Remove torque from weight calc for NA cars

[JSG1901]

And just look at all the GTS 1 and 2 entries at the nationals.....0 GTS 1 and 7 GTS 2, Pitiful!

I think the lack of GTS1 and 2 cars at Miller is due to other issues altogether. First, the hotbed of GTS2 right now is on the east coast in Mid-Atlantic, which are the folks the farthest possible from Miller. Second, the turnout for all classes was down, possibly for the same reason (that is, the distance to Miller), or because of the continuingly so-so economy. Or both.

 

Adding to the issue, both GTS1 and GTS2 have been decimated all across the country by the many spec classes that have taken cars that otherwise would have been GTS entrants...SE30, Spec 944, Spec Boxster, Spec 3, Spec 996, etc. These have all given German cars yet another option for where to run which, almost by definition, takes them out of GTS.

 

Then, there's upward migration. GTS1 and GTS2 are classes a lot of drivers aspire to graduate upward from. In Great Lakes, my region, most of the GTS1 drivers bought themselves 996 Cup cars over the past two years and moved up to GTS3 or GTS4. The same goes for several of the GTS2 drivers who've moved up a class or two.

 

Also, as what are usually the least expensive of the GTS classes, GTS1 and 2 are often the first hit by money concerns. Other GTS1 and 2 drivers from around here, including myself, are on a temporary hiatus for personal or budgetary reasons, and I expect that's true elsewhere. None of these drivers, as far as I know, are not racing because of a concern about the horsepower to torque ratios.

 

Now, having said that, there is increasing concern about, in particular, the BMWs that use throttle mapping to choke down powerful engines to get maximum torque and horsepower up to whatever cut-off line. These cars are both legal and fast and are making it very hard for motors that aren't controlled the same way. Take all the new Great Lakes 996 Cup cars, for instance, which have high horsepower at high revs but a good bit less torque. Those drivers are complaining about being uncompetitive specifically because of the torque of the BMWs, which is the opposite end of the problem being discussed here.

 

It has been suggested both here and elsewhere that maybe we should use the area under the horsepower/torque curve somehow to determine our ratios, and maybe that's true. A major problem with that is there is no easy way to calculate such a number, at least not as far as I know. My experience as a series director is that people show up at the track at the last minute with their dyno sheets and need to know their minimum weights. The system we have today supports that reality because it's easy to do the calculations. Find the big number, do a quick multiplication, and there's your number. But, generating something to do with area under the curve is not even a little simple. Short of getting DynoJet to add something to their dynos (which would have to be retrofit, too) to calculate some kind of area-under-the-curve number for us, I don't know how such an approach could be made workable in the real world.

 

Another alternative, which I'm not really in favor of, would be to come up with a whole host of factors like they use in many of the other classes to deal with all the subtleties of differences between cars. This becomes a bookkeeping nightmare and would be very hard to get right.

 

Or, it's possible we could just penalize winners by making them carry more weight. Some of the pro series do that. But what do you do when people cross between regions? Currently, there's nothing in place to deal with cross-region issues, nor even penalties.

 

So, while I'm quite willing to talk about alternatives to our current way of computing minimum weights, there are a lot of considerations at play. Off the top of my head...

 

1) It has to be workable in the real world, at the track, on the trunk of somebody's car.

 

2) It needs to support the hundreds of existing GTS racers as effectively as possible.

 

3) It needs to level the playing field, not just tilt it in a new direction.

[cwbaader]

Scott...good thoughts. Now mine: GTS was originally a basic HP/WT class. If you fit in a class, great. Then the TQ X 2 was added and all the GTS 1 &2 cars (which were generally low HP high TQ) realized that they could not run with the later model cars that ran higher HP and ballast. So you have had a slow demise of 1 & 3 cars over the years, to darn near 0 in most regions.

 

Second, GTS is a money class because anything goes in suspension/tires/shocks/aero/motor, ad nauseum. As you pointed out, the economy went down, and people parked their cars. (and BTW, it takes me far less money to be competitive in SCCA than it did in GTS) Solution on how to revive GTS....tweak the rules such that NASA can get crossover racers (like I was) and I believe car counts will increase. One of the major reasons I choose Improved Touring in SCCA was cost containment. That my car fit GTS in the beginning was a plus because I did not have to travel as much to run the races I wanted to run each year and I thoroughly enjoyed running with NASA. However, when you are legislated uncompetitive, you seek other venues in which to play.

