it. You definitely brought out a great point about how much power and torque a boosted car gain gain with an oem ecu for just those 5 points. Consider this - some other boosted car that didn't have an open oem ECU would have to take another 10 points (totaling 15) do get the same results as the guy who got them for just 5... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Consider this - some other boosted car that didn't have an open oem ECU would have to take another 10 points (totaling 15) do get the same results as the guy who got them for just 5... No....I'm saying re-flashes and aftermarket ECU's are free for everyone (NA and boosted). Boosted cars on straight pts still take +5pts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I kinda doubt Greg would change the weight for the different S2000 year ranges, but you never know. Oh boy, he comes the hail storm... you shouldn't have brought that up! *_* If you email your question or issue to Greg in an intelligent manner, with data or links to support the facts, then he likely will not have a problem with taking your suggestion seriously and/or adding it to the 2012 rules. As an example, watch for base class splits/changes for 1987-1993 Mustang GT 5.0 and LX 5.0 sub-models next year, based on my suggestions. Just in time to ban Mustangs, right? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob S. Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) you're not forced to run under the hp/weight reclass just because you ask for it. I hate hate hate this forumla, especially with final drive being open: Power = (whp + wtorque) / 2 Penalizes torque that isn't in a useable rev-range, and gives a break to low torque cars that can make up for that disadvantage already via gearing. Eff that in the ear, no offense. I still wouldn't be for it even if the final drive free mod were taken off the table (and that's a big one that should be pulled imho). Don't get hung up on usable torque. Defining "Power" like this stops people from doing a pwr plateau calibration. The massive torque at a "lower" engine speed is a result of this type of calibration. Plus I will challenge your final drive arguement. With a pwr plateau calibration you should use a tall FD gear and short shift as much as possible to stay as close to max torque since the whp is the same from 4k - redline. Regardless of FD ratio, which curve would you rather have for a 310whp re-class? According to the current PT/TT rules they are treated as the same. It works......look at the competition in GTS. Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I kinda doubt Greg would change the weight for the different S2000 year ranges, but you never know. Oh boy, he comes the hail storm... you shouldn't have brought that up! *_* If you email your question or issue to Greg in an intelligent manner, with data or links to support the facts, then he likely will not have a problem with taking your suggestion seriously and/or adding it to the 2012 rules. As an example, watch for base class splits/changes for 1987-1993 Mustang GT 5.0 and LX 5.0 sub-models next year, based on my suggestions. Just in time to ban Mustangs, right? O Mark Just as I got my 88 LX back. CMC 2 with toyo payouts won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Just as I got my 88 LX back. CMC 2 with toyo payouts won't happen. Either Fox LXs will get a slight weight reduction or Fox GTs will get a slight weight increase. The current rules list them both as being the same, which doesn't account for all of the aero differences between the GT and LX (front fascia, side skirts, rear valence, rear wing) that should accrue points. I also requested for this: Ford Mustang Cobra ('93-'95) TTE* 3354 to be separated into these: Ford Mustang Cobra ('93) TTE* 3354 and Ford Mustang Cobra ('94-'95) TTE* 3354 Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awdracer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Record? For a run-on sentence? I think it is. Mark I concur. My post was only slightly less confusing than the rule... which was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Everyone really seems down on reclasses. I guess I got lucky. I went from being maxed out in TTE using the base class with a 205 RA-1 (back when they were only +5 and R888/NT-01 was +7) to having 6 points to spare with a 205 NT-01 (basically an 8 point swing in my favor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It works......look at the competition in GTS. If you like how GTS works so much, go run there and stop messing up TT & PT for everyone else. Enjoy the money spending contest! Didn't you used to run TTS? Why are you in TTC now, didn't like the $$$ you had to spend to try and run up front? I see what you're saying in finding a way to try and limit how much shaping one can do of their power curves. The way you're trying to do it I'm not a fan of however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awdracer Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It works......look at the competition in GTS. Awful example. GTS is a bunch of 6 cylinder RWD cars with unlimited money to spend on aero and anything else that would make them fast. The cars are similar for the most part. GTS is nothing like PT where we are trying to mix and match vastly different platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.