Pie in the sky rule change requests - 2012

[kbrew8991]

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.

let me show some math examples, let me know what you'd rather race with

 

230whp, 150lbft peak rotary engine (RX8) - under your formula it would have a "power" of 190. Granted that horsepower is only availbile up high in the rpm range, but with final drive being open it is just a quick check for a 5.XX gearset away from never being below 200-210whp.

 

190whp, 250lbft peak piston engine (roughly 90s 5.0 Mustang numbers) - under your formula it would have a power of 220. That torque peaks around 2,500rpm, which you never use on track - you're more around 3,500 to 5,500 or so. Basically useless torque. Even with proper final drive gearing to maximize the use of the power you're still going to do well to stay above 170whp.

 

Throwing the other factors considered in base classing out (suspension design, aero, etc) so that we can evaluate just your formula you would have the Mustang weigh MORE than the RX8. Very unfair. Even if you only apply the formula when torque is greater than horsepower you're still going to have a car that runs between 170-190 barley weigh any less than a car that runs between 210-230. Still unfair.

 

Go read up on how many people STILL complain about the hp+torque/2 rule in GTS.

 

I'm starting to like where your head is at on limiting the amount of shaping of power curves one can do within this ruleset if they're using a hp/weight reclass, but this route is not one I want to see.

[Rob S.]

 

 

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.

 

Sorry forgot the whole thing...

 

"Power," as used here, will be determined from a minimum of three consecutive dyno pulls, and shall be defined as:

 

a) the horsepower value from the single run with the highest horsepower reading (for cars with

higher horsepower than torque);

 

or,

 

b) the average of horsepower and torque from the single run with the highest average of those values (for cars with higher torque than horsepower):

 

This will cover ALL.

[kbrew8991]

And Ken you think it will increase cost.....it will actually decrease it. No more crazy torque monster NA or turbo builds.

 

What did I say?

I'm starting to like where your head is at on limiting the amount of shaping of power curves one can do within this ruleset if they're using a hp/weight reclass, but this route is not one I want to see.

 

Again, go look at my math examples. The RX8 has a lower "power" number under your formula, but would actually use significantly more power on track. Even if we apply the formula to just the Mustang, the RX8 still uses more power on track.

 

Again, go see how loved this forumla is in GTS. It really isn't, except by those who make the same hp & torque numbers already and aren't affected.

 

and again, I'm with you on trying to place limits on how people can shape their power curves but this is not a route I'd like to see.

[Rob S.]

And Ken you think it will increase cost.....it will actually decrease it. No more crazy torque monster NA or turbo builds.

 

What did I say?

I'm starting to like where your head is at on limiting the amount of shaping of power curves one can do within this ruleset if they're using a hp/weight reclass, but this route is not one I want to see.

 

Again, go look at my math examples. The RX8 has a lower "power" number under your formula, but would actually use significantly more power on track. Even if we apply the formula to just the Mustang, the RX8 still uses more power on track.

 

Again, go see how loved this forumla is in GTS. It really isn't, except by those who make the same hp & torque numbers already and aren't affected.

 

Sorry Ken I changed my post cause I forgot the first part of the definition. a). covers the cars with less torque so the whp value is used. b). stops turbo cars from making 2x more torque than whp and people from building torque monster NA engines......and levels the playing field.

[speedengineer]

 

 

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.

 

Disregard the GTS comment. I'm only talking about the ENGINE....not aero....not suspension, which does cover all platforms in PT/TT. You're missing the pt. Ken is sortof getting it. AREA UNDER THE CURVE! What does an NA dyno graph look like? The hp curve is increasing at some slope until redline or a flow limitation. How does this differ from a pwr plateau boosted curve? A pwr plateau curve makes the same peak hp from some lower engine speed (we'll say 4K rpm) all the way the redline. The pwr plateau curve for the same peak whp has WAY more area under the curve than an NA curve giving it an advantage. What does a really good NA dyno graph look like say from a larger displacement engine like a C5 (sorry!). Peak torque value is similar to the peak whp. The formula that Ken hates and you think should only be in GTS, forces torque to be equal to whp otherwise whp has to decrease. This is good! It stops turbo cars from making 2x more torque than whp and people from building torque monster NA engines......and levels the playing field.