 

One thing I forgot to add. GTS is going the same way that BMWCCA racing has gone. In BMW, no one, repeat...no one runs anything slower that KP. Seems everyone wants to run the unlimited budget classes other that just a couple, IS, SpecE36, ect. WHICH ARE COST CONTAINMENT CLASSES!!!

[flink]

Short of getting DynoJet to add something to their dynos (which would have to be retrofit, too) to calculate some kind of area-under-the-curve number for us, I don't know how such an approach could be made workable in the real world.

 

I think it will be easier than that. The dynojet generates a ".drf" file for the run, which is in some proprietary format. Dynojet have a free viewer app (winpep) which I believe can turn that .drf file into an excel file, probably .csv format. Calculating area-under-the-curve from that would be a simple bit of spreadsheet hacking.

 

It's a bit of fiddling, but once you have an entrant's .drf file, calculating area-under-the-curve would take just a minute or two, with no need to involve Dynojet themselves. It means that GTS racers would stop passing around dyno sheets and would start passing around .drf files.

 

I think the more complex issue is "area under which part of the curve"? An obvious way to game this system would be to tune your engine to generate dreadful power up to 4500RPM or whatever. So before calculating the area we'd need to decide on the lower and upper RPMs, presumably based on gearing, optimum shift points, etc.

[JSG1901]

Hi Andrew,

 

Yep, clearly if we did something like this it would have to be in a known part of the workable RPM area. Maybe the top 50% or something.

 

I don't hate your spreadsheet idea but that suddenly means all the SDs have to take laptops to the track and we have to collect all the data on something because every weekend there's somebody who's dynoing at the track and wanting to use that number.

 

But still, an interesting approach.

[gobuffs]

 

One thing I forgot to add. GTS is going the same way that BMWCCA racing has gone. In BMW, no one, repeat...no one runs anything slower that KP. Seems everyone wants to run the unlimited budget classes other that just a couple, IS, SpecE36, ect. WHICH ARE COST CONTAINMENT CLASSES!!!

 

Spec class /= cost containment. There is no such thing as a cost containment class when it comes to racing. If somebody wants to spend $100k on a SE30 then they will.

[Greg Smith]

Solution on how to revive GTS....tweak the rules such that NASA can get crossover racers (like I was) and I believe car counts will increase.

 

I didn't realize GTS was in need of reviving. I can't think of an easier way to to get cross over cars than the current GTS rules, scales and a dyno. Actually, wait, no scales and no dyno... but there's already a class for that as well. That's not to say you will be competitive, but you'll have somewhere to race.

 

Take all the new Great Lakes 996 Cup cars, for instance, which have high horsepower at high revs but a good bit less torque. Those drivers are complaining about being uncompetitive specifically because of the torque of the BMWs, which is the opposite end of the problem being discussed here.

 

Or, it's possible we could just penalize winners by making them carry more weight. Some of the pro series do that. But what do you do when people cross between regions? Currently, there's nothing in place to deal with cross-region issues, nor even penalties.

The way I read the first quote is 'drivers are complaining about being uncompetitive because they didn't take full advantage of the rules.'

 

I'm not a fan of doing penalty weight.

 

I'm not a fan of doing an area under the curve calculation. Build your car to take advantage of the rules, that might mean a motor swap and/or a stand alone and a good tuner.

 

It costs money to build a winning car in a competitive region, people are surprised by that in an "unlimited" class? Talent+money beats talent alone. There's no such thing as a level laying field in racing. Leave the rules alone!

[Michael G.]

I think the participation numbers and the cost of building cars not directly correlate, otherwise we would see the domination of 1 and 2 vs. 3, 4 and 5 (if to agree with assumption that it takes more $$ to build fstser car).

In the NE where the GTS is the largest class in the Region (and one of the largest among other Regions as well) we have almost no GTS1, growing 2 (5 to 9 cars per event), very large 3 - upcoming event at Watkins Glen has already 20 + cars in 3 alone! GTS 4 is solid as well, and 5 is somewhat small.

