Jump to content
JSG1901

2015 GTS Rules changes

Recommended Posts

mjmccoy
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.

Are you asking about the championship directly? Perhaps we should start a thread to get all of that out in the open...

 

For starters though:

1. what pun?

2. not my car. I wasn't even there.

3. it was optimized well enough to finish first, wasn't it?

4. why was it disqualified???? (I challenge you to find someone who can actually answer that one... I mean a real answer. not just "non-compliance". but "non compliant" with what. or how.)

 

With that, I once again submit that we have a massive problem with the series in terms of enforcement. Much moreso than "rules". Making the rules more complicated will only add to the fog. (or is it smoke?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith
Making the rules more complicated will only add to the fog. (or is it smoke?)

Smoke, from the wheel bearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
The top 3 cars were E36's. Two were M3's. (S52's with M50 manifolds and restrictor plates...

 

Interesting to see competitive S52/M52s at the national level. Around here the arms race has gone straight to $10k+ S54 swaps. Good to know and think about that the "detune" crowd is more diverse than I expected.

 

Ideally, you also don't pitch a fit when you lose

You may have been speaking generally, but I want to reiterate that I'm supporting this change on a conceptual level, not in any way to help me be more competitive. I'm more interested in finding ways to make the car (and driver) faster without mucking with power. I just like the concept of a rule that can measure any engine's true potential and have it be normalized with the competition whether you're detuning, running a restrictor, or just hammering the redline in your stock, peaky Porsche motor. I'm not saying we've got the perfect solution yet, but I think it's a great goal to shoot for.

 

You can de-tune an M20. (or re-tune.)... ...swapping from an M20 to an M50 or M52 is very inexpensive

Oh I'm aware, again my support of this rule doesn't come from a desire to make my car in particular faster in a straight line. I'm already running a megasquirt on the M20 with an S50 crank, custom pistons, and oversized valves. It was more of an engine-building/designing exercise than anything. I know I can slap on a cam gear, run hotter cams, move the curve lower, port the head, etc and have a more powerful motor* with 202hp/202tq than I do now with 202/202. And that's my issue. You can have two motors with the exact same NASA Dyno sheet, and have one of those motors make significantly better power. Which brings me to my last point.

 

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?

 

It seems to me that there isn't any interpretation to be had here. Please tell me what other possible other goal there is in defining classes by power and weight than to equalize straight-line advantage.

 

If the goal is to equalize straight line advantage (which I strongly believe it is), then having two motors of different effective power being termed "equal" by the rules is a contravention of the goal of the rule, making the rule ineffective. Ineffective rules call out for change.

 

 

*(My previous comment/joke about not being able to de-tune my motor is based on the idea that in order to de-tune you have to have an HP peak above your target class to "chop off" in order to make a flat power curve. My peak JUST reaches the GTS3 limit, so there's nothing to cut off)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE

As an outsider who keeps looking in because it's like watching a 10-car pileup on the freeway that keeps on gathering cars...

 

All of the discussion that centers on what people interpret (or believe) the intent was with GTS and power-to-weight and how to achieve it is getting to be hysterical. A lot of people keep applying their own belief systems or points of view as if they are gospel.

 

Pretty simple outline for PTW: https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/182/2014_20German_20Touring_20Series_20Rules_20v1.pdf

 

Straight from the GTS site: "Drivers are free to meet their specified ratios in any way necessary. Some go for low horsepower and low weight while others feel high horsepower (and the related extra weight) is the hot ticket. Many, of course, split the difference and sit somewhere in the middle. The beauty of GTS is that as a car owner or driver, you can take your best shot at finding a winning combination.

 

I take that to mean that you choose a platform and a class. You maximize the potential of that platform within that class. If you get beat by someone and they are found to be legal in impound, you either a) didn't out-drive them (to put it simply) or b) you chose the wrong platform and/or wrong class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

you can't compare cars in straight line speed with a dyno chart, especially at high speeds

 

there are different drag ratios from different cars . I drive a Mini Cooper, it's a brick

compare to Corvette or Porsche and you know what I'm talking about

 

You are going to ruin this series picking the [email protected] out of the pepper.............

shut up and race

 

back to trike riding...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
Straight from the GTS site: "Drivers are free to meet their specified ratios in any way necessary. Some go for low horsepower and low weight while others feel high horsepower (and the related extra weight) is the hot ticket. Many, of course, split the difference and sit somewhere in the middle. The beauty of GTS is that as a car owner or driver, you can take your best shot at finding a winning combination.

