Jump to content
JSG1901

2012 RULES PROPOSAL 2: All-wheel drive cars

Recommended Posts

JSG1901

There were two proposals related to AWD cars which are so diametrically opposed I thought it probably made more sense to discuss them together. BE SURE TO READ BOTH. They are:

 

-------

 

Proposal: Eliminate AWD vehicles from GTS Class

Reason: No enforceable scrutinization methods available.

 

-------

 

Proposal: Allow alternate dynos to be used.

 

Reason: AWD cars require AWD dynos, and Dynojet AWD dynos are few and far between. There is one, maybe two, in the Chicago area, and are expensive and very difficult to get time on. Other than Chicago, the nearest to this area is Green Bay (a 4 hour drive).

 

A dyno sheet from a Dynojet is pretty much worthless, since the tune can be changed afterword with very little concern about an AWD dyno being at the track.

 

My proposed wording is taken from the rules for Performance Touring (PT).

 

Proposed wording: Dynamometer tests must be conducted on a Dynojet Model 248 or 224 for front and rear wheel drive vehicles, and on a Dynojet, Mustang, Dyno Dynamics, or Dynapack for AWD cars, in a commercial facility that offers dynamometer testing as part of their business and is open to the public. All Dyno test results using a Mustang dynamometer will have 10% added to the maximum horsepower reading to obtain the number that will be used to calculate the “Adjusted” Weight/Power Ratio (Mustang Dyno awhp x 1.1 = Maximum awhp for wt/hp calculation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

Kind of torn on this one. Nothing against the AWD cars or the drivers, but if you can't be checked for compliance at the track, that kind of defeats the purpose of having Power to weight classing in the first place. I know the rules have a section about having the car tested later if someone protests, but really how is that going to be enforced ?

 

 

-Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I think NASA should create an AWD class, following similar or expanded rules to the current PT/ST rule set.

This will put the cars into a single class where the scuritinization can be equal across all participants. Although I have not competed against an AWD car, I do not feel it is fair to hold a 2WD car to a different level of review than a 4wd car in the same race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist
I think NASA should create an AWD class, following similar or expanded rules to the current PT/ST rule set.

This will put the cars into a single class where the scuritinization can be equal across all participants. Although I have not competed against an AWD car, I do not feel it is fair to hold a 2WD car to a different level of review than a 4wd car in the same race.

 

Great idea here. If they can't be checked for compliance, they shouldn't be in the group. Power to weight works pretty good, compromising that would tear some of that down IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vlamgat
I think NASA should create an AWD class, following similar or expanded rules to the current PT/ST rule set.

This will put the cars into a single class where the scuritinization can be equal across all participants. Although I have not competed against an AWD car, I do not feel it is fair to hold a 2WD car to a different level of review than a 4wd car in the same race.

 

This has been a thorn in the proverbial side since Audi cleaned up Trans Am and IMSA in 1988-1990. And there is no easy answer as even on a Power/Weight there is going to be a paucity of 4WD dyno facilities making the class too small to stumulate racing. I have run into the same problem in World Challenge and Grand Am who have resolved it as by forcing a weight adjustment and a boost control based on results.

 

The question then becomes whether the NASA central can respond quickly enough to the results of the regions in order to quickly find a weight representative of the the reasonable maximum for a given 4WD vehicle. That brings up anothere area of control that is inevitably part of the 4WD matrix - the turbo! For even if an insane weight was pplied it is also possible to use an equally insane muti turbo set up to compensate. W/C and SCCA STU have resolved this by mandating specific turbos for any turbo car but that too is difficult to enforce outside Nationals.

 

So does that not leave us back where we started - let 4WD drive compete as long as they comply with the same rules as everyone else: provide a 4WD dyno cert or dont race. Its a cost penalty but its the racer's choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist

This has been a thorn in the proverbial side since Audi cleaned up Trans Am and IMSA in 1988-1990. And there is no easy answer as even on a Power/Weight there is going to be a paucity of 4WD dyno facilities making the class too small to stumulate racing. I have run into the same problem in World Challenge and Grand Am who have resolved it as by forcing a weight adjustment and a boost control based on results.

