Jump to content
JSG1901

2015 GTS Rules changes

Recommended Posts

hamflex

As a GTS3 car I had Scott run my dyno chart and as far as my car goes I am adding only 20lbs. Now I'm still curious to see what will come of this new method but I will admit I am in favor of getting more racers on grid. My first GTS race had 13 racers take the start in 3. Last year I raced against 3 and 4 people tops with the exception of 1 race weekend.

 

I would like to see the results of a couple Porsches and how this new system effects them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

the "old" rule was PERFECTLY fine

 

IF you want a FLAT POWER curve..........MODIFY YOUR CAR FOR IT

 

IF you want a PEAKY POWER curve, MODIFY YOUR CAR FOR IT.............

 

Isn't racing about trying to find the perfect balance? Who is to say one is better than other?

 

There are multiple ways to skin a cat, skin it the way you like. There is so much gnashing of teeth here over something that was minimal on track in the first place.

 

Now you are setting up a rule (possibly) that can be a giant advantage for someone who is willing to spend the money to really cheat the system. In the old rule you might have a small advantage, now you might have a 50+hp advantage. Who cares if someone has a 10hp advantage in GTS as you have unlimited suspension, gear ratio changes and aero. These will account for more lap time gained anyways over a 10hp difference.

 

Obviously someone has a burr under their saddle and is picking the [email protected] out of the pepper at this point. All it will end up doing is killing a great racing series where rules were minimal and easy to understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
The current rule is fair. The new rule is not fair. If I told you what I would do to get around it, it would not be fair to me.

I should have stuck to this. Certain directors have made up their minds to implement the rule change without regard to drivers' or other directors' opinions, fairness, driving people away, or ultimately hurting the series. I'm done. I'll just sit and wait for the now 7 day late rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

I'm just pissed that this is taking sooooo long to get a judgement on this! If you guys can't come up with a finalized version by now, then it needs to be postponed till next 2016. I'm currently in the middle of making some very extensive and expensive changes to my car, and I really need to know what the hell is going to happen so we can continue making progress on my car. I'm transplanting an S62 in my car, but if these new rules are going to favor higher revving motors then I may need to dump a few more thousand in to the motor to allow it to rev higher or move to another class/series This whole thing just sucks and is very discouraging to see that this is the best our leadership/directors can do

 

John Huebner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snymo

I read all 17+ pages to this point. I have my own opinions on things and feel passionately a certain way, as do a lot of others. What we really need to know is, what is the actual rule?

 

I want/need to start getting my car ready for next year and 2015 rules were supposed to be posted on 12/15. It's now 12/22 and counting..... I have a couple of months of nights/weekends ahead of me, but I believe the guys in AZ have a race in a couple weeks!

 

So, can the GTS leadership PLEASE tell us exactly what the rule and class weights will be for 2015 so we can all go figure our how to setup our cars?

 

If you can't do that, for whatever reason, then please accept that this change is not ready! Pull this out and let us go play on the known playing field for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

To keep this short, I am in favor of the direction of the new rule change. I believe the old rule was broken and inadequate. Everyone else has discussed the details, so I won't go into it.

 

I will however say "Thank you" to Scott and all the other directors for all that you do for the series, especially for showing the leadership required to take on such a difficult and controversial issue as this for the sake of improving the series.

 

I would also like to thank Alex (Hey man, long time no talk!) and all the other racers who are concerned about the rule but are contributing constructively to this discussion. Whatever the final rule represents, and whenever it comes into play, your contributions and ideas will certainly have made it a better, more solid change to this series that so many of us love to run with.

 

I hope to see you all on track soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

i still don't see a logical reason to change the rules

 

it's very simple

 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POWER BAND OF YOUR CAR..................CHANGE IT.....................(wish we could do this in the other categories that our cars run in)

 

quite possibly the dumbest argument I have seen in a racing forum.

Seriously what more could you ask for in a rule set?

 

I've tuned 4 championship winning Porsche's in Grand Am and every one of them had the lowest torque of ANY car in the field except the Cayman. Most had more hp than us too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

^ Prime example of a NON-constructive argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini
^ Prime example of a NON-constructive argument.

