Jump to content

2016 Proposed ST Rules Revisions


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

I have a stock cam LS1 that absolutely falls off a clip at high rpm. Well below the proposed 95%. There is no "manipulation" there, that's just the way it is, and there are lots of stock cam engines that fall off a cliff.

 

Simple answer to that, set your rev limiter so you don't use that point.

 

If the equation stays the same he would want to do everything his tuning software will allow him to do in order to make that cliff as steep as possible...... that will reduce his average. Just because the engine does something on the dyno doesn't mean that area of rpm is used on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Greg G.

    28

  • loftygoals

    19

  • davidfarmer

    17

  • brkntrxn

    14

How about an average of something like the peak HP, 1000rpm below peak HP, and 2000rpm below peak HP?

That makes more sense but;

(300+320+340)/3=320

(280+320+360)/3=320

(200+320+440)/3=320

 

Even if you go peak rpm, 100 below, and 200 below........ the more fine you make that rpm division the closer you get to just using the peak hp number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you definitely want the measuring points spread out.... In the case of most corvettes, you lose around 1600rpm when you shift. So going 800below max, the 1600 below max would give a real idea of usable power band.

 

My car will have "factory" aero for TT3. I'll add full aero if I go to TT2, but for now it's easier to lose a few hp and stay as I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of not allowing the HP500 number to be more than a certain percentage off. Do our best to not allow people to game the system to much.

 

The aero thing is really simple. ST3 is now a 10:1 class. If you run OEM aero you get a bonus of .4, and can run 9.6:1. However since I have never seen a single ST3 car NOT running aero, it seems more simple to write the rule this way, rather than listing it as a penalty. I imagine only the rare TT3 car that is still being built will not have at least a wing on it, which is non OEM.

 

 

There are still quite a few "naked" TT3 cars in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of not allowing the HP500 number to be more than a certain percentage off. Do our best to not allow people to game the system to much.

 

I have a stock cam LS1 that absolutely falls off a clip at high rpm. Well below the proposed 95%. There is no "manipulation" there, that's just the way it is, and there are lots of stock cam engines that fall off a cliff.

 

Simple answer to that, set your rev limiter so you don't use that point.

 

 

Negative. Those extra couple hundred rpm up high, even though the power drops, are very usable at the end of a straight where the data shows holding it in gear versus a short shift up and back down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a bone stock, cable throttle LS1. I had hoped this rule might help vs. the electronic throttle body detuned motors. One less mod for me to do in the future. However, as my peak HP is just above 5,250, all of my points are tightly clustered. So despite having a real HP curve (I drop 75 HP at the RL-2,000 point), My average HP is within a margin of error to my peak (within 5 HP). This means another 200 lbs of ballast for me as is, or a significant restrictor plate.

 

Just one data point, but this rule is especially hard on motors that peak around 5,250.

 

I think I'll spend my money on moving up to ST2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a bone stock, cable throttle LS1. I had hoped this rule might help vs. the electronic throttle body detuned motors. One less mod for me to do in the future. However, as my peak HP is just above 5,250, all of my points are tightly clustered. So despite having a real HP curve (I drop 75 HP at the RL-2,000 point), My average HP is within a margin of error to my peak (within 5 HP). This means another 200 lbs of ballast for me as is, or a significant restrictor plate.

 

Just one data point, but this rule is especially hard on motors that peak around 5,250.

 

I think I'll spend my money on moving up to ST2.

 

I run a stock 5.3 with the stock truck cam. My RPM drop is 1500-1900 depending on gear. The RPM points I have to use are right at the peak of my curve and do not reflect the drop off I get after a shift.

