Jump to content
Michael G.

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

Recommended Posts

Michael G.

Considering the expressed opinions - will consider that thread closed for now. If anyone would like to chime in - you are still welcome, but let's concentrate on other proposals for time being.

 

Thank you for participating.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mmcnw

Sorry for being late to the discussion, but no thank you on the proposed rule change.

 

Although Mueller is great to work with, I would prefer not to have him retune my car every year because of some mysterious perception of an un-documented unfair advantage somewhere.

 

Did last year's rule change make a difference in results? Not much as far as I can tell. In any event, as one of the people with a big, bad, scary v8, I bet folks would be hard pressed to find anyone I raced with that says I out accelerated/motored them. The V8 phobia is similar in ST3 too, but it is not what makes the difference on reasonably optimized cars.

 

Also, between ŚT and GTS, I am not aware of any car more dynoed or AIM checked at the Miller, Sonoma, or Laguna championships. Mueller tunes the OEM ECU from Florida for the season and NASA dyno checks the car after the race, qual, or whatever. I don't see much room for gaming this system, but maybe I am missing something...

 

 

At some point the people with the concerns that perpetuate this type of proposed rule change need to start looking/focusing elsewhere to see why others may get a car round a track a little quicker in a hp/weight class...(hint...it ain't the HP or another 10-20 ft pounds of torque...) Once they do, however, that should not be penalized either.

 

In closing, please keep the rules process transparent, and the rules simple and easy to police. Anything more is a deterrent competition and series growth.

 

McAleenan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink
Mueller tunes the OEM ECU from Florida for the season and NASA dyno checks the car after the race, qual, or whatever. I don't see much room for gaming this system, but maybe I am missing something...

 

hm, maybe that's the solution. Require that every ECU contain a tune from a tuner who has a NASA certification, and that the tune is locked down so nobody else can alter it. If a tuner is caught facilitating a cheat then he loses certification and suffers reputational damage.

 

Is that practical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jscheier

Against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM

It would appear that NASA's own Chairman is against this rule:

PRI: Any specifics on class rules the reader should know?

Flaherty: Well, NASA is big on power-to-weight ratios to make the rule set much easier. We’re pretty much the pioneer in power-to-weight ratio in road racing, and we started that back in 2002 with the American Iron Class (Camaro, Firebird,

Mustang, etc.). Thus, you can build a car, have more flexibility with the rules, engage the entire hardcore racing aftermarket if you wish in building your car. Then your car’s engine will make a certain amount of power to be measured on a dyno (to the

ground horsepower) and then we’ll base your class on weight and horsepower.

 

PRI: Do the power-to-weight ratio drivers have to show up with a dyno chart?

Flaherty: Yes, any car builder will eventually go to a dyno, and NASA rules specify a specific type of dyno so everything is consistent. The driver then submits his or her dyno tech sheet, and we mark the horsepower result as the power ratio to weight for the particular class the car will run in.

 

PRI: How about if a car dominates and other competitors feel it is illegal?

Flaherty: We do our own tech inspection, which in NASA means sending the car off to a dyno instead of pulling a cylinder head to see if it is ported. So, the dyno check tells us if the car is in compliance with what the driver gave us in the first place.

 

PRI: Sounds like easy policing to me, eliminating those time-consuming engine teardowns after the race.

Flaherty: That’s what we felt early on, and it’s been very successful. Today, about half of our classes are power to weight ratio, and half are engine specific. Both work well, and it’s another element where we can deliver either of the desires or philosophies in racing. If you run power to weight, we don’t care how you made the horsepower or which parts you use in the engine, cams, headers, pistons and things like that. All we want to see is the dyno sheet for classification purposes. (Note: NASA has an impound area with a dyno on site and regularly checks top finishers in all races.)

http://news.drivenasa.com/PRI_Flaherty.pdf

 

Not only does this rule proposal, or anything remotely resembling its intent, violate the spirit of the GTS rules as presented on the NASA GTS website, it also violates the foundation on which NASA was built as explained by the National Chairman on the NASA website. Any NASA Official, related to GTS or not, who supports this rule or anything close to it is should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

So you're going to call out the guy that runs the entire NASA organization who's giving a 50,000' view of the Race Classes in an interview?