 

 

PRIME EXAMPLE of someone not understanding how the rule was originally written

 

If you don't like your car you can change it within the rules............

 

just because people are unwilling to change their cars within the rules doesn't necessitate a rule change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

The purpose of the rule is to normalize acceleration between cars. The current rule does not accomplish this goal. Therefor, the rule is not meeting its purpose, and needs to be adjusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini
The purpose of the rule is to normalize acceleration between cars. The current rule does not accomplish this goal. Therefor, the rule is not meeting its purpose, and needs to be adjusted.

 

THEN CHANGE GEARING OR ADD A SUPERCHARGER OR TURBO to your car

the rules are so open you can do anything to "Make your car faster"

 

its' not up to someone else to do it for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

Correction, the rules are NOT open. GTS has one rule, and the purpose of that rule is to normalize acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

for those of you coveting someone else's acceleration curves go out and make it for your own car there is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from obtaining it

 

that is the exact beauty of the way the rules are currently written

 

all of a sudden it's gone to trike riding around here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

Rule that normalizes acceleration: Good.

Rule that normalizes acceleration INTELLIGENTLY allowing more than one kind of motor set up* to be competitive thus making the class more inviting (and affordable) to other competitors: Better.

 

*Expensive, complex, overly-powerful motors that have been de-tuned to wedge them into class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

How is it that the rules were weight/power, yet we keep hearing people say that the "intent" was to "normalize acceleration"? Where in the rules does it mention acceleration? I can't seem to find one single reference to "acceleration" in the past GTS rules.

 

To me, the "intent" was to make a simple rule set based on horsepower and weight, which are both relatively easily measured.

 

The rules were quite simple. Is your car one of these makes? ok. now what is your weight?.... and what is your peak HP?... now divide the weight by power and find where you fall in this table WRT your tires.... that is your class.

 

 

Yes, weight/power does help define part of the performance envelope of the vehicle, but it does not "normalize acceleration".

 

Acceleration is power, weight, rotational inertia, gearing, grip, aero efficiency, etc.

 

The simplicity of the rules, and the "open" nature in terms of aero, gearing, suspension, all point to a "builders" series where one can experiment and design as they please. That seems to be shifting with time to this "everyone should be on an equal playing field" mentality, which I do not understand. Windows allowed for some but not others? modifier for a sequential transmission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini
Rule that normalizes acceleration: Good.

Rule that normalizes acceleration INTELLIGENTLY allowing more than one kind of motor set up* to be competitive thus making the class more inviting (and affordable) to other competitors: Better.

 

*Expensive, complex, overly-powerful motors that have been de-tuned to wedge them into class.

 

so explain to me how you grow the group when all of these guys leave?

 

how are they "OVERLY POWERFUL" when you have a hp range it has to fall in ? LOL

 

what racer uses a power band from 2k to 8k? You realize a gear shift only drops the power band 800-1800 in most cars

and if you have have bigger drops CHANGE THE GEARING in the car...............again your problem is solved

 

AGAIN, we won in Grand Am with NONE of these abilities to fix the problem

you might want to look deep inside yourself to find out why you aren't winning then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith

How quickly can this average number be calculated at a track side dyno for compliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Expensive, complex, overly-powerful motors that have been de-tuned to wedge them into class.

 

Hi Rob.

 

If there were a rule saying that only some people can do the above, then one could say this rule is unfair.

 

There are people UNWILLING to do so. It has the appearance of someone saying that they should be allowed to race with the engine the way it came from the factory, and everyone has to measure power differently so that they can not be bothered to de-tune their car to race more competitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

MJ, you're quite right, final acceleration is a combination of a lot of things outside of the motor, but the GTS rule set does not address those items, (nor am I advocating that it do so).

 

I really feel that the argument that "oh, you're wanting to turn this into a spec class to keep it on an even playing field" is a distraction to this debate. There is ONE rule in GTS: It is a "Power to weight" class. No one is talking about tire widths, aero, suspension or anything beyond the ONE SINGLE RULE that the class already has and is defined by.This suggested rule change is about bringing the way we measure "power" into the modern era. As the internet meme goes, the rule "HAD ONE JOB!", and it's failing.

