2015 GTS Rules changes

[7VO-VOM]

If we didn't reply to your proposal doesn't mean it was ignored - it may very well being looked at and tested. It is also tough to reply if you still prefer not to disclose your name.

Scott Good knows my name. My regional director knows my name. Since you are not involved in the algorithm, why are you sticking up for it, and how do you know any information provided here or privately is being tested?

 

All of your A to F are highly subjective and mostly incorrect. We will admit the failure once that happens, so far it is nothing more than your opinion.

Really? Scott Good the National Director didn't say the final rules would be posted December 15th? You might want to check your facts. A couple of my comments may be subjective, but all are correct.

 

I am not involved with writing the algorithm, but assuming the formula could be modified to address the redline and wide band concerns, do you see any other specific technical issues with this approach of calculating HP?

 

In regards to the transparency and open communication - at least 3 proposals for the change in calculating minimum weight or power were made and discussed this time around (and every year prior). Average HP under the curve method was discussed as well there proposed by one of the members and actually received well, so it didn't come from nowhere simply as a conspiracy.

You cannot make a 'band' narrow enough to address the problems without making it pointlessly complicated compared to the current system. If you read the 3 proposed rules, the vast majority of responses were against them. Is your goal to alienate as many current drivers as possible?

 

If we will adopt the mandatory upload of the dyno sheets for open review, we will be able to see the odd balls ahead of time, which together with black boxes and strict dyno protocol at impound should help with compliance - not that the peak HP has no compliance issues now.

What mandatory dyno upload? I don't see that as a new rule. It was proposed, but is not in the 3 rules changes Scott Good posted. Even if it was, what would that do? You can see the people proving that your new rule is a failure?

 

Here's a suggestion, since you and other regional directors can't keep your stories straight... Why don't the directors have a meeting on Google Hangouts and actually discuss the rule changes, the driving forces behind them, the intended effects, and the expected effects?

[flink]

Flink and Alex,

 

I am not involved with writing the algorithm, but assuming the formula could be modified to address the redline and wide band concerns, do you see any other specific technical issues with this approach of calculating HP?

 

I think the overall approach is good. The current implementation as proposed has pretty big holes in it, and yes, those can be patched up.

 

The more I look into this, the more I fear that the system will not be adequately hole-free unless the software has access to the dynojet .drf file and to the car's gear ratios. Given those, it can be exact.

[[email protected]]

Flink (aka Andrew) and Alex,

I am not involved with writing the algorithm, but assuming the formula could be modified to address the redline and wide band concerns, do you see any other specific technical issues with this approach of calculating HP?

 

Michael, with all due respect, I'm not really comfortable "signing off" on simply taking a smaller slice of the rpm, and eliminating the redline....(its so easy to manipulate that, its not funny).... but not because I'm combative, but because honestly, I'm very focused on normally aspirated examples of engines, and I'm not really too sure how the low rpm turbo or diesel turbo stuff all works out.....

 

(And by the way, I threw out 2000 as an example, it may well be more appropriate to make it 1800 or 1900... many slices of 100 rpm can still be used).... really, open discussion geared to choosing that number would benefit all!

 

but having said that?...

 

In general, I do think that taking a much smaller slice is a HUGE step to making THIS plan work with less intrinsic bias.

 

I'm not against a better way to look at a car's potential. (but....)

 

We're jumping from a system that everyone could tune up or down, add or subtract weight. (There was absolutely no unfairness there, anyone could do so if they chose to spend some money, with ANY existing engine as they came from the factory, there was no inherent bias with old system... simply measure top HP at one point)

 

The new system we're jumping to very clearly and specifically has a built in bias towards a rising HP curve, the faster it rises, and the bigger the chunk looked at by whatever formula, the better for the driver who chooses a close ratio set up.

 

THIS is very different from what we had. You HAVE to have an engine with a rising HP curve to maximize your positioning within the formula. I think that is sad, and its not good for a great many cars within German Touring Sedan world. The rise has to stop very close to your redline, and clearly, if you set your redline at the top of the rise, you're good to go.

