2016 Proposed ST Rules Revisions

[J_Roberts]

Sterling Doc, glad you mentioned the close ratio gearbox. I agree, someone with FI/TBW and a close-ratio gearbox could really take advantage of the proposed rule, since they could limit their RPM range to a tighter interval.

[J_Roberts]

that example doesn't pan out in reality....in my opinion. You only have a 600rpm power range. Even if your transmision is geared so close that you can stay within 300rpm of peak each way, in many cases you'd be making more torque at the rear wheels to rev higher and go into a lower gear.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. The FI power plot in my example has an advantage over a 800 RPM band. That is, it makes more power over an 800 RPM interval than the NA plot. And, over a 2500 RPM interval (quite practical on the track), it still has a distinct advantage. On a track with long straights, such as TWS and NOLA, the advantage could definitely be exploited, especially with a close-ratio gearbox. And, again, it's not hard to implement for those who already have the ingredients in place (many do).

 

What I am saying here is that the 500 RPM, four data point method is not hard to take advantage of. If NASA is going to make the effort to implement this solution, why not tighten things up a bit, and make it harder to take advantage of. All you have to do is decrease the interval, and increase the number of points in the average. The calculation would be the same, you just add more data. I don't think this is too much to consider.

 

I could go really crazy here and run this through lap sim software which takes the power band into consideration, on several example tracks, to illustrate the difference in terms of lap times. That is, simulate two or three cars that are the same, except for the power plots, and compare the difference in lap times. That's going to take a lot more time to do (several hours), so I'll save the effort for now unless I get an indication from Greg and the like that it would be seriously considered in their evaluation.

[Sterling Doc]

The other side of the coin is if this is better (and to what degree) then we have now. If you are going to run the numbers, compare a flat "curve" vs. a traditional power curve as well. We know those will be different. If the new rule gets things a fair amount closer, than it's progress.

 

 

*Edited for typos (need to slow down!)

[J_Roberts]

The other side of the coin is if this is better (and to what degree) then we have now. If you are going to run the numbers, compare a flat "curve" vs. a traditional power curve as well. We know those will be different. If the new rule gets things a fair amount closer, than it's progress.

 

Good question, and easy to do:

New data set. Both motors have the same peak WHP, per the current rule set. One has a normal power curve, the other has a flat FI/TBW curve. Here's the new data set:

 

RPM FI NA

2500 200 200

3000 250 250

3500 300 280

4000 320 300

4500 323 316

4700 323 321

5000 323 323

5300 323 318

5500 323 312

6000 323 290

6500 323 250

 

 

RPM range 3500-6500: 16% more area for FI (per proposed rule 12% more area for FI)

RPM range 4000-6500: 18% more area for FI (per proposed rule 14% more area for FI)

RPM range 4500-6000: 7% more area for FI (per proposed rule 4% more area for FI)

 

So, there is some improvement with the proposed rule set. However, I don't think it's enough of an improvement, and it could be a lot better with more averaged data points and smaller intervals.

[Greg G.]

Guys,

 

We need to balance accuracy vs simplicity. Probably most of those following and posting to this thread could deal with much more complex formulas, with minimal stress, and at least half would opt for more complex and increased accuracy, but unfortunately, this (we/you) are not a representative sample of all of our drivers. You are the ones that care the most, don't mind taking the extra time to figure things out, and understand the math. You will probably be surprised how many of your fellow drivers are going to complain that any change from Max HP is just too complicated, "and doesn't make sense." I cannot endorse any system for ST that requires data input into a black hole, and the driver needs to hope that the number spit back out is correct. Also, if we make this too complicated, then the goal of increasing participation by making things more fair will fail, because of the number of competitors leaving due to the complexity.

 

So, you both have it correct. This doesn't correct all issues with Dyno curves. But, I do agree that while we need to compare the "gamers" Dyno curves versus others, the better comparison for now is probably whether or not those with "natural" dyno curves are seeing a benefit versus the Peak HP rules, with a relatively simple formula. Like I said before, we are approaching Dynojet to see if they can do some software changes for us that could potentially make things simple, but open, but also perhaps allow us to go to the more accurate/smaller increments of rpm. The entire reason that we are only doing this for one class this year, is to give us some time to make sure that we can come up with the most practical solution before moving its use to the other classes.

