Jump to content
Michael G.

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

Recommended Posts

pmk
What I suggest you consider, is restricting aero and bodywork mods in GTS1 to keep category entry expenses low.

 

This belongs in the other thread (viewtopic.php?f=44&t=131179), but as stated there, this is not currently a problem in GTS1 and is a bad idea for any number of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seegsracer848

Not sure what to say based on my lack of technical and mechanical knowledge about all of this but it is very clear that based on many knowledgable people out there, that there is clearly concern for what is being proposed. It appears that the series has a great history, with many great people, and great camaraderie. People have built cars based on certain rules that appear to me over the past 2 years, to be working reasonably well. Lap times and competition are pretty close in most all classes. Yes you will always have some that cheat to win, all the best to them in life and congrats. That will always happen no matter what rules you put in place.

 

So many people have made such great statements and arguments that no significant changes to be made to the series at this time would be best, that it would ruin the series, drive people away, etc. It seems like a lot more thinking, vetting, and planning needs to be done before these significant rule changes are enacted. If this thing turns into a mess and more of a $$ war, like I hear that other series are out there...I will be gone and I can see that many others feel the same way. Appears that this will hurt car count numbers if you complicate the whole thing.

 

I vote NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class Killer

I feel bad for the people that are “voting” NO. Do you really think they are offering this as a vote? The majority did not approve last year’s change but it was pushed through. This will be no different.

 

As a racer I think it is terrible and will kill the class. Though I may seemed biased since we invented the detune in GTS, and I am probably one of the main targets in the “perception” based rule change, it will mean money for us as anyone who chooses to continue racing in GTS (there will be a mass exodus) will need to be retuned and that should outweigh the bias.

 

I imagine that part of this is due to our performance at VIR as my car got the most scrutinizing of ANY GTS car. Four officials looking though it “where is the M button” and having the dyno operator flipping all the switches in my car in between runs. NO OTHER competitors over the weekend went through that level of scrutiny. Did I mind or complain, NO because that is what is needed! Changing the fundamental rules, the series is/was based off of, because of some idiots “perception”, is not very well thought out.

 

 

7VO-VOM,

NASA CCR prohibits pulling out the performance data, and the fact drivers agreed at VIR - doesn't make it a Rule, and not everyone complied - some channels were disabled. N\GTS Nat. Dir.

 

I can’t help but think you are referring to cars that we work on. We don’t just install dashes and leave them in the default AiM configuration. We log the important channels, change the sample rate of most, and turn all the unnecessary ones off. There is no sense wasting memory recording channels that are of no significance to us. Yes that would include the throttle angle since all we are interested in for driver development is the throttle pedal.

 

You want to police the electronically detuned cars? You simply require engine data and for it to include throttle angle. The throttle angle on the dyno will match the throttle angle on the track and if not you have your smoking gun. And by the way, great way to say thanks to the AIM guys that were there to help police as you are basically saying they are incompetent. They are not!

 

It is obvious that whoever is making the push to change the rules are clueless and are technically in way over their head.

 

Randy Mueller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith
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.

I have an M54b30 motor(think 2001 330Ci) completely dissembled and I'm awaiting pistons that are .020" over sized because the cylinder walls were scored and worn. The engine will be stock compression ratio, stock rods, stock cams, for all intents and purposes it will be what I would consider stock. This will give it a displacement of right around 3 liters. These motors typically make around 220WHP and this is being built for GTS2. This "custom engine" will then be classified as 300 "Natural HP".

 

1) 3153lb curb weight /300 natural HP= 10.51 lb/HP, this means I can place it in GTS 3 or 4 only, for an engine that will only make around 220WHP! What does curb weight have anything to do with this anyways?

 

2) 330 natural HP x .85 x .9 = 229.5 minimum HP. Is this crank or wheel HP? Stock engines appear to be based on crank HP, these rules are incredibly vague, yet extremely specific.

 

5) So if my engine doesn't make 229.5 unicorn power it will be declared as 229.5 regardless.

 

7) You want every dyno shop to keep records of every GTS car they dyno that they can hand over to you at a moments notice? You do realize how ridiculous that is, right? I'm sure those "serious consequences" will just leave them trembling in their boots.