 

I LOVE the fact that GTS is a builders series in every other regard than power to weight. Take one look at my car, how can I [Pay attention here Rev] win a regional championship in a 35 year old chassis with skinny tires, no ABS/auto-biasing/other braking toys if I hadn't built/driven the hell out of it? I LOVE that I could theoretically rig up an arduino-controlled active rear wing and not go foul of any rules. I'm looking at building a wide-body out of it. I've fabricated in a RHD rack from a Mk 1 Ford Escort just to get the steering setup that I wanted.

 

I can do ALL of that, use all that creativity, fabrication, and out of the box thinking and at the end of the day someone can show up with a detuned S54 (which would be rated exactly the same as mine in the current rule set for a given peak HP) and just drive away from me out of the corners and on the straights*. To me, that's a sad state of affairs. It's a power to weight class, let's make it an accurately measured power to weight class.

 

I'd like nothing more than to see a crazy-built 80s Scirocco battling with a 996 because the 996's motor power has been properly equalized for its effective power. To me THAT is the definition of a builder's car, not someone who just drops in a bigger lump and uses software to shoehorn it into a lower class to take advantage of an out-of date rule. I find that to be lazy and uninteresting.

 

* Rev: Yes, shifts usually cover less than 2k rpm, but there will always be places where corner speeds push you out of your ideal 1500rpm power band. In those places (especially exiting corners, you know, the important bit), the flat HP curve motor will ALWAYS win out over the peaky one with the same peak power number, no matter how good your gearing is. Also, one question Rev: Are you a GTS driver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
*Expensive, complex, overly-powerful motors that have been de-tuned to wedge them into class.

If there were a rule saying that only some people can do the above, then one could say this rule is unfair.

 

There are people UNWILLING to do so. It has the appearance of someone saying that they should be allowed to race with the engine the way it came from the factory, and everyone has to measure power differently so that they can not be bothered to de-tune their car to race more competitively.

 

I definitely see where you're coming from Alex, but I disagree on three points:

 

1. My argument is that right now, due purely to the way the rule works you HAVE to run an overly-powerful, de-tuned motor if you want to win nationally. It increases the complexity and cost of entry without any reason. Isn't the idea of a power to weight class that you can't simply buy your way to victory in a straight line?

 

2. I also don't agree that the proposed rule change forces people to run with their engine the way it came from the factory. The goal of the new rule is be able to take any engine, of any variety, of any tune, and determine how that engine will perform when pulling a car down the race track. That way, if you want to have a peaky motor, you can have it. if you want to have a very flat HP curve, you can have it. But neither will gain a significant advantage over the other due to their power band. (Granted, we're still trying to work out the specifics of how to accurately measure this, but right now we seem to be arguing about whether we NEED to accurately measure motor power).

 

3. For many racers, this isn't simply a mater of "not being bothered" to de-tune their cars, it's an impossibility. I'm running an M20. If I de-tune it any I'll have to strap it to a bamboo bicycle to keep my power to weight! If we follow the "Just buy and detune an expensive motor so you can be competitive with the old rule" argument, everyone has to go out and buy an S54, and de-tune it JUST TO GET THE RESULT THE RULE ORIGINALLY INTENDED! Everyone will have the same power, and no one will be able to motor away in a straight line. The end result is the same as the rule adjustment is attempting, but we've made it harder and more expensive to participate, and made so many other cars un-competitive that you end up with field of S54-powered BMW E46 and E36s. (Wait, that's the currently existing issue we're trying to solve here isn't it?) So, more expensive, less variety, and fewer racers, just to get to the same result as the rule change is trying to accomplish (Same effective power, with no running away in a straight line).