[Greg G.]

The other side of the coin is if this is better (and to what degree) then we have now. If you are going to run the numbers, compare a flat "curve" vs. a traditional power curve as well. We know those will be different. If the new rule gets things a fair amount closer, than it's progress.

 

Good question, and easy to do:

New data set. Both motors have the same peak WHP, per the current rule set. One has a normal power curve, the other has a flat FI/TBW curve. Here's the new data set:

 

RPM FI NA

2500 200 200

3000 250 250

3500 300 280

4000 320 300

4500 323 316

4700 323 321

5000 323 323

5300 323 318

5500 323 312

6000 323 290

6500 323 250

 

 

 

RPM range 3500-6500: 16% more area for FI (per proposed rule 12% more area for FI)

RPM range 4000-6500: 18% more area for FI (per proposed rule 14% more area for FI)

RPM range 4500-6000: 7% more area for FI (per proposed rule 4% more area for FI)

 

So, there is some improvement with the proposed rule set. However, I don't think it's enough of an improvement, and it could be a lot better with more averaged data points and smaller intervals.

John,

 

I think that with the two different Dyno comparisons that you have posted, you have proven that while we could decrease the RPM intervals, and increase the number of data points, that expanding the RPM range past 1500 would only serve to allow increased gaming of the system by tuners creating "falsely low" areas of the Dyno curve where the competitor would never actually drive, but would be included in the average. Your first Dyno comparison almost shows how this could work. So, I think that your above comparisons, looking at calculations for 3000 rpm range or 2500 rpm range are not exactly real-world comparisons. As was pointed out previously, for most vehicles, the drop in rpm with an upshift is more like 1000-1500 rpm, so your third comparison is more accurate at 4500-6000 rpm. But, probably closer to reality for that curve is that the driver should be attempting to gear to stick as close to 4700-5500 as possible. Would having the long, flat HP curve be an advantage at times? Sure, if the driver is not perfect at keeping the rpm's in the correct range on turn exit, or perhaps there is a section of track that would require a quick upshift and downshift, and just staying in the lower gear would be better to avoid the shift times, the long, flat curve would be better. But, even if we went to a full Calculus formula, one could not account for whether a competitor is building those "false" sections of the Dyno curve, or actually using them....

[brkntrxn]

Greg,

 

Has any consideration been given by yourself and the NASA Execs on how this change to ST3 might affect those people with smaller roll cages that were built under the pre-2013 PTA rules? You and I had this discussion in 2012 standing in the tech shed at Mid-Ohio.

 

We can take the discussion off-line if you want. However, I know more than just my car is affected by the new power to weight ratio and corresponding heavier weight so I want to bring it up to everyone.

 

 

To clarify for everyone else that is thinking of adding weight to your car to get to the 10:1 ratio, you need to ensure your cage is built to be compliant with the higher car weight per the CCR. There is a definite size definer above and below the magic 3000lb mark for most of our cars.

 

 

CCR Page 46:

 

2501 - 3000 lbs

1.500” x 0.120” Seamless Alloy (4130), Seamless mild steel (CDS Mechanical) or DOM

1.750” x 0.095” Seamless Alloy (4130), Seamless mild steel (CDS Mechanical) or DOM

1.750” x 0.120” ERW* (No issuance of log books for cars with ERW cages) *Note- Specifications listed only for reference for inspection of grandfathered vehicles.

 

3001 - 4000 lbs

1.750” x .120” Seamless Alloy (4130), Seamless mild steel (CDS Mechanical) or DOM No ERW allowed.

[Sterling Doc]

^^ Good point. I almost panicked on this, before I found out that this weight is not a wet, post-race weight with driver.

15.6.18 Roll Cage Tubing Sizes

For the purposes of determining roll bar tubing sizes, vehicle weight is as raced, but without fuel and driver.

 

So if you car is close, you need to pack the pounds on yourself...