 

My Peak HP number is at 5450-5500. My new calculated average is 6 HP less than actual peak. I guess I need to find a place to add 144 lbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think average HP is a great method of creating fair competition in power to weight classes, and I'm glad to see that it is being explored for ST/TT. I lobbied heavily for this in GTS and did a lot of analysis on the subject. I went as far to write some lengthy articles. Here's an abbreviated version of one of the articles: http://www.clown-shoe.com/#!Horsepower-vs-Torque/c144o/5580f30b0cf299727821d68e. This one was more about the impact of TQ in evaluating performance, but it was also a lead in to the idea of average HP.

 

Anyway, this is an interesting approach. I see merits in the approach, but also see some flaws.

 

Problem 1 - Deflated Averages

 

Scenario 1: Diesel Engine

 

Not that they are common in any of these classes (and thanks to VW, we'll probably see even fewer new diesel cars), but for illustration purposes let's consider it.

 

This is a dyno of a stock and tuned BMW E90 335d:

335d.jpg

 

I bet everyone see's the problem already, but let's work through it using the tuned numbers:

 

Ave HP = (Max HP + HP 500 + HP 5250) / 3

 

198.69 = (304.08 + ~292 + 0) / 3

 

I think with this formula, diesels would be very popular!

 

 

Scenario 2: Big Block Chevy

 

This dyno is from a back to back compairson for a cam installed in a 402 Big Block Chevy by Super Chevy Magazine:

BBC.jpg

 

You could easily set the rev limiter for 5150 and end up with the same problem as with the diesel example above.

 

But let's look at the blue (RunFile_005) for a second. This was the original cam.

 

Ave HP = (Max HP + HP 500 + HP 5250) / 3

 

290.23 = (310.71 + ~270 + ~290) /3

 

Given that almost the entire power band is above that average, I'd take that!

 

 

Problem 2 - Not All Power Bands are Created Equal

 

The purpose of calculating average horsepower is stated as:

[Maximum horsepower] will be a calculated average giving a better approximation of the maximum horsepower available over a range of usable RPM.

 

There's a problem, though. The width of the power band has to be corrected for where in the RPM range it lives. There is an excellent article about this topic here:

http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/comparing-power-curves

 

This means a 1000 RPM usable range on a motor that has a power band from 3500-4500 is the same width as a car with a usable 2000 RPM range from 6000-8000. Thus the formula should adjust the width of the average band based on RPM. This means that a engine with a power band in the lower RPMs will have a tighter RPM spread for the average than a motor in the higher end.

 

Example

 

This is the old S54 that was in my M Coupe:

S54.jpg

 

This is a stock LS3:

LS3.jpg

 

 

Because this S54 has a redline of 8200, we use HP RL-2k or HP at 6200. We also use redline for HP 500:

298.92 = (314.9 + 308.4 + 273.47) / 3

With an evaluated power band of 8200 - 6200 or 2000 RPM Wide

 

The LS3 peaks ~5959 RPM. So we use 5250. We use HP 5450 for the upper point:

380.68 = (392.04 + ~380 + ~370) / 3

With an evaluated power band of 6450 - 5250 or 1200 RPM Wide

 

 

So some of you may already be noticing the problem here. The S54 unfairly gets a wider evaluated range than the LS3, even when adjusted for RPM.

 

From the article linked above, we know we can calculate the scale of the difference from this formula:

rev_comp.jpg

 

[(8200-6200)/6200] / [(6450-5250)/5250] = 1.4

 

This means that for the rev range of the LS3 to be comparable to the S54, it needs to be increased by 40%.

 

Let's see what happens if we widen the LS3 range, know that based on this dyno the rev limit is 6550. We also know we want the power bands to be the same effective width so we can solve for x in the following:

 

[(8200-6200)/6200] = [(6550-x)/x]

 

which simplies to

 

x = 4952.4

 

So the LS3's power band width has increased from 1200 RPM to 1600 RPM.

 

If we apply the average HP formula to these ranges, the results are:

374.34 = (392.04 + ~380 + ~351) / 3

 

So comparing apples to apples, the LS3's power rating just dropped by 6.34 hp. I'd take an extra 6.34 hp or 63.4 lbs less ballast (assuming 10.00:1) any day!

