Jump to content
JSG1901

2015 GTS Rules changes

Recommended Posts

cstreit911

Thanks for your comments Josh (and others). Appreciate the input...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Josh,

 

Did you ask for a proof of data when we switched from HP to HP +TQ/2? Do you believe the current system works well?

 

I can give you a list of experts we consulted and trust me - they know more about it than most of us. But it is also a matter of physics and you can certainly explore it yourself, and I doubt you will succeed in the argument that the peak HP/TQ is the best way to evaluate the power and acceleration.

 

The discussion and opinions expressed on how to calculate minimum weight were at least in 3 different topics this time around and in many others every year we go through this, so I am not sure what you missed. The decision to change was made based on a cumulative discussions through the years and topics.

 

We don't expect the new formula to be perfect, but certainly better than the old one and if will see the need for adjustment - it may need to be done, as in everything else in life.

 

The calculator should be out shortly.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

Based on the proposal, and the words defending it...

 

we are trying to equalize acceleration rates? Would this be peak acceleration rate? or average?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Smith

The data wasn't really available when the rules were changed before. Now, the GTS officials have quite a bit of black box data to look stand compare from the past few years. Is that what is driving this change? Can we see it?

 

Sure there were topics discussed about changing how we determine power:weight. But this certainly wasn't one of them. This new calculator should have been out publicly so everyone could see it and discuss it before actually implementing into the rules. Sure, maybe I'm overreacting. But I'm not blindly on board before actually seeing how this plays out. Imagine starting a new series and telling people you weren't really sure of the rules yet but assured them it would be fair. Don't think too many people would sign up or build cars before seeing the rules for themselves.

 

I'll wait to see the calculator before commenting anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

The simple test:

 

Currently GTS is weight/power.

 

We take a car. Lets say a 1993 BMW 325is.

First we remove the interior and cage it.

 

We weigh it. It weighs X. We dyno it. Dyno peak is Y. We run it on track and record data and lap times.

 

Now we swap the 3.15 open diff to a 3.73 LSD.

We weigh it. It still weighs X. We dyno it. Dyno peak is still Y. We run it on track and record data and lap times.

 

Now we swap the suspension to something better.

We weigh it. It still weighs X. We dyno it. Dyno peak is still Y. We run it on track and record data and lap times.

 

Now we tune the motor to keep the peak the same but bring up the rest of the power band.

We weigh it. It still weighs X. We dyno it. Dyno peak is still Y. We run it on track and record data and lap times.

 

 

Technically all iterations are GTS legal for class determined by X/Y.

The data should be very different for each version of the car. The acceleration rates (and speed at the end of the straights) will be different for all four versions.

For all but the last version the total power (on dyno) and weight would be identical, but the speeds will not. If we are making compliance based on "data" and not just dyno and scales, those cars may be classed differently. Is that what is wanted for GTS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
We don't expect the new formula to be perfect, but certainly better than the old one and if will see the need for adjustment - it may need to be done, as in everything else in life.
Neither formula is perfect. How can you claim the new rule is 'certainly better'? As several people have asked for repeatedly, where is there any evidence that the new rule is even as good as the old rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink
Because from what I understand, I'll be adding quite a bit of weight to my car to penalize an advantage that I don't think exists and that no one can actually prove exists with actual data.

 

Nope, nobody will need to add weight or reduce power because of this change. Because an average cannot exceed the peak.

 

People will be able to remove weight and/or add power because of this change - cars with peaky power curves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zach H.
Im not opposed to change especially if it increases car count, but as mentioned..... has this been tested?

 

For example, the national gts2 fiasco happened based on a new system used to monitor the cars and at the track their system failed. Sure it looked great and they deemed he won by shifting really fast and super wheel bearings or something ridiculous. When I asked my director about the system he said it had been tested but I arose the question, was it tested on a known car that was cheating to see beyond doubt that yes this system works.

 

I gave my regional director all my data both restricted and un-restricted for this reason alone. I seriously doubt they would have dq him or made this rule change without serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

7VO-VOM, I can claim the new formula is better, because after spending countless hours of discussing, evaluating, arguing, analyzing, the majority agreed that the average under the HP curve reflects the potential of the engine in acceleration much better then the peak number. The same way we believe the rest of the Rule set is fair, and we strive to keep it stable and open. We take the spirit of the Rules seriously and resisted the change for a long time until the evidence became clear.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe
...Any rule which equalizes cars makes GTS more of a driver's series. That's great!

