Jump to content
JSG1901

Remove torque from weight calc for NA cars

Recommended Posts

cwbaader

Eric, your M3 actually has good torque/hp relationship, especially since you can run a 4.47 diff. You made torque with gear, I made torque with motor. My car was an e30 ITA car with the 2.7 eta motor. Redline was 5500 on the stock valve springs which was not bad considering the factiory had it at 4500! Gear around here was a 3.73. It made 150ish HP and 185ft/lb torque. So, for classification I would have to add a major amount of weight to run GTS1 (where the car should be without the extra torque calculation) or loose several hundred pounds for GTS2. I originally ran the car in GTS1 when the GTS series began but the car was legislated non competitive. So, yes, there have been cars built that were torque monsters, and I have watched inclass cars pull away from me half way down the back straight at RA when our hp/wt ratios are supposed to be equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer

To have the best apples to apples comparison, you would need to compare the area under the Hp curve in the power band for each car and use that data to categorize cars. How you do that and show compliance (especially for dyno runs for compliance at the track) I have no idea.

 

This would take out any discussion about torque vs Hp.

 

Believe me when I say that a high Hp low torque car is not the ticket either. I would LOVE to have at least as much torque as I do Hp. I would LOVE to have an E-throttle that would allow me to tune a perfectly flat Hp curve like the one shown in this post. But I do not. I chose the car I did because I like it and it is fun. I did not choose it because I thought it would rule to world. I know it can not. It is more like the car chose me, though.

 

If you want to have fun, choose the car you want to drive. If you want to win, then choose the car that takes advantage the most of the rule set. No rule set is going to be perfect and there is no way to perfect a rule set to make every car equally competitive.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gofastzach

I would like to take this opportunity to officially recant my stance on this topic. initially my thoughts were against this rule but after a year of driving an inverse engine set up ie:more torque than horsepower, I have won every single points race I entered, came in third at the east coast championships, and reset the lap record at four different tracks missing the fifth by one tenth. if this rule were to pass I would in effect be able to keep my same tune and loose ~80lbs of my min weight

 

I am 100% for this rule!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cwbaader

Try that in the SE and you'll get your ass handed to you every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gofastzach
Try that in the SE and you'll get your ass handed to you every time.

 

How so? running a torque biased motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cwbaader

Because most tracks have very long straights...Road Atlanta, Roebling, VIR, just to name a few. About 2/3rds down the straight the high hp/rpm cars just motor by. Been there, done that, beat my head against the wall trying to get NASA to fix their rectal-cranial inversion and fix the rule. That is why I run SCCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

I can't help but notice the irony that you race an Rx-7 with the SCCA. Why not run a diesel there?

You could build a diesel for ST...

 

I am building a LS-1 swapped 944. Without the torque factoring in there, I can detune to ST-3 and have a huge area under the curve. I'm not sure that's "fair" but it would be optomizing the ruleset I'm choosing to run. Maybe I should swap in a 3.0 TDI tuned to 500+ Ft./lbs of torque .

 

I think Zach did just fine at Road Atlanta (and Road America) this year, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gofastzach
Because most tracks have very long straights...Road Atlanta, Roebling, VIR, just to name a few. About 2/3rds down the straight the high hp/rpm cars just motor by. Been there, done that, beat my head against the wall trying to get NASA to fix their rectal-cranial inversion and fix the rule. That is why I run SCCA.

 

didnt seam to affect me at Road America where I won and broke the track record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
Because most tracks have very long straights...Road Atlanta, Roebling, VIR, just to name a few. About 2/3rds down the straight the high hp/rpm cars just motor by. Been there, done that, beat my head against the wall trying to get NASA to fix their rectal-cranial inversion and fix the rule. That is why I run SCCA.

 

didnt seam to affect me at Road America where I won and broke the track record

2ajuv6e.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gofastzach

successful troll was successful........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick

Now that i have a car that has more torque (numerical value in lb-ft), than HP , i have a vested interest in fixing this error in the rules.

 

its basic physics, HP determines the acceleration rate and capability of any car at any speed. two cars with the same HP at any speed, will have the same rear wheel forces, REGARDLESS of the torque of the engine. I totally understand the misconceptions and the goals of incorporating such a factor in the calculator, BUT, times have changed. NASA GTS has incorporated an averaging too, that plots the HP from some point on the HP curve to redline. this PERFECTLY determines the acceleration potential with respect for HP/weight balanceing and there is absolutely no need for Torque averaging into the equation or calculator. in fact , this is an erroneous factor that only unfairly burdens a car with a numerically higher torque than HP engine. power= force x velocity... its a Newtonian identity and there is nothing that has been said, or thought that can change this.

