Jump to content
JSG1901

PROPOSED RULE 2015: Adjust power to weight calc

Recommended Posts

JSG1901

Proposed change

Modify the calculation of minimum weight

 

Reason

Balance advancements in Tuning, Detuning and Torque leveling between car brands. Helps with cost containment and need for custom tuning, if available** for car/brand.

If Torque above WHP is an advantage why wouldn't Torque below WHP be a disadvantage?

 

Proposed wording

a) the at-the-wheels horsepower value (WHP) from the single run with the highest horsepower

reading (for cars with higher horsepower than torque);

 

 

Weight

----------------------------------

(WHP*.75)+(WTQ*.25)

 

Note: If WTQ*1.25 > WHP enter WHP Value in WTQ spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink

Agree.

 

It's better than nothing, but switching to average-hp-over-powerband will fix this up as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex

No

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MPower6er

Vote "For" this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MPower6er

Vote "For" this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

Disagree if I install a V8 this winter.

Agree if I keep my S54.

 

BWAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

No, leave it the way it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78 Rocco

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink

Wait.

 

Note: If WTQ*1.25 > WHP enter WHP Value in WTQ spot

 

What's this bit for? It means that if the peak TQ is more than 80% of the peak HP. no change. So:

 

TQ < 80% of HP: you gain

TQ > 80% of HP and < 100% of HP: no change

TQ > 100% of HP: you take a penalty

 

Well... why? What's magical about 80%? If a car has TQ=90% of HP, it should get an adjustment against a car which has TQ=100% of HP.

 

(edit)

 

So if a car has 250hp, 200ft/lb then it's counted as 237.5hp.

If another car has 250hp, 201 ft/lb then it's counted as 250hp.

 

This makes no sense. The "Note:" should be scrapped IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason

Balance advancements in Tuning, Detuning and Torque leveling between car brands. Helps with cost containment and need for custom tuning, if available** for car/brand.

 

I disagree with this premise. Anyone seems to accept that its ok to spend money to build an engine and tune it properly to make more power, adding chips, flashes or pistons, rods, cams and valves etc to go faster. People in GTS with open rules should be allowed to spend money to detune the engine as well. In fact, a detuned engine is likely to be a cost savings vs running highly stressed grenade engines that make more power than is "natural" to coin a phrase. This could be a cost savings, not escalation in the long run.

 

Furthermore, with the advent of low cost standalones, almost anyone can pick their chassis, one of several engines from their brand of choice and detune to maximize a class entry they want. People have been changing from AFM to HFM (Split Second for example)or going AN for years, why not get a E-throttle from any number of sources, and go DBW? Creativity is the name of the game, and its not that expensive to take advantage of the rules. People accept this for lightening cars, building engines, why not standalones and E-throttle? Its out there, to say that you don't want to use this technology is fine, but its out there, and available.

 

If Torque above WHP is an advantage why wouldn't Torque below WHP be a disadvantage?

 

To build a car for GTS at the top of the allowable weight/power ratio favors a flat torque curve up to 5252, and flat HP thereafter.

The more torque or HP you can use at any place the better. I love the simplicity of this. To complain that you can't make an engine match the theoretical dyno curve that would be optimized for your car's weight implies you have to work harder, not prevent others from maximizing the rules. There is no inherent advantage to having more or less torque currently, only engines that have not been tuned to maximize the rules. Lazy considering how much is spent on other aspects of some builds or the initial investment in others.

 

No one complains that someone else has an unfair weight advantage, right? Because its assumed that you can switch classes or spend more to take off more weight. No difference here. If you have an engine, tune it to maximize the rules we all have to match.

 

The math of Torque and HP is simple.... above 5252 EVERYONE has less torque than HP... its a given. Below 5252, if you're smart currently, you'll limit your torque to not exheed the HP so there is no penalty... that should be easily tuned with virtually any standalone or stock dme in this day and age..... and cost WAY less than is worth complaining about here.

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cash7c3

Against for the reasons above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
So if a car has 250hp, 200ft/lb then it's counted as 237.5hp.

If another car has 250hp, 201 ft/lb then it's counted as 250hp.

 

This makes no sense.

I saw this as well. Definitely no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I guess I said yes before I realized the "loophole."

So I am against it as it is proposed, but a yes for factoring the Tq in when it's below HP, similarly to the calculation when TQ is above HP. I think a simple formula adjustment can correct that.

 

Ideally the "area below the curve etc" is the real target, but enforceability and management of that data in a club racing format, given the resources present, is too cumbersome. This would give us a simple way to do that. A basic "balance of power."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke P.

I'd need to have Scott double check my calculations, but this seems pretty clever and works for my setup.

 

With that said, for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopofthese

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peter*g

I vote no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

So for those who said no - what is your logic? Are you running some type of a torque monster of a car? And if so this rule wouldn't really change anything for your tune. I'd say 90% of cars in GTS have more HP than torque. This is a chance to narrow the spread between those really light on torque and those who have more. It still keeps the rules wide open and creates better/closer competition. So what is so bad about this rule?

 

I would get rid of the whole 75% caveat - just make it one simple formula applicable to everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peter*g
So for those who said no - what is your logic? Are you running some type of a torque monster of a car? And if so this rule wouldn't really change anything for your tune. I'd say 90% of cars in GTS have more HP than torque. This is a chance to narrow the spread between those really light on torque and those who have more. It still keeps the rules wide open and creates better/closer competition. So what is so bad about this rule?

