Jump to content

2016 Proposed ST Rules Revisions


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

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

 

Maybe we are trying to fix a problem that not enough people are concerned about. Maybe the whole thing should be left alone. If changing the rules and adding perceived complexity will drive people away, then leave it alone and let everybody just go race!

 

On the other hand as Greg mentioned, if leaving the rules the same causes people to feel like you must drive car "X" or switch to a motor that can be detuned to be competitive then that might also drive people away.

 

As for which view is right, I'm certainly not in a position to make a call on that. I do think the wrong thing to do is compromise between the two and come up with changes that may not fully address the issue or will cause additional rule changes in the future. This won't make anyone happy.

 

-bj

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

For any of you proposing "common core math" equations and software derivatives, I want you to call your Regional Super Touring Director and ask them how they would use your rules on a typical Saturday morning at an weekend event. Better yet, volunteer to take over from them for a weekend and see how you would handle registering a new racer and more importantly, ensuring compliance with the new ruleset. How would you use your complicated rules to attract a new driver that has never competed before?

 

Keep it simple or people will not come. More importantly, keep it simple or people will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want you to call your Regional Super Touring Director and ask them how they would use your rules on a typical Saturday morning at an weekend event.

If you bothered to read my post you would have seen I proposed a methodology that reduced the amount of work a Series Director needs to do on the weekend. I proposed not only a system for more accurately calculating usable average horsepower, but also a workflow for dealing with the new requirements.

 

 

Better yet, volunteer to take over from them for a weekend and see how you would handle registering a new racer and more importantly, ensuring compliance with the new ruleset.

Sure. If NASA and ST/TT implemented something similar to what I proposed, there would be less work for the Regional Series Directors, not more.

 

 

How would you use your complicated rules to attract a new driver that has never competed before?

What I proposed might not attract a single person, it might cause some current racers to stick around, it might cause some to leave, or it might make people show up in droves. Ultimately the rules aren't there to attract people. They are there to create some basic competition.

 

The rules can drive people away or keep them from ever joining if there is a perception (accurate or not) that the current rules favor some cars/engines/etc more than others.

 

 

Keep it simple or people will not come. More importantly, keep it simple or people will leave.

Simple, what about ST/TT is simple? In some regards it seems like a bait and switch series. It is billed as a simple power to weight class. I heard it said many times, "Just go get a dyno and get weighed and then go race." Then you look into it and there are pages of stuff I can't do to my car. There are factors for drive configurations, transmissions, tires, engine location, specific factors for cars, etc. There's even a modification factor for weight--that's the one that really gets me. So it is power to weight, biased by weight? Then of course to be able to be classed I have to get dyno'd. At the dyno I have to know to how to verify that SAE correction and the smoothing factor were set correctly, because 98% of the time the dyno operator won't bother to look at the form I handed them.

 

Now, I sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm not. Everything I mentioned above is there to make things fair and to create competition. That's why I really like this series. I think ST/TT has a great rule set, it just isn't as simple as it is made out to be.

 

Now for the complexity of my solution, I will admit it is more complicated than A+B=C. But the most complicated math in the whole thing is calculating an average. The application required to do the calculations is something that could be written by a 6th grader in an intro to programming class. None of that matters though, because the whole thing becomes a tool. You plug in a few numbers, upload a file, and you are done. Registering for this forum is more complicated.

 

Every single competitor relies on a dyno for compliance. The calculations the dyno software does are much more complicated than what I propose. A Dynojet doesn't even measure horsepower: it measures the RPMs of the drum over time. It uses that to calculate acceleration. Then calculates horsepower based on the calculated acceleration and the mass of the drum. Torque isn't measured either. It is calculated from the calculated horsepower and the data logged RPMs from the engine. So there's a bunch of physics and math used to spit out that horsepower dyno graph. Should we stop using a dyno because it isn't simple? Of course not, because it's just a tool we use. That's exactly what I'm proposing this system could be as well.

 

 

For any of you proposing "common core math" equations...

This made me chuckle. Man, am I glad my kid isn't school age, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. If NASA and ST/TT implemented something similar to what I proposed, there would be less work for the Regional Series Directors, not more.

 

You have obviously never babysat 45 racers on a competitive weekend. Good luck to you when you sit in for your regional director. I am sure Will will be happy to assist you. Or maybe you can pull Ken off to the side to help out without being seen.