[J_Roberts]

John,

 

I think that with the two different Dyno comparisons that you have posted, you have proven that while we could decrease the RPM intervals, and increase the number of data points, that expanding the RPM range past 1500 would only serve to allow increased gaming of the system by tuners creating "falsely low" areas of the Dyno curve where the competitor would never actually drive, but would be included in the average. Your first Dyno comparison almost shows how this could work. So, I think that your above comparisons, looking at calculations for 3000 rpm range or 2500 rpm range are not exactly real-world comparisons. As was pointed out previously, for most vehicles, the drop in rpm with an upshift is more like 1000-1500 rpm, so your third comparison is more accurate at 4500-6000 rpm. But, probably closer to reality for that curve is that the driver should be attempting to gear to stick as close to 4700-5500 as possible. Would having the long, flat HP curve be an advantage at times? Sure, if the driver is not perfect at keeping the rpm's in the correct range on turn exit, or perhaps there is a section of track that would require a quick upshift and downshift, and just staying in the lower gear would be better to avoid the shift times, the long, flat curve would be better. But, even if we went to a full Calculus formula, one could not account for whether a competitor is building those "false" sections of the Dyno curve, or actually using them....

 

Yes I agree with the above, and what you posted just before this. I don't think the full calculus solution is practical either. I am using the area under the curve method as a good basis of comparison to quickly evaluate the differences between different sets of rules.

 

I think what I am stating boils down to this... I think the averaged HP method could work, and it improves things over the peak HP method. The more data points that are used in the average, the harder it will be to game the rule, because any peak tuning will have to get narrower and narrower, and thus gaming the rule becomes less and less beneficial, and harder to achieve. What you are looking into with DynoJet is going in that direction (or I think so from what you have said), so that's great! I also understand this is still complicated by the need to pick a RPM range to analyze, since even the calculus method would have a weakness in that respect. I'm not sure how to maximize equality for that variable.

 

As the owner/driver of a natural NA powered machine (bone-stock LS1) I'm glad to see something like this is being considered, especially if it works in ST3 and eventually works up to ST1 and ST2 (where I am at).

 

At any rate, I am really enjoying the discussion.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Guest

[loftygoals]

We need to balance accuracy vs simplicity. ...This doesn't correct all issues with Dyno curves. But, I do agree that while we need to compare the "gamers" Dyno curves versus others, the better comparison for now is probably whether or not those with "natural" dyno curves are seeing a benefit versus the Peak HP rules, with a relatively simple formula.

 

I will fully admit that I tend to favor a very analytical accurate approach over the simple, but in the vein of simplicity can't a non-calculated method be utilized to minimize that attempts to game the formula? I mean we are all racers, we will look to gain every legal advantage we can, even if this might be a gray area. Well, eliminate the legal gray area by spelling out the intent of rule and the formula and giving series directors the authority to revue the dyno plots for compliance. We have a lot of smart people around ST/TT, I'm fairly confident that "gaming" could easily be identified just by a visual inspection of the curve. If you can't tell by looking at the plot, then it isn't a big enough advantage to worry about.

 

 

But, even if we went to a full Calculus formula, one could not account for whether a competitor is building those "false" sections of the Dyno curve, or actually using them...

 

I have to disagree on this point. I have a great method for accounting for this, but it doesn't align well with the desire for simplicity, so I will refrain from getting into it here.

 

 

At any rate, I am really enjoying the discussion.

 

I 100% agree with John. The discussion is great. I think the transparency in the development of this rule/formula/process will help foster acceptance and support. I also think it was a great decision to pilot these changes in just one class before rolling it out series wide.

 

-bj

[7VO-VOM]

I think that with the two different Dyno comparisons that you have posted, you have proven that while we could decrease the RPM intervals, and increase the number of data points, that expanding the RPM range past 1500 would only serve to allow increased gaming of the system by tuners creating "falsely low" areas of the Dyno curve where the competitor would never actually drive, but would be included in the average.

As you are likely to pick up some dissatisfied GTS competitors next year, I will say that several of us pointed that out in the 2015 proposed rule change period. Their original proposal used a '30% of redline' range, when several cars with their stock gearbox only used ~20% and some as low as 15%. With custom gearing in a Cup car or a race sequential, that could easily be reduced to 10%. I think GTS ended up with 20%, but they never really told us. Going through a multitude of Google-sourced dyno plots with a couple other GTS drivers, we determined that 15% was ideal to cover the standard GTS competitor cars. I have no idea if that works well for the Vettes, STIs, and Evos I normally see out in ST.

[J_Roberts]

I have a great method for accounting for this, but it doesn't align well with the desire for simplicity, so I will refrain from getting into it here.