 

Does that curve not sound like the exclusive province of S54, S65, and virtually all recent Porsche 6's?

 

So, yeah, getting rid of the redline bit, especially as a basis for calculating a % of the rpm range to look at, and setting the slice to a much more realistic # like 2000 rpm or so would be a huge improvement to the situation....

 

Really, the people who should be the most upset are virtually anyone that can't hit 8000+ redline with cams, heads etc that make ever increasing HP as the rpm rises.

 

And that, my soon-to-be-new-friends-in-the-paddock, cuts a huge swath through the GTS ranks. Adopt this, and for sure, the landscape will change to a sea of S54, S65, stroked versions of both, and everyone in the Porsche world that wants to compete will be transplanting the most recent sixes they can with the highest rev limits.

 

People without the budget for those type of engines will probably migrate away, or at the least be very unhappy.

 

It will be interesting in the future as the new crop of turbo M3/M4 start to race to see how they do. I'll have to adapt my thinking because it's always been based on a generalized bias towards NA. You can't argue with concrete evidence, I think their 'Ring lap times are better than the old S65.... so, it must work somehow, even without the revs.

 

At the end of the day, these new rules are geared to help use S54, S65, Porsche recent 6's run as they came from the factory, making as much power as possible, and setting the redline to where the power stops rising.

 

Its ok if that is what everyone wants, I won't step in the way, but at least cut the slice smaller, and don't make it contingent on redline.

[flink]

The new system we're jumping to very clearly and specifically has a built in bias towards a rising HP curve, the faster it rises, and the bigger the chunk looked at by whatever formula, the better for the driver who chooses a close ratio set up.

 

True dat. And the closer your gear ratios the better.

 

Let's take another look at the cup car. Say he wants to run GTS4 instead of GTS2:

 

 

The only thing we need to do is to change the rev limit from 8200 down to 8000, because we don't want that flat bit after 8000.

 

The revs fall by 0.81x on each upshift, so they go 8000->6480. ie, the car spends all the race between 6480 and 8000 RPM. But the 30% rule averages power from 5600->8000, producing a lower number. Just eyeballing it I'd say this is a 350HP car which will be classed at 315HP.

[[email protected]]

BINGO

 

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Andrew thank you for putting into a picture what I've been describing all along.

[mjmccoy]

By the way, there were many times in this series as well as any other racing series, when certain decisions on Rules changes were made by the executive committee based on the factors often outside of the subjects discussed here. Years ago the TQ was added to the HP with no prior discussion, recently we added Black Boxes to the compliance protocol based on what we see backstage. The same with sequential boxes. By no means I suggest that there is intentional disregard, just saying this is not the only stage.

In the ideal world all of that would work and we wouldn't have this argument.

What specifically was done in terms of adding "Black Boxes" to the "compliance protocol"?

I see that they were added. But no procedure for analysis was added? Yet it was used?

 

The Rule is not finalized and we are working hard to make it better than the peak power point with which we had number of issues through the years, but, as before Black Boxes, we were very limited in how to deal with.

You have black boxes, but you don't know how to use them. That is a problem.

 

Ultimately, everyone has a choice to continue or go elsewhere. Sometimes we make mistakes, but as long as we can respond and correct it - that is what the most important.

Responding and correcting it would be ideal. I haven't been able to get information or resolution on the issues with "compliance checking". I have sent you an email on this specifically as well, without reply. Apparently a bunch of non-engineers that head up a number of NASA's executive committees might also need refreshers in physics.

I am even more amazed that now we have officials saying that we can have a major disparity with "legal" cars in a class after what was done "compliance checking" wise.

As a reminder, here is what has been done:

1) comparing cars in class instead of analyzing data directly as a means of "compliance checking"

2) looking at only speed in that comparison and not acceleration

3) Not reviewing the analyses from engineers in the executive appeal (or the appeal documents at all apparently)

4) it being pointed out that the disqualified car didn't have the highest acceleration rate

 

Acknowledging mistakes and responding to them in a timely manner would be beneficial to the future of the series.