If i could post a graph that compares 3 real life examples of this, i would. i have a clear example set of dyno charts that compare:

 

1. a porsche GT3RS vs a viper both with 430rwhp and the viper with 500lb-ft torque and the porsche with 270lb-ft of torque

2. a porsche 928 vs a spec boxster, both with exactly 190rwhp and one with 170lb-ft torque and the other 230lb-ft of torque

3. my porsche at 380rwhp vs a porsche GT3 cup car with 380rwhp.. one with 410rwt and the other 260rwht

 

in all three of these examples , all the cars retain near 91% of their peak HP for an aveage and there is never a spot on any of their dynos where any one of the three cars above with more torque has any physical advantage.

 

I know its late to make changes for 2017, but lets get this done for 2018 and have rules that are fair for all for ALL the right reasons, not suspicions!

 

remember, power is a cars ability to accelerate! just like energy is a body's ability to do work.

acceleration = power/(mass x velocity) this also is a Newtonian identity that shows at any speed,and same HP, cars will accelerate the same. acceleration is proportional to power! engine torque can be high with low engine speeds, or low with high engine speeds, and doesn't dictate the rear wheel forces, HP does.

 

it's been a few years, but its time we get this one right!

 

comments and discussion welcome.

 

Mark

 

images posted on this other thread if you are interested in evaluating them

http://rennlist.com/forums/racing-and-drivers-education-forum/850321-nasa-gts-rule-changes-any-thoughts-3.html#post13981943

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

The question of factoring TQ values into the formula have been a subject of many discussions in the past and seems still asking for more attention and clarification. We encountered polarizing opinions in the past.

 

We are set with the 2017 Rules, but would welcome the respectful exchange of ideas on the subject in the course of the year with the aim to make corrections for the 2018, if need to be.

 

Please, don't hesitate to chime in.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick

Thanks Michael,

 

I understand , and missed the opportunity to open the discussion again to change the rules for 2017... but , i would like to keep it going during the year and use this thread as an educational depot of information so we can bring the two camps of thought together.

 

I would be open to discuss this with any of our members as to the relationship of engine torque to a cars performance under any conditions. the interesting thing, and some irony too....the calculator takes many different HP levels of an engine's performance over the entire usable range. If you believe that acceleration = power/(mass x velocity), then its clear that at any speed HP is the utiminate indicator of a race cars performance at any vehicle speed. so, by taking the data points of a HP curve from a dyno run, you in effect figure out if an engine has an advantage in the lower RPM ranges. Exactly the suspicion of the folks that were Proponents of "torque averaging" so, problem solved. BUT, as soon as you have more engine torque (numerical value) than HP, suddenly, all the common sense, and physics knowledge and data goes out the window, and you INCREASE the HP, seemingly ironically, for the reasons/suspected problems that the HP caluculator completely solves...... very curious!

 

I hope during the year, we can talk about his show data and prove to anyone that things to the contrary, of why HP at any same speed, will create the same acceleration force, which actually is torque at the rear wheels, regardless of engine torque values

 

Here is a primer..... a graph i mentioned of a porsche vs a viper (I6 vs V10 ) both with the same HP but one with near 2x the torque and certainly more torque (numerically in lb-fts) than HP.

 

see if you can find any spot on the HP curves, any speed on the track through gearing where one car would have an advantage over the other.

 

post back if you do.

1138259d1487900622-nasa-gts-rule-changes-any-thoughts-gt3rs-vs-viper-hp-and-torque-2.jpg

 

or a common comparison.. a V8 vs a I6 .. both porsche and both 190rwhp but greatly differerent torque levels :

1138258d1487900622-nasa-gts-rule-changes-any-thoughts-stock-928-vs-spec-boxster-dyno-comparison.png

 

 

The question of factoring TQ values into the formula have been a subject of many discussions in the past and seems still asking for more attention and clarification. We encountered polarizing opinions in the past.

 

We are set with the 2017 Rules, but would welcome the respectful exchange of ideas on the subject in the course of the year with the aim to make corrections for the 2018, if need to be.

 

Please, don't hesitate to chime in.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gofastzach

I would be very happy to "re-open" this topic! I would be even happier if the folks from national would step forward and express their concerns publicly so we dont waste our time debating how to run our series just to have us shut down at the last min.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Building a diesel GTS car Zach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×