 

No, go ahead! Now I'm curious and want to hear it!

[loftygoals]

...

 

There's a better way to do this than a fixed percentage, but as I mentioned in my previous post it isn't simple. A 1500 RPM range is a decent compromise and provides better power leveling than the current "peak only" method.

 

-bj

[7VO-VOM]

There's a better way to do this than a fixed percentage, but as I mentioned in my previous post it isn't simple. A 1500 RPM range is a decent compromise and provides better power leveling than the current "peak only" method.

 

-bj

I don't disagree, nor am I advocating a fixed percentage. I am simply making a statement about the 2015 GTS rules process that is relevant to this discussion. I would lean toward a percentage difference for accuracy and avoiding 'gaming'. However, and RPM difference is FAR easier to measure/calculate/regulate for classing and compliance.

[Greg G.]

One thing to remember is that our formula is taking a 1500 rpm range for those with "normal" dyno curves. It is taking the highest data points from a range of 5000 rpm for those tuning for a flat curve.

[brkntrxn]

^^ Good point. I almost panicked on this, before I found out that this weight is not a wet, post-race weight with driver.

15.6.18 Roll Cage Tubing Sizes

For the purposes of determining roll bar tubing sizes, vehicle weight is as raced, but without fuel and driver.

 

So if you car is close, you need to pack the pounds on yourself...

 

 

Correct, but I am not getting fat for NASA.

[Ryan S.]

One thing to remember is that our formula is taking a 1500 rpm range for those with "normal" dyno curves. It is taking the highest data points from a range of 5000 rpm for those tuning for a flat curve.

 

I think the way this average rule is proposed negates the issues that I brought up and really squishes the ability to "legally cheat" as compared to the rule set initially proposed. I support the highest three data points either side of the peak horsepower number. I think that gets closer to what the rule is trying to do. However the enforcement is going to be tough, because every result now has the need to be individually formatted in order to provide the information to satisfy the rule.

 

I propose this for enforcement, it is comprised of three basic things;

 

1) It is the competitors responsibility to NOT get a print out, but a digital copy of the run file. It is the competitors responsibility to ensure that the run file can produce the needed information.

 

2) It is the responsibility of the series regional director to ensure and hold the "official" copies from which the classification horsepower is established. These will be copies of the competitor supplied run files and copies of the software that will be used to calculate the average HP to ensure rules compliance.

 

3) It will be the responsibility of NASA to provide in the public domain, to the competitors and regional directors copies of the software needed the generate the out put tables and do the calculations. These software are to be revision controlled, if NASA written, and stored in a public place free from modification for some period of time prior to being valid for the governance of an event. (IE the most recent release of a software used during a weekend shall been released no less than "some number of days" before the beginning of a weekend)

 

Now don't go balking at the idea of this software crap..... It's pretty simple. Winpep is a freeware correct..... NASA can go verify this and provide to us, the competitors and directors, a secured copy. Next NASA can go off and have written a spreadsheet that will take the output file from winpep (I'm assuming the file format is some sort of common delineated data format) that goes off and finds all of the points needed to do the average horsepower calculation, and have it spit back the number. Copies of this spreadsheet can be stored along side the winpep software.

 

Another proposal for the software, since Dynojet has a fairly (or unfairly) captive market in the NASA ranks, perhaps NASA can go straight to Dynojet and have them put together the needed widget in order to decompose a run file into the average horsepower that satisfies the rule set. Perhaps they can even make it an app.

 

That will take out any and all deliberate misinterpretation of what is needed to satisfy the rules, and severely hamper those hell bent on finite element type manipulation of tuning.

 

What say the masses?

[loftygoals]

No, go ahead! Now I'm curious and want to hear it!

 

Just remember, you asked for it...

 

 

This is a detailed post. My proposal far exceeds what could be accomplished for 2016, but is very feasible for future rule revisions.

 

 

To make my method work well and be easy for the officials to manage, there needs to be a process in place. So I will outline the process and the method both.

 

Collecting Data

 

The NASA registration system already has vehicle profiles as a part of registration. This system should be expanded to allow competitors to attach and store the actual dyno run file for their vehicle. Additionally support should be added for competitors to enter their gear ratio data. (More on this later)

 

When a user registers for an event and select an ST/TT class that requires average HP, it will prompt the user to attach the dyno run file and enter the gearing information if it isn’t already in the competitor’s profile.