 

 

 

 

Clearly there are a number of "problems" that it seems "the powers that be" are trying to fix. A little more transparency in the "problems" might lead to better "solutions".

[mjmccoy]

in case someone is looking for another dyno graph shape as comparison, or "is producing flat HP in a given region common/possible", this would suit the old method very well that the new rules are trying to overcome....

This is a single vanos BMW motor (no e-throttle, no other fun controls to help like dvanos) with boost. This shape can be scaled to fit a flat line at 400 or 300 or 250 hp as well. Remove the turbo, and lower is also possible. Ethrottle cars can draw whatever shape they want.

 

 

 

The new rules would favor in a rather major way the e-throttle people as was very well pointed out by a previous post.

[911.racer]

Guys,

 

I had a private discussion with XYZ to try to explain this. I have a graphic to add to the conversation now to try to help. Although a car (whatever car you choose) may have tight RPM drops in the transmission, that is not where you spend your time on the track. Yes, on the straights you do, but that is the minority of the time going around the track.

 

I am posting this to try to help, not to be flamed for posting it, so try not to do that or else I will not post to this thread again.

 

This analysis was done on a (yes, Porsche) with a peaky dyno sheet. It is an air cooled car, not a cup car, but it is a purpose built 993 built to factory racing specs with very short drops between gears. This fellow, who did not post himself for the aforementioned reason, created this data from laps at Mid Ohio. The x axis is of course RPM and the y axis is time. He has added in the percentage of his dyno curve at the top of the graph and on the bottom he has added is the data that would represent the total percentage of time spent above a particular RPM. You can see that his 30% of the dyno curve represents about 75 to 80% of his time spent on track. His rev limit is 7200.

 

What happens on paper is not what happens on the track. Driving the track is a compromise and you can never be in the gear you want to be in. If we only considered the 1600 rpm from the rev limit, then we would be looking at 5600 - 7200 which, from this graph we can see, is where he spends about 62% of his time.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

 

 

[[email protected]]

Ed,

 

That is interesting, but it potentially leaves out a lot of information.

 

Do you know that this is data is from a flying hot lap only?

 

(Does it include the start, yellow flags, warm up?)

 

Do you know if this driver is going up to the redline in each gear the way someone could, or are they short shifting?

 

Did this racer have a diff that even allows them to use their transmission as a close ratio box?

 

If this guy has a car with a diff that allows him to hit a theoretical Vmax of 200 mph, then he may not be driving in the CR section of his transmission, and the data is not really valid for the racer that really wants to maximize their performance in the new system.

 

Is this is an engine that has been tuned for a car that would be maximized to the new rule? Ie, a maximized racer would have a cut off just below the true top redline in the case of this new formula, and probably drive differently, choosing a different diff.

 

Even in this situation (which may not accurately reflect what an optimized race car for the new system would show us), the driver literally spent twice as much time at 7000 than at any of the spots in the bottom 1/3 of 30%

 

I would also point out that the question or focus should not be where racers do race, or have raced rpm wise vs are you allowing for an unfair rating scale for people that COULD race in a narrow band of what is measured.

 

The funniest part of this discussion just hit me, thank you Ed. There must be a multitude of DA devices that could generate that type of histogram. This suggests the most powerful tool for racing would be going full Standalone, keeping a library of histograms from tracks you visit, or generating one that morning during the practice sessions, and then loading up the engine tune you want for that track, one that puts the bulk of power where you use it the most for that track and its configuration. It would be a breeze to make sure all the stored tunes on your laptop were compliant for your class, and you could just pick the one you want for that track. Maybe we should allow the 30% rule as you suggest, sure as heck looks like a winner to me!

 

One last thought that will be a colorful anecdote, at the risk of upsetting Michael.

