Jump to content
mjmccoy

Compliance checking in GTS

Recommended Posts

mjmccoy

As we have seen, GPS data is now an accepted method of compliance checking in GTS. What we do not have yet is a viable method for checking compliance with GPS data. We also have no stated method of compliance checking that can be independently verified, or self tested.

 

I have tried to propose a method of compliance checking with GPS data AND engine speed and then calculating power. Power should be calculated on an individual basis, and compared to the dyno chart number. This will avoid dissimilar cars being compared for "compliance" checking.

 

Currently GPS data is gathered as GPS only data. Apparently, comparing data between cars is the metric to be used.

 

The problem with this is that we seem to be operating on the premise that "similar" cars will have equal acceleration potentials/rates at similar weight/power ratios.

 

However, if we look at acceleration as 1/4 mile times vs lb/hp, we see that, while there is a "trend", we cannot say that there are not ways that a faster 1/4 mile time could not be achieved at the same weight/power.

 

powerweight1.jpg?m=1421421929

 

The problem often being that 1/4 mile time can be traction dependent for sufficiently high powered cars. GTS is not necessarily different in that regard either though, dependent on the start/end of a sampled region. Starting the data mid corner can greatly skew results based on traction, driver, etc.

 

 

If we instead look at trap speed, often said to be a "better" indicator of power, and power/weight, we see:

 

powerweight2.jpg?m=1421421929

 

Which fairly clearly illustrates the potential issues with trying to use speed/GPS data as a method to "check" power versus a known weight.

 

Simply having a different speed at a given point does not mean you have more/less peak (or total) power. The comparison is only valid if all else is held constant.

 

Without RPM (and possibly TPS) we cannot easily see why a given car is faster, only that it is. Ideally, we would have a method to determine horsepower, as the rules are based on weight and power. More importantly now, the new power rules are based on a power curve, so we need to be able to replicate/generate that power curve from data, and then run it through the calculator to come up with the required minimum weight for the class.

 

Even with RPM and TPS, it will require some logic in the analysis (probably a human) to sort out "odd scenarios", like being pushed down the straight, or a good draft, or other outside influences to the speed/performance of the vehicle. If we have RPM and speed data, we should be able to pull out aero drag, but if a car was *always* in a tight draft/pack for the entire race, the aero drag numbers may be excessively skewed, which may alter the "measured" power as well. Video may be necessary to validate some of the measured data.

 

With GPS only, comparing cars can be difficult. looking purely at speed at a given point on the track cannot work as there are far too many variables. One of the big ones being starting speed. Even with the same starting speed, there are too many variables at play. Looking at acceleration is a closer view, but still dependent on too many variables.

 

Driveline variables include: transmission ratios, transmission efficiency, final drive ratio, final drive efficiency, and bearing drag.

Vehicle weight variables include: ratio of rotating/reciprocating weights to vehicle weight, vehicle static weight distribution, vehicle dynamic weight distribution

Variables of polar moments of inertia of rotating stuff: crankshaft/flywheel/clutch/pressure plate, driveshaft, differential, axles, wheel bearings, drive hubs, rotor friction disc, rotor mounting hat, wheels, tires

Aerodynamic variables include: overall frontal area, shape/profile of frontal area/Cd, ride height, design and orientation of splitter, design and orientation of wings, design and orientation of underbody panels, tire width, body rake angle

Tire rolling resistance variables include: construction, compound, temperature, inflation pressure, toe thrust sensitivity, camber thrust sensitivity, age/heat cycles, load sensitivity

Suspension variables include: camber angle, toe angle, ride height, body rake angle

 

In order to make a comparison, far too many assumptions would need to be made. We either need to know all of the variables, or we need a method of calculating them.

 

For a spec class, we are better able to use generic data, as most of those variables are "fixed" by the rules. Even then, there can be outliers based on unregulated bits. An "unconventional" alignment can skew speeds greatly for example.

 

With those variables variable though, we need to calculate a lot of other information. If we have engine speed and vehicle speed, we can calculate gear ratios. If we have each car do a coast down test as part of the setup/compliance, then we can calculate some of the rolling and aero variables, at least as abstract numbers. RPM would let us calculate chunks of that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

Before we get too far into the technical details of how we should expect this to work, lets look at the current methodology.