 

Additionally, after registration a competitor should be allowed to change this data for the registered event up to TBD hours prior to the event.

 

The registration system will perform the average HP calculations for the class and provided as a detail of the registered competitor for use by the officials/series director.

 

 

Standalone App

 

An application should be created that is available for download that will accept the same data as the registration system (dyno run file and gearing data). This application should produce the same calculated average HP numbers as the registration system. At a minimum it should be made available for Windows platforms, but could also be ported to mobile platforms such as iOS and Android.

 

Uses:

 

1. At The Track Compliance
    
   The application could be used at the track to check compliance for late entries or when performing compliance data testing. A Windows application is suggested because that is what all the dyno systems operate on and would allow the calculations to be performed on the same machine that is running the dyno for compliance.
    
    
   
2. Competitor Self Compliance Checking
    
   It is important that competitors can self-verify compliance. The standalone app should be made available to competitors so they can verify compliance. Having an application that would function offline would allow average HP to be easily calculated at the dyno so adjustment can be made is necessary.
    
   This app could also be easily made to connect to a competitor’s online vehicle profile in the registration system. This would allow ease updates to the online system or the ability to pull profile data down to the app. Of course this feature of the app would require connectivity, but online/offline feature management is rather common in application development today.

 

 

Late Entries

 

The handling of late entries should be simple. When they competitor goes to registration at the track to sign up, they provide the required information including the dyno run file. The information is entered at registration and then a printout is provided to give to the series director with the average HP information.

 

If a competitor does not have the run file, it is handle just like if they don’t have a dyno sheet, today: they are placed in Unlimited until a dyno run file is provided.

 

Although this creates a bit more work for registration, they are well equipped to handle this as they already have computers and often connectivity, though connectivity would not be required for the calculation. It is also a natural extension of what is already done at registration as they already enter information about the competitor’s vehicle including class, number, transponder, etc.

 

 

Other Series

 

One of the benefits of this process, is it could be used for other series as well. If GTS wanted to use this same process, it could. The web based registration system could be smart enough to require and use different data, formulas, etc. based on the registered class.

 

It does have to be limited to dyno files, either. The same process could be used for managing classing forms in PT/TT, etc. We could do away with the paper form and attach the excel spreadsheet to the vehicle profile.

 

The standalone app could support multiple series as well. ST/TT and GTS could use the same application for compliance checking, again, even if the calculations for average HP are wildly different between the series.

 

 

Final Remarks Regarding the Process

 

This process will require cooperation from NASA management and some application development work. The benefits are well worth the efforts. Benefits include:

• The requirements for regional series directors are greatly reduced
  
• The amount of paper needed to be collected and dealt with at the track is reduced
  
• National series directors will gain more visibility to regional vehicles
  
• Allows the use of complex algorithms on submitted data
  
• Standardizing the process for all regions

 

 

Suggested Calculation Method

 

Method Overview

 

Calculate average HP over the RPM range of competitor’s entire power band. The power width of the power band will be a function of both transmission gearing and RPM in the engines operational range where the highest average occurs.

 

The Method in Steps

 

1. Calculate the average gear ratio spread from the data entered in the vehicle profile.
    
   This would be accomplished by calculating the percentage ratio change from gears 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, etc. and then averaging them. Note the 1-2 change is ignored because 1st is rarely if ever used on track and could skew the average.
    
   This is important, because transmission gearing can greatly impact the width of the power band. The narrower the band, the easier it is to stay at optimal operating power. Thus it is important to know with width of the vehicles operating power band.
    
    
   
2. Calculate the HP averages from the dyno run file.
    
   Using the actual dyno run files would allow a much greater data resolution. Gone would be 500/100/50 RPM increments. It would use every data point in a given range at the dyno’s native sampling rate.
    
   Averages would be computed from the top down starting at the highest measured RPM. For example if the highest RPM in the data file was 8000 RPMs, then the algorithm would start at 8000 and work down.
    
   For the first average, it would computer the average from 8000 down to the bottom of the usable power band based on the average gear ratio change. If the average calculated is 30%, then the averaged power band would be 5600-8000, because 5600-8000 is 30% of the available revenge.
    
