Jump to content
JSG1901

2015 GTS Rules changes

Recommended Posts

J Smith

You know what would make things real easy for the racers to give constructive criticism of the new formula? Make it public!! Why the secret? Geez!!!

Oh, it's not ready yet? Well, maybe we can help with that. I'd like to think we're a relatively smart group of people here. And as racers who compete in it, it is our series. Any reason why we are being left out of this?

 

As I said before, the people opposed could be over reacting, but who knows without actually being able to input numbers and see how it affects different engines/tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
You know what would make things real easy for the racers to give constructive criticism of the new formula? Make it public!! Why the secret? Geez!!!

Oh, it's not ready yet? Well, maybe we can help with that. I'd like to think we're a relatively smart group of people here. And as racers who compete in it, it is our series. Any reason why we are being left out of this? As I said before, the people opposed could be over reacting, but who knows without actually being able to input numbers and see how it affects different engines/tunes.

 

Completely understand. Scott did a good job of describing the concept but we're still a little ways away from trying to publish it into the limelight. I am a fan of testing before live and will certainly seek that opportunity for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127

Chris if you want us to give our opinion or help with it how about you give us the all the info you guys have, let us analyze it and then we can have an opinion.

 

Suddenly I see the ST class getting more cars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
Completely understand. Scott did a good job of describing the concept but we're still a little ways away from trying to publish it into the limelight. I am a fan of testing before live and will certainly seek that opportunity for everyone.
3) At the completion of the open discussion period, the GTS Series Directors will again meet and determine which, if any, proposals will be accepted. The finalized 2015 GTS rules will be posted by December 15, 2014.
You're a ways away from publishing a rule that was supposed to be finalized 3 days ago. That's not exactly fair to people spending their winter building and tweaking their cars. It is especially not fair to the southern regions that start early in the year. The longer you test the rule, the less time you give people to prep their cars.

 

Is 'a little ways away' a day, a week, a month?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GECCO

Chris, while I understand the spirit behind what it is you're trying to do (I disagree with it, but understand it), the biggest problem with the arguments you provide is that they demonstrate a complete misunderstanding the physics of Torque and Horsepower. The physics of acceleration is stated in the formula F=ma, where F is force (torque is rotational force), m is mass, and a is acceleration. The equation restated to solve for acceleration is a = F/m. Other than the relationship of Torque and HP where you correctly stated that HP is the product of Torque and RPM, virtually everything else stated in your first post is incorrect.

 

Torque (not HP) is what produces, and controls/limits acceleration. Horsepower controls/limits top speed.

 

Your blue car/green car graphs would be a better indicator of performance if you had also graphed the torque, rather than the HP. The green car would have significantly greater torque at the lower RPMs in order to have that level HP curve, and in road racing that would be much more useful in creating useable acceleration.

 

The statement that:

The bottom line is that what matters for acceleration is horsepower. And, just so there are no misconceptions, 200hp at 2,000 RPM has exactly the same ability to accelerate a car as 200hp at 8,000 RPM

is fundamentally incorrect. It requires 4 times as much torque to generate the same 200 HP at 2,000 RPM as it does to generate the 200 HP at 8,000 RPM, and that 4 times as much torque will create 4 times as much acceleration for the same amount of mass. This is physics and is not debatable.

 

With all due respect, someone who is making policy needs to have a better understanding of the subject matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
Chris if you want us to give our opinion or help with it how about you give us the all the info you guys have, let us analyze it and then we can have an opinion.

 

Suddenly I see the ST class getting more cars...

 

Jonathan,

 

You building cars for guys, you have a dyno in the shop, you've done hundreds, if not thousands of pulls and have seen and analyzed many graphs. What kind of info do you need in addition to what Scott explained to try to make a practical suggestion? I thought someone like you should be very capable on manipulating the data and making a comment or two.

 

Regarding ST - it is always an option, and they will not bother you with this new formula.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael G,

 

The other guy whom I quoted was critical of people that adjusted their power downwards to better fit in a class and maximize their car prep to the existing rule set. The words you quoted were examples of doing the same thing that should be routine for anyone in a power to weight class, fully expected and part of the normal process for competing in this group. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was to call out those people as somehow violating the spirit of GTS. I did not lump you, or any comments of yours into that section.