And there's my rub. If you want a "driver's series", there are plenty of Spec classes out there that are very strict about what you can and cannot do to the car. It places everyone out there in race cars that are similar in every way. GTS is not that kind of series. You want $15K dampers? Totally allowed. How about a $12K custom geared transmission just to get the most out of the engine you picked/built for your car? Yep, that's allowed too. Want to spend $30K on a true race sequential with close ratio gears? (and take the tiny .2 penalty, I guarantee you it's worth it) No problem...absolutely legal. Show up with a full blown DTM car? Have fun in GTS, because that's legal too. But detune your engine? Now you're getting penalized. Makes no sense.

 

I'll elaborate on that comment for you.

"4 / Classification

 

There are six classes for GTS: GTS1, GTS2, GTS3, GTS4, GTS5, and GTSU. All cars will be classed

on a power to weight ratio. A vehicle's classification and minimum allowable weight (as the car

would exit the track with the driver) will be determined by multiplying the appropriate class

weight ratios by the vehicle's power."

 

The above extract from the GTS rules states GTS is a power to weight series. The equations that follow the above statement did a admirable job of defining power, but clever and industrious folks found a way to violate the spirit of the rules without violating the letter of the rules - creating cars with more power available.

 

The proposal is aimed at doing a better job of equalizing power across engines with disparate HP vs RPM characteristics. I applaud them for this effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
7VO-VOM, I can claim the new formula is better, because after spending countless hours of discussing, evaluating, arguing, analyzing, the majority agreed...
The majority agreeing to anything doesn't make it true, fair, or right. History proves this repeatedly.

 

We take the spirit of the Rules seriously and resisted the change for a long time until the evidence became clear.
The equations that follow the above statement did a admirable job of defining power, but clever and industrious folks found a way to violate the spirit of the rules without violating the letter of the rules - creating cars with more power available.
I'm still curious how the detuned cars violated the spirit of the rules. I think they exemplify the spirit of the rules. I would like the directors to explain that.

 

I asked a question when I started building a GTS car about 5 years ago. NASA National said it was legal and within the spirit of the rules. The GTS Director said it was legal and within the spirit of the rules. A Regional Director said my car would not be allowed on track because it "violated the spirit of the rules". His reasoning was that if I built a car to GTS rules to race in a GTS class, it would be unfair to the cars built to BWMCCA and PCA rules. I was building a class to GTS rules because I didn't care about running with PCA or SCCA.

 

This is looking familiar. People built cars to the (spirit of the) rules, now they are being penalized because other people either don't want to push the boundaries, tinker, or they want to have a car that they can race elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink
I'm still curious how the detuned cars violated the spirit of the rules.

 

I don't think they did. Rather, the rules violated the spirit of GTS!

 

Which begs the question, "what is the spirit of GTS". That's never been written down but I'd say it's "equalize the engine, everything else open, no goddam mustangs".

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

I hope it is clear that above quote about "detuned cars violated the spirit of the rules" doesn't belong to me - if not I would suggest to edit it correctly.

The topic is repeatedly taken into the area of penalizing detuned cars - which it is not about.

Again, since the beginning of GTS there was always an argument and discussion about the best or proper way to measure HP or ability of the given car to accelerate. There was even an opinion that we may need to change the definition in Rules from HP value to acceleration. Acceleration is actually what the boxes measure from which HP can be calculated as a secondary value via mathematical formula. We were back and force with that through the years. At some point we agreed to add TQ values believing that it helps calculations. There were other opinions as well. If you will go back to Rules discussions here in Forum you will find pages of opinions.

Everyone remembers Rabbit Diesel posts with graphs and tables.

This year again we discussed the issue of measuring acceleration / HP again and agreed that averaging under the curve is a better way to measure than peak HP.

We also discussed for years merits of penalizing seq boxes and only last year decided to implement it.

It is a simple matter of development to arrive to better, more realistic way to measure the capabilities of the car.

The spirit of GTS is to have open rules. The spirit of GTS is also to have the ability to monitor the compliance with the rules.

This rule doesn't make any tuning illegal - we will be just measuring it differently.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zmon

so its been under consideration for a while... can you please show the new formula? what is the duration of "shortly"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

So the goal is to shift GTS from weight/hp to "maximum acceleration" per class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
Again, since the beginning of GTS there was always an argument and discussion about the best or proper way to measure HP or ability of the given car to accelerate. There was even an opinion that we may need to change the definition in Rules from HP value to acceleration.