   The system continues to computer averages with in as fine of steps as the provided data allows. If you have power data for every RPM, then the next range computed would be 7999-5599. This would continue until there isn’t enough data to evaluate a complete power band.
    
   Because the power band is computed as a percentage of the upper RPM in the range being evaluated, the power band correctly gets narrower as the RPM range gets lower. For example, when calculating using the same 30% average ratio spread at an upper RPM of 6000, the lower bound would be 4200. Thus the evaluation at an upper limit of 8000 RPMs is 600 RPMs wider than the evaluation at an upper limit of 6000 RPMs.
    
   Because we are evaluating the entire RPM range, the number of averages computed for a single dyno run file could be thousands. This is quick task for modern computer, though.
    
    
   
3. The highest average HP from the computed averages is returned as the Average HP.
    
   This method works well because it considers both the operating range of power band and the size of the usable power band based on the actual vehicle. When you consider the resolution of the data as well, it become nearly impossible to gain an advantage by reshaping the overall dyno curve because you are always evaluating the entire operating range of the motor and choosing the highest average usable power band. If the power is artificially lowered outside the usable range, it cannot impact the average.

 

 

Arguments against this Proposal

 

Some might complain that this would be the beginnings of making a spec class. My response is racing is supposed to be about competition. This is why a series is further divided into classes. For classes to work, there has to be an area that is controlled and regulated to create an opportunity for success for all entries.

 

While this proposal may reduce the effectiveness of powertrain engineering, that’s is the whole point of ST/TT--the controlled and regulate area is the ratio of power to weight. We are changing the way power is measured because advances have allowed power to be engineered beyond the scope of the original rules considered.

 

In some ways, powertrain engineering gets more interesting. Under the 2015 peak HP rules, the most advantageous power curve was a flat one. With the introduction of fair averaging, there could be advantages to various shapes, including flat.

[TWI]

Can we just go ahead and rename the class STPhD? It rhymes with ST3

 

In all seriousness, I think the current "best 4 out of 10" is a good compromise. It is harder to game than the "best 2 out of 3" approach that was initially proposed, but it will give a preference to some over others. My math says it gives and advantage to a steeper HP curve, assuming you have the gearing to take advantage of it, but the peak HP previously used in ST3 and used in the other ST classes gave/gives an advantage to a flat HP curve. As Orwell said, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

 

It has been said before you pick your car and you race with its warts and I think that is what needs to happen in the ST classes. You can't legislate equality, but what I think is most important thing for the health of the class is to legislate consistently. If I had a PTA car that I had to built into a ST3 car at considerable expense because PTA went away and then two years later the ball was moved significantly on the rule set for ST3, I'd be pissed.

 

I appreciate all of the comments, suggestions, analysis that have been posted and the reaction by NASA staff to the input.

[davidfarmer]

this is all getting too complicated, just isn't necessary for most cases. If we are getting 50rpm data anyway, why not just give a 1000rpm average either centered around the peak....or scaled down as needed if your peak is at redline.

 

Simply import your Winpep file into excel, and use the "average" function centered around peak.

 

peak at 6250, average from 5750-6750. If redline is at 6500, then average from 5500-6500 etc

 

[stevensa]

Can we just go ahead and rename the class STPhD? It rhymes with ST3

 

In all seriousness, I think the current "best 4 out of 10" is a good compromise. It is harder to game than the "best 2 out of 3" approach that was initially proposed, but it will give a preference to some over others. My math says it gives and advantage to a steeper HP curve, assuming you have the gearing to take advantage of it, but the peak HP previously used in ST3 and used in the other ST classes gave/gives an advantage to a flat HP curve. As Orwell said, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

 

It has been said before you pick your car and you race with its warts and I think that is what needs to happen in the ST classes. You can't legislate equality, but what I think is most important thing for the health of the class is to legislate consistently. If I had a PTA car that I had to built into a ST3 car at considerable expense because PTA went away and then two years later the ball was moved significantly on the rule set for ST3, I'd be pissed.

 

I appreciate all of the comments, suggestions, analysis that have been posted and the reaction by NASA staff to the input.

 

I agree 100%. I can't wait till the new rules are officially posted on the 1st so that I can hit the dyno, back out a bit of power, add a bit of weight and go out and have fun racing again in January!