 

I deal with bigshot corporate type-A personalities for a living. Those same personalities are fueled by adrenaline and gasoline on a race weekend. Add in the "new guy" that wants to play with his buddies and it is messy to get them to understand the process and rules. In the middle of that discussion, have another racer ask you to "check" the paperwork on another racer because he "can't keep up with him." Oh, and try to get your own brake job and tire swap accomplished in the middle of all of this. Volunteer jobs are soooooo rewarding.

 

 

 

This made me chuckle. Man, am I glad my kid isn't school age, yet.

 

I am not jealous of you. Good luck. My two are in college and AP Calc was beyond me when my youngest took it last year in HS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the new method of using average hp is being implemented, shouldn't the 'Rotary Engine (2 rotors or less, 1 turbo or less) +0.3' and 'Naturally Aspirated Engine (1.9L or less) +0.3' mod factors be removed? These mod factors were meant to help this engines but now the new average hp method will be used to level the performance of different engine platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have obviously never babysat 45 racers on a competitive weekend...

 

Kevin,

 

You are absolutely right, I haven't. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that being a Regional ST Director is an easy job, just that I was proposing a workflow to keep it from being any more difficult. The guys I know that are and have been Regional and National Directors do it because they love this sport and the series they are supporting. They don't do it for a free entry fee--it certainly isn't worth all the BS they have to deal with to save $300. I know it is a thankless job, although I'm thankful for those that do it.

 

Would it be a fun job--nope. Would I do it--yup. I'd be happy to support ST or TT in that capacity. I'm not just here to make noise on the Internet. I truly want to help the series continue to succeed.

 

To everyone else, sorry for the interruption. Back to discussion about these rules...

 

-bj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

I totally agree. I think the 4 data points are perfect and simple. They cover 1500 RPM which is plenty do determine the average and should be very easy to grab from the dyno data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Since the new method of using average hp is being implemented, shouldn't the 'Rotary Engine (2 rotors or less, 1 turbo or less) +0.3' and 'Naturally Aspirated Engine (1.9L or less) +0.3' mod factors be removed? These mod factors were meant to help this engines but now the new average hp method will be used to level the performance of different engine platforms.

Until the formula is proven to be working, we will keep these for this year. But, theoretically, you are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly object to changing the ST3 Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio from 9.0 to 10.0

This change forces us to again move higher up in class which cost time and money.

 

Thank you for considering my feedback on this subject.

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it doesn't work out for me either, keep in mind the difference is not as big as it seems.

 

Aero went from a penalty to a bonus if you don't run it. If you ran aero before, then you went from 9.4 to 10. If you did not run aero, you went from 9.0 to 9.6. Then the dyno curve calculation will also give back a little, or more than a little, depending on how peaky your motor is.

 

That said, I'm already between classes, and is likely to push me to ST2, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aero went from a penalty to a bonus if you don't run it. If you ran aero before, then you went from 9.4 to 10. If you did not run aero, you went from 9.0 to 9.6.

 

The aero mod factor for ST3/TT3 is 0.4 not 0.6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aero mod factor for ST3/TT3 is 0.4 not 0.6.

 

Yes but the difference between the 2015 rules and the 2016 rules is .6

 

He was saying that the difference between a 2015 aero car (9.4) and a 2016 aero car (10.0) is .6 while the aero mod factor stays at .4

 

Greg, I think you're right we better keep the hp calculation as simple as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aero mod factor for ST3/TT3 is 0.4 not 0.6.

 

Yes but the difference between the 2015 rules and the 2016 rules is .6

 

He was saying that the difference between a 2015 aero car (9.4) and a 2016 aero car (10.0) is .6 while the aero mod factor stays at .4

 

Greg, I think you're right we better keep the hp calculation as simple as possible

 

Got it! Obviously long wk for me already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
sorry for the confusion. I just want there to be a decision and move on.

Guys,

We are still working on discussions with Dynojet. Unless they can do some special software tweaks for us, we will leave the rules as they are currently drafted. If they can, then potentially we can go to 250 rpm increments with 6 data points plus Max HP.

However, the rules are written and ready to publish on Dec 1st.