 

So here I am with a ~220 WHP GTS2 car that isn't detuned that I can't run in GTS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Greg,

 

The "custom" motor is the one in which we can not determine the "stock" origin.

 

Based on your description - yours is still going by the stock numbers, in case the output is less than 85% with no restrictor, otherwise - it is still Weight to Average HP as last year.

 

Michael. G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith
Greg,

 

The "custom" motor is the one in which we can not determine the "stock" origin.

 

Based on your description - yours is still going by the stock numbers, in case the output is less than 85% with no restrictor, otherwise - it is still Weight to Average HP as last year.

 

Michael. G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

"Custom engines defined as ones with no stock reference, being built using non-stock internals, bored to larger displacement, etc."

I'm just going according to the wording, my engine is bored to a larger displacement and is built using non-stock internals, I'm not sure how I could interpret it any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Greg,

 

Please advise, how would you define the "custom" engine?

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dnvrdrvr

I vote against this proposed rule change. As many others have already stated (some more, uh, passionately than others), GTS is based on HP/weight ratios. How individual cars get to the top of their respective classes should be up to the owner. I don't *think* this rule would adversely impact me, but I rebuilt an S52 last year using aftermarket components to make it more reliable (stock size pistons & bearings with superior-than-OEM materials). Plus I use a chip to eliminate lean spots and put my hp to the top of GTS2 taking the weight of the car into account. So now I'm custom (not really... but according to the verbiage presented I am).

 

There are two portions of this proposal that I can get behind:

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

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

Yep, every year we're all expected to do these two things.

 

 

I disagree with everything else as it seems FAR more complicated than GTS is intended to be:

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).
Why wouldn't horsepower be determined by the document required to be on record - the dyno?

 

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.
I don't think a detuned E92/S65 would be fair competition to an E36/S52 in GTS2. But if they want to try and make race weight... that should be up to the owner/driver to do the mental gymnastics and budget to get there. I wouldn't guess they'd have much fun driving an E92 that way either.

 

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)
My head hurts just thinking about this. Again: hp/weight. KISS methodology is what attracted me to GTS to begin with. If you have to create a secret-sauce calculator to come up with our classing, how will we build and maintain cars within those regulations? How do we explain it to someone who wants to join the ranks?

 

3. Drivers claiming mechanical adjustments will be required to present Dyno data in mechanically restricted and unrestricted modes.
Chances are, someone with multiple restrictor methods will have this data on file, maybe because we race in other series with different rulesets we have to comply with. But why does NASA need it, exactly?

 

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.
I disagree strongly with this. Why should someone with less horsepower than what is published for a 20-year old engine be assigned higher hp than they make? They'd then have to run heavier than they should in order to be considered compliant.

 

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.
I would think it's impossible to truly simulate racing conditions on a dyno. My oil and water temps in Feb/March are nowhere near what they are after 35 minute sprint race in August. Every time I've dyno'd, the car is warmed up and run to red-line at least twice before the readings are included... but it's still not the same. I know my dyno operator keeps my files on hand, but what if a shop goes out of business? Does that mean the readings are null and void because NASA can't call up and get them? If NASA doesn't trust the racers to submit these files, then make the dyno shops do it (good luck with that, btw).

 

In case of the violation of the protocol - serious consequences will follow.
This seems like a veiled threat. We need to know the repercussions of various violations so that they can be evenly enforced across regions and at Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith
Greg,

 

Please advise, how would you define the "custom" engine?

 

Michael G.

There doesn't need to be a definition for "custom" engine because GTS is a power to weigh ratio class, this whole proposal is absolutely asinine. From what I've heard, this proposal is coming from the top down by people who don't even race GTS, and whatever notion that they're basing this on is incorrect. Listen to your fucking customers, no-one wants this, I'm surprised this even made it to a proposal.

 

From the GTS website:

"There are other power-to-weight ratio racing classes. NASA’s Super Touring, for instance, uses power-to-weight but its rules also include adjustments for varying dynos, car weights, wheel rim widths, gearboxes, door count, and so on. In other words, it’s power-to-weight plus. But in GTS, it’s just power-to-weight. We have two ratios per class, depending on whether you run DOT tires or full racing slicks but, given that, as long as you make your minimum weight there is no limit to the things you can do to your car."