 

I continue to chaff at the accusations from various people that the old rules were unfair to anyone.

 

I do not recall any part of the rules that prohibited people from using very common and relatively affordable tuning options for their own engines to maximize their car prep to the given set of rules.

 

The old rule set was easy to enforce, it was easy to calculate power, and ANYone could reasonably tune their car to meet those guidelines if they chose to. To NOT choose to is lazy and leaving power on the table for that set of rules.

 

Standalone engine management has been part of professional and amateur racing for way, way way longer than GTS has been around. Tuning a race car's engine to meet Series Specs for restrictors or rules like we had to move up or down the power curve, flatten or adjust the curve.....well, its nothing new.

 

It is as patently ridiculous to say that people should be able to race their engines the way they came from the factory, and therefore we need a better way to measure power, as it is to suggest that people race their cars with the weight as they came from the factory when this is a classed system with power to weight as the criteria.

 

What I read between the lines is:

 

"I spent a fortune on my car. It has a great engine out of the box. I need the rules to have a more accurate way to measure power so I don't have to adjust my engine's performance and be at a disadvantage vs people that will tune their engines to maximize their car prep. I can't be bothered with that."

 

Unfortunately, I do live in a world where I am held to the very highest standards. Professionally I'm an OB/Gyn, so yeah, if I don't get it right, the stakes are high. I'm also Chairman of my Department. I think long and hard before I send out letters and enforce rules changes in my department because I know a lot hangs in the balance, and some pretty smart people are going to be reading what I write. Its a matter of respect to the department members that I do my best to get it right the first time.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to the Director's plight. I grant that there are better ways to measure power. But before I would publish that "this is how we're going to do it", I would make sure I had the recipe ready, and that it met the criteria of reproducibility, simplicity, and lacked any operator bias in how the results were achieved. I don't see how you guys are going to pull that rabbit out of this hat with whats been described.

 

And.... since I hate whiners that don't have constructive advice to problem solve......

 

Here's a concrete suggestion for GTS: With such a massive change being contemplated, it makes much more sense at the 11th hour to make a public statement like this:

 

"This is the LAST year where the current power to weight formula will be used. Here is our first stab at how we think it will be for the 2016 year set of rules, and here's a sample spreadsheet to play with now, with proposed new formula. We will continue to refine and adjust this formula, and hope that within six months we can all agree on a tweeked version of this. The 2016 power to weight formula will be finalized by July 31, lets get to work and make it something we can agree on."

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127

Aside from the people (directors) we know which experts are helping with this and what qualifications do they have to come up with this and make changes in probably the best and most competitive series out there... I just hope that all this decision making is not bias towards any brand or against one... Truth of the matter is that you guys are planning on making this changes when this class at least by me is at its best.

I have been part of GTS almost since day one wether it was providing customer support, maintaining GTS cars or driving so I have plenty time and money invested in it, I hope that what you guys plan to do does not ruin it.

 

I think that we are all customers and we should have a vote on this before any decisions are made. I understand you can't make everyone happy but I've yet to hear anybody complain about the way things were... And I know a lot of GTS racers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Dear Colleague,

 

I am a doctor too, just dealing with a different end of it - up in the head and neck and oral surgery mostly, and teach in the residency as well, so I am familiar with the standards and responsibilities you mentioned.

 

As Scott and Chris indicated - we are in the process of finalizing and beta - testing - that was the exact reason the announcement was made. And if we will feel that we are not ready - we may decide to postpone. The Rules for 2015 were supposed to be finalized 3 days ago, and for the majority - it was done on time with one (important one still pending). As State budgets, our Rules were often times delayed - it is not an excuse, but explanation. We understand the responsibility and working hard to make it happen.

 

Regarding the old good and simple way of peak HP measuring - that was never very simple, and certainly never easy to enforce. But the biggest issue that the majority agreed that it is a poor way to measure the real life capability of the car.