 

And Ken you think it will increase cost.....it will actually decrease it. No more crazy torque monster NA or turbo builds.

 

Yes, you're exactly right that it comes down to power under the curve. Power, not torque, though. Honestly, torque has no relevance to road racing.

 

For example, lets say someone has a motorcycle engine that revs to 16,000 rpm and makes 200 whp. How much torque does it make? Practically zero. A 'torque + horsepower' method doesn't work. An 'average horsepower under the usable rpm range' does work, and it will be a lot more relevant.

[Rob S.]

Yes, you're exactly right that it comes down to power under the curve. Power, not torque, though. Honestly, torque has no relevance to road racing.

 

For example, lets say someone has a motorcycle engine that revs to 16,000 rpm and makes 200 whp. How much torque does it make? Practically zero. A 'torque + horsepower' method doesn't work. An 'average horsepower under the usable rpm range' does work, and it will be a lot more relevant.

 

Sorry I changed my post above. Both a) and b) need to be defined.

 

I agree Jason. Area under the curve is what matters.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest

[Rob S.]

Let me start over since I screwed up.

 

 

"Power" will be determined from a minimum of three consecutive dyno pulls, and shall be defined as:

 

a) cars with higher horsepower than torque; Power = whp

 

or,

 

b) cars with higher torque than horsepower; Power = (whp + wtorque)/2

 

 

Now discuss!!!

[kbrew8991]

GTS hates that rule first off

 

2nd off you still end up with the following, let me set it to a firm 10.0lbs per hp so you can see.

 

230whp 150lbft rotary - would use 230whp, so 2300lbs min weight. Has gearing such that it runs between 210-230whp

190whp 250lbft 5.0 pushroud - would use the formula, so 220 "power", 2200lbs min weight. Has gearing such that it can only run between 170-190whp.

 

I'll take the 100lb penalty to run 40whp higher on track!

[speedengineer]

Some thoughts:

Should any OEM ECU retuning be considered a free mod. If so, how do we account for the the fact that turbo cars can get way, way , way more power/torque than NA cars by tuning. Right now, they take 5 points because they are FI. Is that enough? Problem is, if we say oem tuning isn't a free point mod, how are we going to police that? We can't exactly force every car, especially FI cars to submit dyno sheets. And even if we do, who says they will run the same tune as they did on the dyno.

 

Since it is damn near impossible to police whether or not a car has been tuned via oem unless you do trackside dyno, it makes more sense to let ECU tuning be free for everyone. The question is how to balance the difference between NA and FI cars, since FI get such an advantage from controlling their boost pressure profile. Is the 5 points enough...?

[kbrew8991]

the +5 forced inducted cars get now was from the reflashes going from +___ pts to free (I forget how many points it was, it was a while ago).

 

if any ecu becomes a free mod I would suspect that would go from +5 to +10 (or whatever the spread is between ECU for na and fi).

 

you think we see whining now about those FI cars getting +5?

[Rob S.]

GTS hates that rule first off

 

2nd off you still end up with the following, let me set it to a firm 10.0lbs per hp so you can see.

 

230whp 150lbft rotary - would use 230whp, so 2300lbs min weight. Has gearing such that it runs between 210-230whp

190whp 250lbft 5.0 pushroud - would use the formula, so 220 "power", 2200lbs min weight. Has gearing such that it can only run between 170-190whp.

 

I'll take the 100lb penalty to run 40whp higher on track!

 

Why does GTS hate the rule? It's very straight forward.

 

I like your example but again you are not thinking about the area under the curve. I bet the V8 in your example would eat up the rotory; 100lbs less and way more area under the curve.