 

Stop trying to change GTS into something it's not, the open minimal rule book is what makes GTS great. If someone thinks GTS is unfair and is full of cheaters, or whatever it may be, fine, go make a new class, but don't fuck up this one in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ronbo

First, I have to say I’m really impressed by the thought and passion everyone is applying to this “Proposed Rule Change”. I really have nothing to add just about every angle has been covered, and from what I can tell just about everyone said no. I hope Randy is wrong and our votes do count, because this is a great series and I’d hate to see it “ruled to death” (even though I am one of the evil GTS2 S54 guys). So I’d like to add my NO vote to this PROPOSED change, hopefully it’ll be heard.

 

Ron GTS2 #133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink
and whatever notion that they're basing this on is incorrect

 

Well it's incorrect in Norcal - I don't think anyone is suspecting anyone else of cheating here.

 

What is the situation in the other regions? Is there a general perception that some people are cheating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Smith
and whatever notion that they're basing this on is incorrect

 

Well it's incorrect in Norcal - I don't think anyone is suspecting anyone else of cheating here.

 

What is the situation in the other regions? Is there a general perception that some people are cheating?

There's not a general perception of cheating in the Texas region, i don't think there is nationally either. This proposal doesn't have anything to do with cheating and does nothing to stop it, not that I think cheating is a big issue. I think you'd be more likely to find a car cheating at mid/back pack than at the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink

Well, it's right there in post #1:

 

Inability to police and effectively enforce the compliance resulted in the growing perception of the cheating

 

So perhaps the fix here is not to futz with the rules, but for the racers to identify the individuals who hold this perception and to persuade them out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bimmerhead
Well, it's right there in post #1:

 

Inability to police and effectively enforce the compliance resulted in the growing perception of the cheating

 

So perhaps the fix here is not to futz with the rules, but for the racers to identify the individuals who hold this perception and to persuade them out of it.

 

And/or identify the real cheaters through enforcement of current rules and DQ them.

 

As has already been mentioned, to think the current simple set of rules cannot be enforced, but a much more complicated and convoluted set of rules can be, is pure fantasy.

 

It is obvious to me - and many other GTS racers - the aim of the proposed rules change is being mis-represented to morph the rules away from the original intent of GTS.

 

I don't want to be a doom-sayer, but if the current crop of rules changes are implemented, I see the demise of the series on the near horizon. I guess I better go get my BMW CCA CR license re-instated. Just in case.

 

Cheers,

-jerry

 

GTS3

Western Region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qwertymess
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.

 

 

 

So lets break down the rules a bit because to me it makes perfect sense of what this rule is trying to achieve.

 

"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."

 

- The stock curb weight of an E46 is :3415 lb

The Natural Horsepower is: 333 HP Listed*

So :

3415 lb / 333 HP = 10.26

So the natural territory for the E46 M3 is in GTS4

But the rules state that you can run 1 class below the natural class of the car. So in this case, I can run in GTS3 and detune the engine a bit to 283 HP. Easy peasy right? (Meets rule part 2; 85% of natural HP)

Now let’s take another example:

The E92 M3 weighs in at: 3704 lb

Natural Horsepower of the S65: 414 HP (listed)*

So:

3704 lb / 414 HP = 8.95

The E92 fits GTS4 all day long.

“But I want to detune it and run in GTS3 because the rule says I can run a class lower”

 

yes; the rule states I can run a class lower than that of the natural class of the car but….BUT…….. Only detune or limited to 85% of the cars natural HP.

414 HP of the S65 * .85% = 351.9 HP

So the car would have to weigh roughly: 3850 lb. to class into GTS3

 

Being that I am in GTS3 with an E46 M3 running an S54, I would be happy with this change. Now this limits the Arms race on people dropping in a great motor and detune it to hell to reach the class spec.

Another point that I have not seen anyone really mention was TQ. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m sure you could imagine what a nice flat TQ curve that S65 can make detuned vs an S54 in the same class.

And you cannot argue the E36 Chassis with an S54 in it. I would take that all day than an E46 chassis with an S65 in it. Or S62 for that matter.