 

Again, none of this will diminish or prohibit tuning or aftermarket management. We are just trying to develop a better measuring tool.

 

And I hope we will pull the rabbit out of this hat.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127
Chris if you want us to give our opinion or help with it how about you give us the all the info you guys have, let us analyze it and then we can have an opinion.

 

Suddenly I see the ST class getting more cars...

 

Jonathan,

 

You building cars for guys, you have a dyno in the shop, you've done hundreds, if not thousands of pulls and have seen and analyzed many graphs. What kind of info do you need in addition to what Scott explained to try to make a practical suggestion? I thought someone like you should be very capable on manipulating the data and making a comment or two.

 

Regarding ST - it is always an option, and they will not bother you with this new formula.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

 

 

Michael

 

As someone that builds cars and have seen hundreds of dyno plots is the reason why I don't agree with this rule change. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Jonathan,

 

Can you be more specific?

Also, can you explain how is that the old method of reading dyno at the peak is so good and correct now?

And how is that no one complains about black boxes anymore? I remember different times...

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex

I like the direction of this thread with our careers involved!

 

Im going to say what a lot of people here may be thinking....... id be pissed too, if I built a purpose built Porsche racecar essentially built by Porsche and was beat up on by garage built or shop built BMWs using motors out of street cars.

 

It is not our (BMW owners) fault that you campaign a race car where you are not able to go into your own over priced ecu and make changes.

 

I expect this to perhaps upset some, but I dont operate on people for a living.... I talk shit and build power lines

 

A little humor guys, but this rule change seems biasd to one manufacturer over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127
Jonathan,

 

Can you be more specific?

Also, can you explain how is that the old method of reading dyno at the peak is so good and correct now?

And how is that no one complains about black boxes anymore? I remember different times...

 

Michael G.

 

You saying that ST is an option is not the best way to go about it Michael specially to someone that always brings a lot of cars to the class YOU are the director for.

 

I would be more than happy to in a private message to explain why is flawed

 

Michael I never had a complain about the method of checking our current formula, there's a reason why we in the north east (your region ) have such a great turn out. I never had a problem with the dyno. If anything my complaint was that the dyno wasn't there at every event.

 

As far as why nobody complains about the black box is because we all care about the series and ways of policing it. Years ago I remember giving you a hard time about the black boxes cause they were not accurate and we proved it at the track.

 

Now you are saying that majority wanted change? Who is majority? I've yet to talk to someone that wants this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Hamflex,

 

You are right - sorry for the wrong turn of the thread towards careers vs. reading dynoes

But for the record - the majority of Regional Directors are actually BMW owners / racers and quite a few have engines with flat curves.

Can we get off the conspiracy theory and get to the practical suggestions (outside of "this rule sucks").

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127
Hamflex,

 

You are right - sorry for the wrong turn of the thread towards careers vs. reading dynoes

But for the record - the majority of Regional Directors are actually BMW owners / racers and quite a few have engines with flat curves.

Can we get off the conspiracy theory and get to the practical suggestions (outside of "this rule sucks").

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

How many of this directors that run BMWs voted for this change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Smith
...I continue to chaff at the accusations from various people that the old rules were unfair to anyone.

 

I do not recall any part of the rules that prohibited people from using very common and relatively affordable tuning options for their own engines to maximize their car prep to the given set of rules.

 

The old rule set was easy to enforce, it was easy to calculate power, and ANYone could reasonably tune their car to meet those guidelines if they chose to. To NOT choose to is lazy and leaving power on the table for that set of rules.

 

...It is as patently ridiculous to say that people should be able to race their engines the way they came from the factory, and therefore we need a better way to measure power, as it is to suggest that people race their cars with the weight as they came from the factory when this is a classed system with power to weight as the criteria.

 

What I read between the lines is:

 

"I spent a fortune on my car. It has a great engine out of the box. I need the rules to have a more accurate way to measure power so I don't have to adjust my engine's performance and be at a disadvantage vs people that will tune their engines to maximize their car prep. I can't be bothered with that."

