Jump to content
Michael G.

CLOSED 2016 Rule Change -Limit De-tuning by electronic means

Recommended Posts

Michael G.

Proposed change

Limit de-tuning by electronic means.

Establish a reference by defining the Natural Power as well as Minimum Weight calculations through the concept of minimum accepted declared HP or displacement.

Reason

Unlimited de-tuning by electronic means through the ECUs became very popular among owners of particular models / drivetrains in GTS, resulted in the change of the landscape of the series. Inability to police and effectively enforce the compliance resulted in the growing perception of the cheating.

Proposed wording

 

Natural Horsepower = Manufacturer published Engine Horsepower OR 100 HP Per liter of displacement for custom engines. Custom engines defined as ones with no stock reference, being built using non-stock internals, bored to larger displacement, etc. All forced induction engines will be counted as X 1.5 L Displacement).

 

1. Every car will compete in the class no more than one class lower than Stock Curb Weight / Natural Horsepower of the vehicle's engine used.

2. Electronic HP adjustments are limited to 85% of Natural Horsepower. Additional HP adjustments of up to 10% additional are to be made by mechanical restrictions (throttle stop, restrictor plate, etc..). Min HP = (Natural Horsepower * 0.85 * 0.90)

3. Drivers claiming mechanical adjustments will be required to present Dyno data in mechanically restricted and unrestricted modes.

4. Each car entering the 2016 season (Jan 1, 2016) will need to present the updated online calculator.

5. If an engine makes less than published *.85 without mechanical restriction, the HP of the car assigned will be calculated as published HP *.85.

6. Drivers are responsible for providing the information on the engine and for classing the car.

7. Both - Driver and the Dyno Operator are responsible for strictly following the protocol of the Compliance Dyno Testing in regards to procedures and required documentation, such as filling the Declaration Form at the time of testing, using proper Smoothening Factor (5), adhering to the simulated race conditions (oil and engine temps, tire compound and pressures, etc.), use of mechanical restrictors if such. Dyno Operators are required to maintain the copies of the testing for the cross reference by NASA / GTS officials upon request. In case of the violation of the protocol - serious consequences will follow.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

I chose GTS due to the open rule set. My understanding was that you would be allowed to take whatever approach you wanted to accomplish the goal of winning while staying within the power to weight ratio. And I had the understanding that NASA would step in to make modifications where necessary for unfair advantages. Such as that with slicks and sequential penalty. Therefore I would expect the same level of analysis and detail in regards to “detunes.” When you use data to make adjustments it brings credibility to the process. When you arbitrarily create new rules without even presenting the data to support the need, you are simply picking and choosing the winners and losers.

 

2015 was avg whp to level the playing field with detunes. NASA now has a full year of at track dynos and AIM data to document the acceleration between cars. Can someone please show me GTS2 data that suggests that I have an unfair acceleration advantage in GTS2 with an e36 S54 swap? Now you want to ban me from the class my car was built for?! Rather than undermine the open rule set that was the basis of GTS, how about making modifications that stay true to the core of the series. Sequentials, slicks,etc. all give quantifiable advantages. Guess what, there’s a common sense power/weight penalty for that. There is no doubt that having an S54 over an S52 has an advantage of an extra 1k of useable rpm on the top end. People upgrade S52’s and accomplish the same if they so choose with cams/valves/springs etc. If there’s some other advantage, I’m sure the AIM folks can assist with data analysis to suggest an appropriate penalty.

 

Nationals at VIR was the most competitive wheel to wheel racing I’ve ever been involved in. The lap times of P2-P6 were all within 1.5 second of each other over the course of the weekend in GTS2. The top 3 guys in GTS3 all had lap times within .5 seconds of each other (Represented by an e46 S54 around 280whp, e46 S54 around 260whp, and an e46 S65/sequential around 280whp.) That in itself shows the beauty of GTS. 3 different approaches and all came out to similar results. I was P5 with my best lap time and the other e36 S54 was P6 in GTS2. Neither of us had an advantage on the straight. All of my passes to get up to P2 were in corners or due to mechanical failures. As a matter of fact, anyone can view my video online and see that I actually got pulled on a little. I’m sure the AIM data will support similar acceleration data of the P6 car. Nationals aside, the story was the same ALL YEAR. For which my regional director has AIM data. I spent the entire year telling my other friends about GTS2 and we all looked forward to racing next year. 3 of them have already purchased cars for the class, and now I feel silly having supported the organization that is booting me from my race class.