 

 

The Solution

 

So given these issues, how do we come up with something better?

 

The solution is to take the data from the dyno run file and run it through a little algorithm that finds the highest average power band across the entire operating range, adjusting the width of the power band by the starting RPM range. This solution is ultimately the fairest, most accurate way to compare motors that potentially have wildly different operating ranges.

 

Not only does this solve this issues that I raised above, but it also solves all the other issues raised because it is always looking for the most power power band.

 

There is one subjective part of this solution, though. You have to establish a base power band width for a single RPM. After that is done, everything else can be calculated. For example, the established base width at a starting point of 6000 RPM could be 2000 RPMs wide (6000-8000), then given any other starting RPM we can scale the width of the power band to match.

 

Does this solution still leave room to game the system? I'm sure it does--I haven't done the math for every possible scenario. But I'm confident it is a better solution that just peak power and than the proposed calculation.

 

-bj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a stock cam LS1 that absolutely falls off a clip at high rpm. Well below the proposed 95%. There is no "manipulation" there, that's just the way it is, and there are lots of stock cam engines that fall off a cliff.

 

Simple answer to that, set your rev limiter so you don't use that point.

 

If the equation stays the same he would want to do everything his tuning software will allow him to do in order to make that cliff as steep as possible...... that will reduce his average. Just because the engine does something on the dyno doesn't mean that area of rpm is used on track.

 

I am looking at FI to shore up up some missing power and my current NA car has an intake limited peak HP at 6800 and a cliff at 7000. . Based on this rule and my intake I see my new setup as this:

 

1. Use an electronically controlled wastegate to have a nearly flat hp curve at AVG HP - 20, maintain this as wide as possible. Lets say 3krpm to 6.5krpm

2. Raise boost from 6.5k to 6.8k to create a spike at my NA peak at 6800rpm to create my Max HP number

3. From HP100 to HP500, retard the timing, open the wastegate, electronically close the throttle blades, and richen the fuel to make the smallest HP500 as possible. All I need to do is move the dyno along.

4. Calculate HP500 at a very low HP to allow my average HP to be as high as possible.

 

With these controls I will be able to create a power band in a range outside of the range used by the measurements while gaming the measurement range to allow the highest AVG-20 I can possibly run. I am willing to bet that the avg HP will allow me to run much higher then 10:1 even though I will be 10:1 in the measurement range.

 

I would guess that this is not the intent of the new rule, but would also guess that with how easy it is to exploit I will have no choice but to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BJ, good, well researched analysis as usual, and as a former rule maker, proposing a solution (well thought out, no less) is grand!

 

I think your idea is an improvement. It does illustrate a bit of the conundrum in rules making here. Measuring this well really involves calculous, and a fair degree of complexity. Computers can help here, maybe quite a bit, Trying to make it more simple as in the current rules proposal, opens the door for some pretty major gaming of the system, as has been well pointed out by Ryan earlier. The current system can be gamed as well (arguably more or less than the proposal), but in the in the result is that different winners are favored, and we still lose simplicity. We trade flat HP curves for wonky boost drops, and throttle manipulation.

 

While your LS3 post is illustrative, things get much worse yet the closer the peak is to 5,250, which is the case for many LS1's. Yes, I know I'm playing the violin for the LS1, but being punitive to what is likely the most common motor in the series seems problematic.

 

Last point is that the calculation as is relies heavily on defining the peak RPM. A car detuned to have a flat HP curve, will have a lot of random variation as to the RPM that the "peak" occurs from one run to the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever modifications that may or may not occur to the proposed "averaging" needs to be SIMPLE. As someone that has been in a series official position at a track event, if some shows up at an event and wants to race/tt, the calculations have to be simple enough that any moron like me can verify for accuracy while standing trackside WITHOUT a supercomputer and access to NSA-level internet.