Acceleration is a difficult way to bound it. It would seem straightforward, as we start with:

Force = mass x acceleration

 

but that quickly turns into:

 

(Engine Force) = (mass x acceleration) + (Aerodynamic Drag Force) + (Rolling Resistance Force)

 

and then we have the issue of the force accelerating the car is not engine directly, it is geared.

 

Acceleration is actually what the boxes measure from which HP can be calculated as a secondary value via mathematical formula.

 

Measuring the acceleration of the system and solving for engine power requires either knowing all of the variables... or making wild assumptions.

 

It is a simple matter of development to arrive to better, more realistic way to measure the capabilities of the car.

The spirit of GTS is to have open rules. The spirit of GTS is also to have the ability to monitor the compliance with the rules.

This rule doesn't make any tuning illegal - we will be just measuring it differently.

GTS has the ability to monitor compliance with the rules. Current rules are weight (scales do a decent job of measuring this) and horsepower (dynamometers do a decent job of measuring this).

 

Maybe a brief physics refresher would lend clarity to the problem at hand? It would certainly illustrate why people were looking at torque and not just peak horsepower. Acceleration is caused by a force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: How do you define Trolling?

A: Post the new rule without posting the new rule.

 

I find it unacceptable from leadership to post a rule, but not post it.

The audacity of Directors claiming superiority of an unpublished algorithm is stupefying.

 

Michael G.: "I can claim the new formula is better, because after spending countless hours of discussing, evaluating, arguing, analyzing, the majority agreed that the average under the HP curve reflects the potential of the engine in acceleration much better then the peak number. "

 

I would certainly grant you that "a" new formula "could" be better.... but please, this situation borders on the intolerable to be honest, and its very disappointing.

 

Now, with respect to what is posted as the new rules in this thread?

 

Really? Show me the computer driven, blind-to-bias way to pick the 30% of the rpm on a dyno that is reproduceable and fair. Will you guys take my word or entry for redline? Look at the last data point on a dyno and use that? Doesn't this introduce a huge bias to a redline of 9000 where you get 3000 rpm to play with and fine tune and perhaps gear to use only 2000 of that rpm? Seriously?

 

Michael, don't take this personally. I assure you that if I were parked next to you in the pits, we'd get along wonderfully, my tools are your tools, borrow the welder, or I'll weld for you, need a drink or snack, help yourself. Me Casa, Su Casa. My comments are directed more to the thought process rather than you as a person. You're a messenger of a group effort. I get it, and appreciate that a lot of thought and work went on.

 

Allan Wolfe: "The above extract from the GTS rules states GTS is a power to weight series. The equations that follow the above statement did a admirable job of defining power, but clever and industrious folks found a way to violate the spirit of the rules without violating the letter of the rules - creating cars with more power available."

 

Allan, (again don't take this personally, I'm upset with the thought process, you're just the messenger, I get it)

 

This reminds me of the anecdote of a man talking to a woman.

 

Man: "Would you sleep with a stranger for 10 million dollars"

Woman: "Yes"

Man: Would you sleep with ME for $100?

Woman: "You pig, do you think I'm a prostitute?"

Man: Well, we've established you're a prostitute at the start, now we're just negotiating.

 

Your term "Clever and industrious folks" is exactly the target audience of a GTS open set of rules. It defines the successful racer, most of us wear that label with pride.

The term "Violating the spirit of the rules" is simply nuts.

 

So where do YOU draw the line?

 

Are you suggesting that someone with "just a little too much power" should not be allowed to adjust the redline to drop into the top of a power/weight class? Not be able to put on a restrictor? Not de-tune to flatten the top of their curve? Not to take advantage of easily available technology to drop the power off a bit? It is a ridiculous assertion.

 

The racer that creates a car that fits in at the top of the power to weight of their chosen class has a potential edge over people that don't. It should be expected that racers use every tool they can "cleverly and industriously" get their hands on to reduce or increase weight, or fine tune their power to maximize the potential of their cars.

 

Those racers that do, SHOULD have the edge... that is racing folks.

 

I can promise you that ANY new algorithm will still overwhelmingly favor the racer that industriously and cleverly manages their power. As it should be.

 

I have no problem with using a better tool to measure power. Of course, this coddles people too lazy to manage their power output, but this is a very disappointing way to get the ball rolling.

 

Where's the algorithm?

 

As an aside, I've been searching for a perfect way to paint a target on the back of my M3, I think this post is a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
Are you suggesting that someone with "just a little too much power" should not be allowed to adjust the redline to drop into the top of a power/weight class? Not be able to put on a restrictor? Not de-tune to flatten the top of their curve? Not to take advantage of easily available technology to drop the power off a bit? It is a ridiculous assertion.