 

...I'm not unsympathetic to the Director's plight. I grant that there are better ways to measure power. But before I would publish that "this is how we're going to do it", I would make sure I had the recipe ready, and that it met the criteria of reproducibility, simplicity, and lacked any operator bias in how the results were achieved. I don't see how you guys are going to pull that rabbit out of this hat with whats been described.

 

And.... since I hate whiners that don't have constructive advice to problem solve......

 

Here's a concrete suggestion for GTS: With such a massive change being contemplated, it makes much more sense at the 11th hour to make a public statement like this:

 

"This is the LAST year where the current power to weight formula will be used. Here is our first stab at how we think it will be for the 2016 year set of rules, and here's a sample spreadsheet to play with now, with proposed new formula. We will continue to refine and adjust this formula, and hope that within six months we can all agree on a tweeked version of this. The 2016 power to weight formula will be finalized by July 31, lets get to work and make it something we can agree on."

Yes! To all of the above! Well stated!

 

Regarding the old good and simple way of peak HP measuring - that was never very simple, and certainly never easy to enforce. But the biggest issue that the majority agreed that it is a poor way to measure the real life capability of the car.

How was it not simple and easy to enforce? It certainly is more simple that this proposed rule. And what "majority agreed"? Who was in this "vote"? Those experts? A few GTS directors? Crazy idea...how about getting the opinions of actual racers?

 

Again, none of this will diminish or prohibit tuning or aftermarket management.

No kidding...it will make it even more important than ever!

 

...but this rule change seems biasd to one manufacturer over another.

Aw geez, ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
You saying that ST is an option is not the best way to go about it Michael specially to someone that always brings a lot of cars to the class YOU are the director for.

 

I would be more than happy to in a private message to explain why is flawed

 

Michael I never had a complain about the method of checking our current formula, there's a reason why we in the north east (your region ) have such a great turn out. I never had a problem with the dyno. If anything my complaint was that the dyno wasn't there at every event.

 

As far as why nobody complains about the black box is because we all care about the series and ways of policing it. Years ago I remember giving you a hard time about the black boxes cause they were not accurate and we proved it at the track.

 

Now you are saying that majority wanted change? Who is majority? I've yet to talk to someone that wants this

 

Jonathan,

 

I appreciate your participation in GTS, but as I said often - it is not "My Region" and I would trade my job in no time, but not too many takers.

Dyno can not be at any event, but we have it more often than other Regions, primarily because we found the way to pay for it ourselves.

I will be glad to listen to your opinion privately, but see no reason why it can not be available for general discussion. Seems like many people might be interested.

I think we clearly explained the position why the peak HP is not a good way to measure it, but didn't hear the opposite view with explanation yet.

Do you want me to send you a list of folks who are not happy with the current system plus the list of people who decided not to participate in GTS because of that. I will do that privately as well.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVR127
You saying that ST is an option is not the best way to go about it Michael specially to someone that always brings a lot of cars to the class YOU are the director for.

 

I would be more than happy to in a private message to explain why is flawed

 

Michael I never had a complain about the method of checking our current formula, there's a reason why we in the north east (your region ) have such a great turn out. I never had a problem with the dyno. If anything my complaint was that the dyno wasn't there at every event.

 

As far as why nobody complains about the black box is because we all care about the series and ways of policing it. Years ago I remember giving you a hard time about the black boxes cause they were not accurate and we proved it at the track.

 

Now you are saying that majority wanted change? Who is majority? I've yet to talk to someone that wants this

 

Jonathan,

 

I appreciate your participation in GTS, but as I said often - it is not "My Region" and I would trade my job in no time, but not too many takers.

Dyno can not be at any event, but we have it more often than other Regions, primarily because we found the way to pay for it ourselves.

I will be glad to listen to your opinion privately, but see no reason why it can not be available for general discussion. Seems like many people might be interested.

I think we clearly explained the position why the peak HP is not a good way to measure it, but didn't hear the opposite view with explanation yet.