 

Now don't get me wrong, I know that this rule change requires a bit more technical detail and finer tuning than the old one, and I've enjoyed reading your points on that finer tuning. I'm sure there will be things that need to be adapted for compliance testing and even just driving through tech after a race. That said, I still think its a very worthwhile endeavor and I would love nothing better than seeing a field of old Porsches, BMWs, VWs, Audis and even Mercs battling with their modern counterparts in a truly awesome exposition of close, hard, german touring car racing.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the E36 and E46 cars, but after a while I get bored passing the same stuff in my E21. I need some variety! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
How quickly can this average number be calculated at a track side dyno for compliance?

 

Agreed: This is an important bit of information regardless of which side of the debate we're on. My understanding is that most dynos can export a common file format with all the data points that can be loaded into an excel spreadsheet and calculated immediately. So it would be something like:

 

Run dyno, copy file, move to tech laptop, evaluate.

 

Or even better, if we have Excel on the dyno machine and its that much faster.

 

Looking forward to hearing how they're planning to work this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
1. My argument is that right now, due purely to the way the rule works you HAVE to run an overly-powerful, de-tuned motor if you want to win nationally. It increases the complexity and cost of entry without any reason. Isn't the idea of a power to weight class that you can't simply buy your way to victory in a straight line?

The way the rules are now, you have to do what you can to optimize the available power for your class.

 

Ideally, you also don't pitch a fit when you lose. That aside, lets look at GTS2 at the East Coast Championship. Cars at the top of the class were all "detuned" at some level to fit the class.

The top 3 cars were E36's. Two were M3's. (S52's with M50 manifolds and restrictor plates, probably running off the shelf tunes.) One was an M52 (2.8L) running an M52 intake manifold, no restrictor, and lightly detuned/retuned to suit the class. Of the three, the M52 approach not only was cheaper, but ended up being faster. Perhaps that was some of the rub that led to the bitching.

Knowing your target RPM range and optimizing that as best you can is well within the rules. The M52 was OBD1 (chassis was a ~1993 325i). Single VANOS and no e-throttle. This means the same basic methods can be used on any motor. Gearing was well selected for the track as well, but again, common parts for these cars.

 

 

2. I also don't agree that the proposed rule change forces people to run with their engine the way it came from the factory. The goal of the new rule is be able to take any engine, of any variety, of any tune, and determine how that engine will perform when pulling a car down the race track. That way, if you want to have a peaky motor, you can have it. if you want to have a very flat HP curve, you can have it. But neither will gain a significant advantage over the other due to their power band. (Granted, we're still trying to work out the specifics of how to accurately measure this, but right now we seem to be arguing about whether we NEED to accurately measure motor power).

To me, this sounds like you are saying "it is better if the rules are redefined to meet the powerband, and not the powerband optimized within the rules".

 

And yes, the new system just further complicates the measuring and thus compliance checking.

 

3. For many racers, this isn't simply a mater of "not being bothered" to de-tune their cars, it's an impossibility. I'm running an M20. If I de-tune it any I'll have to strap it to a bamboo bicycle to keep my power to weight! If we follow the "Just buy and detune an expensive motor so you can be competitive with the old rule" argument, everyone has to go out and buy an S54, and de-tune it

You can de-tune an M20. (or re-tune.) It isn't always about cutting out peak power. sometimes it is about filling in the rest of the used range, not just making the peak higher.

You can alter the cam timing. you have the "e" intake manifold to play with as a restriction / longer runners to increase torque. You have cam choices. you have displacement choices. You have compression ratio choices. (and all of the above is via existing junkyard parts, so cheap choices, not just custom parts.) tuning it is easy. Standalones that can handle 2 banks of injectors and one ignition coil are VERY inexpensive if you want to ditch the stock computer. The only thing you don't have compared to an M50TU based motor is Vanos. M52's are less expensive than M20's to boot.

And on that front, swapping from an M20 to an M50 or M52 is very inexpensive. Doing so would also mean you can easily go to stronger gearboxes that are the same weight and also have a 1:1 5th gear instead of an overdrive. Closer ratios + cheaper motors + easy tuning = ????

 

JUST TO GET THE RESULT THE RULE ORIGINALLY INTENDED! Everyone will have the same power, and no one will be able to motor away in a straight line.