 

That statement is quite right and perfectly valid Drive. It is also completely unaffected by this rule change. You will still have the option to build a low [appropriately-computed average] horsepower car and low weight. You can also still have a high [appropriately-computed average] horsepower and high weight, or, somewhere in the middle.

 

The following arguments are the very valid concerns people have brought up:

1. It's more complicated to calculate and check for compliance

2. If we don't get it just right, we could risk creating another class of "cheater motor" that is specifically built to the new method.

3. Some racers may have to take a weight penalty and it could lead to frustration and people leaving.

 

All of those are totally reasonable arguments, but the "It will change the spirit of the class" is simply, categorically false. It will STILL be a POWER TO WEIGHT classification system. All we're discussing here is HOW WE CALCULATE THAT POWER number. I really don't understand why this isn't getting through. I'm starting to think that some people are simply flat out afraid of change and aren't willing to thoughtfully engage in any discussion involving an alternative.

 

Alex may be generally against the idea, [sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth mate] but he is at least looking at the suggested rule change purely on its merits and whether it will achieve its stated goals, and he has made many very good points. I'm more than happy to debate and analyze the proposed rule on its merits. If we run it through the permutations and it's a worse measure of engine performance than the current HP/TQ equation, then OK, let's find something better or fall back to the current, and clearly flawed way of measuring engine performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith

Alex may be generally against the idea, [sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth mate] but he is at least looking at the suggested rule change purely on its merits and whether it will achieve its stated goals, and he has made many very good points. I'm more than happy to debate and analyze the proposed rule on its merits. If we run it through the permutations and it's a worse measure of engine performance than the current HP/TQ equation, then OK, let's find something better or fall back to the current, and clearly flawed way of measuring engine performance.

In my opinion, I don't see what's "clearly flawed" with the current HP rules. I do believe cars that are detuned are at an advantage versus those that have a typical peak power near redline. No I don't have the data to prove it, but my understanding of physics would support than a HP plateau would be beneficial. Yes your car is at a disadvantage, but why are people that have done their due diligence and maximized their current engine tune, according to the current wording and ratios, being punished? As someone said earlier, I don't like the precedence this sets. Are people that have active aero going to be punished at some point because they took advantage of the rules? Or what about active dampers? Or a close ratio gearbox? Why is power so much different than these other things? It's just one of many dozen things that can be "maximized" according to the rules. I'm sorry that some people can't run a detuned motor for whatever reason, but I'm also sorry that some people can't run better aero, or better tires, or better dampers, or better brakes, or driver coaching, etc...

 

I don't think a lot of people have recognized that the current ratios are going to be changed with the current rule change. People say "well just add some weight", now you've changed the balance of the car which will require alignment, corner balance, shock, and spring changes. It takes a lot of time and testing to get the current front runner's cars where they're at. Testing isn't cheap, in addition to the cost of said parts/labor. Well "just change the tune then", that entails a new tune somewhere around $750(don't quote me on that), trailering the car to the dyno, and renting the dyno. A lot of the detuned cars have multiples ECU's/tunes, now multiply the cost by _, it adds up. Both of these muck with where people have decided to place their car(heavy/light, low/high HP) according to the tracks they run.

 

Some people say that this is an acceleration based class. No, it's not. It's a weight/HP ratio class, if you want an acceleration based class we need to classify cars by Δspeed/time in a real world scenario that accounts for drag.

 

But most of all, I think what is the most upsetting is that this was done in the shadows, but it sounds like the powers that be have already decided what's best. At least leave the ratios where they're at, that would make the transition much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
But most of all, I think what is the most upsetting is that this was done in the shadows, but it sounds like the powers that be have already decided what's best. At least leave the ratios where they're at, that would make the transition much easier.