Do you want me to send you a list of folks who are not happy with the current system plus the list of people who decided not to participate in GTS because of that. I will do that privately as well.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

I will love to see the list... You have my email. And why are catering to people that don't run the series and not the ones who support it and continue to bring more people in? This doesn't make any sense! If this people were serious about running with us the would built cars that can be competitive and not try to change the rules because it doesn't suit them... Makes a lot of sense... Piss off the guys that are there to open room for new ones that might no come in at all

 

 

Ps.. A few years ago a few names of racers were given to you including mine to help with your job... You choose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

I have a question. Since the "new" formula will require an exact HP number at each of the "10" selected points throughout the 30% area of the HP curve yet to be determined. Will every GTS racer need to get a new dyno sheet for 2015 that has these points highlighted with the exact HP at that point. All the dyno sheets I see show dashes and a graph that correlate to supposed numbers, but don't give an exact HP number. The only exact numbers we see are top Hp and Torque readings of the run.

 

How will this be accomplished at our local dyno shops ? Also will this mean that all the dyno sheets that are on file are now obsolete even if they were just done a couple months ago and by the rules are good for one calendar year.

 

 

As some one else stated I could see this rule once proven and discussed become the new rule for 2016. I just think that adding it now as cars are being built and some regions are ready to run events and there's really not a definite proven formula that we know of yet just causes more problems then it supposedly solves.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding something on how the dyno sheets will be read, so I could be wrong.....as usual

 

 

 

Thanks, Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
I like the direction of this thread with our careers involved!

 

Im going to say what a lot of people here may be thinking....... id be pissed too, if I built a purpose built Porsche racecar essentially built by Porsche and was beat up on by garage built or shop built BMWs using motors out of street cars.

 

It is not our (BMW owners) fault that you campaign a race car where you are not able to go into your own over priced ecu and make changes.

 

I expect this to perhaps upset some, but I dont operate on people for a living.... I talk shoo-shiddily-diddily and build power lines

 

A little humor guys, but this rule change seems biasd to one manufacturer over another.

 

Hamflex (and others), Lets say that you are the one charged with the responsibility to grow a racing group. You want to have as many people as possible join your group. You see that the original way that the rule set was made was flawed because ultimate Hp is not the best way of measuring power. You want to make sure that new people want to join the group. Not just one marque vs another, but even owners of that same marque who have chosen not to add a flat tune.

 

You decide to change the rules so that there is a more accurate way of measuring power. This happens all the time is pro racing, SCCA, pretty much every racing organization. Rules change because one team or group are able to benefit from the way a rule is implemented over others. The organizers see this and change the rules. This has actually happened to me more than once with NASA GTS.

 

What is a great surprise to me is how transparent and polarized the posts about this change are. I actually did not think that the flat tune offered that much advantage, but now that I am seeing everyone trying so hard to preserve it, maybe I am wrong. Maybe this change should have taken place years ago.

 

Measuring area under the curve is the best way I can see to measure power. Although there is a lot of discussion here, the only thing I see being said here is that there are those upset because those with the flat tune will not have the same advantage as they did before. I am not hearing any factual reasons why area under the curve is not a better and more accurate way of measuring power.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.
I have a question. Since the "new" formula will require an exact HP number at each of the "10" selected points throughout the 30% area of the HP curve yet to be determined. Will every GTS racer need to get a new dyno sheet for 2015 that has these points highlighted with the exact HP at that point. All the dyno sheets I see show dashes and a graph that correlate to supposed numbers, but don't give an exact HP number. The only exact numbers we see are top Hp and Torque readings of the run.

 

How will this be accomplished at our local dyno shops ? Also will this mean that all the dyno sheets that are on file are now obsolete even if they were just done a couple months ago and by the rules are good for one calendar year.

 

 

As some one else stated I could see this rule once proven and discussed become the new rule for 2016. I just think that adding it now as cars are being built and some regions are ready to run events and there's really not a definite proven formula that we know of yet just causes more problems then it supposedly solves.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding something on how the dyno sheets will be read, so I could be wrong.....as usual

 

Thanks, Scott B.

 

Youre going to have to get a new dyno or get the file. GTS is working on the ability for racers to upload them to a public folder.