 

"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)"

 

Stated from the above. And the rest of the rule sets contained within this proposed change are obvious and not really disputed. I think this rule is basically telling everyone in a formal fashion that big motor swaps have had its day in the sun, and now it’s time to put an end to one of the biggest costs you should not have to do in order to keep pace (All things being equal)*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morricus

I have to agree with Qwertymess. I have never understood why torque has never been a consideration, and I dislike complex rules or anything that requires a special calculator to determine where I'm classed. But I dislike even more the idea of contending with V8 powered E46s. The argument that an E36 with a S54 is the same as an E46 with a S65 is somewhat absurd to me. I came to this class to avoid a similar issue I experienced in TT3. My Evo could not compete torque-wise with a Corvette, but we could be classed the same since the power to weight was the same, not matter how much torque it made. It was unrealistic, exhausting and not fun.

 

I'm not saying this shouldn't be an open class, allowing for everyone to build their car exactly how they want it. That is extremely appealing to me. But V8 swaps take the fun out of it for me, I'll go do something else again. This new rule seems to address the torque issue in an overly complicated way, but at least it addresses it.

 

As far as all these cheating comments, I personally never even suspected any of the guys were cheating, never was a consideration. I'm sure it happens, and I hate it, but no amount of rules can stop the fact that some people just suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
You data on stock S54 on the dyno is different from others - it is much more than 265 on the dyno.
You might want to talk to somebody who has a clue. I talked to RRT today and they agreed with my 265-275 number for the hundreds they've serviced/built over the years. I have a bone stock E46 M3 street car (as several others probably do). Do you think the cowardly person/people behind this 'proposal' would like to act like real racers and protest my data? They should put their money where their mouth/keyboard is. I can have my car dyno'd at the local NASA certified Dynojet. If I'm right, they pay and drop this idiocy. If I'm wrong, I'll accept defeat, stop responding to this, and move along to BMWCCA/AER/SCCA like I am sure many more will do.

 

S54 and S65 running in GTS 2 will be prohibitively heavy and be better fitted in the classes naturally expected in.
S54s clearly fit well in GTS2. There are quite a few that you are trying to penalize for absolutely no good reason. You can drop the "naturally" act. You aren't fooling anybody by making up terms to justify the destruction of GTS. This rule is more unnatural that any behavior you are attempting to stop.

 

NASA CCR prohibits pulling out the performance data, and the fact drivers agreed at VIR - doesn't make it a Rule, and not everyone complied - some channels were disabled.
If that is the actual problem, why is fixing that not the rules proposal? GTS has plenty of rules that go against the CCRs. That is a simple fix for which I doubt you would receive much resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
richiebosco

If we are trying to prevent cheaters from cheating this will not accomplish this.

I run with NASA because I can be very flexible with what I bring to the track. I do not have a desire to run in a SPEC series, I enjoy the flexibility that GTS offers me. I ran with the SCCA and BMW car club. There rule books seem to try to pander to all the bitching people. Talk to the GTS series directors around the country. I bet they think this will have racers flocking away from NASA.

Why not take a look at a model that is working. TEXAS. Our numbers and level of competition have exploded in the last two years. This is not because we are pushing more rules. We welcome any German car to the race.

 

The Question that should be asked is "How do we attract more GTS drivers?" not how do duplicate the failures of BMW and the SCCA with more rules. Porsche is a different animal in my option. I am not sure how we could get some of those guys to start racing with us. There run a lot off events and are very particular with whom they share track space with. My point is, we should be looking at ways to get more competition rather ways to alienate the current crop of racers.

 

Just for the record, my vote would be NO

 

Rich Bosco

 

'95 M3 GTS2 #63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MPower6er

It is obvious from the proliferation of posts in this Forum, that the GTS constituents/customers/racers do NOT favor (90+%) this proposed rule change. On this election day, this proposal would overwhelmingly fail.

 

Now we can only hope the NASA "powers" can rise to the challenge to realize this proposal is not in the best interest of the future of GTS. It will do substantial damage to the class and stands to damage the trust we have placed in our NASA and GTS leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JasonSLW
It is obvious from the proliferation of posts in this Forum, that the GTS constituents/customers/racers do NOT favor (90+%) this proposed rule change. On this election day, this proposal would overwhelmingly fail.

 

Now we can only hope the NASA "powers" can rise to the challenge to realize this proposal is not in the best interest of the future of GTS. It will do substantial damage to the class and stands to damage the trust we have placed in our NASA and GTS leadership.