 

The question then becomes whether the NASA central can respond quickly enough to the results of the regions in order to quickly find a weight representative of the the reasonable maximum for a given 4WD vehicle. That brings up anothere area of control that is inevitably part of the 4WD matrix - the turbo! For even if an insane weight was pplied it is also possible to use an equally insane muti turbo set up to compensate. W/C and SCCA STU have resolved this by mandating specific turbos for any turbo car but that too is difficult to enforce outside Nationals.

 

So does that not leave us back where we started - let 4WD drive compete as long as they comply with the same rules as everyone else: provide a 4WD dyno cert or dont race. Its a cost penalty but its the racer's choice.

 

The driver variance in NASA is HUGE. Grand Am and WC have their share of gentleman drivers but I think the pro's are a little closer when it comes to measuring performance. Grand Am ( and WC I think) run a monitoring system DME Motec Bosch something or other that helps monitor the boost/tune/etc. right??

And I really think the ability to impound is what makes GTS work. I showed up to Nats this year with a certified dyno, as well as everyone else. I saw a shitload of folks being sent to the dyno including myself. So if you allow a car that can't be dyno'd then you really can't dyno anyone. We just can't go there can we? It would be lawlessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddg

I'm about to build a 4000quattro with a 5000turbo 5cyl and stand alone EFI.

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=49164

 

I'd be bummed if it were eliminated.

4wd has HUGE advantages in the rain and in the dry with big horsepower, but a lower powered setup isn't much of an advantage, there's also the increased weight.

Last but not least, old Audi's had the back of 5cyl. engine over a foot in front of the axle centerline, making them very nose heavy, that is a big handicap compared the RWD cars.

There could be ways of "auditing" the mapping and boost of the EFI. I know the GTS rules say you have to submit a dyno sheet and the fuel and boost mapping at the beginning of the season, with the proper software and a 9pin serial cable, the mapping can be downloaded and compared to the original during scrutineering at the track.

 

PS: it NEVER rains in So.Cal!!!

 

PSS: I saw the 1988 and '89(GTO) Trans Am race at Long beach, Audi ran a production bodied 200 (5000turbo) with a 5cyl. prod block and 10v non crossflow head (race internals), it was producing about 560hp.

In '89 they ran a tube framed "90" with 5cyl. prod. block and race designed 20v head, they were rated at 720hp, rumors were that they were putting out much more, especialy by the end of the season!

 

Audi-200-Turbo-Quattro-206.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CARVAL Motorsports

I would hate to eliminate a German marque from our series. This is an impossible situation, however, to date, at least in my peripheral, there has not been a large number of AWD competing, and the few I have seen, were competitive but surely not dominate. I think that they should still be allowed, if indeed, a powerhouse Audi shows its teeth, it should become apparent to that regions director, and that director should monitor it closely and involve National if needed. It could be that for the championships, a AWD dyno would have to be present, but having two dynos at a championship might not be a bad idea, or, a single one with that capability, which could be arranged by National I'm sure, they should have the time to find the right system. For regional races, it hasn't quite the heightened implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joeykid

In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddg
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

Makes sense, all the box has to do is measure g's under accelleration, plug in the cars weight, tire size, total gear ratio and it can figure power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

I have first hand experience with the GPS systems and they are pretty accurate. If that is the method then get rid of the 2WD dyno. The point is that you can not use one method to scrutinize a 2WD car and another for a AWD car. Also, you don't know you're going to the dyno until you come off the track. You know you are being examined with GPS before you head out on the track.

 

Finally, this is not a GTS issue. We have the same problem in Super Touring, Performance Touring. That's why I think there is a large enough contingent to creat a AWD class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

That doesn't work. I am CERTAIN this is a smokescreen, bs that is just meant as a deterrent. SouthEast has "black boxed" me three times and NEVER been able to email me the results as initially promised. There are certain fact points that no one has addressed when asked and they include final drive ratio and weight among others.

