Jump to content
UKRBMW

Is it just me or GTS numbers are dropping?

Recommended Posts

brkntrxn
Kevin,

As per your advice, edited and did myself a favor.

Thank you.

Michael.

 

Thanks, now we can be friends and I won't hold any association with Alex against you if you do the same.

 

 

-Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larro

I have one suggestion that may help. remember just a suggestion. open rule set is what draws people in. everyone likes that, myself included. ill be honest i think detuning is bs. i believe a car shouldnt be able to detune to a class lower than what it falls in from the factory. its obvious that newer cars with wider track and much larger tires that are detuned are the cars to beat. limiting tire size may also help however i think that kind of goes against open rule set even though there is a dot vs. non dot tire rule. its hard to combat a car that has a 315 size tire when u can only run a 245.

 

being part of the NE i was in the process of building a GTS3 car for battle but put that project on hold because my older car with little tires wont be more than mid pack at this point. spec e30 here i come.

 

again just suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

open ruleset draws people in

makes suggestion to make ruleset less open

 

... I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larro

how does that make the rule set less open? your still allowed anything you want brakes, suspension, drivetrain, etc. when is enough with the detuning? when someone detunes a gt3 cup car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

Welcome to an open rule set. What is wrong with detuning any car to make the permitted power to weight ratio?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larro

if the problem with detuning is obvious then here is one small example. the man with the biggest budget wins. by the most ridiculous most expensive german car u can find drop 300+ hp and race in gts2. better yet gts 1 so your competition is bmw 2002s and 924s. cars that are 8"s plus narrower and there total tire width equals 1 of your 345s.

 

i dont hate on the fortunate ones, we are club racers and share a common bond. we race the cars we love because we love them. in a time where most people are horsepower obsessed, to drop power for the easy victory boggles my mind. numbers are big in the ne however they would be bigger if the people with existing cars arent getting eclipsed by detuning. as i have posted in the past everyone wants a fighting chance. people want to be competitive and not drive around mid pack cause theres an 80k build driving around at the front.

 

money drives this sport. its a known fact. why should the people lose out with there 20k when people are starting their build with a car that in any givin pro class would never be classed together.

 

i knew this would light a fire under peoples asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

Welcome to an open rule set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Larro,

 

If you feel so strongly about the tire size advantage - you can try to formulate the change to the Rules and submit, as well as the detuning issue. We looked at the tire issue twice with in last few years during the discussion of the changes to the Rules and the vast majority was against, simply because with the range of cars and range of different platforms used in GTS the formula wider = faster is not always true for all. There is an opinion of rolling resistance vs. grip, how much wider is actually better, etc.

Money is always a factor, but it is true elsewhere.

The biggest issue, that if you target tires - why not brakes, suspension or aero - all of it plays the role. Once you start doing that - might as well use the PT table and forget about GTS.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larro

I agree with you on the issue with tire size. At what point would it end, would it stop there or continue to other things. my issue is really with the detuning. My fear is that older just as competitve cars will become obsolete, as well as drive people away. off the top of my head i can think of numerous people who have sold cars and moved on to spec series just because their car is no longer competitive in a class. with that being said, spec miata may not be a large field with nasa but it is with other organizations. So not only are you losing entrants in gts but with nasa as well.

 

Im just trying to think of ways to equalize the competition but also keep numbers strong. The only thing worse than running mid pack is racing by yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

So then are you also against adding weight ballast? How do you define a "detune"? Do restrictor plates count? If not, isnt detuning just an updated way of adding a plate? Is limiting throttle a detune? It just brings up so many more complexities and questions for compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larro

I think balance of performance is a good idea and im for it. Equalize the field. Add ballast, etc.

 

Like I have said before, I dont think a car should be allowed to detune to a class lower than where it falls from the factory.

 

I also think detuning should be mechanical. Theres to many different ways to switch maps while behind the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe
Alan,

 

First of all, I can reassure that there was never an intent to favor or exclude certain brands in GTS. Naturally, some are more popular and / or more competitive to begin with, as a result we have dominating brands. But that is not unique to GTS. Even though, you feel ST/PT does a better job equalizing - those classes have their favorites too, such as Corvettes in ST2 with some mix of EVOs and STis.

