Jump to content
Michael G.

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

Recommended Posts

7VO-VOM
All it needs to do is to be able to verify that the RPM-vs-TPS(etc) curves are the same on-track as they are on-dyno.
Not quite. The test is: for 100% pedal at a given RPM, TPS on track = TPS on dyno. The data also needs to be checked to ensure the driver is at 100% pedal on the straights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIMMERTC

most cars r running some kind of data logger, how hard could it b to take the car u think is cheating data n overlay it with his competitions data, n u will see breaking points, entry n exit speeds, g-force, top speed,etc, maybe the slower guys would learn something, all this talk about hp, the car still have to stop n turn,

 

 

AJ Ashley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
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.

That could work in principal. The difficult part is locking down the ECU, or verifying what is in the ECU is what it is supposed to be. "Locked" to me would be no way to read/write, which means no way to alter, but no way to check. Only way to truly make it "unmodifiable" would be to cut the communications line inside the ECU, and then glue it into one monolithic brick. This would work, but would also make getting data out of it impossible. So this "cut the comm lines and glue it solid" method is probably not likely to be the way anyone goes.

 

 

Lets look at a scenario.

Driver A gets ECU tuned by company B.

Company or person C gets into the ECU and makes some changes. (be that with or without knowledge/conscent of driver A, involvement from company B, etc.)

Driver B protests driver A. The car is brought to impound.

The car is caught cheating.

(I'm still not sure on the *how* part, be that by read (likely impossible), or by checksum (maybe impossible), or by datalog (more likely, but... not possible if we truly made the ECU secured.))

Now what?

How do we know if Company B did or didn't install the cheat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
most cars r running some kind of data logger, how hard could it b to take the car u think is cheating data n overlay it with his competitions data, n u will see breaking points, entry n exit speeds, g-force, top speed,etc, maybe the slower guys would learn something, all this talk about hp, the car still have to stop n turn,

 

 

AJ Ashley

Why would we compare cars/data? Who would have access to that? If I am faster, I don't want to be forced to share it with my competitors and them say "well, he's not cheating, but now I know where to pick up that last half second he's got on me." Most of the time, the faster guy knows how to better use the middle pedal.

 

The stopping and turning is "open" in GTS. We don't need to reveal the how, the how well, or anything else related to that. We ONLY need to police the power side of things, and on that, we shouldn't need to police the how, just the number itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIMMERTC

The intent of the data logging comparison was for the officials to have more information as to y a car is faster than another, the information is not to b public just as how the information from the aim box is not public, with that info n the particular from the car, gear ratio, tire size, aero package etc, it should help to clarify if a car is cheating or the driver is just that better a driver n have a better package, in my opinion no matter what changes r made the same drivers will b up front,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Currently NASA CCR allows only to read the engine data (oil / water temp, level, etc.) from the driver's devices - not the performance data. I imagine that in the environment of client oriented for profit organization - it is important part of the environment protecting the privacy of the driver. Even though, many drivers would agree (so they say) to release the data - we can not make it a Rule, unless we have a realistic chance to enforce it across the board (anyone at any time can refuse under current conditions). I would be reluctant to propose the Rule like that for GTS only, since that would create a conflict we'd rather avoid.

So, the only way for us to consider is to develop AIM Black Boxes to do the job - as NASA compliance device - we can collect the data we need using it.

We are waiting for AIM to get back to us to figure out what is and what is not possible with in the framework of the program. If we can upgrade the existing hardware - we will most likely mandate the Black Box in the car with additional feeds, power, mount, antenna, etc. So, there alight be additional cost to the program for every driver to deal with.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIMMERTC
Currently NASA CCR allows only to read the engine data (oil / water temp, level, etc.) from the driver's devices - not the performance data. I imagine that in the environment of client oriented for profit organization - it is important part of the environment protecting the privacy of the driver. Even though, many drivers would agree (so they say) to release the data - we can not make it a Rule, unless we have a realistic chance to enforce it across the board (anyone at any time can refuse under current conditions). I would be reluctant to propose the Rule like that for GTS only, since that would create a conflict we'd rather avoid.

So, the only way for us to consider is to develop AIM Black Boxes to do the job - as NASA compliance device - we can collect the data we need using it.

