Jump to content

Remove torque from weight calc for NA cars


JSG1901

Recommended Posts

NOTE: This is NOT a proposed 2014 rule change (it's left over from last year)

 

Modification to minimum weight calculations

 

Proposed change

For naturally-aspirated cars, remove the requirement to average HP and Torque to get the HP to weight ratio.

 

Reason

Does not make sense, and severely limits entries to GTS1

 

Proposed wording

b) the average of horsepower and torque from the single run with the highest average of those

values for non naturally aspirated cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • cwbaader

    16

  • JSG1901

    9

  • rabbit_diesel

    7

  • Zach H.

    7

I worry that such a change would increase incentives for people to go out and build torque-monster engines.

 

For example, my run-of-the-mill e36 with the s52 engine generates 210 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM. Under this change, I could be generating 322 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM! The guy who decides to drop the dollar to do just that gets a considerable advantage.

 

I guess that before going down that path, we need a philosophical discussion To what extent are GTS rules designed to keep costs under control? Thus far it has been "not much at all". Do we want to go further down the cost control path? That's a separate discussion, and my vote would be "yes".

 

If we *do* decide that cost control is a significant role of the GTS rules then I suspect this rule as stated will take us in the other direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that would be wrong with this calculation is that it doesn't take count of where the powerband is, I explain :

 

A torque monster with a 3500-6000 rpm powerband will get its hp average with torque (and since hp = torque with rpm), it would be penalized against a car that produces same hp with less torque but in the 6500-8000 rpm range.

 

Yes torque is a factor of a "flat" hp curve which is perfect scenario in a hp/weight series. But a lower rpm flat hp curve will have higher torque then a high rpm flat hp curve. But only one of these car have to average with the torque to "reduce" their allowed hp. And this is why the S54 is such a good GTS motor, flat hp curve but it's high enough to not get penalized with the tq averaging.

 

It prevents good turbo curves, but anyone willing to go extra mile for flat hp curve will shift powerband up in rpm and get around this rule anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, and just look back over the several years of discussion on this topic to reiterate the reasons.

 

 

What he said !!

 

 

-Scott B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's stop the bleeding on some of these. There is no question in my mind that the group's opinion on this is (yet again) a resounding NO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
The only thing that would be wrong with this calculation is that it doesn't take count of where the powerband is, I explain :

 

A torque monster with a 3500-6000 rpm powerband will get its hp average with torque (and since hp = torque with rpm), it would be penalized against a car that produces same hp with less torque but in the 6500-8000 rpm range.

 

Yes torque is a factor of a "flat" hp curve which is perfect scenario in a hp/weight series. But a lower rpm flat hp curve will have higher torque then a high rpm flat hp curve. But only one of these car have to average with the torque to "reduce" their allowed hp. And this is why the S54 is such a good GTS motor, flat hp curve but it's high enough to not get penalized with the tq averaging.

 

It prevents good turbo curves, but anyone willing to go extra mile for flat hp curve will shift powerband up in rpm and get around this rule anyway.

 

 

good points, but here is the bottomline.

torque really is only an indicator of a "flat HP" curve. a "torque monster" will be the flat hp curve competitor. all it means, when you have LOT of torque, is that your HP curve might be flatter than someone else with the same peak HP.

 

If you understand the actual situation here, averaging HP and torque, does only one thing. It uses a car with a greater torque than HP , when the units are measured in Ft/lbs for torque, and tries to equalize its advantage over a car with a peakier HP curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the things that really should be addressed is absolute weight, which is far beyond the advanges of a "flat" Hp curve, which is now being equalized by the crude HP vs torque averaging ( for only cars with greater numerical torque values than HP) (if you remembered we fixed part of the problem from day one, from NOT averaging the cars with lower torque than HP which was a HUGELY smart move by the way)

 

anyway, the correct way to incorporate equalization in the HP /weight ratios would be to simply use average HP from 3 data points. Hp at peak torque, HP at max HP and HP at redline. this would be the correct way to do it, at slightly more work.

BUT, a 3200lb car vs a 2700lb car racing would be an unfair race for the heavier car. You can make up for some of it by tire size, but generally, there should be a range of weights too that correspond to the HP /weight ration. this is MUCH more important than the HP/torque averaging. maybe there are classes of cars 2500 to 2700, 2701lbs to 2900lbs, 2901lbs to 3100lbs. those weight ranges have points associated to it, similar to using Rcompound, vs slicks.

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...