 

I would get rid of the whole 75% caveat - just make it one simple formula applicable to everybody.

 

I voted no because of the "NOTE" and the loophole Andrew Morton pointed out above. The idea of balancing the formula to include torque seems reasonable, but that additional note as it's written introduces new problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

So Peter - in other words if the loophole is removed would you vote yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Smith

No, I'm against this.

 

Where did the .75 and .25 factors come from? Pulled out of thin air because they seem like nice numbers to work with? Why is is that those numbers are what will make cars "equal"?

- Some examples: A GTS3 car that has a race weight of 3080lbs - Where is the data that supports a an engine with 280hp/280tq = 290hp/250tq = 300hp/220tq = 270hp/310tq?

A GTS4 car that has a race weight of 3060lbs - Does 360hp/360tq = 380hp/300tq = 400hp/240tq = 340hp/420tq?

 

I have a multiple tunes for my S65. I run the same race weight (3100lbs) whether I'm in GTS3 (282hp/282tq) or GTS4 (365hp/282tq) with the current formula. With the proposed formula, my weight in GTS3 trim would stay the same, but in GTS4 trim I could run 180lbs lighter than I do now, or run with an additional 28hp. That's a lot! And this is on a car that already is setting track records in GTS4.

My peak torque numbers are also in an RPM range that I never use on the race track (3000-5000 RPM). The GTS3 dyno graph (HP and TQ) for my detuned S54 (283hp/260tq) looks identical to the one for my S65 (282hp/282tq) after 5500RPM...where most race cars spend all their time. Guess it will be back to the tuner to figure out how to kill the high torque numbers in those low RPM's.

 

I'm not sure what this rule is trying to fix? What's broken? Are the cars that have hp and tq numbers that are close to equal running away from everyone else? I don't see that in any of the regions I'm involved with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So for those who said no - what is your logic? Are you running some type of a torque monster of a car? And if so this rule wouldn't really change anything for your tune.

I would venture a guess that a fair number of people have come to the GTS drawn by the weight/power rules.

They have come to build a car to maximize their power within the class rules.

They came to build a car vs "run what you brung".

They want to avoid the displacement racing where mega-bucks result in mega power, and no one weighs the cars.

They have indeed taken the time to consider engine choice, tuning, and rules to pick a class. Anyone seriously intent on winning will have done so.

So, YES, many people probably HAVE chosen, or are contemplating engines that make sufficient torque below 5252 so that they can maximize the power available for the weight of their car. This is how the rules have been for a while.

I'd say 90% of cars in GTS have more HP than torque.

Well, technically, 100% of the cars in GTS have more HP than Torque above 5252 rpm.

The debate is "who" to favor below 5252.

This is proposing a crutch to people with older engines, engines designed for displacement racing, with no limit to HP.

I think its safe to say that the majority of more recent engines from any German manufacturer are including variable valve timing, dbw, or FI to make even sports cars torquey in the low to mid rpm range. So favoring the old stuff is one choice, but doesn't really seem right for the future or in principle at all.

This is a chance to narrow the spread between those really light on torque and those who have more. It still keeps the rules wide open and creates better/closer competition. So what is so bad about this rule?

Here is what is wrong with it.

Better & close competition is when everyone builds their car, ENGINE TUNING INCLUDED to maximize their power/weight classification to the top of what is allowed in that class.

So, devil's advocate:

We are proposing here to change the rules because a subset of people want to keep their engine the way it came from the factory, with HP max > Trq max.

Is that the spirit of GTS?

We don't apply that logic to aero, weight, brakes or suspension do we.... Why should we to engine developement?

The rules shouldn't favor one type of engine if possible. Currently the majority of people who are considering themselves torque challenged could be accused of racing in too high a class for the engine they chose.

So that is a reason to change the rules? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Like everybody else I've spent my share on building a car with my choice of power plant. But at the same time I don't see why we wouldn't make a switch to bring in folks who might be running an S52 and feel like they are completely outgunned against an S54 or S62/65. If this results in closer racing - is that a downside or do you feel if you drop an S65 in for 20k you should be winning by 5 seconds a lap? Same goes for P-cars that could benefit since they are very peakey.

 

Josh - if you end up even faster, that's great. I imagine this would bump power for most in GTS4, but would have a smaller effect on 2-3.

 

I run an S54 in 2500 pound car - no matter what happens I won't be getting much from this rule change. I just don't want us to eliminate a good suggestion because we feel this goes against "open rule set". I would argue it's the opposite - now you can consider more options: more torque with less overall power or high output, less torquey motor. So for the builder out there this creates a new world of opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see why we wouldn't make a switch to bring in folks who might be running an S52 and feel like they are completely outgunned against an S54 or S62/65.

 

They are free to take an affordable S52, and throw on an affordable standalone, and create a killer engine in a lower class than where the S54 are running. They ARE outgunned.

 

I don't think the right approach is to say buying a German sporty car means it should fit into a particular class to encourage fairness.

 

Take a cheap E36, 2900 lb, DOT in GTS2, and that S52 can make 200 torque flat under 5252, and 200 hp flat up to redline. Killer Dyno curve, could be a very cheap and popular combination... Almost a spec series as far as cheap entry level.

 

But don't expect it to run in GTS3 competitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...