I totally agree with Scott on 3 main considerations, but would add that our ability to check the compliance of whatever formula is applied is very important as well. Today we can hardly rely on the static dyno testing at events partially because it is often simply not available at the track, and also often out smarted by today's sophisticated ECUs.

Seems like the answer is in developing the Black Boxes for the "live" on track testing (which will require time and resources, where some progress is made, but a lot more needed).

Hopefully, whatever we will eventually agree upon can be easily administered. No formula matters unless we have a way to enforce the rules.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

[Zach H.]

feel free to correct me, but from what i have heard the GTS3 winning car at nationals had 275ftlbs/265hp......

 

As the driver of that car you are way wrong... we were not even close to having the same torque as hp let alone more.

 

-tony

 

that is why I said correct me. now share your numbers!!!

[vwmann1]

Scott;

We can go round and round on the hp/weight, hp*tq/weight. It doesn't really matter. The rules are fine that way they are. What we need is a better way to enforce the current rules that we have. With the advent of the electronic throttle body it is too easy to make it look like the car makes less power and then "turn it up" for the race. Just because the Porsche world doesn't have a Randy Muller like the BMW's have is not the BMW drivers fault. It is just a matter of time till someone breaks the code and you will have 996 cup style cars detuned for GTS3. What we need is a way to make sure when the car is throttle limited it stays that way for the race. The only way I see is having a dyno at each event. If still wont stop cheating, it still may not level the playing field, but it is a start. The reality is most German cars from about 2001 forward have some sort of e-throttle. We are not going to get away from it. So, let's start planning for it now.

[rabbit_diesel]

[snip]

 

So, while I'm quite willing to talk about alternatives to our current way of computing minimum weights, there are a lot of considerations at play. Off the top of my head...

 

1) It has to be workable in the real world, at the track, on the trunk of somebody's car.

 

2) It needs to support the hundreds of existing GTS racers as effectively as possible.

 

3) It needs to level the playing field, not just tilt it in a new direction.

I redid with some modifications the three simulations I had previously posted, and added three more simulations. Perhaps these will be useful in the deliberations.

 

As before, I kept the differences between each case to a minimum (which I have listed below).

 

Some of the characteristics in common:

BMW 325is

peak power = 150 bhp (at wheels)

tires = 205/50R15

gears: 1st = 3.83, 2nd = 2.20, 3rd = 1.40, 4th = 1.00, 5th = .81

In every case, the CarTest software selected the shift points.

 

The following power and torque values are 'at the wheels':

 

#10)

2775 lb

150 hp @ 6000

189 ftlb @ 3500

final drive ratio = 3.73

 

#10a)

3136 lb (for the HP+TQ penalty)

150 hp @ 6000

189 ftlb @ 3500

final drive ratio = 3.73

 

#11)

2775 lb

150 hp @ 6000

148 ftlb @ 4500

final drive ratio = 3.73

 

#12) [slow RPM turbo-diesel engine.]

2775 lb

150 hp @ 4500

189 ftlb @ 2500

final drive ratio = 2.93

 

#12a) [slow RPM turbo-diesel engine.]

3136 lb (for the HP+TQ penalty)

150 hp @ 4500

189 ftlb @ 2500

final drive ratio = 2.93

 

#13) [High RPM destroked engine.]

2775 lb

150 hp @ 8000

146 ftlb @ 4500

final drive ratio = 4.91

 

-----

 

For a 3000' straight-away and 60 MPH starting speed, in order of elapsed time:

#11) 21.12 sec

#12) 21.23 sec

#10) 21.32 sec

#13) 21.34 sec

#12a) 21.72 sec (HP+TQ handicap)

#10a) 21.82 sec (HP+TQ handicap)

 

Notice that the spread of elapsed time between between the first four cars is .22 seconds. How close do these need to be before most people would agree they are competitive? Look at how far behind the HP+TQ handicap puts #12a and #10a. What is the justification for a handicap so large? Seems awfully heavy handed.

 

-----

 

So, how might these six cars do on a race track? The CarTest program can also do performance simulations for various race tracks.