 

Racing will always favor the Master Of His Domain.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Guest

[Michael G.]

Michael.

 

You have black boxes, but you don't know how to use them. That is a problem.

 

MG/MClub wrote:

Ultimately, everyone has a choice to continue or go elsewhere. Sometimes we make mistakes, but as long as we can respond and correct it - that is what the most important.

 

Responding and correcting it would be ideal. I haven't been able to get information or resolution on the issues with "compliance checking". I have sent you an email on this specifically as well, without reply. Apparently a bunch of non-engineers that head up a number of NASA's executive committees might also need refreshers in physics.

I am even more amazed that now we have officials saying that we can have a major disparity with "legal" cars in a class after what was done "compliance checking" wise.

As a reminder, here is what has been done:

1) comparing cars in class instead of analyzing data directly as a means of "compliance checking"

2) looking at only speed in that comparison and not acceleration

3) Not reviewing the analyses from engineers in the executive appeal (or the appeal documents at all apparently)

4) it being pointed out that the disqualified car didn't have the highest acceleration rate

 

Just to clear things up - I never received the email of any kind from you, so wouldn't be in a position to reply.

You just stated that we didn't disclose the procedures with Black Boxes, but make a detailed statement of what "was done"?

 

I am amazed and applaud that after so much of abuse of power and chronic injustice from a bunch of uneducated hard heads you still participate in the discussion.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

[UKRBMW]

This is flat out amazing. I read all the pages of this and more or less its 6-7 people complaining for 16 pages. One of which doesn't even have a GTS car. What's wrong with trying to calm down and let the rules come out to see how it will actually impact you? So far Scott B seems to be the only one with that answer. Then maybe run a race or two and see a real life impact on actual outcome. Josh - I bet all changes aside you'll still be the guy to beat.

 

It's terrible to read all this. I moved from MA region to SE and GTS is practically non existent. Then moved to FLORIDA region - same story. If this rule change brings more competitors out because they feel it's more fair to their cars - what is the harm in that? One thing is pretty clear - with Randy's abilities and control over BMW ECUs regardless of the rules we (I'm in a BMW as well) should still be able to get his help and maximize for the rules. And please let's not bitch about the cost of tuning. I dare anybody to come forth in GTS3/4 that has less than 50k in their car and really tell me how a 1,000 dollars is really going to change much.

 

If you really want to run ST3 - good luck. Look how that class has worked out. Participation is practically zip.

 

Is it really so fun to win a class when there are 2-3 cars in it??? Hell, most times it's not even enough for contingencies. Why is it so wrong to try a change to bring out more competitors?

[mjmccoy]

Just to clear things up - I never received the email of any kind from you, so wouldn't be in a position to reply.

Sorry if you have not received it. I sent an email to [email protected] on the morning of 12/17/14.

Given the lack of response to phone calls and emails on this topic from others such as Mr Faules, I was possibly unfairly lumping you into that group. The others were attempted contact weeks/months ago. You are a "new" email as I was primarily trying to make sure you were in the loop on the situation since I saw your posting in this thread.

 

You just stated that we didn't disclose the procedures with Black Boxes, but make a detailed statement of what "was done"?

I did state what "was done". I suspect/hope this was because there was no procedure in place, thus it was very "from the hip". As far as I know, there is no procedure for "what happens next time" yet either.

 

 

I am amazed and applaud that after so much of abuse of power and chronic injustice from a bunch of uneducated hard heads you still participate in the discussion.

The racers directly affected by this, and a handful of others around them, will likely never return to NASA. The goal of my participation is to help fix the issue, and ideally get the system to a point where things like this are never an issue again. I have a number of customers that will be running in GTS again next year. I will not tolerate another incident like the previous one though. I have built a S54 E36 for GTS, but will not be running this coming year to see where the rules go.

The rules for GTS were quite simple. Weight/hp determined the class. Data used as a compliance tool should thus be used as a means of compliance checking. This means, with weight known, calculate power and see if it is in agreement with the dyno. Seems simple enough, but was not done. Part of the difficulty is that it is GPS only at present.