 

I don't always agree with everything NASA, but I have enough respect to think the guys that created and run the organization have the best interest of the organization in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
I don't always agree with everything NASA, but I have enough respect to think the guys that created and run the organization have the best interest of the organization in mind.

Which is why GTS should remain a simple P-T-W class.

 

faa18770-f570-0131-c0a9-0eb233c768fb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

C'mon Graber! The whole point of bringing that up is to a) show the contradiction, and b) see if anyone "in charge" will actually respond and tell us why their views on that simple formula have changed? Why can't we hear from all these other supporters besides just Gersh?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
So you're going to call out the guy that runs the entire NASA organization who's giving a 50,000' view of the Race Classes in an interview?
You might want to reread my post. I "called out" the people wanting to corrupt the simple power to weight formula that "the guy that runs the entire NASA organization" credits with making NASA a success.

 

Your response seems to indicate that you know Ryan Flaherty's opinion on this rule change. Would you like to share with the group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

I think they are trying to limit *cheating* by limiting the detune. The premise being that if you only took 10hp out by software, you can only cheat by 10hp, and if you detune by 100hp, you could easily cheat by 100hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4
I think they are trying to limit *cheating* by limiting the detune. The premise being that if you only took 10hp out by software, you can only cheat by 10hp, and if you detune by 100hp, you could easily cheat by 100hp.

 

 

Please show me these guys cheating by 100whp. Even the idea of that is absurd. With an extra 25whp you look ridiculous mowing everyone else down yet we are worried about an extra 100whp? Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10

1. Bring back torque to the HP equation. This will deter running bigger engines in lower classes

2. Have a Dyno at most events. Give us 1 free Dyno and we pay for others. Helps to defray cost to NASA.

3. AIM box that the director can check. I have not expected cheating but if someone does then check the acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

shut up Vernon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
3. AIM box that the director can check. I have not expected cheating but if someone does then check the acceleration.

What *exactly* would they be looking for in acceleration data alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
1. Bring back torque to the HP equation. This will deter running bigger engines in lower classes.

 

You do remember that in the original GTS formula, torque was only counted when it exceeded HP right?

 

It did not deter anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10

Looks like the goal for rule makers is moving v8s to GTS4. Since v8s typically make more torque the average HP/torque calculation serves the same purpose - A penalty for more torque (v8). More torque below 5252 rpm equals less HP available in calculation. Otherwise, HP is HP no matter what engine it comes from. Taking torque out of the equation just opened the door and encouraged swap v8s. Now a new rule is desired by someone. I have an s54 in GTS 3 so does not directly affect me. Just want to race with people who built their cars for our class following the rules. I've raced for one year and seen 3 rule sets on HP calculations. I can tell you the changes have negatively affected most current GTS racers desire. We had 13 GTS 3 cars in MA. Now we have to question whether to invest our time/effort improving our cars because next year the "new" rule may affect us. Just make whatever rule change you want and be done with it.

 

Thanks for listening.

Vernon Mcclure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
You do remember that in the original GTS formula, torque was only counted when it exceeded HP right?
You do realize that is the only time it matters to measure it separately from HP?
It did not deter anything.
I thought the point was to encourage people to invest their time and money in GTS, not to deter it. Clearly the rule makers have lost their way when the goal is to deter racers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
You do remember that in the original GTS formula, torque was only counted when it exceeded HP right?
You do realize that is the only time it matters to measure it separately from HP?