Again, I feel like we are digging into interpreting the Bible here. Or "knowing" what was intended by the references to "the red rose" in a poem authored 600 years ago. Is this coming from the founding fathers of GTS? or is this a guess based on how you feel about the series?

 

Power is power. Peak power tells you enough of the story to paint a decent picture. The flatter the curve the better for the classing in this case as total power does matter in a race car...

But lets take a step back and look at how other series do it. At the pro level, say GT cars or LMP... they (more or less) are looking at weight and power. At the core, you have a minimum weight... and a restrictor plate size for your engine/class. restrictor plate will limit power (in an air throttled engine).

 

In fact, perhaps that is the "easy" solution here. come up with a formula for vehicle weight vs restrictor plate size. Everyone runs a restrictor. Maybe it cuts your peak power, maybe it doesn't. maybe it just chokes and makes a dead flat HP above X rpm for you. How is that different than what we (and by we, I mean most of the people detuning) were already doing? it isn't, other than that it is mandatory.

 

That also simplifies the compliance side. check weight, check restrictor size. done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Michael - no pun intended but you do realize it is hard to listen to your arguments when your car was disqualified from the championship? We all heard your ideas of optimizing - down to wheel bearing and quick shifts.

 

All the arguing aside I will hop on the bring the new rule out and let us see the impact bandwagon. It is tough to fully embrace or argue against a rule when we don't have 100% of the info yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Smith
.....I LOVE the fact that GTS is a builders series in every other regard than power to weight. Take one look at my car, how can I [Pay attention here Rev] win a regional championship in a 35 year old chassis with skinny tires, no ABS/auto-biasing/other braking toys if I hadn't built/driven the hell out of it?.......I can do ALL of that, use all that creativity, fabrication, and out of the box thinking and at the end of the day someone can show up with a detuned S54 (which would be rated exactly the same as mine in the current rule set for a given peak HP) and just drive away from me out of the corners and on the straights*.

Man, I'm sorry, and I don't want to sound like a dick, but you won a GTS3 regional championship because you participated in more races than anyone else...not because you didn't race against anyone with a detuned S54. You ran GTS2 times...usually getting beat by GTS2 cars. Not be the breaker of bad news, but you could have a detuned V12 in that 35 year old car of yours and not be remotely competitive with the best GTS3 drivers/cars in the country.

I know this is not a constructive comment in terms of what we are trying to get done here, but when I see people bitching about the current rule set who have yet to come anywhere close to running competitively in a class...well, it f'in chaps my ass. You're not .5 seconds off the pace...you're 5 seconds off the pace. The current power:weight rule has nothing to do with your car being slower than the fast cars...it's actually the rest of the open rule set that is killing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

Hey Josh, got news for you mate, you are being a dick. Why don't you get your ass down from Pennsylvania and talk to people around here before you make some myopic judgement. You've got your facts wrong; if you want them corrected I'll be happy to help you outside of this thread.

 

I'm discussing this point as a matter of simple measurement, math, and what would level the playing field the most for all competitors and encourage more participation. I'm not asking for a hand up, frankly when this rule change was brought up to me, my opinion was "Meh, I don't care, so what, I'm at a disadvantage. If I didn't want a challenge I'd buy an E46 like everyone else." I'm purely discussing what I think would be the fairest rule for the series. Alex is responding with numbers, ideas and facts about the rules. You sir, are being a fucking ass.

 

I have no dog in this fight, I contested GTS3 in a sub $15k total build because I thought it would be fun to fight an uphill battle. I'm not "Bitching" about being slow or not winning to anyone. I'm just espousing the concept that no one should be able to out-motor anyone else in a power to weight class. I don't really care where I finish, so long as I'm driving the wheels off it and improving the build after every event.

 

I will give you one point Josh, in a car with only 4 events worth of development, in my rookie season, with a 35 year old chassis and 205 tires, you're right; I probably would be 3-5 seconds off the best guy(s) in the country. And given those facts, I'd say that's a pretty damned fine start.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled rule change discussion. (Alex, thanks for the PM, let me look at the numbers and ideas you sent and get back with you).

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...