 

In re: rules: Whether we agree or disagree, it's coming. Let's get the calculator released soon so everyone can retune and do what they need to do for a successful 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Chris, while I understand the spirit behind what it is you're trying to do (I disagree with it, but understand it), the biggest problem with the arguments you provide is that they demonstrate a complete misunderstanding the physics of Torque and Horsepower.

I didn't provide any argument for the makeup of formula at all nor have I debated it one bit. You are misrepresenting what i have said. My comments are only on the necessity of the change, not the formula itself.

 

With that said every year we hear people say:

 

1. Eliminate torque from the equation, it's HP that matters

2. Torque should count, but not as much

3. Torque is all that matters...

4. etc...

 

...and every time the poster is the absolute authority on the topic and everyone else is a moron.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
How will this be accomplished at our local dyno shops ? Also will this mean that all the dyno sheets that are on file are now obsolete even if they were just done a couple months ago and by the rules are good for one calendar year.

 

Scott,

 

I am sure the local Dyno shop can reproduce the modified view of the existing saved file from the last run with all the needed data displayed.

 

Jonatham,

 

.

Ps.. A few years ago a few names of racers were given to you including mine to help with your job... You choose not to.

 

I understand that helps means when people are volunteering and committed the time when needed, not when it is convenient for them. So far I didn't see anyone at 7 am at registration or after the race at scales. Just saying. And I never said NO. Giving me a list of names is different from being there.

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex
I like the direction of this thread with our careers involved!

 

Im going to say what a lot of people here may be thinking....... id be pissed too, if I built a purpose built Porsche racecar essentially built by Porsche and was beat up on by garage built or shop built BMWs using motors out of street cars.

 

It is not our (BMW owners) fault that you campaign a race car where you are not able to go into your own over priced ecu and make changes.

 

I expect this to perhaps upset some, but I dont operate on people for a living.... I talk shoo-shiddily-diddily and build power lines

 

A little humor guys, but this rule change seems biasd to one manufacturer over another.

 

Hamflex (and others), Lets say that you are the one charged with the responsibility to grow a racing group. You want to have as many people as possible join your group. You see that the original way that the rule set was made was flawed because ultimate Hp is not the best way of measuring power. You want to make sure that new people want to join the group. Not just one marque vs another, but even owners of that same marque who have chosen not to add a flat tune.

 

You decide to change the rules so that there is a more accurate way of measuring power. This happens all the time is pro racing, SCCA, pretty much every racing organization. Rules change because one team or group are able to benefit from the way a rule is implemented over others. The organizers see this and change the rules. This has actually happened to me more than once with NASA GTS.

 

What is a great surprise to me is how transparent and polarized the posts about this change are. I actually did not think that the flat tune offered that much advantage, but now that I am seeing everyone trying so hard to preserve it, maybe I am wrong. Maybe this change should have taken place years ago.

 

Measuring area under the curve is the best way I can see to measure power. Although there is a lot of discussion here, the only thing I see being said here is that there are those upset because those with the flat tune will not have the same advantage as they did before. I am not hearing any factual reasons why area under the curve is not a better and more accurate way of measuring power.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

 

 

Ed I understand tbe struggle , but you must understand the backlash.

 

We have a 15 day period to suggest, then debate, then rules are made. So with this dropped on us with out the actual calculator its anyones right to oppose it. Hell my dyno chart is not flat, its a nice balance.......a collective 10hr balance, ha.

 

There is no angst in anything I say, or anyone else im sure. I hate forums, I wish everyone posting here were all at the same bar sharring beers over this discussion. Perhaps its elementary of me to joke in my previous post I look forward to seeing how this 30% will be determined and see where it goes from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Smith
...Although there is a lot of discussion here, the only thing I see being said here is that there are those upset because those with the flat tune will not have the same advantage as they did before.

 

Show me the actual advantage to the flat tune. Real proof. Not a dyno graph or line. Not speculation. Show me video, data, anything real.

I still can't get an answer on why this is being implemented. Where have racers seen an "enormous" difference in acceleration between a car with a flat tune and a car with a "standard" tune? There has to be evidence (video) out there somewhere for all these people to be bitching.

 

What I do see is that those with a flat tune will be at a disadvantage now with the new rules.

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...