We would like to see more VWs, Audis and MBs competing in GTS, but I doubt that numbers of those would increase, if we would give them some preference in the Rules. You certainly can submit the proposal for new Rules update, if you have any particular ideas, like different factor for FWD, for example. Mercedes somehow is out of active racing scene in US altogether, not sure why.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

 

Great to hear! Will do. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benzito86

If we get back to the original question, are gts numbers dropping, I think the answer is yes regardless of the region. I also know a number of people who had gts cars they either sold or prepped for another class. The main reason for them doing this, from what they told me, was detuning. And these participants have moved on to other series and some also to other organizations. So it seems to me that the open rule set may draw some in, but it also pushes some out. Thats not good for gts or for nasa. And isnt the idea of the open rule set so that you can make your car faster without penalty? Not slower. I feel if you detune a car for a class, you should also have to take some other additional penalties for dropping the class. That could be weight, or smaller tires. All of these are not complex to police as they are mechanical things that can be seen or measured. If a car comes from the factory as a gts4 car, there are more advantages than just the power. This is only my opinion. And if you want to go down a class or two, there should be penalties.

 

Someone mentioned getting other cars involved more such as vw, audi, mb. What about german ford? They have been in germany for a long ass time. These platforms just are not as good as the front running bmw and p cars. So do we make allowances for them to equalize? It does open a can of worms and there is no easy solution. Look at nationals. How many of the front running cars are e46 in gts3? Its obviously the car to have bc detuning it gives you a vast array of advantages more than power to weight. They are beating the best e36 cars by 3 seconds a lap at atlanta. What about ballast for front runners? I like that idea. But I think if a car has an obvious advantage through detuning, it should have a diff power to weight ratio. The key there being that it was detuned from stock to fit the class.

 

Someone also suggested changing the tire rule. I like that idea as well. A regional director chimed in on this saying some cars dont have a tire advantage on size because of rolling resistance due to varying weight etc. So now if this happens, does that make everyone change their cars for a diff weight? I understand this, its complex and it makes sense. It could def have a different effect than the one intended, but then again every change can. He has a very difficult job and there is no way he could make everyone happy. It was also stated that because of the varying platforms being used which is I think a strange statement to make. There is two primary platforms being used as far as I can tell. Am I wrong? Thats why we had the question of getting more marques involved. The reason you target the tires is because there is already a tire rule in place. So its not making a new rule or "making the ruleset less open", its tweaking an existing rule which happens all the time when there is an obvious advantage to having a particular platform. Sorry Michael, not calling you out and I dont envy your job. I appreciate all the work you do

Isnt the idea of racing cars to push limits? not to dial it back..

 

benzito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Benzito,

 

All of those topics are good to discuss as a part of the end of the season Rules Change proposals, as I mentioned before. Also, as I mentioned, some of those were submitted before (tire size penalty for example), discussed extensively and in details and declined by majority at the end. It doesn't mean that it will be declined forever, especially if someone will come forward with the well founded and well calculated proposal including penalty factor supported by data. We did it with sequential boxes last year after many years of saying NO.

By different platforms, I meant that the proposed effect of wider tires is different for different types and models of cars. And data shows that not all cars benefiting from wider tires. What is known that often there is an optimal size beyond which effects are often negative and it varies from car to car. When you saying that it is mechanical and easy to police, let me disagree - policing is difficult as is, I can only imagine if I need to start measuring tire size. We do have a problem with lack of manpower as is, so I'd rather have less policing than more.

De-tuning through ECU is relatively new to us, but as it is with mechanical de-tuning proponents of this argue that in a sense it is the same as adding weight. If we will succeed with developing the Compliance testing through AIM boxes, that may help to deal with the issue.

I agree that many newer models have advantages vs the older ones, but that is not a new issue - the same happened with the transition from E30 to E36 awhile ago pushing E30 to the bottom of GTS2 and may happen again soon with E92 pushing E46s off. The same is with newer 911s vs. the older ones.

I don't think there is an easy solution, but definitely worth discussing...

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddg

I hoping to add the Audi name to the So. Cal. GTS field by the end of 2015: '84 4000 quattro with a 20v turbo 5cyl.

I'm shooting for about 11:1 power to weight. The car should be about 2,300lbs dry w/o driver.

The one drawback right now is I'm limited to about 225 or 245 width tires unless I add flares....

 

IMG_0287.jpg

 

IMG_0290.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn
I think balance of performance is a good idea and im for it. Equalize the field. Add ballast, etc.

 

Like I have said before, I dont think a car should be allowed to detune to a class lower than where it falls from the factory.

 

I also think detuning should be mechanical. Theres to many different ways to switch maps while behind the wheel.