If we have GPS data (and only GPS data), we know nothing of gearing or engine power. We cannot calculate power at the wheels, the actual basis of "compliance" in GTS.

If we instead attempt to compare data from a sample car to other cars in class, we have to make a few assumptions. First is that all cars are essentially identical, all the way down to driver and level of prep and development, along with methodology and approach to the weight/power. This also means we assume :

- Rolling resistance is the same for all vehicles. A good assumption when all vehicles are approximately the same weight, running a control tire, using similar inflation pressures, etc. This might be a poor assumption for dissimilar vehicles in open tire competition.

- Aerodynamic drag is the same for all vehicles. this could be a good assumption if all vehicles are of a similar size, with similar coefficients of drag (similar levels of aero development). This could mean similar ride heights, similar tire sizes, similar brake ducting, similar open/closed windows, etc., and running in similar air densities

- The inertia of rotational components are substantially the same for all vehicles (similar rotational inertias for crankshafts, clutch assemblies, transmissions/driveshafts/axles, similar tire/wheel assemblies), and the gearing (which affects dω/dt) is substantially the same.

- All sample data is of vehicles which are travelling on the same racecourse in nearly the same lap time, achieved in the same way.

 

Given all of those assumptions, all else being equal (restating the previous assumptions), vehicles with different power to weight ratios will accelerate differently at any given speed. A vehicle with a higher power to weight ratio will accelerate more quickly at any given speed than a vehicle with a lower power to weight ratio.

 

 

For the only sample case we have of this data and method being used in GTS, we have the following:

Speed data from ~T5 - ~T6

5-6_03.jpg?m=1421431718

 

and then speed data from ~T7 to ~T9

backstraight03.jpg?m=1421431725

777 can be seen here to have the highest speed at the end of the sampled area.

 

 

Wanting to look at acceleration, we can reduce that to:

 

Acceleration from T5-T6

5-6_02.jpg?m=1421431718

 

and acceleration data from T7-T9

backstraight02.jpg?m=1421431718

 

The acceleration graphs here are a bit wavy. Some of this is influence of elevation changes. Some is sample rate driven. Some is steered angle (line on track) driven. Some is the nature of shift points, power curve, etc. We can see the general trends though, and the substantial overlap.

 

An easier method, visually, for comparing acceleration would be to look at the slope of the lines plotted as speed. This reduces a lot of the "waves" and gives us a simple metric for comparison.

turn 5-6:

5-6_01.jpg?m=1421431720

 

and turn 7-9:

backstraight01.jpg?m=1421431719

 

These plots better illustrate the effects here. As we can see, car 777 appears stronger on corner exit in both cases (shown by the different slope), but has a substantially similar slope further down the track.

The sample data start point shows corner exit ability of the drivers/vehicles in this area. In the substantially straight sections of the straight, driver influence is negated, and we see vehicle performance. For the two straights, it is only the end of the sampled areas that is without substantial elevation change AND cornering.

 

Notable differences, which if you read the previous post on required assumptions, will be very well illustrated here:

 

The gearing in car 186 is less aggressive than in car 777.

the weight of car 186 is substantially (~300 lb) higher than car 777.

These two alone would promote better corner exit speed where "grip" could either go to accelerating a car, or turning. "The lighter car with more aggressive gearing was better out of the corner" doesn't seem like an easily refuted general statement.

Add in suspension variables, such as rear sway bars (or lack thereof), differential characteristics, dampers, etc, and we have appreciably different vehicles in the low speed sample region.

 

We see most of that difference at T5 and exit. This is up hill, and has a wide range of possible "lines" as well, which can affect when full throttle is reached as well as the efficiency of the chassis by how much of the turning is done when.

 

This difference is greatest between cars 777 and 336/186 at corner exit. Cars 336 and 186 are similar in build/design. Cars 336 and 186 are the closest in weight, power, power curve, gearing, and suspension. 336 and 186 share the same engine and gearbox, which differs between those and 777. Their corner exit curves most closely follow each other as well. Car 777 is substantially different in weight, power, power curve, gearing, and suspension. Its corner exit curve does not follow the other two as closely. It should also be noted that only segments of 336 and 186 align, and that there is more difference between the data from 336 and 186 (the more similar cars) than between 186 and 777.