 

I completely agree that the way this came out has been REALLY unfortunate. First, it's a big change and I really think people needed more time to consider, discuss, and prepare for it. I think it would have been a good to mention it now in the 2015 rules as "coming in 2016" to give people time to work with it. I can also see how the sudden nature of this might make people knee-jerk and dismiss the idea entirely. Second: Yeah, the ratio thing is a bit of a tough pill to swallow. Even though my calculated engine power might not effectively change under the new rules, I still may have to swap some ballast around after I've spent a lot of time bolting it into just the right places to keep the car well-balanced.

 

 

Some people say that this is an acceleration based class. No, it's not. It's a weight/HP ratio class, if you want an acceleration based class we need to classify cars by Δspeed/time in a real world scenario that accounts for drag.

 

You're right, if we wanted to make it a *truly* acceleration based class we would have to basically do a drag strip for each car, but that's not what we're talking about.

 

Technically, the current classing system is a ratio of weight to an amalgam of HP/TQ. What GTS really is is a weight/engine performance class. Why have the TQ number in there? It's an effort to prevent engines of equal peak horsepower from being too uneven (Though TQ shouldn't even be in this, but that's another flame-filled thread entirely).

 

Bottom line, by classing on an engine performance/weight ratio (whether you do it by HP, HP/TQ, Avg HP, or something more complex) you are effectively normalizing the maximum potential acceleration provided by the motor.

 

Let me say this again (and again, and again, and...): Drag, driveline loss, and other car differences are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion. Here's why: If you take a given car and magically split it into two identical cars, and put a flat plateau motor in one, and a peaky one in the other with equal peak HP, one is going to be faster than the other even though they're classed identically by the current measure of engine performance. THAT is the core issue here.

 

Are people that have active aero going to be punished at some point because they took advantage of the rules? Or what about active dampers? Or a close ratio gearbox? Why is power so much different than these other things? It's just one of many dozen things that can be "maximized" according to the rules.

 

I'm sorry Greg, but I'm going to have to go off on this one a little. Can we PLEASE stop asking about rules that don't exist? Changing how we measure the ONE thing that IS regulated in the class (tube frame/slicks not withstanding) in no way opens some pandora's box to change the entire nature of the class. This is a tired and completely invalid argument. We're talking about changing how we measure the existing, solitary classing device of the series, nothing more. Everything else is FUD and distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
That statement is quite right and perfectly valid Drive. It is also completely unaffected by this rule change.

Except that it is.

 

"Drivers are free to meet their specified ratios in any way necessary."

 

would now read;

 

"Drivers are free to meet their specified ratios in any way necessary...assuming it meets this new percentage/rising-rate whp/dynographola/hububub change."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

I'm not sure you are capable of understanding what Greg is implying because IF you did you wouldn't be responding in the way you are

back to my trike where it's safer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
Except that it is.

 

That statement (if you read it in its entirety) simply explains that you can go any combination from high power/high weight, through low power/low weight to meet the class ratio. It says NOTHING about HOW the power is measured. Which is what we're discussing here.

 

Hey Rev, you still haven't answered my question. Are you a GTS competitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini
Except that it is.

 

That statement (if you read it in its entirety) simply explains that you can go any combination from high power/high weight, through low power/low weight to meet the class ratio. It says NOTHING about HOW the power is measured. Which is what we're discussing here.

 

Hey Rev, you still haven't answered my question. Are you a GTS competitor?

 

yes, I'm building a car for the class but what difference does it make? I have customers running in all types of racing

the point is and you still haven't figured it out that there are more things out there than a dyno chart in how to make your car faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan

Glad to hear you're building a car for the class. Was actually hearing a bit about it from another soon-to-be GTS driver, it sound like an awesome build. Looking forward to seeing it out there.

 

the point is and you still haven't figured it out that there are more things out there than a dyno chart in how to make your car faster

If you have truly come away with that impression, then there's really nothing more I have to say to you on the subject because there's no way it's going to get through.

 

Best of luck with your future GTS car. Shoot me a build thread if you end up making one. We don't have to agree on how physics works to enjoy a good project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini
Glad to hear you're building a car for the class. Was actually hearing a bit about it from another soon-to-be GTS driver, it sound like an awesome build. Looking forward to seeing it out there.

