PROPOSED RULE 2015: Adjust minimum weight calculation

[JSG1901]

Proposed change

Removal of the modification of the power calculation for vehicles with greater torque than horsepower.

 

Reason

The current method creates a less parity instead of more.

 

Additionally, higher TQ is becoming common in many modern turbo powered German vehicles. With the current methodology GTS risks alienating these vehicles because they can’t be competitive under

the current rules.

 

 

For full description and analysis please see:

 

http://www.clownshoemotorsports.com/forum_img/GTS_TQ/GTS_Rule_Proposal_TQ.pdf

 

Proposed wording

Removal of all text referring to the (HP+TQ)*.5 rule.

[flink]

Agree. The torque+hp/2 thing never made much sense.

 

The idea of switching to average-hp-over-the-powerband is a very very good one, and it would address the concerns over engine detuning as well. It would be great if we could make that happen for 2016. It would be best if dynojet were to add this to their dyno software so people can get the number immediately when doing a pull. And/or add it to Winpep.

[John Graber]

No

[Zach H.]

yes. this would allow for more cars to enter the class.

[cstreit911]

Just so we're clear, this rule means that a 180HP car with 500 ft lbs of torque (if such a thing were possible) will be considered equal to a 180HP car with 100 ft. lbs of torque.

 

Correct?

 

Is that establishing MORE parity? Is there a line of high-torque low HP cars waiting in the wings such that we should change the basic GTS formula that's stood for 10 years?

[flink]

If your 500 ft/lb is at 1000RPM then it's of no benefit, because you never go that low.

 

I really wish dynos didn't report torque at all. It causes so much confusion In GTS it's used as a wildly inaccurate proxy for "you have a wide power band".

 

Scrapping this rule and switching to 0.75*HP+0.25*TQ (with no 1.25*TQ cutoff) is an improvement. But it's still a terribly kludgy approximation of what we *really* want to use, which is "average power output between the optimum shift points".

[[email protected]]

I really wish dynos didn't report torque at all. It causes so much confusion.

 

That is an interesting proposition.

 

If you didn't use torque at all to calculate the class of a car in weight/HP, and just used a peak HP..... you would still have people trying to make a horizontal detuned flat range at their peak possible HP to make class.

 

If they pick an engine capable of generating that HP at 5252, then they have maximized the rules ABOVE 5252 rpm for their car.

 

Ignoring the rpm below 5252 is what this whole discussion is about. If you want to ignore it, then throw out the rules regarding factoring in torque.

 

No one is currently saddled with HAVING to choose a given engine in GTS. Choose what you want to maximize your position in class of choice.

 

Against

Edited November 21, 2014 by Guest

[scottbm3]

No !

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[brant giere]

No

[Revolution Mini]

no

[bmwjoon]

No.

[cash7c3]

No. First new turbo cars can be tuned or detuned to maximize current rules just like the N/A cars can.

 

Issue with the avg hp idea is then you're going to get cars that make zero power below 5k rpm and then gobs of power over. It will just switch how tuning to maximize the rules is done, not get rid of it or add parity. So no to that idea as well, even though it would benefit me as a turbo car driver, I can make no power or tons of power wherever i'd like in the rpm range, probably with more flexibility and to a larger degree than NA cars (depending on base motor choice, turbo choice, and intended classing)

[7VO-VOM]

No. I've actually considered building a turbo diesel BMW and I still think the current rule is fine until somebody shows with numbers on real cars that show it is unfair. Benchracing is not a reason to change a rule for fairness.

[ineedfood2]

no

[flink]

Issue with the avg hp idea is then you're going to get cars that make zero power below 5k rpm and then gobs of power over.

 

No, it would be crazy to average the power over the entire rev range. They way to do it is to locate the optimum power band and average the power over that. A typical upshift changes the RPMs by a factor of about 1.3, so the software would identify the 1:1.3 rev range which has the highest average power (eg, 5000RPM->6500RPM) and then that's your number.

 

(It's not quite accurate because when accelerating from 5000RPM to 6500RPM, the car will spend more time in the higher revs because of the half-em-vee-squared thing, but I suspect it's close enuf)

[sips56]

vote no to this

[J Smith]

No.

[CARVAL Motorsports]

Just so we're clear, this rule means that a 180HP car with 500 ft lbs of torque (if such a thing were possible) will be considered equal to a 180HP car with 100 ft. lbs of torque.

 

Correct?

 

Is that establishing MORE parity? Is there a line of high-torque low HP cars waiting in the wings such that we should change the basic GTS formula that's stood for 10 years?

 

Thanks!

 

No

[peter*g]

No.

[loftygoals]

Is anyone reading the linked PDF? I proposed this and did the research. My car I'm build make much less torque than HP, so this is not for personal gain. The goal is to create more parity, better racing, and attract more cars to the series.

 

Just so we're clear, this rule means that a 180HP car with 500 ft lbs of torque (if such a thing were possible) will be considered equal to a 180HP car with 100 ft. lbs of torque.

 

Correct?

 

Is that establishing MORE parity?

 

Yes. If you look at the linked documentation you will see why. The real factor is average HP, not TQ. The current GTS rules are pentalizing cars with more TQ than HP in a way that makes them less competitive.

 

 

Is there a line of high-torque low HP cars waiting in the wings such that we should change the basic GTS formula that's stood for 10 years?

 

Potentially... All the new BMWs produce more TQ than HP. Just because the formula has existed for 10 years doesn't mean is it is still valid. Things have changed. 10 years ago we didn't see detuned cars creating 90% of peak power across the entire powerband. Average HP is king.

 

 

 

 

 

If you didn't use torque at all to calculate the class of a car in weight/HP, and just used a peak HP..... you would still have people trying to make a horizontal detuned flat range at their peak possible HP to make class.

 

True, as I mentioned the best solution for accounting for that is using an average HP calculation. I mention that in the linked PDF. I just didn't think that should be implimented without more research.

 

 

No one is currently saddled with HAVING to choose a given engine in GTS. Choose what you want to maximize your position in class of choice.

 

Racers are indeed able to choose swap eninges, but why should the rules govern which motors can be utilized effectively? Restricting TQ means that to maximize for the class you need a high reving motor (Entire powerband above 5252) that can be detuned. GTS is a series that can encourge innovation in maximizing a car, let's keep it that why by eliminating this unfair TQ calculation.

 

 

 

 

No. First new turbo cars can be tuned or detuned to maximize current rules just like the N/A cars can.

 

Not exactly. To maximize for the current ruleset, you have to make all of your power above 5252. So to make a N54 maximized for the current rules you would have to modify head, cams, turbos, and ECU. At that point, you have created a situation where swapping in a S54 is a better option. But why when the N54 could be very competitive and no more "maximized" than an S54 for virtually no cost. That seems like what is better for the series.

 

Issue with the avg hp idea is then you're going to get cars that make zero power below 5k rpm and then gobs of power over.

 

That's why I proposed the highest average over the powerband. To prevent people from skirting the intent of the rule. Even so, there is lots of discussion that would need to happen. The intent of this thread is to discuss and vote on whether the elimination of the TQ calculation would be good for the series.

 

-bj

[Luke P.]

For, based on selfish reasons (have a TQ setup) but realistically this would not be good for the class.

[hamflex]

No