CLOSED NEW! 2016 Rule Change -Add method of compliance check

[Michael G.]

Proposed change

Enforce a new means of electronic tuning compliance. Drive by wire cars now require a throttle position measurement that can be read via Aim dash or solo direct link. This can be an additional measurement added to the "Black Boxes" for compliance both during race/qualifying operation and on the dyno.

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

All Drive By Wire cars will need to be equipped with a throttle position monitoring device. This device can be connected to the AIM "Black Boxes" and shall have a cable tether available to compliance officers on the passenger side dash area. Relative throttle position will be read during race/qualifying conditions and during dyno runs at the discretion of the regional director per normal compliance activities. Throttle position data shall have no more than a 3% variance over a 300 RPM range between race/qualifying and dyno testing conditions.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[mcdonaldsracing]

I am all for this if we do away with the other proposal regarding electronic detuning

[drhm3]

I am all for this if we do away with the other proposal regarding electronic detuning

 

100% agree. This is a much better solution that directly gets at the root of the real/perceived problem...that I am slow and Jonathan Vasquez is not only a better driver than me, he is faster too.

[jackhaberman]

All for it -- assuming we keep the current class definitions as is.

[doclouns]

Im for it

[Alan_Wolfe]

For this.

[dnvrdrvr]

I vote FOR this...

Edited November 4, 2015 by Guest

[rokkit]

I vote for this rule in replacement of the "de-tune restriction" to accomplish the goal of better compliance.

[MPower6er]

I vote for this rule, in place of the "de-tune" proposal....all for compliance!!

[gjkasten]

In favor.

[PersianPrince]

I Vote for this!!! not the De-Tune Rule!

[bmwjoon]

This rule is actually easier and more effective than the original proposal.

 

Yes to this!

[seegsracer848]

I vote No to detune, and vote YES for monitoring throttle position IN REPLACEMENT of detune rule

[seegsracer848]

I vote No to detune, and vote YES for monitoring throttle position IN REPLACEMENT of detune rule

[richiebosco]

I am good with this.

 

 

Rich Bosco #63 '95 M3s52 GTS2

TEXAS

[scottbm3]

I'm all in favor of this type of compliance checking. I vote YES if we do away with the perviously submitted change using the .85% factor etc etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[JVR127]

Yes to this rule!

[Nova]

In favor of this rule. Have any data you'd like.

[JS154]

Does this address

 

If Front Wheel Speed = 0MPH and Rear Wheel Speed >=xMPH and GPS speed = 0MPH then retard timing by Xdegrees

[sips56]

This makes sense, is simple and I would be happy to supply any data requested. Please do this and eliminate the previously proposed de-tune control method.

 

Luke Pardi

e46 M3 GTS3

NASA NE

[Zach H.]

Does this address

 

If Front Wheel Speed = 0MPH and Rear Wheel Speed >=xMPH and GPS speed = 0MPH then retard timing by Xdegrees

 

yes this would establish a base line for hp including TPS, which we can compare to the black box data to find an outlire.

[[email protected]]

Does this address

 

If Front Wheel Speed = 0MPH and Rear Wheel Speed >=xMPH and GPS speed = 0MPH then retard timing by Xdegrees

 

 

If you are concerned with this we can add timing to the datalogged file on the dyno for comparison with data from qualifying and racing. What we need is the sanctioning body to commit to enforcement, properly educate the enforcers and we can all move on with our lives.

 

I vote yes.

[Schist4Brainz]

This is so much simpler and easier to get my head around. I vote yes as long as the other De-Tune rule proposal is scrapped.

[JS154]

Does this address

 

If Front Wheel Speed = 0MPH and Rear Wheel Speed >=xMPH and GPS speed = 0MPH then retard timing by Xdegrees

 

yes this would establish a base line for hp including TPS, which we can compare to the black box data to find an outlire.

 

it has nothing to do with TPS.

 

Can you hook up an AIM box to a MoTeC ECU? Electromotive? Zytec? Pectel? Bosch?

 

So cable throttle systems aren't required to have this. Cool.

 

What about secondary boost control regulated by front wheel speed?

Edited November 4, 2015 by Guest

[BIMMERTC]

I wasn't aware the current system was broken,if this addition helps to keep things the way they r I'm for it, AJ Ashley