 

#13 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:47.3 sec

#10 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:47.7 sec

#12 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:47.8 sec

#11 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:48.5 sec

#10a @ Watkins Glen --> 2:50.7 sec

#12a @ Watkins Glen --> 2:51.1 sec

 

#13 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.2 sec (tie)

#10 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.2 sec (tie)

#11 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:18.0 sec

#12 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:18.1 sec

#12a @ Laguna Seca --> 2:19.5 sec

#10a @ Laguna Seca --> 2:20.1 sec

 

#10 @ Road America ---> 3:5.8 sec (tie)

#12 @ Road America ---> 3:5.8 sec (tie)

#11 @ Road America ---> 3:6.1 sec (another tie)

#13 @ Road America ---> 3:6.1 sec (another tie)

#10a @ Road America --> 3:10.1 sec

#12a @ Road America --> 3:10.4 sec

 

How close do #10, #11, #12, and #13 need to be, before most people would agree they are competitive with each other? In any case, what is the justification for applying a handicap that puts #10a and #12a so far behind? Seems awfully heavy handed.

 

Will

Edited October 6, 2013 by Guest

[vwmann1]

Will

Please give it up. You are just noise at this point. You are not helping.

[cwbaader]

Doug, its people like you that really piss off people like Will and me. We were around before the rule was changed and actually had competitive cars...and they were legislated to the back of the pack. We are just trying to level the playing field.

[vwmann1]

Gentlemen,

I have been building championship level GTS cars since 2003. Our '86 911 was one of the first cars invited Denny and Mark (don't know if I have their names right). So I know what GTS was and has become. GTS is no longer a crossover class but a stand alone class. I have now built SEVEN podium finishing cars for this class. So I have a clue. It would appear that you two are the only ones championing this cause. Do EITHER of you actually race in GTS currently? You are pissing me off by continuing to muddy the waters. STOP IT!

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[ILIKETODRIVE]

[cwbaader]

No, I quit NASA when my car was legislated uncompetitive. I have (had) a winning SCCA IT car and no intention of changing it to meet stupid rules when the car can run, unchanged, in BMWCCA, PBOC and SCCA. If you want a class that is stand alone, you got it....spend all you can then add enough lead to be in the class you want....which is BS racing in my book.

 

This is a public forum...I will continue to voice my opinion, as I am sure Will will. If it pisses you off, so be it....get over it!

[vwmann1]

 

 

HAAAA HAAAAAA LMFAO love it!

[John Graber]

How about posting some data where the higher torque motors peak torque is up in the power band? The examples given appear to be for your diesel motors, but we have many a motor purposely built with torque way above HP and peaking in the usable power band. My GTS2 motor competed with about 175HP and 191ftlb. Tq with both peaks in the usable power band.

[rabbit_diesel]

I decided the simulations could be improved, so I have deleted this message, and posted the new simulations in the following message.

 

Will

Edited October 6, 2013 by Guest

[rabbit_diesel]

Since a request has been made for a high-torque engine with the peak torque at an RPM higher than 3500, I have added two simulations:

 

#14)

2775 lb

150 hp @ 5500

189 ftlb @ 4000

final drive ratio = 3.73

 

#14a)

3136 lb

150 hp @ 5500

189 ftlb @ 4000

final drive ratio = 3.73

 

And another, because I thought it interesting:

 

#15) [High RPM destroked engine, different from #13.]

2775 lb

150 hp @ 8000

130 ftlb @ 6000

final drive ratio = 4.91

 

In JSG's post on 2013/Jan/22 he specified a BMW engine of 150 hp @ 5500 and 189 ftlb @ 3600, which I call "JSG #1". JSG did not supply any other points from which I could generate definitive curves for the simulator. Though JSG did not say, I think the particular instance is of a gasoline NA engine.

 

Looking in the NASA Spec E30 rules I found a sample dyno-sheet with peaks of about 156 hp @ 5900 and 154 ftlb @ 4500. The CarTest simulator allows a horsepower curve to be specified in 500 rpm increments.

 

Previously, I had concocted a pair of curves for #10 that had peaks of 150 hp @ 6000, and 189 ftlb @ 3500. Today, I decided a better approximation of JSG's engine #1 would be 150 hp @ 5500, and 189 ftlb @ 3500. So, I modified the old simulations.