 

If you want to reduce the amount of detuning in the class the solution is simply. You change the ratio used to calculate power and weight. The most common GTS2 car is a e36 M3 that tends to have maxed whp specs around 230-240whp. Change the power to weight to 10 to 1 for GTS3 and 13.5 to 1 for GTS2 and you accomplish the reduction of detunes that you seek since people can add the power they want without the adverse impact of more weight. At the end of the day, the same guys who are winning now will be the same guys winning in the future…. Bc they are the better drivers. I heard a GTS3 driver at Nationals mention he was leaving early bc he can’t compete with the detuned BMW’s. The same guy was running lap times that wouldn’t put him on the podium in GTS2 let alone GTS3. Racers often prefer to point the finger rather than figure out what they need to do as a driver to improve themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimax

Ridiculous. Unnecessary. Crazy. Outrageous. Leave GTS alone! Power to weight verified by a dyno, DONE!

 

I'm going to say two things. First, when you guys can figure out how to get people to stop exploiting the rules in your spec classes, come talk to GTS. Until then, stop singling GTS out! We're doing nothing different than any other race class out there.

 

Second, Nasa National, listen to your customer. Current customers do not want a change to a beautifully simplistic series. A rules proposal based on the "perception of cheating" is preposterous. How about supplying actual examples of a systematic problem of cheating within the series first?

 

Completely disagree with this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM

This proposed rule was written by somebody with an axe to grind. If somebody calls you a cheater at the track, they have to pay when they're wrong. If they call you a cheater in a rules change, we all have to pay. There is clearly no evidence of cheating by electronic tuning that can't easily be caught with the current system of dyno compliance checks and AiM devices. This rule in fact complicates the rules, opens the door to cheating, goes against the spirit of GTS, increases costs for many of us, and is horribly unfair depending on which 'particular models / drivetrains' you have. It only serves to drive away certain participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Just curious as to where this proposal came from? Also, if it came from where I'm guessing, do we even have a say in this matter? This is absolute horse shit, but is expected after last year's rules change fiasco. The "spirit" of GTS is gone! A lot of us have spent a LOT of money to build our cars to the extreme for a particular class, and this would absolutely make that investment a total waste! It is an absolute joke what people at the top have done to this series in the last two years. It has gone from one of the most open classes (which is what drew a lot of us in) to one of the most ridiculously complicated classes to run in. With that said, if this is the direction that the series is going in then count me out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Horse shoe diddely diddle......wtf is that??? That's not what I said! I vote NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MPower6er

100% Against this proposed rule.

 

This proposal completely goes against the fiber and beauty of the GTS series - Simplicity of the rules. We don't have a complex point system like other series. The vast majority (and I'm talking significant majority) do not favor such a rule change; this obviously has come from a very thin minority (and perhaps not even racers). We should more strictly enforce our current set of rules, since compliance is so important (read this as - dyno's at All events). Perceived cheating occurs is all classes; not just GTS. To make new regulations based on perception is not intuitive. We need to enhance and improve our car counts; adding such a rule will not achieve that objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pmk

NO.

 

Even if this were a good idea in theory (which it isn't), this rule would drastically punish people who have already built their cars and would encourage those people to simply leave GTS altogether. I'd be all for more frequent dyno testing during regional events and more frequent use of the black boxes, but let's get that right before we enact rules that make very expensive current builds totally useless. I also can't see that this would in any way help attract new drivers to the series, as it needlessly complicates the current very simple rules regarding power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

No, in case that wasn't clear

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

Really.........NO

 

Look I've been around a lot of Pro racing sanctioning bodies the last few years watching them try to use some sort of Balance of Performance. I watched many a cluster F&*% at the PWC races I attended as well as IMSA. What I saw with PWC the last two years was ridiculous !! They were making up things as they went and making teams change tuning and such without any real chance to test it. We just went through this big change and debate this season with the HP averaging thing that was basically forced upon us out of nowhere. Was that not good enough ? If NASA can't guarantee a Dyno at every event then none of this makes any difference. The AIM units aren't an exact science for compliance either, so leave the rules alone and let us race.

 

 

Here's what GTS is all about and should remain that way. It's why it was started and has been such a great series. This is directly from the website and still rings true today.....

 

Why Race GTS

 

Why GTS is a great series to race in:

 

NASA’s German Touring Series is one of the most interesting and challenging series in amateur racing. And, not surprisingly, it’s also one of the most popular with the fans.

 

What makes it popular is the close racing and beautifully turned-out German cars, but what makes it both competitive and challenging is the fact that GTS is governed by what is, for all intents and purposes, a single rule: A power-to-weight ratio.

 

It sounds so simple and, in fact, it is. Put your car onto an approved dyno, figure out how much power it’s making, multiply that power by the ratio for your class and that’s your minimum vehicle weight, including you, the driver.