 

What Greg has presented currently is somewhat simple in determining an average horsepower. Please keep it that way if we are going in this direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we just use the GTS HP calculator? Now that the implementation poop storm has passed it seems the talk has shifted to compliance which hopefully means the calculator itself is working as intended and no one is gaming the calculation itself. If necessary throw in some simple algorithms to make it more robust. Thoughts?

 

I agree simplicity is important but once you go down the 'average' power rabbit hole you can't cover all possibilities with a simple hand calc as BJ has nicely presented. Nowadays everyone has a smartphone so they can call up the calculator to input at a moments notice or worst case if no cell/internet signal NASA should have the native spreadsheet on their computers to input the calculation for the driver.

 

However the driver already needs at least a dyno sheet with all the various RPM power numbers called out along with the various many other ratio adjustments accounted for so expecting someone to roll onto to the track cold without doing any homework is a tall order anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we just use the GTS HP calculator? Now that the implementation poop storm has passed it seems the talk has shifted to compliance which hopefully means the calculator itself is working as intended and no one is gaming the calculation itself. If necessary throw in some simple algorithms to make it more robust. Thoughts?

 

I agree simplicity is important but once you go down the 'average' power rabbit hole you can't cover all possibilities with a simple hand calc as BJ has nicely presented. Nowadays everyone has a smartphone so they can call up the calculator to input at a moments notice or worst case if no cell/internet signal NASA should have the native spreadsheet on their computers to input the calculation for the driver.

 

However the driver already needs at least a dyno sheet with all the various RPM power numbers called out along with the various many other ratio adjustments accounted for so expecting someone to roll onto to the track cold without doing any homework is a tall order anyway.

 

 

Have you ever been in charge of a series at an event? People roll in having no clue every weekend. And I can name multiple tracks in which I have spotty cell coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever been in charge of a series at an event? People roll in having no clue every weekend. And I can name multiple tracks in which I have spotty cell coverage.

 

That's true but is the intent of this proposed ruleset looking to cater to newbies who have done no research and have no clue during their first event or to ensure fair and even competition between the best drivers regionally and nationally in a wider spread of cars?

 

Either way why don't we poll GTS and find out how they handle the seemingly insurmountable task of bringing a laptop with a spreadsheet on it to the paddock in a worst case scenario of no cell phone coverage? I don't know about your region but there are no NASA dynos operated at Texas events unless the track already has one which is very rare. If Joe Clueless rolls up and doesn't even have a dyno sheet how does he get classed trackside in either regime?

 

If we are apprehensive about plugging numbers into a calculator/spreadsheet then we should just go back to the peak HP method and call it good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need the more points.......peak hp, peak plus 500, peak minus 500, peak plus 1000, peak minus 1000...... then average the 3 HIGHEST of those numbers.

 

Somehow we need to average the actual USABLE 1000-1500rpm range of every vehicle. Also need to keep it simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

Negative. Those extra couple hundred rpm up high, even though the power drops, are very usable at the end of a straight where the data shows holding it in gear versus a short shift up and back down.

 

We are talking about 500 RPM, not a 1000 or more. Yes most engines reach a point of falling off, but with a little research a reasonable allowable drop off could be determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Have you ever been in charge of a series at an event? People roll in having no clue every weekend. And I can name multiple tracks in which I have spotty cell coverage.

 

Either way why don't we poll GTS and find out how they handle the seemingly insurmountable task of bringing a laptop with a spreadsheet on it to the paddock in a worst case scenario of no cell phone coverage? I don't know about your region but there are no NASA dynos operated at Texas events unless the track already has one which is very rare. If Joe Clueless rolls up and doesn't even have a dyno sheet how does he get classed trackside in either regime?

 

If we are apprehensive about plugging numbers into a calculator/spreadsheet then we should just go back to the peak HP method and call it good.