 

-----

 

For ease of reference, ordered by increasing RPM:

#12) 150 hp @ 4500, 189 ftlb @ 2500, turbo-diesel, 2.93:1 [also #12a, handicap]

#10) 150 hp @ 5500, 189 ftlb @ 3500, gasoline, NA, 3.73:1 [also #10a, handicap]

#14) 150 hp @ 5500, 189 ftlb @ 4000, gasoline, NA, 3.73:1 [also #14a, handicap]

#11) 150 hp @ 6000, 148 ftlb @ 4500, gasoline, NA, 3.73:1

#13) 150 hp @ 8000, 146 ftlb @ 4500, gasoline, NA, 4.91:1

#15) 150 hp @ 8000, 130 ftlb @ 6000, gasoline, NA, 4.91:1

 

For a 3000' straight-away and 60 MPH starting speed, in order of elapsed time:

#15) 21.07 sec

#11) 21.12 sec

#12) 21.23 sec

#14) 21.27 sec

#10) 21.32 sec

#13) 21.34 sec

#12a) 21.72 sec (HP+TQ handicap)

#14a) 21.76 sec (HP+TQ handicap)

#10a) 21.82 sec (HP+TQ handicap)

 

On the various tracks:

 

#13 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:47.2 sec

#12 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:47.9 sec

#10 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:48.8 sec

#11 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:48.8 sec

#15 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:48.9 sec

#14 @ Watkins Glen ---> 2:49.0 sec

#10a @ Watkins Glen --> 2:50.5 sec

#12a @ Watkins Glen --> 2:50.6 sec

#14a @ Watkins Glen --> 2:51.1 sec

 

#14 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:16.6 sec

#15 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.0 sec

#12 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.1 sec

#10 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.2 sec

#13 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.4 sec

#11 @ Laguna Seca ---> 2:17.9 sec

#12a @ Laguna Seca --> 2:19.5 sec

#10a @ Laguna Seca --> 2:19.8 sec

#14a @ Laguna Seca --> 2:20.0 sec

 

#14 @ Road America ---> 3:5.7 sec

#15 @ Road America ---> 3:5.8 sec

#13 @ Road America ---> 3:5.9 sec

#10 @ Road America ---> 3:6.0 sec

#12 @ Road America ---> 3:6.2 sec

#11 @ Road America ---> 3:6.4 sec

#14a @ Road America --> 3:9.9 sec

#12a @ Road America --> 3:10.1 sec

#10a @ Road America --> 3:10.3 sec

 

Will

[autodoctor911]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I've been doing HPDE's with PCA for a few years, and am considering buying, or building a car for wheel to wheel competition. I have worked on and helped build several competition cars before, but I want one for myself now. I see that GTS(GTS3in particular) is a fairly popular class that allows a lot of freedom as far as the rules go. The only real performance limiting rules it seems are the weight to horsepower ratio, with a handicap for non-DOT tires and it seems a handicap for cars with engines that have a higher peak torque number in foot lbs than horsepower. I have been considering many different cars to build or buy, some of which would be a good fit for GTS.

 

Obviously the perfect engine for these rules would be one that has more than enough horsepower for the desired class, and is then regulated down by throttle mapping so that you have the torque be tapered off starting at the lowest rpm used on the track, with just enough taper to keep the horsepower curve completely flat through the usable rev range. Or, If you would like to cheat, write a engine map that limits the power by some factor that only affects it when on the dyno, like an accelerometer map, or maybe front wheel speed, or even only allowing full power for 15-20 seconds after applying the brake pedal. Obviously the potential to cheat is almost limitless. I think the black box method may be the best way to try and eliminate this, and should be implemented as soon as practically possible. It could even be done cheaper than having a dyno at the track. It should not be too difficult to get some data recorders with an accelerometer.

 

I was considering building a diesel powered race car, and I would not do so if the formula remains as it is for GTS. There is no way a diesel powered car with say a torque rating of 400lbft, and 230HP could accelerate as well out of a turn as well as a gas engine with 315HP, but that is how it is classified.