The changing rules will make this a lot less simple... or they will make things "simple" (a simple pass/fail on the "compliance box"), but not necessarily fair/balanced.

If we try to bound purely on a "maximum acceleration rate", e-throttle and gear/speed based mapping will be legal and an advantage well beyond the current "detuned for the class".

If we try to leave it as dyno based, but "mathematically derived number for power for classing", now we need to be able to apply the same methods as the classing calc to the "dyno sheet" that the "compliance tool" needs to spit out.

And currently that all needs to be done without engine RPM present in the data... ??? neigh on impossible.

[7VO-VOM]

Ed,

 

Thank you for the graph and your effort to actually discuss the rule. It appears that the red curve is a rough approximation of the dyno curve. If so, it looks like the algorithm as it has been explained would be selecting about 4700-6800. That does seem to fit quite well. If we were running homologated cars, it would be a great way to evaluate performance, but GTS doesn't (and shouldn't) have homologation or restrict modifications.

 

You don't say what his RPM drop on shifts is. Ideally, you shift when the HP in the gear you are in has fallen off to the rising HP in the gear to which you are changing. I would guess this cars RPM drop is around 2200 which is why 6800 and 4600 are much higher in use compared to the surrounding RPM bars. With a closer ratio gearbox, I'd expect the 6800 and 4600 usage peaks to be closer to the HP peak. That would enable this person to tune to dump HP outside that range (cams, headers, timing).

 

That gets back to the point we've been making. With proper application of money, anybody can shrink their usage of the rules 30% of the RPM range and game the rule. The newer cars can do this with 6/7 speed factory gearboxes, short diff ratios, and easily tunable computers. Older cars require a larger application of money and more aftermarket parts. It's a pointless arms race that is unfair to all.

[J Smith]

What happens on paper is not what happens on the track.

A point I've been trying to make for awhile now. Yet it seems this new rule is being based entirely on what people see on paper alone.

 

What's wrong with trying to calm down and let the rules come out to see how it will actually impact you? So far Scott B seems to be the only one with that answer. Then maybe run a race or two and see a real life impact on actual outcome. Josh - I bet all changes aside you'll still be the guy to beat.

With the new formula, I'd have to add about 170lbs of ballast to my car for GTS3 if I were to keep my same tune. Others with a 280hp peak "normal dyno" graph will be able to lose weight...possibly as much as 75-100 lbs depending on certain factors. That's WAY too much IMO.

 

And please let's not bitch about the cost of tuning. I dare anybody to come forth in GTS3/4 that has less than 50k in their car and really tell me how a 1,000 dollars is really going to change much.

Exactly! So why are we targeting something as cheap as a tune, that everyone can do for relatively little money, and instead making this class now about high rpm, peaky engines and close ratio transmissions, which are incredibly more expensive? This whole thing makes no sense!

[Michael G.]

Michael

 

MG/MClub wrote:

Just to clear things up - I never received the email of any kind from you, so wouldn't be in a position to reply.

 

Sorry if you have not received it. I sent an email to [email protected] on the morning of 12/17/14.

Given the lack of response to phone calls and emails on this topic from others such as Mr Faules, I was possibly unfairly lumping you into that group. The others were attempted contact weeks/months ago. You are a "new" email as I was primarily trying to make sure you were in the loop on the situation since I saw your posting in this thread.

 

The email you mentioned was never active and doesn't deliver to me. For the future - [email protected] would work better.

Otherwise, I've never heard from anyone that I am difficult to reach to.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

[scottbm3]

As Josh just pointed out. In GTS 3 in my current setup and dyno Vs a car with the same peak hp using the proposed rule, I would have to add around 150lbs while they could remove around 80lbs or more. That would mean an overall penalty to me of at least 230lbs. The rule is flawed and totally biased towards certain cars and against others, let's be honest. As I've said before if they're looking at changing the rule, it needs to be analyzed by pro race engineers/data guys in a real time situation with lots of real data and then a proper and fair process for changing things can be discussed from there. Just dumping this on us at the last second is really a problem for all of GTS and the process not just the cars you believe this will help and or hurt !! Once again my .02

 

 

-Scott B.