 

It's not terribly hard, however, if there is no dyno present, it's all kinda moot. Then you have "perceived cheating" issues to deal with, then eventually need alternate methods of compliance, then limits on what you can do for a tune.... sound familiar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Guys, this type of input is appreciated, which is one of the reasons we put it out ahead of time. We knew that you guys could find unforeseen problems. The diesel problem has an easy potential fix without any thought---if no 5250, use Max HP twice. As was stated, diesels are rare in our series. As well, for cars that are tuned to no have a 5250 on purpose---no joy with using Max HP twice. Obviously, we can take some time to think about this for a more elegant solution, but this one has the easy backup solution.

 

The issue with HP 500, though, is significant. Kevin stated what were also our initial thoughts--that the extra 500 rpm after peak HP was needed on track, almost regardless of the drop in HP. But, this is for cars with Dyno curves that are not being artificially manipulated. So, we are going to mandate that all vehicles must go back to carbs, remove all EFI, computers, drive by wire, and F/I. Problem solved! Since this is just slightly draconian, we will have to find a better way of not allowing those with the ability to manipulate their Dyno curves from having artificially low HP numbers in an unused portion of the Dyno curve added into the Ave HP calculation.

 

Kevin is correct. We either keep this simple, or we don't do it, and stick with everyone needing to spend $$$$ to get a flat HP Dyno curve in their usable range to be competitive (and stick with Peak HP). This will eventually cause car numbers to drop, and we can develop a new series of some type in 5 years. We need to be able to stick a car on the Dyno, at any track with a mobile Dyno, with no Internet availability, with a substitute Series Director or Race Director that doesn't know the rules and just read them, and spit out the Calculated number by hand (or at most using a simple calculator for the division). I'm not going to go into it, but there are still issues with the GTS method, but regardless, I have a problem for our series with any process that is not simple and completely open, without the need for more than elementary school math.

 

I haven't looked at what David's idea would do yet, but he may be onto something. My initial thought is that it may blunt the resulting Ave HP number so much, that it is almost worthless compared to Peak HP. But, keep the simple ideas coming so we can get a solution that will work for everybody, level the playing field, and encourage many more cars that have been sitting on the sidelines to come to ST3 (and then ST4 and maybe ST5 next year).

 

And yes, one simple solution for the F/I cars is that they just use Peak HP, but that doesn't stop the drive by wire cars that are detuned or others from doing an HP 500 dump. Those with "native" n/a Dyno curves often "must" use the 500 rpm after peak HP on track, and we would hope to have a solution that reflects the use of the decreased power in the Ave HP number.

 

Thanks,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not terribly hard, however, if there is no dyno present, it's all kinda moot. Then you have "perceived cheating" issues to deal with, then eventually need alternate methods of compliance, then limits on what you can do for a tune.... sound familiar?

 

Yup that was partially my point. The calculation itself and compliance are two completely separate issues but I've never seen a dyno in operation at a regional event (in Texas at least) so lets just make sure we get the calculation right so no one can game it and then we can worry about compliance next year. GTS is just a year ahead of ST/TT on both fronts.

 

In the end I would love to see a simple hand calc work and cover all the bases for engine tuning/types so hopefully we can have our cake and eat it too. The main reason I suggested GTS calculator as a starting point is because it has a year of use under its belt so there must be things we can learn from it, good and bad and make improvements to fit ST/TT if necessary instead of seemingly starting from scratch, polling the masses, ending up with several thread pages of opinions to consider and a potential late arrival of the formalized ruleset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

It's not terribly hard, however, if there is no dyno present, it's all kinda moot. Then you have "perceived cheating" issues to deal with, then eventually need alternate methods of compliance, then limits on what you can do for a tune.... sound familiar?

 

Yup that was partially my point. The calculation itself and compliance are two completely separate issues but I've never seen a dyno in operation at a regional event (in Texas at least) so lets just make sure we get the calculation right so no one can game it and then we can worry about compliance next year. GTS is just a year ahead of ST/TT on both fronts.