 

I don't know where did you see that suggestion?

 

The racer that creates a car that fits in at the top of the power to weight of their chosen class has a potential edge over people that don't. It should be expected that racers use every tool they can "cleverly and industriously" get their hands on to reduce or increase weight, or fine tune their power to maximize the potential of their cars.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

And Thank you for so many complements!

Don't remember getting so many colorful description on many other authoritarian moves from Directors.

I am sure you are held to a higher standards and would be a better Ruler.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
llis

As a matter of logic and pragmatics, this seems to be an easy improvement. Trying to gauge horsepower over the main max powerband makes sense to me, as a somewhat scientific non-builder. I'd only question the top-third RPMs selection. Why not a broader average?

 

Objections I'm seeing are generally falling into two camps:

 

1/ The tunes make no difference.

2/ The new system can be gamed as well.

 

If the tunes make no difference, then this rule change makes no difference and these folks can just get on with their winter holidays.

 

If the new system can be gamed, then I'd ask whether this makes gaming the system particularly more expensive, or just different? And can the same advantage (assuming there is an advantage) be gained from gaming the system? And is the goal of GTS rules to make gaming the system easier? And how is a more accurate measure of horsepower detrimental to people who see this more as a builder's class than a driver's class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
As a matter of logic and pragmatics, this seems to be an easy improvement. Trying to gauge horsepower over the main max powerband makes sense to me, as a somewhat scientific non-builder. I'd only question the top-third RPMs selection. Why not a broader average?

 

Objections I'm seeing are generally falling into two camps:

 

1/ The tunes make no difference.

2/ The new system can be gamed as well.

 

If the tunes make no difference, then this rule change makes no difference and these folks can just get on with their winter holidays.

 

If the new system can be gamed, then I'd ask whether this makes gaming the system particularly more expensive, or just different? And can the same advantage (assuming there is an advantage) be gained from gaming the system? And is the goal of GTS rules to make gaming the system easier? And how is a more accurate measure of horsepower detrimental to people who see this more as a builder's class than a driver's class?

 

A broader average would mean a very simple way to game the system. Artificially drop HP outside the usable rev-range, but inside the calculated range. This would also lead to a distinct error in the USABLE power calculation for those that had short gearboxes.

 

I'm curious to the comments that "the tune makes no difference"... ...because then a) why are so many people doing it? and b) why so adamant about it?

Secondly I also don't hear any defense that a peak HP number in a single data point in a dyno graph is a fair representation of the power of a car. This is a POWER to weight series. No where does it state that this is a max HP at a single data point series. Since these cars live and drive over a rev range, should not power also reflect that same rev-range vs. an arbitrary point.?

 

Sure the new system can be gamed. So can the old one. However those games are being quickly eliminated as we work through it. ...and if we see someone gaming it, we'll adjust it or them. You can be assured that if someone changes by a substantial number all of a sudden, we will be alerted by the system and will scrutinize the number. ...and with a public repository for dyno sheets and data for all competitors, there will be no secrets. You will all see what people are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe

Allan Wolfe: "The above extract from the GTS rules states GTS is a power to weight series. The equations that follow the above statement did a admirable job of defining power, but clever and industrious folks found a way to violate the spirit of the rules without violating the letter of the rules - creating cars with more power available."

 

Allan, (again don't take this personally, I'm upset with the thought process, you're just the messenger, I get it)

 

This reminds me of the anecdote of a man talking to a woman.

 

Man: "Would you sleep with a stranger for 10 million dollars"

Woman: "Yes"

Man: Would you sleep with ME for $100?

Woman: "You pig, do you think I'm a prostitute?"

Man: Well, we've established you're a prostitute at the start, now we're just negotiating.

 

Your term "Clever and industrious folks" is exactly the target audience of a GTS open set of rules. It defines the successful racer, most of us wear that label with pride.

The term "Violating the spirit of the rules" is simply nuts.

 

So where do YOU draw the line?

 

Are you suggesting that someone with "just a little too much power" should not be allowed to adjust the redline to drop into the top of a power/weight class? Not be able to put on a restrictor? Not de-tune to flatten the top of their curve? Not to take advantage of easily available technology to drop the power off a bit? It is a ridiculous assertion.

 

The racer that creates a car that fits in at the top of the power to weight of their chosen class has a potential edge over people that don't. It should be expected that racers use every tool they can "cleverly and industriously" get their hands on to reduce or increase weight, or fine tune their power to maximize the potential of their cars.

 

Those racers that do, SHOULD have the edge... that is racing folks.

