Members Michael G. Posted November 4, 2015 Members Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdonaldsracing Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I am all for this if we do away with the other proposal regarding electronic detuning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drhm3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackhaberman Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 All for it -- assuming we keep the current class definitions as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doclouns Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Im for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Wolfe Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 For this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnvrdrvr Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) I vote FOR this... Edited November 4, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkit Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I vote for this rule in replacement of the "de-tune restriction" to accomplish the goal of better compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPower6er Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I vote for this rule, in place of the "de-tune" proposal....all for compliance!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjkasten Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 In favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersianPrince Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I Vote for this!!! not the De-Tune Rule! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmwjoon Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 This rule is actually easier and more effective than the original proposal. Yes to this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seegsracer848 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I vote No to detune, and vote YES for monitoring throttle position IN REPLACEMENT of detune rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seegsracer848 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I vote No to detune, and vote YES for monitoring throttle position IN REPLACEMENT of detune rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richiebosco Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I am good with this. Rich Bosco #63 '95 M3s52 GTS2 TEXAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbm3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVR127 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Yes to this rule! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 In favor of this rule. Have any data you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS154 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Does this address If Front Wheel Speed = 0MPH and Rear Wheel Speed >=xMPH and GPS speed = 0MPH then retard timing by Xdegrees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sips56 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach H. Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete@AutoSportCT Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schist4Brainz Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS154 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIMMERTC Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.