 

In the end I would love to see a simple hand calc work and cover all the bases for engine tuning/types so hopefully we can have our cake and eat it too. The main reason I suggested GTS calculator as a starting point is because it has a year of use under its belt so there must be things we can learn from it, good and bad and make improvements to fit ST/TT if necessary instead of seemingly starting from scratch, polling the masses, ending up with several thread pages of opinions to consider and a potential late arrival of the formalized ruleset.

Allen, GTS has a bunch of non-starters for us--requires the Internet, requires a complicated "closed" formula, requires too much work to input data....So, there is no reason to start there. We already have our start, and don't worry, we will be finished and published without delay.

The reason that we have not done this in the past, or from the start of the series, is we all want Simple. Peak HP is simple. But, Peak HP is too expensive as we expand the series, and we believe that Peak HP has prevented the growth in ST3 that we would like to see. It may end up that we keep Peak HP for ST1 and ST2. That has not been decided, although we would like to have a simple hand calculation that helps to equalize those classes as well--especially for the TT guys, where there is a difference between a stock high displacement engine Dyno curve and a tuned one by about 4-6%. But, in the end, if simple requires Peak HP, then that is where we will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is my ST3 dyno graph from the 2014 East Coast Championships at Road Atlanta when the NASA Super Touring Director sent me across the dyno for compliance. I was 6 rwhp low on the dyno as compared to my 336 rwhp number listed on my official paperwork and windshield.

 

Which one of you that say this is going to be easy wants to be in charge of ST3 and determine at which rpm my MAX HP number resides and then figure out what the horsepower is at HP 500, HP5250, and/or HP RL-2k?

 

I have a ruler and printout in my hand and it isn't that easy. Much less trying to help some newbie do it trackside. MUCH less have an ST Director trackside try and verify my exact numbers. As bumpy as this dyno graph is, how in the world are any of these numbers and calculations going to be repeatable?

 

Why do I bring up this example? Because I am in the habit of dyno'ing on the official event dyno at Nats/Champs since 2011 and using those numbers on my official paperwork since the dyno "back home" does not have any meaning at a finals event. So this is a very valid situational example.

 

 

ST3dyno2014ECC_zpsvtmw3m5c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, this type of input is appreciated, which is one of the reasons we put it out ahead of time.

 

First of all, thanks Greg for put this out there for discussion. I can't imagine the effort required to keep everyone happy across PT/ST/TT!

 

The diesel problem has an easy potential fix without any thought---if no 5250, use Max HP twice. As was stated, diesels are rare in our series. As well, for cars that are tuned to no have a 5250 on purpose---no joy with using Max HP twice. Obviously, we can take some time to think about this for a more elegant solution, but this one has the easy backup solution.

 

The problem with this fix is fairness. You are effectively doubling the impact of peak power in the average. This will result in higher averages and less usable power for theses scenarios. This solution fly's in the face of the intent of changing the rule in the first place.

 

The second scenario I presented, LS3 vs. S54, is much more troubling. I picked those motors at random. I already had the S54 dyno (it's mine) and the LS3 dyno was one of the first Dynojet dyno graphs I found on Google Image Search. When I started that example, I didn't know what I would find. Honestly, I thought the S54 was going to be disadvantaged, but the results showed the opposite. The bigger thing here is that I chose at random, meaning I didn't go looking for a worst case to illustrate my point. Thus, the problem is likely much more pronounced in other scenarios.

 

For example a motor such as a BMW S52 that's has a red line at 7250 RPM would really benefit from the formula proposed in the first post. This is because it has a lower operating range than the S54 in my example, but it still gets a full 2000 RPMs in it's average. I'm sure if I compared an S52 like this to an LS1, the LS1 would be disadvantage by 2:1 or more.

 

 

We need to be able to stick a car on the Dyno, at any track with a mobile Dyno, with no Internet availability, with a substitute Series Director or Race Director that doesn't know the rules and just read them, and spit out the Calculated number by hand (or at most using a simple calculator for the division). I'm not going to go into it, but there are still issues with the GTS method, but regardless, I have a problem for our series with any process that is not simple and completely open, without the need for more than elementary school math.