[Ryan S.]

this is all getting too complicated, just isn't necessary for most cases. If we are getting 50rpm data anyway, why not just give a 1000rpm average either centered around the peak....or scaled down as needed if your peak is at redline.

 

Simply import your Winpep file into excel, and use the "average" function centered around peak.

 

peak at 6250, average from 5750-6750. If redline is at 6500, then average from 5500-6500 etc

 

If the rules fix the rpm range from which the average is calculated without regard to the power being generated in the rpm range, that leads back to the same problem as proposed by the initial rule set. The HP points used in the average need to be selected based upon some criteria bounding the points to the maximum HP..... like what is currently being proposed. In the link below is an example of where this fixed rpm band falls apart. Both are being averaged from 5750 to 6750, I would hope that not much explanation is needed but here is a little spiel for those that need it;

 

If the rules state that the dyno test goes to redline, and the average will be calculated from the curve bound by some fixed RPM interval around the rpm point where the peak HP number is generated, what will happen is the averaging equation will tell the competitor where the power can be low and where the power can be high. This says make the low power as low as possible, then do the math to figure out how high the high can be. Conversely, the proposed set says to look at both sides of the peak through a 2500rpm bound and choose the highest 3 points, that no longer bounds the average equation to a fixed RPM range. IE That removes from interpretation where the power can be low and where the power can be high, the average is now based upon the highest four data points, not specified rpm points. The rule set could even be set up to say the curve will be divided into RPM increments of some number based upon the rpm where the peak occurs and then some number of those highest points will be chosen for the average.

 

And piece-wise integration of the power curve for area won't get you there either unless MAX RPM becomes subject to the rule set.

 

https://goo.gl/photos/4teZ7b9CY3zF2Pe18

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5sTypBDDKXuWUxIeWtfTEN4MUE

[davidfarmer]

just offering alternatives.....I'm for the max 4 points method, but then there are people that think they can run a car with an 800rpm power range and game the system. So some want wide data ranges, some say we need narrow data ranges. I can build power either way, just trying to help come up with something that works for "normal" power curves, helps extremely "peaky" power curves, and mostly eliminates extreme cases.

 

I could really care less, I was fine with a Peak number, and I'm fine with any of the proposed suggestions. I'm happy with the 10:1 number as well, but I really think if things are very complicated we will scare away new competitors. You should be able to grab a power printout, highlight the peak, and easily pick the other numbers (whatever they may be) for a quick calculation!

[drivinhardz06]

While I can appreciate the math, if the class is supposed to attract new participants, the last thing to make it attractive to new blood is to have them understand/fill out a 79 page power/gearing/formula dossier.

 

Back when it was PTA, explaining the points mods to new interested people was bad enough.

[Sboxin]

Can we just go ahead and rename the class STPhD? It rhymes with ST3

 

In all seriousness, I think the current "best 4 out of 10" is a good compromise. It is harder to game than the "best 2 out of 3" approach that was initially proposed, but it will give a preference to some over others. My math says it gives and advantage to a steeper HP curve, assuming you have the gearing to take advantage of it, but the peak HP previously used in ST3 and used in the other ST classes gave/gives an advantage to a flat HP curve. As Orwell said, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

 

It has been said before you pick your car and you race with its warts and I think that is what needs to happen in the ST classes. You can't legislate equality, but what I think is most important thing for the health of the class is to legislate consistently. If I had a PTA car that I had to built into a ST3 car at considerable expense because PTA went away and then two years later the ball was moved significantly on the rule set for ST3, I'd be pissed.

 

I appreciate all of the comments, suggestions, analysis that have been posted and the reaction by NASA staff to the input.

 

I agree 100%. I can't wait till the new rules are officially posted on the 1st so that I can hit the dyno, back out a bit of power, add a bit of weight and go out and have fun racing again in January!

 

We fit in this category - build a competitive PTA car . . . have to move to ST3 because no more PTA . . . modify to be competitive in ST3 at 9.01 . . . and now have to rebuild to go into ST2 and probably not be competitive - just for the "fun of racing" . . .

 

NASA may lose some racers because of continuing rules changes . . . the KISS principle still works . . . just sayin'

 

Regards,