We are waiting for AIM to get back to us to figure out what is and what is not possible with in the framework of the program. If we can upgrade the existing hardware - we will most likely mandate the Black Box in the car with additional feeds, power, mount, antenna, etc. So, there alight be additional cost to the program for every driver to deal with.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 

 

 

sounds like a aim solo would do the job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex

As everyone else has stated, I'm for this compliance rule if we get rid of the other proposed detune rule.

 

Although a quick question, so with this in place when it comes time to declare our TP, I assume it would have to be TP by RPM? Just curious cause I know on my own car I'm only 60% TP from 4500 to 8000. My max TP is I wanna say 80% at 4000 rpm. Or would we just declare 80% is the max it will see, cause obviously if I was 80% at 8000 rpm I'd make considerably more power.

 

Last note, after speaking with my tuner. He said the AIM software currently only shows pedal position not TPS. So it already could address if someone was pedaling on track but he mentioned there would have to be an update on AIMs part to show TPS data as well. Those are the words from his mouth, I myself have no idea as this stuff is way overt head..... Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3
As everyone else has stated, I'm for this compliance rule if we get rid of the other proposed detune rule.

 

Although a quick question, so with this in place when it comes time to declare our TP, I assume it would have to be TP by RPM? Just curious cause I know on my own car I'm only 60% TP from 4500 to 8000. My max TP is I wanna say 80% at 4000 rpm. Or would we just declare 80% is the max it will see, cause obviously if I was 80% at 8000 rpm I'd make considerably more power.

 

Last note, after speaking with my tuner. He said the AIM software currently only shows pedal position not TPS. So it already could address if someone was pedaling on track but he mentioned there would have to be an update on AIMs part to show TPS data as well. Those are the words from his mouth, I myself have no idea as this stuff is way overt head..... Haha.

 

 

Ryan,

 

You wouldn't declare anything. They would put the Aim box in your car and log the ECU data while your racing, then you go to the dyno and compare the two for consistency.

 

 

-Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex
As everyone else has stated, I'm for this compliance rule if we get rid of the other proposed detune rule.

 

Although a quick question, so with this in place when it comes time to declare our TP, I assume it would have to be TP by RPM? Just curious cause I know on my own car I'm only 60% TP from 4500 to 8000. My max TP is I wanna say 80% at 4000 rpm. Or would we just declare 80% is the max it will see, cause obviously if I was 80% at 8000 rpm I'd make considerably more power.

 

Last note, after speaking with my tuner. He said the AIM software currently only shows pedal position not TPS. So it already could address if someone was pedaling on track but he mentioned there would have to be an update on AIMs part to show TPS data as well. Those are the words from his mouth, I myself have no idea as this stuff is way overt head..... Haha.

 

 

Ryan,

 

You wouldn't declare anything. They would put the Aim box in your car and log the ECU data while your racing, then you go to the dyno and compare the two for consistency.

 

 

-Scott B.

 

Oh nice, even easier. I figured the way I mentioned it's a way of checking when a dyno is not available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
Ryan,

 

You wouldn't declare anything. They would put the Aim box in your car and log the ECU data while your racing, then you go to the dyno and compare the two for consistency.

 

 

-Scott B.

 

Oh nice, even easier. I figured the way I mentioned it's a way of checking when a dyno is not available.

If you are declaring the same power and min weight as a previous event, the data could be compared to a previous event if a dyno isn't present.

 

With as many power-restricted or power to weight classes as their are in NASA, there should be a dyno at every event. NASA can't try to force BS rule changes on us based on the perception of cheating if they do not provide the most basic tool for compliance checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimax

100% all for this rule PROVIDED the other dumb rule is taken off the table. I am happy to supply any data necessasy for compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
If we can upgrade the existing hardware - we will most likely mandate the Black Box in the car with additional feeds, power, mount, antenna, etc. So, there alight be additional cost to the program for every driver to deal with.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 

 

Why would this box be required for every car? Why would it not be a device that NASA temporarily installs on selected cars to confirm compliance similar to select cars being brought in for weighing at impound?

 

Not everyone has an additional couple hundred or thousand dollars laying around to drop into their car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

No we have 12 AIM boxes as a test samples rotated between Regions for selected events. In the big picture, the compliance tools must be readily available at every event and more than just a couple at a time. Everyone must be exposed to the same standard of testing.

 

But, this is more of a long term plan. At this point, we are still waiting for the new generation of boxes to arrive, and definitive plans are not finalized.