 

Where we finally have "similar cars" across the three sample vehicles, in that we are all in top gear, and assumed as 1:1 for the cars being compared (which will not be the case in general in GTS), and all in or around the "meat" of the power band (or so we would hope), and thus around peak power, we have similar acceleration rates. Not exactly the same rates though. We only have this substantial similarity where we have no steering input, all at WOT, all in top gear, etc.

 

For such comparisons, sample locations will need to be well defined. The variance allowed by inspectors should be well defined if this is the method to be used for compliance. In the case of Road Atlanta, the only "flat" straight areas of usually full throttle are approaching T1, approaching T6, and approaching T9. For the data we have displayed above, in the areas for which we have data that also falls within those geographic regions, the acceleration rates of the three cars is largely similar, with the highest acceleration rate (slope) belonging to car 186. This may not be readily apparent when looking at speed only, but the critical bit in all of this is understanding the data, especially as it applies to the class, if it is to be used for compliance checking.

 

This method can be seen to be relatively questionable with three cars of the same chassis that have ballpark similarities, which gives me great concern for how well this may work when comparing even more dissimilar cars, such as an E36, an E92, and a 997.

 

It will be important to know what metrics will be applied if this is the method moving forward. What is allowable variance? Will that variance be speed, or acceleration? Above we have a 1mph peak between 5 and 6, and a 4mph peak between 7 and 9. A 1% and a 3% variance in speed at peak of the averaged values presented. The same variance is present in the data of each car. (meaning each car had as much variation in their own speeds as the variation seen between the cars for the average of each cars data.) We must assume speed was the metric, as acceleration could not be the determining factor for this compliance checking exercise based on the results. Acceleration data was also never discussed/released. This is also without calling into question the precision of the measured data or sampled locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heavychevy

Just my opinion, but it's easy to hide top end acceleration with additional drag. With the big wing on the 777 it begs the question if a wing that high adds additional drag relative to much lower ones. Would probably need some wind tunnel testing to tell if it does or not. But that low end acceleration difference is very substantial for cars supposedly in the same class and is more suggestive of hp/torque than the top end accel which is highly aero dependent.

 

Once the process is started, as can be seen with drag racing, the time it takes to cover the ground is substantially reduced. For example a small improvement in 60ft time on the strip adds up to a big difference in time down the 1/4 mile. The fact that even with a slower exit speed, the 777 can surpass that residual effect and still fly past the other two vehicles will makes it hard to justify.

 

I think the obvious spirit of the rules is to negate such huge differences in acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
With the big wing on the 777 it begs the question if a wing that high adds additional drag relative to much lower ones. Would probably need some wind tunnel testing to tell if it does or not.

The wing in clean air is more efficient.

If we are looking at aero between the cars, there are many other nuances far far in front of the rear wing. Like which cars had external mirrors, which ones had sealed body gaps, which ones ran tight right side window nets, which ones had excessive frontal duct areas exposed, etc. In an aero comparison, 777 had a clear advantage.

 

But that low end acceleration difference is very substantial for cars supposedly in the same class and is more suggestive of hp/torque than the top end accel which is highly aero dependent.

What low end acceleration difference? Are you looking at peak? or average? .... or speed?

 

It could also be suggestive of different gearing.

If we have 3 identical E36's (or better yet, we run 3 sessions with the same car), and different gearing:

first session with a stock 3.15 open

second session with a 3.46 LSD

third session with a 3.91 LSD

How similar will the corner exit speeds be when measured in 100ft increments? I suspect the car with more aggressive gearing and better grip will accelerate faster, even though it is technically all the same car, and thus the same power... and the same weight, so also the same class in GTS.

 

It also could be a function of throttle use. or the "free-ness" of the alignment, or amount of steering used (line) on that section of track, or total power, or shift point, or shift time. When we start trying to understand a 1mph difference somewhere, there are so many variables that come into play.