 

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bimmerhead

I said it last year, and I'll happily repeat myself again this year: RULES SIMPLICITY is what attracted me to GTS. I personally do NOT want the quagmire that is the typical spec series - and this proposed rule change is a step in that direction. NO! (Sorry for the upper-case, but I feel strongly about this.)

 

Let's consistently enforce the (thankfully few) rules we have, and leave all the political rule BS to the spec series. We've all seen how well that model has created a "level playing field" for those guys. *snort*

 

Just my 2 cents as a paying customer.

 

Cheers,

-jerry

 

#22 GTS3

Western Region

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zach H.

Natural Horsepower = Manufacturer published Engine Horsepower OR 100 HP Per liter of displacement for custom engines. Custom engines defined as ones with no stock reference, being built using non-stock internals, bored to larger displacement, etc. All forced induction engines will be counted as X 1.5 L Displacement

 

Michael, can you please clarify. Typically manufactures post flywheel horsepower and we measure wheel horsepower. Since I have a "custom engine" of 3 liters this would make my natural "HP" 300 flywheel or wheel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith

Reason

Unlimited de-tuning by electronic means through the ECUs became very popular among owners of particular models / drivetrains in GTS, resulted in the change of the landscape of the series. Inability to police and effectively enforce the compliance resulted in the growing perception of the cheating.

Proposed wording

No, a very emphatic no.

 

"Change in the landscape", I would call it development. Rules were set, people built cars to them, lap times dropped. That's a natural progression, even for a spec series. This way over complicates the rules and would reclass a ton of cars, lowering car counts, all because of a "perception of cheating".

 

Why don't we just make fuel injection illegal, only carburetors will be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex

NO......

 

If the series keeps presenting crazy rules like this I guarantee you are going to fill the ST classes. Honestly, if there is such a bonner against this, adapt the ST rules and use our current power to weight ratios. Atleast this gives us an easy transition when the series dies to a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink

Michael,

 

could you please tell us, in detail, what perceived problem we're trying to solve here?

 

In Norcal and Western States Championships I'm not aware of any "perception of cheating" which would necessitate such a change. So something bad must be happening somewhere else. Please fully describe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.

Vote No.

 

The proposed rule change is not necessary and is overly complex. Competitors have the choice to protest another competitor if they feel they are not compliant. The simplicity of the series is what has drawn myself and others to compete in it. A few complainers should not ruin it for the majority who know it should be left alone.

 

-Jon Burgis

NorCal GTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShipWrecked

I recently bought a 968 Race Car hoping to compete in GTS2 against friends that have all sorts of different crazy setups. I thought the beauty of GTS was the simplicity, basically anything goes as long as you meet the HP/Weight requirement. Swaps and detunes are part of what made this class interesting to me in the first place. Custom Engines...who cares. What exactly does "etc" mean in regards to custom engines anyway? I don't know for sure if a previous owner ever rebuilt my motor, and I certainly haven't opened it up to see if they are all stock internals. Why does any of that matter if I meet the average HP/Weight requirements for my class?

 

Also, don't the AIM boxes catch increases in power? If cheating via increased HP is the problem, than take a lesson from Occam and find the simplest solution. Let's get more AIM boxes. Hell, most of us probably already have one anyway...I'd be happy to hand over my data after every race. That's a lot more reasonable than completely changing the rules (especially when it sounds like most people don't even believe this problem really exists on a large scale).

 

If this gets passed I guess I always have PCA SP3 Club Racing, but it would have been cool to race against all sorts of different builds. Really liked the idea of having a super simple and really diverse racing class that was still super competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tbert122

100% NO.

 

This proposal goes against the roots and what GTS was created on -- simplicity. This simplicity is what has attracted the racers that make up GTS and continues to bring new people to GTS. Many of us have invested so much into this class to race and sharing experiences with other great racers of GTS. Changing rules and not being clear/consistent with current rules is what has ruined classes and series (amateur and pro) too many times - ultimately taking away, not growing the attractiveness.

 

If there is problem with cheating, ask yourself why the cheating is occurring. It starts with the regulation of rules. Dyno more consistently each weekend and not just the top cars (that may consistently finish on top) but also the back of the field. Continue to use blackbox's and develop superior software to detect outliers. If there is an outlier from 3 data points - he/she will stick out with their acceleration curve.

 

I fear if this proposal passes, it will kill GTS as a class.

 

Again, I disagree with this proposal.

 

- Tristan

#54, GTS3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10

Started with PCA club DEs in 2013. Got my license with BMWCCA in 2014. When I started racing I was advised by several people to look at GTS. I wanted a fast class, great cars and handling and a simple rule set which offered a full season of races within 3 hours of home. Porsche was more expensive to run so I went BMW. I read the BMWCCA rules several times and found them confusing so did not go there. I first raced at VIR in October 2014. I spent high 5 digits to build my car for the 2014 rules.