Bottom line is - No racer out here believes that the TM's work. Convince us otherwise and this WILL BE the perfect solution for AWD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pmilli319
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

 

I completely disagree. The box cannot prove anything. The rules state peak torque, peak horsepower, and weight. Given those three variables, the box can't detect a 4 hp variance (which I believe is the current leaway we have in the rules). The acceleration has to do with the overall hp curve not two points on the curve. It also has a lot to do with aerodynamics. My car has a stock cd of 0.37 where a 944 porsche has one near 0.30. I've done the calculations and that alone is worth a couple of tenths down the backstraight of mid-ohio. I actually made a detailed engineering based excel sheet that shows they can't prove a thing with the box.....just in case they put one of those things in my car...which they didn't.

 

I will NOT race in a series that uses those black boxs for its only purpose of compliance.

 

Basically, NASA needs to pony up for an AWD dyno to have at each race. They can be had for between 35k and 50k. That's not much considering all the other equipment they have at a race.

 

....on a side note...has anyone been beat by an AWD vehicle consistantly? I think I've only raced against one or two in the Greatlakes region. It was a mid-pack car in the dry. He cleaned up in the wet, but usually that was the only time in recent years that it was in front of the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

 

I completely disagree. The box cannot prove anything.

 

That's it, it doesn't work. Apologies if it does but from what I've seen, it's been nothing but an empty threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RacinmySi

I am also interested in this outcome. I have an Audi S4 that we were going to run some with NASA that is obviously AWD. Can someone explain the GTS rating system for power to weight for me?

Is it "if less than but more than/if greater than but less than" = class you go in?

 

Our plan to run with NASA if AWD is banned will not be a good thing, we just finished the car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.
I am also interested in this outcome. I have an Audi S4 that we were going to run some with NASA that is obviously AWD. Can someone explain the GTS rating system for power to weight for me?

Is it "if less than but more than/if greater than but less than" = class you go in?

 

Our plan to run with NASA if AWD is banned will not be a good thing, we just finished the car

 

Simple really. Take your awhp * = minimum weight.

 

1: 18.5

2: 14.5

3: 11

4: 8.5

5: 6.6

 

or slightly different if you run slicks versus R-comps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RacinmySi
I am also interested in this outcome. I have an Audi S4 that we were going to run some with NASA that is obviously AWD. Can someone explain the GTS rating system for power to weight for me?

Is it "if less than but more than/if greater than but less than" = class you go in?

 

Our plan to run with NASA if AWD is banned will not be a good thing, we just finished the car

 

Simple really. Take your awhp * = minimum weight.

 

1: 18.5

2: 14.5

3: 11

4: 8.5

5: 6.6

 

or slightly different if you run slicks versus R-comps.

 

So because I don't know my actuals just yet, 3440lbs / 340 = 10.1 means I would be in GTS3 because I am less than 11 or GTS4 because I am more than 8.5 but less than 11? When I read that rule and it says divide weight by horsepower this isn't the same thing as you said here.

 

Or do I just take the 340 multiple it by 11 (GTS3) = 3740 min weight or 340 x 8.5 GTS4 = 2890 (I wish LOL)

 

This is why I am confused

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist

This is why I am confused

 

Google "NASA GTS Calculator". That should clear it up for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RacinmySi

This is why I am confused

 

Google "NASA GTS Calculator". That should clear it up for you

 

all results dead or forward to the rules

 

nm got it i think.

 

this answered what i was asking:

 

DOT race tires AWD or Non-DoT race tires (slicks):

GTSU = 5.99 and lower GTSU = 6.49 and lower

GTS5 = 6.0 - 8.49 GTS5 = 6.5 - 8.99

GTS4 = 8.5 - 10.99 GTS4 = 9.0 - 11.99

GTS3 = 11.0 - 14.49 GTS3 = 12.0 - 15.99

GTS2 = 14.50 - 18.49 GTS2 = 16.0 - 19.99

GTS1 = 18.50 and higher GTS1 = 20.0 and higher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

 

nm got it i think.