 

Why by hand? If you can get a mobile dyno there, surely you can get a laptop, tablet or smart phone.

 

Modern engines and engine management systems have become extremely complex. Why do we think monitoring and policing their performance should be simple?

 

The reality is it can't be. And the truth is, it isn't now.

 

My MINI is in TTC, so it is of course a points car. It should be somewhat easy, right? I go through the process of adding all the points by hand and there's my class. It may be laborious, but it is easy to do. Well, that's until you realize that even though I'm in a points class I have to conform to Weight/HP as well--and this is where it gets complicated.

 

When calculating the Weight/HP I can't just take my competition weight and divide it by my measured peak dyno power. I have to consider drive wheels, tire type, tire size, transmission, and look up my weight in a table to get correction factors. It is all math I can do with scratch paper, but do I want to? Nope. I use the spreadsheet. Could I do it without a computer or a calculator? Yep. Would I want to? Nope. Would I trust that a "substitute Series Director" could wade through all of this? Probably, not.

 

So does the current process use simple math? Yes. Is it a simple process, not at all.

 

My point is it isn't simple now...and that's just fine. It's doesn't have to be simple, not with the right tools. I'm guessing the spreadsheets were originally developed to make life easier for everyone. The good news is they have. They've become such an important part to navigating the rules that they are listed on the NASA site along side the official rules and forms. Would it be so terrible to incorporate the new averaging formula into this same spreadsheet no matter how simple or complex?

 

I think it is reasonable to assume that someone would have a device with the spreadsheet on it at the event. This wouldn't require an internet connect, just a tablet, phone, or laptop that had the spreadsheet on it already. If a "substitute Series Director" doesn't have a copy, it is safe to assume that most ST/TT competitors would have an electronic copy with them that the substitute Series Director could use.

 

 

We either keep this simple, or we don't do it, and stick with everyone needing to spend $$$$ to get a flat HP Dyno curve in their usable range to be competitive (and stick with Peak HP). This will eventually cause car numbers to drop, and we can develop a new series of some type in 5 years.

 

Ignoring the simple part, I do agree that this is a growing issue. I don't even think the money is the biggest issue. I think the problem is that not every car lends itself to being manipulated this way. One could argue that "well, you picked the wrong car" but I think that flies in the face of one of the core philosophies of PT/ST/TT: We'll make what you have fit and give you a chance to be competitive.

 

I would also agree that the issue needs to be resolved or these series will be weakened and potentially fade. I just feel the emphasis should be on creating the fairest, most comprehensive performance (hp) evaluation model possible. I'm not suggesting that what I proposed in my previous post is the best solution, either. I simply want to support the efforts to implement this change and help ensure that the solution is something that will serve these racing series years for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTS has a bunch of non-starters for us--requires the Internet, requires a complicated "closed" formula, requires too much work to input data....So, there is no reason to start there. We already have our start, and don't worry, we will be finished and published without delay.

 

I will agree that the GTS implementation is less than ideal. That doesn't mean it has to be. As for the formula, it isn't complicated. It is actually very simple to replicate in a spreadsheet. As to why the calculations aren't published, I can't say. Honestly I think that was one of the mistakes in the implementation. Unless you are open with the formula or process of calculation, there will always be a perception that it is unfair, even if in reality it is the best solution. That said, I've been surprised how little was made of it after the GTS season got underway here in TX.

 

The reason that we have not done this in the past, or from the start of the series, is we all want Simple. Peak HP is simple. But, Peak HP is too expensive as we expand the series, and we believe that Peak HP has prevented the growth in ST3 that we would like to see. It may end up that we keep Peak HP for ST1 and ST2. That has not been decided, although we would like to have a simple hand calculation that helps to equalize those classes as well--especially for the TT guys, where there is a difference between a stock high displacement engine Dyno curve and a tuned one by about 4-6%. But, in the end, if simple requires Peak HP, then that is where we will be.