 

I can promise you that ANY new algorithm will still overwhelmingly favor the racer that industriously and cleverly manages their power. As it should be.

 

I have no problem with using a better tool to measure power. Of course, this coddles people too lazy to manage their power output, but this is a very disappointing way to get the ball rolling.

 

Agreed - The term "Violating the spirit of the rules" was over the top on my part.

 

You nailed it with a better tool to measure power...

 

If we are going to have a power to weight series, lets strive to accurately measure both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cash7c3

As it has been pointed our repeatedly there are a couple obvious ways to "game" the new rule which is my #1 issue with the new rule . . . I have other issues with the whole process but those are relatively minor.

 

There seems to be a reactive instead of a proactive mindset in making this rule work for the series:

 

Sure the new system can be gamed. So can the old one. However those games are being quickly eliminated as we work through it. ...and if we see someone gaming it, we'll adjust it or them. You can be assured that if someone changes by a substantial number all of a sudden, we will be alerted by the system and will scrutinize the number. ...and with a public repository for dyno sheets and data for all competitors, there will be no secrets. You will all see what people are doing.

 

That simply isn't acceptable in any series that is trying to be run professionally and attract new drivers, builders, etc. Lets say hypothetically someone spends the time and money to maximize this new rule. You'd probably call it "gaming" the rule where I'd call it maximizing the rule but that's just semantics. At what point are you going to adjust the rule for them? Once yearly? Race to race?

 

Any ruling to penalize a competitor for doing a fantastic job of putting together the best possible platform to fit within the letter of the rules mid-season would be simply unethical and starts down a slippery slope that isn't in what I believe to be the spirit of the series.

 

I guess my suggestion is refine the rule further before putting it to use. Quell the concerns of potential "gaming" etc by writing a better rule instead of just throwing it out there with the intention of dealing with the issues later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
You'd probably call it "gaming" the rule where I'd call it maximizing the rule but that's just semantics.

 

"Gaming" would be tuning a dip in horsepower at every measureing point to "fool" the algorithm. "Tuning" is not gaming it.

 

Any ruling to penalize a competitor for doing a fantastic job of putting together the best possible platform to fit within the letter of the rules mid-season would be simply unethical and starts down a slippery slope that isn't in what I believe to be the spirit of the series.

 

I can't imagine any reasonable scenario where this would happen. When has GTS ever changed a rule mid-season? I think you're borrowing trouble from the future here....

 

I guess my suggestion is refine the rule further before putting it to use. Quell the concerns of potential "gaming" etc by writing a better rule instead of just throwing it out there with the intention of dealing with the issues later.

 

That's exactly what is happening here. The "heads up" was sent out by Scott that we are looking at it, but no final rule has been published. Literally hundreds of test cases and iterations are being run through to get to a good rule before "throwing it out there".

 

 

(Not directed at you Cash)

I've heard 5 separate comments about how easy it is to "beat" the system and ruin GTS, but no one willing to share input how they think that will happen... ...and then complaining that this was done without racer input.

 

Why do you think Scott put the "heads up" email out there. NOW is the time for your input. If you hold your secret idea close to the vest and do not share it, then you have lost your right to have the say that you want in this. Commenting "This stinks" isn't really productive, it's just complaining. Okay, I get that. ...but if you want to actually help, pitch in, throw out the test case and scenario. I promise GTS will look at it.

 

As I said before. GTS is a Power to Weight series. The only question is "How is power computed?". 12 years ago when everyone had virtually the same dyno graph, there was no need to consider much more than a single data point, the peak. ..but now that power curves are different for every car, be they standard, multi-stage-turbo, limited, detuned, etc.. peak horsepower isn't really an accurate reflection is it? I have yet to here an objective disagreement on that concept with any math to back it up.

 

So what we are debating here is the method of computation... ...and again I say, if you want input on that, and you feel what was described as the basis is incorrect, then show where it is wrong. Show where the flaws are. This will be how to provide useful feedback and criticism. "That sucks" (and derivatives) aren't really going to affect anything.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

 

As I said before. GTS is a Power to Weight series. The only question is "How is power computed?". 12 years ago when everyone had virtually the same dyno graph, there was no need to consider much more than a single data point, the peak. ..

 

Chris, you can beat me over the head when we meet for dinner, but just wanted to clarify on this one point. Back then we just didnt do it via software. We just played trial and error with a mix of parts. Like mixing different manifolds with TBs and restrictor plates. Even playing with dumping fuel at upper RPMs to drop power. It was a crude method of detuning, but it was being done.

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...