 

this answered what i was asking:

 

DOT race tires AWD or Non-DoT race tires (slicks):

GTSU = 5.99 and lower GTSU = 6.49 and lower

GTS5 = 6.0 - 8.49 GTS5 = 6.5 - 8.99

GTS4 = 8.5 - 10.99 GTS4 = 9.0 - 11.99

GTS3 = 11.0 - 14.49 GTS3 = 12.0 - 15.99

GTS2 = 14.50 - 18.49 GTS2 = 16.0 - 19.99

GTS1 = 18.50 and higher GTS1 = 20.0 and higher

 

Yup, but obviously you want to be at the "limit". Which is the lower end of those #s. Otherwise you are underpowered or overweight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RMueller
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

Can you please point to where, in the current GTS rules, it stipulates that data acquisition systems(black box) will be used as a means of measuring HP or to be used for enforcement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim P.
SouthEast has "black boxed" me three times and NEVER been able to email me the results as initially promised.

To clear the facts - this was because the person we had in charge of gathering the data did not do a good job of keeping track of which units were in which cars during which race. We got excellent data - but couldn't verify what car they came from. We have since changed staff and procedures and now get excellent data immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcrist
SouthEast has "black boxed" me three times and NEVER been able to email me the results as initially promised.

To clear the facts - this was because the person we had in charge of gathering the data did not do a good job of keeping track of which units were in which cars during which race. We got excellent data - but couldn't verify what car they came from. We have since changed staff and procedures and now get excellent data immediately.

 

Thanks for this post Jim as it is the first bit if support I've heard for the process. As a driver who finishes close to the front, I've always encouraged and volunteered for any impound means.

GTS2 in Southeast may be in trouble for this coming year, having solid data that could be used to steer towards compliance may have headed that off. Quick and concise implementation in December as well as from the start next year could go a long way in helping get GTS2 back on track. As a direct reference, I had a SE GTS2 car that I couldn't get away from on the back straight at RATL while I was testing a buddies well built GTS3 car. That same car walked away from my MAX powered GTS2 car by 20 or more car lengths car lengths in the races that weekend - as seen here http://www.youtube.com/user/JCristJP360#p/u/6/DbeQe6PnSHg

No sour grapes here, it's just an example of how an out of spec car can hurt class participation. If AWD cars are allowed on track without a means to test compliance ON-SITE, it will ultimately hurt participation. The TraqMate setup, if it actually does work, would be perfect as it monitors actual on track performance and takes away any opportunity to "adjust" engine performance between the checkers and the impound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

I can definitely see the value in everyone (1wd, 2wd, 3wd, 4wd, jet powered, etc) being measured using the same measuring stick. Which stick to use, well, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. It's not an easy one.

 

AWD cars haven't been an issue in PT or ST thus far. Even at Nationals as far as I know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
In the northeast we have a simple solution. We install a black box to measure HP in your car while you are driving. I installs in minutes and is plus or minus 2 percent. We allow you 4 percent leeway. No need for a four wheel dyno. That is old technology.

 

Can you please point to where, in the current GTS rules, it stipulates that data acquisition systems(black box) will be used as a means of measuring HP or to be used for enforcement?

 

Randy,

We actually had a paragraph added last year to the NE Regional Rules, applied not just to GTS, but all HP to weight ratio classes, outlining the use of the BB for compliance. At this point, we still accumulating data and reserve it mainly for finding cars with big differences to claimed numbers to look at closer or to send to the Dyno. We didn't enforce and DQed anyone solely based on the data from BB yet, but hoping to make it work in the future with the help from Traqmate folks. As I know, SE has more data and experience in using those much longer then us. But we do run into issues when drivers from out of the NE come to visit, since there is no National standard set yet. It is work in progress. I hope one day we will be able to utilize data systems for policing and compliance.

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...