 

If you truly want simple, I'll make the same suggestion that I made to GTS: Work with DynoJet to get the formula integrated into their software. This is the ultimate "easy button" solution. You go get dyno'd and you dyno report has the average HP number printed right on it. Then it doesn't matter how complicated the formula is, it is all done automatically by the very device that has to provide the numbers.

 

This solution meets every requirement:

  • No required internet access at the track
  • No complicated calculations to perform
  • No entering of data
  • No files to deal with

 

There is a benefit to DynoJet as well: We've proved that average HP across the power band correlates to acceleration. This means that drag racers would be interested in this number as well. Tuners would love it too as it gives them a metric to communicate the benefit of improving power "under the curve". It seems like a win for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
GTS has a bunch of non-starters for us--requires the Internet, requires a complicated "closed" formula, requires too much work to input data....So, there is no reason to start there. We already have our start, and don't worry, we will be finished and published without delay.

 

I will agree that the GTS implementation is less than ideal. That doesn't mean it has to be. As for the formula, it isn't complicated. It is actually very simple to replicate in a spreadsheet. As to why the calculations aren't published, I can't say. Honestly I think that was one of the mistakes in the implementation. Unless you are open with the formula or process of calculation, there will always be a perception that it is unfair, even if in reality it is the best solution. That said, I've been surprised how little was made of it after the GTS season got underway here in TX.

 

The reason that we have not done this in the past, or from the start of the series, is we all want Simple. Peak HP is simple. But, Peak HP is too expensive as we expand the series, and we believe that Peak HP has prevented the growth in ST3 that we would like to see. It may end up that we keep Peak HP for ST1 and ST2. That has not been decided, although we would like to have a simple hand calculation that helps to equalize those classes as well--especially for the TT guys, where there is a difference between a stock high displacement engine Dyno curve and a tuned one by about 4-6%. But, in the end, if simple requires Peak HP, then that is where we will be.

 

If you truly want simple, I'll make the same suggestion that I made to GTS: Work with DynoJet to get the formula integrated into their software. This is the ultimate "easy button" solution. You go get dyno'd and you dyno report has the average HP number printed right on it. Then it doesn't matter how complicated the formula is, it is all done automatically by the very device that has to provide the numbers.

 

This solution meets every requirement:

  • No required internet access at the track
  • No complicated calculations to perform
  • No entering of data
  • No files to deal with

 

There is a benefit to DynoJet as well: We've proved that average HP across the power band correlates to acceleration. This means that drag racers would be interested in this number as well. Tuners would love it too as it gives them a metric to communicate the benefit of improving power "under the curve". It seems like a win for everyone!

 

Interesting, but we also have AWD cars that use other Dyno's. And, I personally (and I'm sure everyone else) wants to be able to pull out a Dyno sheet, use a ruler as Kevin stated, and confirm that the average is at least close to correct, and not some software glitch that just got me DQ'd at a major event with the appeal period expired.

 

I do think that we are arriving at a solution that will satisfy the issues discussed here, including the diesel Dyno's.

 

Kevin, I know you haven't seen the draft of the rules yet, and I didn't post the Dyno procedures section here, but they do include the requirement for all Dyno's performed after Dec 1, 2015 to include a print out of the numeric RPM/HP table for ALL TT/PT/ST classes when a Dyno is performed. So, no, we will only be using rulers for those with Dyno's done prior to this, when the driver cannot get the table print-out that is likely still just sitting in the Dyno shop's computer. Of course, if we do use the "ruler" method, which I don't expect to be used at all in '17, we will choose the most conservative (high) numbers. So, that is an incentive for guys to either re-Dyno or get the table print-out from their Dyno shop. By '17, whether we have the other classes adopt this or not, most cars will have a Dyno with the table....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...