Here is what they say:

 

8.2 ST3/TT3 Average Horsepower Calculation

 

New for 2016: The number used for calculating the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for the ST3 (and TT3) class(es) will no longer be the maximum horsepower of the three Dyno runs. It will be a calculated average giving a better approximation of the maximum horsepower available over a range of usable RPM. For pre-competition testing, the Dyno test with the highest maximum horsepower will be used to calculate this average (not an average of the three Dyno runs) as

follows (all horsepower numbers will be rounded to the nearest whole number before any calculations):

 

Avg HP = Average HP calculated and used in in the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio

Max HP = Maximum horsepower shown on the actual Dyno graph

 

The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s 50 RPM data export numeric RPM/HP table printout:

 

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm greater than Max HP rpm

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm less than Max HP rpm

 

(If any of the above data points at higher RPM than Max HP RPM do not exist due to redline, then those potential data points will not be used in the calculation of Avg HP.)

 

The three (3) highest data points of the above ten (10) will be used in the calculation below:

Avg HP = Max HP +(sum of the three highest data points), then divide by 4 (written out for the forums due to formatting)

 

note: (It is anticipated that in ’17, this formula will be adopted for all TT/PT/ST classes)

 

Oh, and I changed Ave HP to Avg HP just for you Mr. Smith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should this "The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s 50 RPM data export numeric RPM/HP table printout:" say 500RPM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should this "The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s 50 RPM data export numeric RPM/HP table printout:" say 500RPM?

 

No, my read of it is that it is worded correctly. The 50rpm export as referenced describes the granularity of the data needed, the 500rpm tranches are the relevant measurement points above and below the peak but be used to calculate the average hp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should this "The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s 50 RPM data export numeric RPM/HP table printout:" say 500RPM?

 

No, my read of it is that it is worded correctly. The 50rpm export as referenced describes the granularity of the data needed, the 500rpm tranches are the relevant measurement points above and below the peak but be used to calculate the average hp.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I typed "but be used" rather than "to be used" - that is too far off to blame on autocorrect.

 

Hopefully Greg G. and NASA will get the accommodation they need from Dynojet to be able to use 250rpm measurement points for the calculation, but either way I agree with David let's get it set by 12/1 so we can move on getting prepped for 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they can do some special software tweaks for us, we will leave the rules as they are currently drafted. If they can, then potentially we can go to 250 rpm increments with 6 data points plus Max HP.

 

So maybe this is a dumb question, but why is special software from Dynojet needed to implement 250 RPM increments with 6 data points + Max HP? The procedure is the same as the proposed one, just more data points to average, right? I'm missing something here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they can do some special software tweaks for us, we will leave the rules as they are currently drafted. If they can, then potentially we can go to 250 rpm increments with 6 data points plus Max HP.

 

So maybe this is a dumb question, but why is special software from Dynojet needed to implement 250 RPM increments with 6 data points + Max HP? The procedure is the same as the proposed one, just more data points to average, right? I'm missing something here.

Probably has to do with the ability to drill down to 250 RPM increments vs 500 RPM increments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they can do some special software tweaks for us, we will leave the rules as they are currently drafted. If they can, then potentially we can go to 250 rpm increments with 6 data points plus Max HP.

 

So maybe this is a dumb question, but why is special software from Dynojet needed to implement 250 RPM increments with 6 data points + Max HP? The procedure is the same as the proposed one, just more data points to average, right? I'm missing something here.

 

Hopefully what they are doing is getting the software to do the averaging work for us...... you know remove confusion and creative interpretation. Hopefully what they produce will also make the tuning sessions easier, therefore less expensive, if there is software able to do the averagng work in real time. We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Unless they can do some special software tweaks for us, we will leave the rules as they are currently drafted. If they can, then potentially we can go to 250 rpm increments with 6 data points plus Max HP.

 

So maybe this is a dumb question, but why is special software from Dynojet needed to implement 250 RPM increments with 6 data points + Max HP? The procedure is the same as the proposed one, just more data points to average, right? I'm missing something here.

 

Hopefully what they are doing is getting the software to do the averaging work for us...... you know remove confusion and creative interpretation. Hopefully what they produce will also make the tuning sessions easier, therefore less expensive, if there is software able to do the averagng work in real time. We shall see.

That's what we are hoping for. But, we are already working on our own software as well, that perhaps we could have put into our Dyno operators' computers, to spit out the number quickly after each run. We'll see. We might be able to put a version of it out there for our drivers/tuners to use as well, but maintain another version for compliance that cannot be messed with. Again, we'll see. For now, the easiest solution is the one that we go with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...