There are very few classes of amateur racing that a diesel can be eligible for, and it seems none that it can be competitive in. This is really a shame, since the diesel engines in production today have so much potential.

 

I know that this rule must have been implemented for a reason, but it doesn't make any sense. Peak torque from the engine does not make a good indicator of how much acceleration potential a race car has. Peak horsepower is a decent indicator. Average horsepower, or the area under the curve would be a better indicator, but peak torque is of little value. The actual accelerating force that can be achieved with the proper gearing is directly correlated with horsepower, not engine torque.

 

I assume that the rule was implemented because the assumption was that an engine with higher torque than horsepower would have a flatter horsepower curve. That might be true for some mildly tuned or stock engines, but I don't think those engines are going to be superior to a higher revving engine with the same horsepower, but less torque, as long as the car with less torque has a decently close ratio transmission.

 

If you were to implement the data recorders with either GPS or accelerometer readings, you could not only limit cheating, but there would be an opportunity to use the actual acceleration rate as an equalizing factor, rather than horsepower or torque ratings. But I think it would still work out to the same as just using horsepower.

[zigspeed10]

From an outsiders perspective (I don't currently compete in GTS) the only thing that matters is horsepower. Penalizing cars that operate in a lower rpm range is silly, it just favors engines capable of higher rpm.

 

Also, in a pw/wt class it's horsepower under the curve which means you need a flat hp curve. If you haven't figured it out yet, the fast guys in your class probably have. They have engines capable of higher hp but detune them to have a flat curve.

 

Here is an example of a flat hp curve, poor example but you get the idea.

 

[/url]

[cwbaader]

It boils down to this...if you have the high torque car and actually race against high hp cars you know you are at a disadvantage. If you haven't sat in the driver's seat YOU DON'T KNOW!!

[JSG1901]

For the record, I have re-titled this discussion to make it more obvious to all the folks discussing this year's possible rule changes that this is NOT one of the adjustments we're considering for 2014.

 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program...

[autodoctor911]

I guess I should take from this discussion that building a diesel powered car for any GTS class is not, nor ever will be a viable option. I had been looking for a venue to do so, but the majority of people here can not grasp the concept of torque vs HP, and how it affects a race cars potential, and it is quite obvious to me that a 240 hp diesel engine will never be able to compete with a 323 Hp car at the same weight, even if it does make 406 ft-lbs at 1750 RPM. If you calculate it out that's 135HP. That doesn't look very appealing to me.

 

If it is making 406 Ft-lbs at 1750, and 240 HP at 3500, that's a pretty peaky and narrow HP curve that goes from 135HP at 1750 to 240 HP at 3500, and drops off almost immediately after that.

 

 

The only thing that matters is Torque at the wheels which is determined by engine torque times gear ratio. What gear ratio can be used is determined by the RPMs of the engine for any given road speed. If you do the math, any two engines with the same HP will have the same torque at the wheels whether it is 1000 ft-lbs at 2000 RPM or 100 Ft-lbs at 20,000 RPM(both have 380HP), it doesn't matter!

 

Even if we were just talking about two gas engines, one that makes it's power down low, and one that makes it's power up high, there is no reason to be penalizing based on FT-Lbs. You can have all the Ft-Lbs in the world, only Hp is what matters.

 

Did anyone build a Torque monster before this rule?

 

Are there any higher Ft lb cars that are currently competitive, or even somewhat competitive?

 

Is there any advantage to having a car with equal hp/tq, versus having less tq than HP? I'd be willing to bet that most of the competitive cars have far less torque than Horsepower, since the only way to make a lot of horsepower in a NA engine is to either increase displacement or RPMs, and you can only get so much displacement before you have to go to a bigger, heavier engine that would upset the balance of the car.

[JS154]

It boils down to this...if you have the high torque car and actually race against high hp cars you know you are at a disadvantage. If you haven't sat in the driver's seat YOU DON'T KNOW!!

 

Absolutely not. The car with the broad torque curve will have a significant advantage getting out of the corner, and through traffic, and has to shift less. The high revving high hp car must get a clean run through the corners and must always stay in it's narrow peaky powerband or it's forked.

 

Trust me after three years of fighting this battle in STU at the Runoffs. I'll take TQ over HP any day.