 

So you are NOT ok with detuning to save on the wear and tear on an engine, but you ARE in favor of spending money to tune up to the class limits? No car falls directly into the top limits of a class unless you are talking about some sort of factory stock class, which NASA does not have. I don't see why one way is ok but the other is not.

 

-Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
From reading through this thread last night I got the impression that attitude carries over to the GTS rule making. At east coast nationals there were no Audi or VW entrants for example. After almost a year of emersion in GTS racing I am coming to the conclusion that to be competitive you have to bring the right platform. That the rule makers are not "open" to suggested rule changes to make all GTS eligible cars competitive. That while PT and ST make the effort to equalize competitors, GTS hides behind the platitude of "open" to preserve the status quo.

Please tell me I am not only confused, but wrong about this.

 

Alan,

 

I think you're wrong, but not for the reasons you stated. It's because you mis-understand the nature of GTS. I can't speak to other series but GTS was created as a premise to showcase German Cars racing. I don't think it was ever to "Provide a place where any German Car could be competitive with any other German car." There is no hiding anything, it simply doesn't enter into the conversation. Why? Because there are lots and lots of other series that have long lists of penalty factors associated with every platform and every possible mod associated with that platform if that's what you want.

 

What is the 'right platform?' that you refer too? We are a power-to-weight series. There is no favoritism, no bias in that at all.

 

Are you saying that people should be able to show up with just any platform and be on the podium? What about development? Should the guy who spends the time, effort, and money to develop his car not be rewarded or do we rate everything on a curve? Who would make those decisions and by what measure? Who determines that a 1978 Porsche should be penalized vs. a 1980 BMW? How do we determine the effectiveness of every possible modification on hundreds of cars? A monumental task to be sure... and Pandora's box.

 

I showed up with a 40 year old car with non-adjustable everything and podiumed at Nationals twice. I don't see the bias. Most of the cars were 30 years newer so one could have certainly said it was the "wrong platform".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
how does that make the rule set less open? your still allowed anything you want brakes, suspension, drivetrain, etc. when is enough with the detuning? when someone detunes a gt3 cup car?

 

Many of us have already detuned the GT3 Cup (well restricted it anyway). The BMW's with e-throttle still have an advantage in that they can detune using throttle limiters. The Audi's have an advantage in that they have 4WD. The VW's have an advantage because.. ...er, well...

 

Point being that "balance of performance" is power-to-weight. Want to penalize components? Who's to say that JRZ > moton > Koni, etc..? We'd spend all year arguing about it and still be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benzito86
I think balance of performance is a good idea and im for it. Equalize the field. Add ballast, etc.

 

Like I have said before, I dont think a car should be allowed to detune to a class lower than where it falls from the factory.

 

I also think detuning should be mechanical. Theres to many different ways to switch maps while behind the wheel.

 

So you are NOT ok with detuning to save on the wear and tear on an engine, but you ARE in favor of spending money to tune up to the class limits? No car falls directly into the top limits of a class unless you are talking about some sort of factory stock class, which NASA does not have. I don't see why one way is ok but the other is not.

 

-Kevin

 

 

hi Kevin,

Detuning does cost money, just as much as a tune does. and do you really think detuning causes less wear and tear on an engine over a factory computer and tune? very doubtful because the detune will have been remapped to best make use of the lower hp and tq factors. ie more aggressive timing and fueling to start. Which Im sure you would agree will most likely increase the wear and tear over factory parameters.

It just seems to me that people spend money on cars to make them faster.

 

Benzito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benzito86
Benzito,

 

All of those topics are good to discuss as a part of the end of the season Rules Change proposals, as I mentioned before. Also, as I mentioned, some of those were submitted before (tire size penalty for example), discussed extensively and in details and declined by majority at the end. It doesn't mean that it will be declined forever, especially if someone will come forward with the well founded and well calculated proposal including penalty factor supported by data. We did it with sequential boxes last year after many years of saying NO.

By different platforms, I meant that the proposed effect of wider tires is different for different types and models of cars. And data shows that not all cars benefiting from wider tires. What is known that often there is an optimal size beyond which effects are often negative and it varies from car to car. When you saying that it is mechanical and easy to police, let me disagree - policing is difficult as is, I can only imagine if I need to start measuring tire size. We do have a problem with lack of manpower as is, so I'd rather have less policing than more.

De-tuning through ECU is relatively new to us, but as it is with mechanical de-tuning proponents of this argue that in a sense it is the same as adding weight. If we will succeed with developing the Compliance testing through AIM boxes, that may help to deal with the issue.