[Revolution Mini]

based on what is presented here so far, I CAN build a turbo car that will totally cheat the system and be 100% legal.

Is it fair? No

Is it legal...........Yes

 

I thought the whole part of GTS was simple. power/weight............Let's race

modifiers for tires , tube frame cars and transmission choices

 

It's what got me going building a tube frame car to bring to the series

 

Next we will see aero restrictions/modifiers because that isn't cool that some are smarter than others. We see this mentality rearing it's head on a daily basis in society where kids get participation trophies. What's the point of racing if it isn't about who can build a better car than the next guy AND drive it?

My opinion is you are taking a great series and over regulating it because someone is unwilling to build a capable car of winning.

 

just my .02

 

granted , some of the people here are for the fun of it and that's cool

some are here because it's our business and way of income

[flink]

 

Does this include time braking and turning? If so, it's not really relevant to an acceleration analysis. It would be very interesting to see the same data ONLY for those samples where the car was at WOT.

[Alan_Wolfe]

I was doing some reading to better understand the concepts you guys were bringing up.

 

While doing homework on torque vs horsepower to understand why we can ignore torque and only consider horsepower I came across this article:

 

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/hrdp-0401-torque-horsepower-guide/

 

Here is an excerpt from the Area Under The Curve section:

"Merely considering peak numbers is misleading. In almost every case, it is better to look at the average area under the power curve rather than simply at peak numbers, because a broader, flatter curve generally delivers superior performance to a peaky curve."

 

Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/hrdp-0401-torque-horsepower-guide/#ixzz3MZH3sT4Q

Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook

 

IF power is supposed to be an indicator for performance in GTS, then the present rule is "misleading". A flat HP curve maximizes the area under the curve and therefore maximizes performance.

 

The present rule is basically the proposed algorithm with a resolution of 1 RPM, an RPM range for averaging of 1 RPM, and the entire operating RPM range of the motor under consideration.

[Alan_Wolfe]

I got told via PM that my post above was not helpful to the discussion.

 

Here is an excerpt of my reply:

"The purpose of the reference is to get folks to discuss EXACTLY what power means in GTS.

 

The long protracted back and forth is happening because people don't agree on what power to weight means and what its purpose is in GTS. Until that is defined this argument will never end. "

[7VO-VOM]

The long protracted back and forth is happening because people don't agree on what power to weight means and what its purpose is in GTS. Until that is defined this argument will never end. "

I think pretty much everybody knows what power is and that average under the curve is a better way of measuring it. The problems are the reasoning behind, lack of transparency, the (un)fairness, and the timeliness of implementation of the new rule.

 

One thing people have to realize is that Josh Smith (who I have not communicated with, so I may be speaking out of turn) and I have E92 M3s. Despite the fact that this is supposed to penalize people like us, we are best positioned to take advantage of the new rule with a simple tune and maybe a diff change. Josh's chief concern seems to be the reasoning behind the rule change, and my concern is the fairness. We are not against it because of personal gains/losses. We are against it because it is bad for field sizes, bad for competition, and ultimately bad for GTS.

 

The directors cannot seem to explain why they would want to implement a blatantly unfair rule. Some directors don't seem to understand the new rule, and others seem to have been completely left out of the process. When the GTS director and long time racer in a large region is asking questions about running in ST3, something has gone severely wrong.

[cstreit911]

The directors cannot seem to explain why they would want to implement a blatantly unfair rule.

 

1. I think we've explained perfectly why we would implement the rule. The current calculation is not a true representation of "power" in the "power to weight series". In fact you yourself stated in the post above "average under the curve is a better way of measuring it"

 

2. "Blatantly unfair" is a purely subjective statement on your part. Please state exactly what is not fair and why. There may be things that you're assuming that simply just don't pan out to be reality in the implementation. Generalities do not help.