 

In some circles, 3-4 mph at the end of a straight can be the result of a proper (or properly adjusted) clutch stop. Trying to pinpoint a less substantial speed difference as one thing in cars with massive differences seems like a difficult task. Trying to claim it as too much power or too little weight seems like a leap, especially for a car that was legal on the scales and dyno.

 

Once the process is started, as can be seen with drag racing, the time it takes to cover the ground is substantially reduced. For example a small improvement in 60ft time on the strip adds up to a big difference in time down the 1/4 mile. The fact that even with a slower exit speed, the 777 can surpass that residual effect and still fly past the other two vehicles will makes it hard to justify.

The 777 never flew past the other vehicles in the sample data. Are you referring to the video posted by a competitor?

 

The exit speed was not slower, at least not on the sampled laps with the data used.

At the 7000 ft mark, nearish T7 apex. (laps are 5 samples, not from the same sessions or in order.)

336: 49.9 45.1 45.8 50.1 49.5 avg 48.08 median 49.5 (lowest mean, highest median)

186: 49.9 48.9 50.3 48.2 47.1 avg 48.88 median 48.9 (highest mean, lowest median)

777: 49.2 49.3 49.0 45.0 50.7 avg 48.64 median 49.2

 

777 actually has the highest minimum corner speed at the sampled point, 2nd highest average, 2nd highest median. (so not really "slower" exit speed.) This is in addition to a higher corner entry speed, which also suggests a different line.

 

I think the obvious spirit of the rules is to negate such huge differences in acceleration.

The rules say nothing of acceleration. Only power and weight. That aside, there are no huge differences in acceleration here. At least not peak, only location and duration. In the area that would be viable for sampling acceleration, 777 is the second highest acceleration of the 3.

 

If the rules want to control acceleration, then we need a metric other than just weight/power as the basis for classification. Also, if we are to be regulated on acceleration as a metric bound to weight/power, we ideally need to know what that may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loftygoals

Michael,

 

I am really enjoying the analysis you are doing here. I think it does an excellent job of pointing out the complexities of GPS compliance testing.

 

As you illustrate in your graphs in the first post, power to weight gives a trend that shows in broad terms power to weight can produce similar rates of acceleration over a distance. The reason that there is so much variance is because there are so many variables.

 

One of which is how power is made. Your examples utilize peak power, which doesn't take into account power over the operating rage of the engine. This is why the GTS rules were amended to utilize average power.

 

Now average power is just one of many variables. But it can be said that two different motors with the same average power in the same car will have extremely similar rates of acceleration. Thus, you can think of GTS classes as being separated by "acceleration potential". The classing doesn't assume that all cars will be equal in the real world, just that their engines have the same potential.

 

This leaves many variables wide open. Grip, gearing, areo, tire compound, drag, driver, elevation changes, track conditions, horizontal grade, etc all impact the real world outcome. Each of those categories have sub categories. Those sub categories have more categories. In the end we are left with dozens and dozens of variables. Unless these variables can be quantified and given a weight, building an accurate model would be extremely difficult.

 

To begin to get an idea of the complexities of the vehicle alone, just look at Performance Tuning. There are dozens of different modifications that assign points, each car is given a base classification, adjustments are made for weight, tire size, tire compound, transmission type, drive wheels, etc. They have been developing that for over a decade. It works well, but you still have cars that a "ringers" for a particular class.

 

I could see GPS based compliance testing working better in a spec class with a very tight ruleset. Even with many of the variables eliminated, you could only practically compare all the cars over the same session on a given day. The model would take a sample set of cars that are known to be compliant and then compare them to the remaining vehicles, looking for outlying data. This is a scenario that could be analyzed with existing analytics software. But to be effective, you would need a large dataset. I don't know if 25 spec cars would be enough to provide meaningful analysis.

 

The long and short of it is that I believe GPS data compliance testing may be too complicated for NASA to develop a viable solution.

 

-bj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Very few seem to want to touch the live wire here . Rennlist is far less "inhibited", and there is an interesting discussion here: http://rennlist.com/forums/racing-and-drivers-education-forum/832385-big-time-man-drama-from-gts2-nats-6.html

 

One of the more interesteing quotes come from Peter Krause, certainly a guru in data analysis. Post #78.