If the decision will be made to have selected boxes at every event, somehow, we will need to figure out the financial end of it - is that something that every Region invest $$ into or GTS generates money from drivers? I have no answers, but logic says - the simplest way is to mandate device for each car with standard mount and wiring.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
I have no answers, but logic says - the simplest way is to mandate device for each car with standard mount and wiring.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

If that is the route, then it should be something that is phased in over a few years for all of the Regions. Perhaps it becomes a requirement for Nationals sooner than Regions?

 

Just a few random thoughts from the perspective of low budget racers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

But for those that already have an aim system, could the same data not just be pulled off our cards? Just have us surrender our cards when we come off track, copy the needed files, then give us our cards back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10

Ok with additional way to verify acceleration whether from my AIM or a new system. If there is a concern, have the regional director check my data.

 

Overall, Seems like a lot of drama with some of the new rule proposals worrying about who is going to win a free tire or 2 each weekend.

 

Vernon McClure

GTS 3 (or maybe 4 ? Or ST in 2016?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

That will only be possible if NASA CCR will change the Rule prohibiting use of the driver's own performance data for compliance. Until then we can only rely on the NASA owned devices only.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
That will only be possible if NASA CCR will change the Rule prohibiting use of the driver's own performance data for compliance. Until then we can only rely on the NASA owned devices only.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

NASA CCRs prohibit several things allowed in GTS. How is data different than the others?

 

Could the math channels and analysis used in the 'black boxes' be published? That way if a protest or other issue came up, a driver could use his or her data in defense, as is done with video? Publishing this data could have the added benefit of 'open source' improvement of the 'black boxes' for compliance checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

We are looking into the option of making the data from boxes open to public.

 

Interestingly, no one officially proposed to mandate the boxes or allow getting the data from driver's cars, but couple of proposals came to discontinue the Boxes or make those not valid as compliance tools.

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

So I'm curious as to who "officially" proposed this original detune limit??? Did it actually come from a racer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

It was a result of joined effort between all Regional GTS Directors trying to find the best compromise. There was no single author. We looked at many different options and scenarios. We also had different opinions on the matter. We probably exchanged few hundred emails in a course of 2 weeks. The issue of the negative impact of the extreme de-tuning in GTS was the concern expressed by HQ as well.

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
We are looking into the option of making the data from boxes open to public.

 

Interestingly, no one officially proposed to mandate the boxes or allow getting the data from driver's cars, but couple of proposals came to discontinue the Boxes or make those not valid as compliance tools.

 

Michael G.

I find that very interesting. Are the proposals to make the power to weight basis for GTS more convoluted from the same people who proposed removing the black boxes? If so, I think you know where to point next year for the "perception" of cheating.

 

I find it equally interesting that the people most effected by the "perception" of cheating are also the people responding most vehemently in support of dynomometers at every event and blackbox or racer AiM data for compliance.

 

The two regions that seem to have the highest participation in GTS (I could be wrong), NE and MA, are the two regions most represented in the people requesting rules changes to increase compliance testing and not rules changes to cars. I think we all know who is or could be cheating in our regions.

 

We don't need changes to the rules governing cars. We need NASA to adhere to the compliance rules in place governing our class. In MA, we have learned that the at the track dyno can vary. We may complain about the variance, but in the end, that helps NASA. We do our compliance dyno runs at the track. At ECC, I spent hours in line at the dyno to make sure my car was compliant. I know other MA and NE racers who did as well. We know the rules and we follow them. Other racers and regions who don't follow the rules should not ruin it for those of us who believe in GTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
It was a result of joined effort between all Regional GTS Directors trying to find the best compromise. There was no single author. We looked at many different options and scenarios. We also had different opinions on the matter. We probably exchanged few hundred emails in a course of 2 weeks. The issue of the negative impact of the extreme de-tuning in GTS was the concern expressed by HQ as well.

 

Michael G.

I would like for you to define "extreme", but this thread is about something different that "detuning". Maybe it would be best to start a new topic about "detuning" where tuners, racers, and officials can discuss its performance and other benefits apart from the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

I agree. We can move the discussion to a different thread. But in a nutshell, by extreme de-tuning we referred to engines claiming in some cases 40 to 50% reduction of power to fit sometimes into the ratios of 2 classes below expected. That combined with the lack of compliance enforcement tools in many Regions (mostly outside of MA and NE) precipitated the problem.

 

Michael G.

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...