 

Transparency will come, but "drafts" of things will only create further confusion. You will get a chance to review. For example the first iteration would have allowed serious "gaming" and would have had everyone upset. This would be counter-productive I think....

[7VO-VOM]

Chris,

 

I wrote a fairly detailed reply. However, I realized it was pointless, so I deleted it. You ask for examples which have already been posted by several people, some in detail and others in general terms. No matter what I post, you will ignore it. You say the purpose of the change is better measurement. Scott says it's to penalize cars that are easily tuned by computer. You and/or Michael said most drivers will not have to change weight, but Scott said the goal is for half the cars to add weight and half to drop weight. So far the two people who have evaluated their cars (Scott B and Josh Smith) would need to add an absurd amount of weight.

 

The rule change is not fair. That has been shown in detail. You have made no effort to explain how it is fair.

 

BTW, how many regional directors voted for the rule change? How many are involved in testing and finalizing the new rule? Those should be easy questions to answer. Hopefully you and Scott Good can at least have consistent answers to these two questions.

[scottbm3]

The directors cannot seem to explain why they would want to implement a blatantly unfair rule.

 

1. I think we've explained perfectly why we would implement the rule. The current calculation is not a true representation of "power" in the "power to weight series". In fact you yourself stated in the post above "average under the curve is a better way of measuring it"

 

2. "Blatantly unfair" is a purely subjective statement on your part. Please state exactly what is not fair and why. There may be things that you're assuming that simply just don't pan out to be reality in the implementation. Generalities do not help.

 

Transparency will come, but "drafts" of things will only create further confusion. You will get a chance to review. For example the first iteration would have allowed serious "gaming" and would have had everyone upset. This would be counter-productive I think....

 

 

Chris,

 

And all this should be done in an open forum discussion during the actual period for GTS rules change purposals. Which means 2016 as were past all that now for 2015.

 

 

-Scott B.

[[email protected]]

1. I think we've explained perfectly why we would implement the rule. The current calculation is not a true representation of "power" in the "power to weight series".

 

Correction: For cars with rising HP curves its not.

For cars either naturally flattish or tuned to maximize the old rule set, its fine.

 

Change here only benefits cars with rising HP, unwilling to invest in tuning. (but likely willing to invest in weight loss, ballast, or power increases through bolt on parts)

 

Transparency will come, but "drafts" of things will only create further confusion. You will get a chance to review. For example the first iteration would have allowed serious "gaming" and would have had everyone upset. This would be counter-productive I think....

 

Well, its nice to know that we MIGHT consider that Scott's post was merely a first iteration. I think everyone is relieved to hear that there is consideration that it may be just that.

 

 

2. "Blatantly unfair" is a purely subjective statement on your part. Please state exactly what is not fair and why. There may be things that you're assuming that simply just don't pan out to be reality in the implementation. Generalities do not help.

 

The problem is that the rule given to us gives people WAY more rpm to be judged on than they need to use while they're accelerating, when power matters. That has been shown in a very detailed fashion.

 

Perhaps we should take the top two or three gear gaps, and average their gaps. I think this data could be verfied on a dyno we required with shifting through all gears, even if its at reasonable rpm to prove all gears are accounted for.

 

The "redline" is still tricky, but perhaps we can come up with a method for determining that.

 

For example, the factory redline for a given engine. Certainly some people may tune an engine to go to 1.05 of the factory redline, but still, we'll be close to that number too with factory redline.

 

Maybe THEN we calculate the proper segment of the rpm to have judged.

 

Use the measured and averaged top two or three transmission gaps, and factory redline.

 

Best to criticize AND give a proposed solution.

 

addendum....Running the numbers and looking at some of the data even presented by Ed would suggest very little time is actually spent at redline... so perhaps .95 is the figure to actually use of the factory redline.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Guest