 

We looked at this for 944 Spec, but a significant difference of 5Hp get totally lost in the variables.

 

In the higher HP classes, a 20 or so HP difference is somewhat easier to pick out, though I agree the aero variables cloud the issue more at higher speeds.

 

The graphs show a very significant difference at low speed. a 5+ MPH gain over 1,000 feet is a lot, and appears to occur beyond the point of traction limits from corner exit (lateral G graph would be helpful). Gearing advantage, et al, can only account for so much. The fact that the 777 car can sustain the same acceleration as the other cars, despite carrying a significantly higher speed also seems problematic. I am not in a place to make a call here, but from my viewpoint, it does not seem unreasonable that one was made here.

 

Having been on the end of the "you're faster, you must be cheating" argument, I certainly sympathize that things are not always as they "seem". On the other hand, there does come a point that the usual arguements are implausible for the magnitude of difference seen. Building a rule around that which involves no judgement is virtually impossible. Going unregulated, and tacitly allowing cheating, as long as it doesn't show up on the dyno , is even worse. In the end, I think we are going to be left with some degree of judgment by knowledgeable leadership/expert consultation, with a high threshold to make a call, but the ability to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loftygoals
Very few seem to want to touch the live wire here

 

So, I pretty much had no idea that the Nationals thing was what this was all about. I didn't really follow it. I'm more focused on the rules and engineering. That why the discussion of data drew me in.

 

 

One of the more interesteing quotes come from Peter Krause, certainly a guru in data analysis. Post #78.

 

I'm no guru when it comes to analyzing data for vehicle performance, but I have gotten vary familiar with large scale data analysis over the past few years. in addition to Clown Shoe Motorsports, I am also involved with a company that develops data analysis software for the legal industry. We develop methods for taking millions of business documents that we know nothing about and determining which ones are relevant to the litigation at hand.

 

The one thing that I've learned is there is a big difference between plugging numbers into a formula and data analysis. If you generate your analysis with Excel, either you have a very simple data set or you are making a lot of assumptions. True data analysis uses a blend of probability, statistics, and mathematical models. The concept we use could certainly apply to this problem if enough data is available. Basically given a seed set of data, you get a probability score that something is similar. So if you had data for know legit cars, you could determine a score threshold to find the anomalies. The anomalies would be both cars that under perform and over perform, though. You could easier tell which were which, though.

 

Having been on the end of the "you're faster, you must be cheating" argument, I certainly sympathize that things are not always as they "seem". On the other hand, there does come a point that the usual arguments are implausible for the magnitude of difference seen. Building a rule around that which involves no judgement is virtually impossible. Going unregulated, and tacitly allowing cheating, as long as it doesn't show up on the dyno , is even worse. In the end, I think we are going to be left with some degree of judgment by knowledgeable leadership/expert consultation, with a high threshold to make a call, but the ability to do so.

 

I certainly think basic GPS data is a valid tool for helping to determine compliance. I just don't think there is enough quality data being gathered to make it the only tool used to make the final decision.

 

Reading through the thread on Rennlist, it is obvious that some feel NASA took too much time resolving the dispute from Nationals. I think it is wise that they took time to think it over, consult others, and review the information. Rash decisions can often produce regrettable results.

 

-bj

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Good thoughts, BJ. I think the cleanest use of GPS is to screen for outliers, and then put them under a microscope. With the sophistication of electronic tuning, it may be very hard to find the smoking gun. It would be interesting to make a probability set for compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Eclipse9916

Just to be clear here, McCoy (a business partner with #777) is using data that was somehow acquired despite none of the rest of the field having access (even though multiple people asked). He also doesn't use AIM data but extrapolates his own data based on whatever lap he sees fit.

 

McCoy, can I ask where you got permission to use data from my car (#186), yet I cannot have the same access? I have stayed silent on this "debate" but I continue to be annoyed by your posts using data from my vehicle when I have no way to look at the data itself.

 

PS- A ton of your assumptions and introspection are wrong. Please do not make assumptions based on my vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
[/quote

Good thoughts, BJ. I think the cleanest use of GPS is to screen for outliers, and then put them under a microscope. With the sophistication of electronic tuning, it may be very hard to find the smoking gun. It would be interesting to make a probability set for compliance.