 

Couldn't have said it better or agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex

Randy said it best, we are all voting "no" as if it's going to matter. The rule wasn't proposed by any racer, just stemmed from the complaints of some non competitive drivers. I specify driver since their car most likely is built to maximize the rule set despite the fact that driver can't maximize the car.

 

Id love for a professional driver, let's say mike skeen was given time to drive a "cheaters" car and a "cheated" car to show the times are spot on and he would be able to signify the strengths and weaknesses between the two chassis.

 

I run a Detuned S54 because I DONT have the budget of most in this field. I'm a blue collar worker and conservation of my engine through the detune and the light weight of my E36 is essential to my consumables and budget. Hell I never even run new tires, scrubs all year.... But I still manage to win because I don't simply use HP and the detune as a crutch. I have a lot of time and money in setup and testing parts that work together.

 

I'm not adding 300lbs and 40hp to run in Gts3. You will lose racers and by that I mean winners and the current losers will race each other till the new losers push them put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Guys, just listen to Randy! He's telling us what we could look at from on track data to squash any perceptions of cheating! I, as would most others I would think, gladly allow NASA to pull data from our cars that shows throttle angle, etc. to prove that we don't have some "magic" button in our cars that makes us faster. Even if it means I have to spend a few hundred dollars to reconfigure things to allow the data that's needed to be pulled, I would gladly do that rather than spending thousands to set my car up for another class (on top of the massive amount of $ I've put into my car already). We have a solution here to satisfy the majority of racers! Look into that rather than further complicating the rules and upsetting soooooo many racers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rokkit

I just submitted an alternative method to regulate compliance. Should be posted soon. Please vote on it so we can move forward.

 

(hopefully they make an exception for the fact that we're a few days outside of the rule proposal window)

 

Best,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I am against this rule.

 

I am for a better and more simple way to measure usable power, even last year is too complex. Peak Tq +Hp ratio etc. of some sort gets things close enough for me, not perfect but a movement in the right direction.

I am not concerned myself about some of the down classing of high-end cars and transplants, but this calculation gives me a headache. Cheaters will find ways to cheat, and building a hot S52 to detune in GTS2 instead of transplanting an S54 will be only a change in build preference and not a solution to the described underlying issue.

 

That said, if there is not an ongoing effort to preserve the class of cars as a whole across the Country, people will flee. Raising the cost of entry for a competitive GTS1, GTS2 and maybe GTS3 car does not help grow the class. Most PCA and BMWCCA cars are outgunned in GTS. Spending hours in your garage creating an aero system, or tuning suspension etc. is part of the fun, but being forced to do a $25k motor transplant, spend $50k in a wind tunnel or have custom suspension and gearing components $$$ made for a one off race car push the boundaries of the class, especially on the lower end. Someone comes along and builds a $250k GTS car we'll all be crying the blues. This is NASA too, where a weekend entry fee is $400 and half the people run take-offs. If you want a complicated, balance of power rules set then go elsewhere where the cost of competition is exponentially higher.

 

Also, in Great Lakes we had 15+ cars in GTS1 at the big events a few years ago. We recruited PCA guys, drafted TT/HPDE4 drivers etc. Then my $2500 30yo Porsche got a custom intake, widened, full aero, custom widened wheels, remote reservoir shocks, short gears etc. and $50k+ later we had 3 fast GTS1 cars and a dozen left in the dust, while I was still busy trying to figure out how to get a sequential box in the car. Some of us moved on, but the class disintegrated as the rest knew the development potential and were not willing to stay the course. Today there are zero GTS1 cars in GL. The lesson is that it's not just about today and a few rogue cars exploiting the system, it's about the potential within the rules set and trying to keep the participation growing and the racing competitive overall.

 

Finally, I don't know a lot of people in this thread and I think it's important to know who's voicing their opinion, so here's my story. 14 years with NASA, full seasons in GTS1, GTS2, GTS3 and GTS4 in three chassis's with four different motors, full seasons in 944 Cup and TT. I have been a Series Director in three classes for a combined 16 years. I have participated in events in four different regions, five Championship events in six different classes and have been a Championship Series Director in five Championships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drhm3

Thoroughly against this proposal for many of the issues already mentioned by others, but I 100% support building out the compliance infrastructure to enforce the current rule set

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...