 

I do.. ...but you've missed the point entirely. You've stated that to "Bring back torque to the HP equation. This will deter running bigger engines in lower classes"

 

...those "big engines" that you are referring to do not make more torque than HP. So bringing back that previous formula will not help. <5% of the cars in GTS have more torque than horsepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
You do realize that is the only time it matters to measure it separately from HP?
I do.. ...but you've missed the point entirely. You've stated that to "Bring back torque to the HP equation. This will deter running bigger engines in lower classes"
Umm... no, I didn't.
...those "big engines" that you are referring to do not make more torque than HP. So bringing back that previous formula will not help. <5% of the cars in GTS have more torque than horsepower.
I didn't refer to big engines. When dynoing a car, where is the correction factor for displacement. That's right, there isn't one because the engine model or displacement is completely irrelevant to performance measurement.

 

You mentioned on Facebook to use an online simulator for people to understand why you and the other rulemakers have decided to implement rules based on perception instead of reality. If you input a 3000lb, 200HP S52 powered E36 and a 3000lb, 200HP S54 powered E36 into your simulator, which accelerates faster? What about S54, S62, and S65 powered 3200lb 290HP E46s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM

Food for thought...headers%20vs%20stock-X2.jpg

This is from an E92 M3 TT3 build. The 304-311HP runs are on a stock S65 with new plugs, coil packs, and rod bearings. The 366HP runs are with Bimmerworld's headers, x-pipe, race exhaust, Macht Schnell Stage 2 intake and under drive pulleys, and an EPIC max power tune. Even with well over $5k in upgrades, an S65 still may not make enough power to meet the proposed maximum electronic detune. The proposed rule is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Umm... no, I didn't.

 

Ah... No you didn't. I mixed you up with the other guy when you replied to my comment.

 

HE said it would. not you, apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
You mentioned on Facebook to use an online simulator for people to understand why you and the other rulemakers have decided to implement rules based on perception instead of reality.

 

First of all, lets dispel a myth here... the Series Directors aren't the rule makers. We may influence those decisions, but thats it.

 

Secondly I never said that a simulator will help anyone understand, I said "There are some good simulation tools out there that allow isolation of specific performance variables and accurate comparisons. I recommend optimumlap. Check it out, it's interesting and informative, and doesn't require a PhD to operate."

 

In other words go out and do all the math, maybe it'll help, maybe it wont, but it's much better than pure speculation wouldn't you say? I'm bemused that of a sudden I'm on the hook for spending 20 hours setting up simulations for other people because I mentioned the tool... Referencing the comment "If you plug in this and that, what does it show?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Chris, that influence is what we're looking for! We, as racers, appear to have no voice or say so these days. That is what has sooo many of us upset/furious with these changes that are based on perception. We need a voice in these matters, and you guys are it. If the regional directors won't stand up for what the vast majority of racers are saying, then we've already lost. Now if you're saying that the regional directors don't really have a say in what changes are made, then the series as a whole loses. It's really a sad situation for all the racers involved, effected or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
First of all, lets dispel a myth here... the Series Directors aren't the rule makers. We may influence those decisions, but thats it.
Understood, but the rule makers are hiding behind you and the rules process is presented as if you are in control and our voice is heard. I guess perception doesn't equal reality. Oh wait, we already knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Chris, that influence is what we're looking for! We, as racers, appear to have no voice or say so these days. That is what has sooo many of us upset/furious with these changes that are based on perception. We need a voice in these matters, and you guys are it. If the regional directors won't stand up for what the vast majority of racers are saying, then we've already lost. Now if you're saying that the regional directors don't really have a say in what changes are made, then the series as a whole loses. It's really a sad situation for all the racers involved, effected or not.

 

From where i sit, most of the changes that go into the rules are proposed or catalyzed by NASA members. You have that influence, but remember that not everyone posts here, particularly if they know that opinion would be unpopular. This forum and other electronic venue's only represent a small portion of the membership. I don't know how many people have raced GTS in the last several years, but I know that number exceeds 200 based on GTS Sticker purchases. How many regular contributors are there on this forum? 30 maybe?

 

So this forum isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of the collective GTS opinion. To your point, I think a few well worded survey's would be valuable.

 

So I can't provide complete objective proof that you do have a say, but subjectively I see that you certainly do. You definitely do via your Series Directors based on my observation.

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...