 

Eric, you are right - this is exactly the goal - "screen for outliers". We understand the limitations of the GPS testing and we are only in the beginning of collecting the data. So far, aside of the above discussed situation at East Nationals, no driver was DQed. But we are still committed to the development and better utilization of the Black Boxes in the future.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJ's325ITS

So, I just finished putting together all of engineers analyses, and it's in the same open public folder with the other docs that shows what happen to me.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0gXucaqzPfla1MxQ0RCLUU2ajA/view?usp=sharing

 

The main folder is here:

 

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0gXucaqzPflOTN4ajdRMXJNcUE&usp=sharing

 

I'm still waiting for a way to self test, just like the dyno and the scales........ I believe GTS racers deserve transparency to keep the spirit of racing clear, because then how will we deal with the conflict of interest that creates when NASA employees race with paying racers/costumers????

 

Just to be clear here, McCoy (a business partner with #777) is using data that was somehow acquired despite none of the rest of the field having access (even though multiple people asked). He also doesn't use AIM data but extrapolates his own data based on whatever lap he sees fit.

 

McCoy, can I ask where you got permission to use data from my car (#186), yet I cannot have the same access? I have stayed silent on this "debate" but I continue to be annoyed by your posts using data from my vehicle when I have no way to look at the data itself.

 

PS- A ton of your assumptions and introspection are wrong. Please do not make assumptions based on my vehicle.

 

The data that NASA send me as "the smoking gun" for my disqualification, also made public on the Google drive folder for anyone with an engineering degree to do it's own analysis. but FYI, I had over 5 motorsports engineers look at it with the same conclusions.

 

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0gXucaqzPflOTN4ajdRMXJNcUE&usp=sharing

 

Not that it matters, but McCoy is an Ex-business partner. His company supports my racing efforts I support his, just clarifying a fact.

 

Have a good day Champ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1

Michael and Rafael

 

I am not here to debate why you were DQ’d, the method that was used to gain the data to DQ you, or how NASA handled the DQ.

 

I do however ask this one question:

 

What do you hope to accomplish from all of the drama you have raised? I truly do not understand.

 

As I see things, you have accomplished nothing other than to continue to keep a black eye on our series nice and shinny. I am not going to debate who created the black eye, just that there is one and you continue to poke it. Whether you agree with what was done or not, there is nothing that can be done at this stage. The people that made the decision have long ago stopped listening. They will not change their minds, no matter how many videos, graphs, external sources, motorsport engineering analysis, or new arguments you post. It is NASA’s sandbox and they will do as they see fit. As a NASA competitor sometimes I have disagreed with their ways, but most of the time I can say I agree. But, I understand one very important point: I am not in charge. It is their sandbox and if I wish to continue to play there I have to abide by their rules and decisions. End of story.

 

You have stated publicly that you will not compete with NASA and you will take all of your customers with you because you feel so wronged. Based on the amount of noise you have made I would say and I’m only guessing here, that NASA’s opinion is probably don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

 

Now you can claim that you are trying to show inconsistencies or ways that NASA will hurt a competitor. Thus protecting other racers from experiencing what you have. But who are you hoping to help? You may feel you are bettering the series with your continued assault on this topic, but to what end? Rafael has now taken this to Rennlist, a purely Porsche website. A place, where none of the racers involved other than my son and myself, hang their hats as far as I know. So, if you succeed in reducing the number of racers in GTS by all of this, who are you really helping? Let’s play a game for a bit. Let’s say you have reduced the number of competitors by one per class. On the regional level that could quite possible change how contingency money is paid. So, a competitor that would have won tires or brake pads now will not. Is that the goal for the two of you? To hurt the guys you raced against? At this point the only outcome I see is hurting your fellow competitors and obviously not reinstating your championship.

 

Is that the goal of all of this for the two of you?

 

I understand that the two of you will more than likely dissect everything I have written in an attempt to refute what I have written. But, I respectfully ask you not. Please just stop. This path you two are on is only self serving at this point.