 

the point is and you still haven't figured it out that there are more things out there than a dyno chart in how to make your car faster

If you have truly come away with that impression, then there's really nothing more I have to say to you on the subject because there's no way it's going to get through.

 

Best of luck with your future GTS car. Shoot me a build thread if you end up making one. We don't have to agree on how physics works to enjoy a good project.

 

I don't think I'm the only one here with that impression......lol

20141015_124254_zps40gnbg07.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rphelan
I don't think I'm the only one here with that impression......lol

 

And I'll be happy to continue civilly discussing it with those individuals. Clearly the series directors (or at least enough of them to put forward the rule change) agree with me. I guess we'll see how it all turns out, and hopefully we'll all have a good 2015 season with the shiny sides staying up and a minimum of tire donuts, regardless of what the power-measurement metric ends up being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick

I commend the GTS rule makers for this move to fairness. as was quoted, acceleration is purely dependent on HP. PERIOD... However, average HP is a more fair way to look at what a car's true performance potential is. close ratio gear boxes allow for cars to operate in the highest HP range, thus maximizing acceleration potential . a wide HP range wont need the close ratio gear box to have the same performance. a peaky HP curve, will be at a disadvantage, so averaging helps a turbo , or small displacement engine with a similar HP peak than a larger engine.(but not always.. I can show some V8 engines that have same shape HP curves as small I6 engines.)

 

I don't quite understand how the averaging is done, but if I was going to do it, I would take the HP curve and take 3 data points in 10% increments.. (using the common situation of most gear boxes giving a RPM drop of 70% of the redline RPM) using redline is a fair way to assess this, but folks can change redline... that might not be a problem, as long as the redline is the max HP and cant be changed or that the fall of the HP after max hp is close to the same fall as it would prior to max HP.

 

Since its all about average HP over an operational speed range, its the right technique to regulate the cars in the classes. a more important factor is absolute weight ranges. (hp /weight range is one thing, but light car vs heavy car at same acceleration potential, is a HUGE issue, where 75% more time is spent braking and cornering. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick

I commend the GTS rule makers for this move to fairness. as was quoted, acceleration is purely dependent on HP. PERIOD... However, average HP is a more fair way to look at what a car's true performance potential is. close ratio gear boxes allow for cars to operate in the highest HP range, thus maximizing acceleration potential . a wide HP range wont need the close ratio gear box to have the same performance. a peaky HP curve, will be at a disadvantage, so averaging helps a turbo , or small displacement engine with a similar HP peak than a larger engine.(but not always.. I can show some V8 engines that have same shape HP curves as small I6 engines.)

 

I don't quite understand how the averaging is done, but if I was going to do it, I would take the HP curve and take 3 data points in 10% increments.. (using the common situation of most gear boxes giving a RPM drop of 70% of the redline RPM) using redline is a fair way to assess this, but folks can change redline... that might not be a problem, as long as the redline is the max HP and cant be changed or that the fall of the HP after max hp is close to the same fall as it would prior to max HP.

 

Since its all about average HP over an operational speed range, its the right technique to regulate the cars in the classes. a more important factor is absolute weight ranges. (hp /weight range is one thing, but light car vs heavy car at same acceleration potential, is a HUGE issue, where 75% more time is spent braking and cornering. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick
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?

 

Just an observation here..... actually, a peaky hp curve can keep up, in all areas of a track, if it has closer gear ratios to allow it to realize the same average HP over any speed range. a GT3 Porsche vs a BMW M3/ or Porsche 928 is a great example of this . Average HP would be the same at any speed on the track, IF the right gear was selected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick
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?

 

Just an observation here..... actually, a peaky hp curve can keep up, in all areas of a track, if it has closer gear ratios to allow it to realize the same average HP over any speed range. a GT3 Porsche vs a BMW M3/ or Porsche 928 is a great example of this . Average HP would be the same at any speed on the track, IF the right gear was selected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zanick
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?

 

Just an observation here..... actually, a peaky hp curve can keep up, in all areas of a track, if it has closer gear ratios to allow it to realize the same average HP over any speed range. a GT3 Porsche vs a BMW M3/ or Porsche 928 is a great example of this . Average HP would be the same at any speed on the track, IF the right gear was selected.

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...