 

 

Let's make the example easier to compare:

 

W/ the GTS "power" definition (both RWD and 2300lbs)

230whp 150lbft rotary - would use 230whp since whp > torque

210whp 250lbft turbo 4cyl - would use the formula since torque > whp, so 230 "power"

 

Current PT/TT method (both RWD and 2300lbs)

230whp 150lbft rotary - would use 230whp

230whp 300lbft turbo 4cyl - would use 230whp

 

 

Which method provides closer competition? It seems like a no brainer.

 

The current method enables the turbo 4cyl to make more whp, more torque and way more area under the curve since it will make 230whp from 4k rpm to redline where as the rotary will make 230whp at 9K but 150whp at 4K.

 

Implementing the GTS "Power" rule would cause ECU's (OEM re-flash or aftermarket) to have less "value" and therefore make it fair for all to be free. The boosted cars would still need the +5pts because a re-flash or aftermarket tune will still yield a larger increase in pwr than for an NA engine.

[kbrew8991]

You go ahead and take the Mustang then from my example, enjoy the sight of my taillights! You're not reading what I'm saying anyway so I dunno why I'm wasting the electrons.

 

Where that torque peak happens matters - if its low enough down in the power range that you're not using it, big whoop. I'd prefer we look at horsepower across the useable rev range and not get caught up in this GTS formula, especially since with final drives being free for the most part we can re-gear our cars to stay right around a good horsepower peak (which is what makes speed, not a big torque number at 1500rpm).

 

So again, lets stick with those even 230 "power" numbers, but look at what they actually use one more time.

230/150 Rotary - 210-230 across the useful range

190/270 Mustang translates to 230 "power" - 170-190 across the useful range since the torque peak happens very low (2500ish) but it runs in the 3500-5500 range

210/250 turbo-4 translates to 230 "power" - 200-210 across the useful range (lets say they went for a power plateau so they can be a "class killer").

 

Your rule hits the "class killer" car a bit and it doesn't need to as it still uses 10-20whp less on track, but to boot it also really hurts the poor Mustang guy that can't use that power peak that happens so low in its rev range that it isn't useful.

 

There has to be a better way to manage this than the GTS formula that penalizes cars like a Mustang that might make a big torque number but can't use it. Lets find something so that so we can not hurt the Mustang, but can instead accurately assess the useable power every car makes.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest

[Rob S.]

You go ahead and take the Mustang then from my example, enjoy the sight of my taillights! You're not reading what I'm saying anyway so I dunno why I'm wasting the electrons.

 

Where that torque peak happens matters - if its low enough down in the power range that you're not using it, big whoop. I'd prefer we look at horsepower across the useable rev range and not get caught up in this GTS formula. There has to be a better way to manage this than the GTS formula that penalizes cars like a Mustang that might make a big torque number but can't use it.

 

I'm not trying to argue but look at the below graph and let's not even bring up torque at all. Let's say both curves made 300whp. Which curve would you rather have; blue or red and why?

 

[kbrew8991]

wasting more electrons

Your rule hits the "class killer" car a bit, but really hurts the poor Mustang guy that can't use that power peak that happens so low in its rev range that it isn't useful.

Where that torque peak happens matters

 

I'm out. If you can't get it, submit the rule and watch it get shot down anyway.

 

Or come up with a way to accurately assess a car's useable power instead.

[Rob S.]

wasting more electrons

Your rule hits the "class killer" car a bit, but really hurts the poor Mustang guy that can't use that power peak that happens so low in its rev range that it isn't useful.

Where that torque peak happens matters

 

I'm out. If you can't get it, submit the rule and watch it get shot down anyway.

 

Or come up with a way to accurately assess a car's useable power instead.

 

What's your suggestion if not the GTS "power" definition.

[speedengineer]

How about average hp in top 3000 rpm of rev range.

[Rob S.]

How about average hp in top 3000 rpm of rev range.

 

If it's 300whp from 4K to 7K then "power" would still be defined as 300whp. Or are you saying something different?