 

Douglas Hillmann

Zach Hillmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJ's325ITS
Michael and Rafael

 

I am not here to debate why you were DQ’d, the method that was used to gain the data to DQ you, or how NASA handled the DQ.

 

I do however ask this one question:

 

What do you hope to accomplish from all of the drama you have raised? I truly do not understand.

 

As I see things, you have accomplished nothing other than to continue to keep a black eye on our series nice and shinny. I am not going to debate who created the black eye, just that there is one and you continue to poke it. Whether you agree with what was done or not, there is nothing that can be done at this stage. The people that made the decision have long ago stopped listening. They will not change their minds, no matter how many videos, graphs, external sources, motorsport engineering analysis, or new arguments you post. It is NASA’s sandbox and they will do as they see fit. As a NASA competitor sometimes I have disagreed with their ways, but most of the time I can say I agree. But, I understand one very important point: I am not in charge. It is their sandbox and if I wish to continue to play there I have to abide by their rules and decisions. End of story.

 

You have stated publicly that you will not compete with NASA and you will take all of your customers with you because you feel so wronged. Based on the amount of noise you have made I would say and I’m only guessing here, that NASA’s opinion is probably don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

 

Now you can claim that you are trying to show inconsistencies or ways that NASA will hurt a competitor. Thus protecting other racers from experiencing what you have. But who are you hoping to help? You may feel you are bettering the series with your continued assault on this topic, but to what end? Rafael has now taken this to Rennlist, a purely Porsche website. A place, where none of the racers involved other than my son and myself, hang their hats as far as I know. So, if you succeed in reducing the number of racers in GTS by all of this, who are you really helping? Let’s play a game for a bit. Let’s say you have reduced the number of competitors by one per class. On the regional level that could quite possible change how contingency money is paid. So, a competitor that would have won tires or brake pads now will not. Is that the goal for the two of you? To hurt the guys you raced against? At this point the only outcome I see is hurting your fellow competitors and obviously not reinstating your championship.

 

Is that the goal of all of this for the two of you?

 

I understand that the two of you will more than likely dissect everything I have written in an attempt to refute what I have written. But, I respectfully ask you not. Please just stop. This path you two are on is only self serving at this point.

 

Douglas Hillmann

Zach Hillmann

 

I speak for my self.

 

Negative on all your assumptions of what the target goal is....

 

things that will be nice to acomplish out of the black eye:

 

1. You and everyone in the U.S. running GTS can self test DATA. So when you go race against a NASA employee, you know it will come down to a pass/fail test.

 

2. A scientific explanation how the "hired expert" came to... OMG I made a mistake! His car is illegal bc I messed up a decimal point, or whatever the mistake was.

 

I'm not asking for the tittle back, or price money.... being the champ will not make me a better driver, or richer.

 

It's the principle of whats right!

 

Everything is a business, and money we are for them, well I'm an upset costumer.... whatever other costumers do, is up to them, which club gets their money Not up to me.

 

I just wish that we all get to play in NASAs sandbox as we did for many years, just before the "we reserve the right to use DATA as a method of compliance" we are not going to tell you how or when we'll use the power, or the qualifications of the expert, but is our right.

 

Have a good day.

 

Rafael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
What do you hope to accomplish from all of the drama you have raised? I truly do not understand.

My goals were outlined in the first two paragraphs of the first post. There needs to be a method for compliance checking with data if data is to be used for compliance checking...

 

Now you can claim that you are trying to show inconsistencies or ways that NASA will hurt a competitor. Thus protecting other racers from experiencing what you have. But who are you hoping to help? You may feel you are bettering the series with your continued assault on this topic, but to what end?

The inconsistencies are not what this thread was about. This thread is about the process of analysis of data for the purpose of compliance checking, specifically in GTS.

 

I think it is worth pointing out the "drama" is NOT from the civil discussion of the physics.

 

Moving forward, we need a method that does not involve comparing "raw" data between dissimilar cars. We need a method that is applied to data of one car, and is treated largely as pass/fail for a given class. ideally, to me, this means something that takes in data (GPS and engine speed) and vehicle weight, and spits out engine power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

man, I can't wait to see what the black box officials have to say about my car this year

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...