I agree that many newer models have advantages vs the older ones, but that is not a new issue - the same happened with the transition from E30 to E36 awhile ago pushing E30 to the bottom of GTS2 and may happen again soon with E92 pushing E46s off. The same is with newer 911s vs. the older ones.

I don't think there is an easy solution, but definitely worth discussing...

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

 

Michael.

thanks for clearing up some things. You make good points and it helps to show us your perspective as a director so we can understand what you guys deal with. You also brought up the sequential gearbox penalty which just proves that the directors know that sometimes changes need to be made. And we know youre working all the time.

thanks!

 

Benzito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe
From reading through this thread last night I got the impression that attitude carries over to the GTS rule making. At east coast nationals there were no Audi or VW entrants for example. After almost a year of emersion in GTS racing I am coming to the conclusion that to be competitive you have to bring the right platform. That the rule makers are not "open" to suggested rule changes to make all GTS eligible cars competitive. That while PT and ST make the effort to equalize competitors, GTS hides behind the platitude of "open" to preserve the status quo.

Please tell me I am not only confused, but wrong about this.

 

Alan,

 

I think you're wrong, but not for the reasons you stated. It's because you mis-understand the nature of GTS. I can't speak to other series but GTS was created as a premise to showcase German Cars racing. I don't think it was ever to "Provide a place where any German Car could be competitive with any other German car." There is no hiding anything, it simply doesn't enter into the conversation. Why? Because there are lots and lots of other series that have long lists of penalty factors associated with every platform and every possible mod associated with that platform if that's what you want.

 

What is the 'right platform?' that you refer too? We are a power-to-weight series. There is no favoritism, no bias in that at all.

 

Are you saying that people should be able to show up with just any platform and be on the podium? What about development? Should the guy who spends the time, effort, and money to develop his car not be rewarded or do we rate everything on a curve? Who would make those decisions and by what measure? Who determines that a 1978 Porsche should be penalized vs. a 1980 BMW? How do we determine the effectiveness of every possible modification on hundreds of cars? A monumental task to be sure... and Pandora's box.

 

I showed up with a 40 year old car with non-adjustable everything and podiumed at Nationals twice. I don't see the bias. Most of the cars were 30 years newer so one could have certainly said it was the "wrong platform".

 

 

This is what I'd like to get a definitive answer on. Are you willing to give concessions similar to ST or PT does, or are you set on maintaining the status quo? Do you speak for the rules committee? Should I even bother proposing a BoP rule? Are rule changes only made to keep out technology?

 

Why does GTS even bother soliciting rule changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Alan,

 

I suggest you submit the Rule Change proposal, especially if you feel strongly, and if you can make it specific and back up with data. Opinions expressed here are personal points of view. Often we agree and sometimes we disagree. Many times we had extensive discussions between members of the committee and at the end - majority rules. And even if any of us disagrees with the outcome - no hard feelings at the end - we just need to learn to respect the opposite views.

My personal opinion is that it is important to preserve the original core principle of open Rules set in GTS, keeping Rules stable and fair. Any new additional factor needs to be strongly substantiated by data. I have no bias and support technology, but strongly oppose the route of PT with penalizing every nut and bolt.

But there might be other opinions in the committee stronger than mine.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
This is what I'd like to get a definitive answer on. Are you willing to give concessions similar to ST or PT does, or are you set on maintaining the status quo? Do you speak for the rules committee? Should I even bother proposing a BoP rule? Are rule changes only made to keep out technology?

 

Alan,

 

Rather than speculate publicly on the forum, why don't you give the National Director, Scott Good a call and talk with him directly? When you joined GTS, was something missing from our communication that mis-led you to our intent or rules?

 

What technologies do you feel the rules are designed to keep out? What rule changes have you seen that you believe attempt to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe
This is what I'd like to get a definitive answer on. Are you willing to give concessions similar to ST or PT does, or are you set on maintaining the status quo? Do you speak for the rules committee? Should I even bother proposing a BoP rule? Are rule changes only made to keep out technology?

 

Alan,

 

Rather than speculate publicly on the forum, why don't you give the National Director, Scott Good a call and talk with him directly? When you joined GTS, was something missing from our communication that mis-led you to our intent or rules?

 

What technologies do you feel the rules are designed to keep out? What rule changes have you seen that you believe attempt to do this?

 

When I read the torque rule for GTS, I thought that would keep the diesel & turbo cars from dominating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911

I guess it's just a misunderstanding then. There are no rules against diesels or turbo cars.

Share this post


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...