[kbrew8991]

not this formula

 

"come up with a way to accurately assess a car's useable power instead"

 

or with hp/weight reclasses, lock someone into how they're going to achieve that power within reason and assess each of those reclasses as to the potential for shaping/flattening out the power curve. Going to a turbo 4 - assume they're going to do a horsepower flat line. Going to do a V8 and restrict down - assume they're going to get not quite a horsepower flatline, but not a peaky NA type power curve either. Going with a rotary or other peaky type engine - assume they won't do much besides gearing to maximize their useable power as not much else is going to help.

 

Each reclass is already done individually and takes into account the type of car to accuratley assess suspension design, aero, etc, etc. Would just take a bit more effort on the part of the submittor to include their power plan, a bit of extra work on Greg's end, and a bit of extra work on the regional director's end to make sure the car matches their plan, but...

 

Wouldn't have come up with that idea without this debate, so don't think it was useless

[Rob S.]

not this formula

 

"come up with a way to accurately assess a car's useable power instead"

 

or with hp/weight reclasses, lock someone into how they're going to achieve that power within reason and assess each of those reclasses as to the potential for shaping/flattening out the power curve. Going to a turbo 4 - assume they're going to do a horsepower flat line. Going to do a V8 and restrict down - assume they're going to get not quite a horsepower flatline, but not a peaky NA type power curve either. Going with a rotary or other peaky type engine - assume they won't do much besides gearing to maximize their useable power as not much else is going to help.

 

Each reclass is already done individually and takes into account the type of car to accuratley assess suspension design, aero, etc, etc. Would just take a bit more effort on the part of the submittor to include their power plan, a bit of extra work on Greg's end, and a bit of extra work on the regional director's end to make sure the car matches their plan, but...

 

Wouldn't have come up with that idea without this debate, so don't think it was useless

 

Hey you're back!

[speedengineer]

How about average hp in top 3000 rpm of rev range.

 

If it's 300whp from 4K to 7K then "power" would still be defined as 300whp. Or are you saying something different?

 

YES! And if its 250hp at 4k and 300hp at 7k, with a straight line in between, then it is defined as only 275 hp!!

[Varkwso]

Torque not relevant in road racing? You have to be kidding.

 

HP is computed off torque btw.

 

Vipers coming out of the corners seem to use the V10 well.

[speedengineer]

Torque not relevant in road racing? You have to be kidding.

 

HP is computed off torque btw.

 

Vipers coming out of the corners seem to use the V10 well.

 

You are silly. Let me explain more carefully. Yes, the shape of the torque curve matters. What doesn't matter is the absolute torque ft-lb number. If you don't think so, tell me which of the following motors would propel an identical vehicle faster:

 

A high revving motorcycle engine that makes 200 hp and 75 ft-lbs torque

or

A low revving motor that makes 175 hp and 500 ft-lbs torque.

 

Shape matters - aka "average power under the curve". The absolute value of torque has no significance.

[Vinny]

my head hurts.

 

 

how about those sway bar end links?

[awdracer]

my head hurts.

 

 

how about those sway bar end links?

 

Stop reading this insanity and send Greg an email. Seriously. According to Greg, he puts all of the rule change emails in a file and they go through them during the off season. Other than that just make sure your bar isn't hitting something causing the links to fail.

[Varkwso]

Torque not relevant in road racing? You have to be kidding.

 

HP is computed off torque btw.

 

Vipers coming out of the corners seem to use the V10 well.

 

You are silly. Let me explain more carefully. Yes, the shape of the torque curve matters. What doesn't matter is the absolute torque ft-lb number. If you don't think so, tell me which of the following motors would propel an identical vehicle faster:

 

A high revving motorcycle engine that makes 200 hp and 75 ft-lbs torque

or

A low revving motor that makes 175 hp and 500 ft-lbs torque.

 

Shape matters - aka "average power under the curve". The absolute value of torque has no significance.[/quote

 

Acceleration or top speed? I do not think the curves exist for your examples. Remember TQ and hp cross.at the constant. 5252 I think