 

For 2015, we were told torque doesn't matter so it was deleted from the calculation. I think this rule was actually counterproductive since it favors v8 engines with more torque under 5200 rpm. I was considering changing to a v8. Now for 2016, more changes after the previous director told me we were done with major changes. Continual change in rules is a frustration. I don't see how you can enforce this new rule. 2 Dynos? 2 potential % HP deductions? Natural HP and weight tables? I definately don't want to be a regional director. It's complicated and I am not in favor of making this change.

 

Vernon McClure

GTS 3 #10

Mid Atlantic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Well, I know there was a gts3 cayman driver at the ECC this past year that packed up and left after the first day of racing b/c of this perception of cheating (so I hear). Something about not being able to keep up with the detuned cars? BUT, the guy wasn't even running competitive gts2 times! That's the kinda crap that infuriates me! This guy probably complained to someone and ends up having more of a say in this kind of situation than we do, all because the guy couldn't drive in the first place ( and there's video to prove from what I hear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nova

duplicate post removing myself.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTMotorsports

NO! NO! NO!

 

Why mess with the series when everything is going well? All this is going to lead to is less people building GTS cars due to the constantly changing rules and a series that become crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Zach - The displacement formula is also at the flywheel, so you are entitled to the same formula.

 

The proposed change will only affect cars with extreme de-tunes declaring less than 15% off the manufacturer's data (allowance for the drivetrain loss at the dyno). Any further reduction in claimed HP must be achieved by mechanical means.

 

Simple examples -

 

BMW S54 - 333 HP (factory),-15% = 283 HP X 11 = 3114 min w for GTS3 (plus additional 10% allowance with restrictor),

BMW S52 - 240 HP (factory) - 15% = 204 HP X 14.5 = 2958 - GTS 2,

BMW S65 - 414 HP (Factory) - 15% = 352 HP X 2991 - GTS 4 (on DOT), etc.

 

In addition, S54 and S65 will not be able to run in GTS2.

 

If the declared HP is above the limit - the Rule has no affect and old calculations apply.

 

The landscape and perceived cheating?

 

The entire GTS 3 fields across the country now 90% detuned BMWs with the majority of those being S54s.

What is wrong with the idea of running cars at expected power and above?

 

15% allowance will still accommodate mild de-tunes, but will stop extremes.

 

Dyno is not capable of policing the modern electronics and AIM will need at least an RPM feed, as well as become mandatory before it becomes true compliance tool, which will need some time to develop.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gobuffs

I wish this forum wouldn't restrict AT&T as a spammer site as I have a hard time posting otherwise.

 

I have no dog in this fight, my car is not detuned and even with the proposal I could detune a bit.

 

I would bet that everybody that has voted no has a detuned motor. You need to step back and look at it from the perspective of "what is best for the series?" This issues has come up every year for a few years and the grumblings I have heard is that y'all need to get on board and come up with an alternative solution than a simple "No, the rules are simple and leave it that way." Something most likely will get done and you can be part of the solution or you can be that guy that bitches after the fact. There is talk about "that motor isn't legal" but nobody goes thru a formal protest procedure so the talk spreads like a cancer and just keeps growing and growing and makes the health of the series suffer.

 

Years ago a BMW E36 (not with an S54) could be competitive in GTS3...not really that way any longer...you need an E46 at minimum and heading towards an E92. Costs are going up making entry into the series more prohibitive. Sure people join and then see they can't get towards the pointy end of their class and go to another series.

 

I think there is merit in the idea, but agree the rule is way over complicated. I think defining a lower end of acceptable power output for a motor is a good idea. I think 75% of advertised flywheel horsepower is a good floor. Motor usually dyno at 80-85% of advertised FW HP. allowing a 10% detune off of that gives the 75% I listed above. For example...an S54 is advertised at 333 FW HP. 85% of that is 283. 10% allowable detune puts the floor of an S54 output at 255 RWHP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

Rather than having a complicated formula and all this wouldn't it be simpler to just say in the rules no detunes? Tune up sure, but otherwise no handicapping a car. Then just allow a 10% dyno variance of what one should run stock.

 

Personally I haven't yet run in GTS, but i have been building my car towards that goal for next year. My plan was to be in GTS-2. The reason for this was the simplistic rules of make your car meet this power to weight ratio, do the safety, then go have fun. Over complicating the rules of the series will kill it eventually in my opinion. What will be different for GTS than say PT if there's a bunch of complicated rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...