Detuning

[7VO-VOM]

"Detuning" seems to be a controversial and very misunderstood subject within GTS. GTS is a power to weight group of classes. This is a simple method of enforcement and largely is used (outside of money) as the basis for equalizing performance in professional racing. Of course, professional racing has far more granular (and profitable) methods of "balancing" performance, however power to weight is the most equitable method of performance method within club racing's scope.

 

Our GTS National Director defined extreme de-tuning as:

engines claiming in some cases 40 to 50% reduction of power to fit sometimes into the ratios of 2 classes below expected.

 

"Extreme" is a completely subjective term. I have not seen a single GTS competitor reduce their peak HP anywhere near that level. The current East Coast Championships GTS3 winner is probably the closest. I have not seen his dyno sheets, but he supposedly is around 250HP. BMW claims 333HP at the crank. In reality, that is 265-275HP stock at the wheels. That means the 'worst' offender is 'detuning' an unrealistic 25% and a realistic 6%. Personally, my car is 345-355HP stock at the wheels compared to the 414 BMW claims. The NASA certification dyno is 300.1HP peak and 296HP under the 2015 rules. Using the worst case 296 and 355HP, I have "detuned" 16.6% from stock. That is 1/3 of the "extreme" defined to justify a change from the simple and fair power to weight ratio that currently governs GTS.

 

Yes, that is correct. The "evil" V8s in GTS3 are being "detuned" at absolute worst a whole 17%, if you round up. That is smaller than the variance from bottom to top in HP among GTS3 competitors at East Coast Champonships. This "perceived" cheater didn't finish anywhere near the top of the podium at East Coast Championships. The other GTS3 E92 M3 didn't show up. It has now been sold. I guess its multiple National Championship-winning owner grew tired of "perception" being misinterpreted as reality.

 

As has been posted elsewhere:

"If you run power to weight, we don’t care how you made the horsepower or which parts you use in the engine, cams, headers, pistons and things like that. All we want to see is the dyno sheet for classification purposes." - Ryan Flaherty, NASA National Chairman

I don't see "natural", "BMW", "Porsche", "S54", "S65", "9A1" or any other brand or model specific labeling in that published quote.

 

Horsepower is defined as: torque (in ftlb) x RPM / 5252

 

HP = HP It's that simple. How it's generated, or what generated it is irrelevant.

 

* I use ECC and MA as my references, partially based on my experiences, and partially based on MG referencing MA as the largest participation NASA region.

[Michael G.]

Can you give the math for S54s in GTS2 (I am not even referring for some rare examples of S65s tuned for 2)?

Also, with the reference of the drive train loss from stock, let's factor upgraded intake, exhaust, etc. I am not even mentioning internal work on the engine.

Most healthy race worthy S54s are dynoed at around 300 to wheels. Most of the S54s in GTS4 are in 320 territory - and those are technically completely stock (not stroked or bored). Now the math you offered looks somewhat different. The S54 has to be around 200 to wheels in GTS2.

We have examples of S65s at 260 in GTS3.

 

Michael.

[7VO-VOM]

The MA E92 M3 that was just sold was around 280HP. He also dropped his redline by over 1000rpms to improve reliability. Factory redline is 8500. His shift lights were at 7300 and mine are 8000. The swapped cars may have to drop more HP to avoid adding an excessive amount of ballast because an E46 weighs a few hundred pounds less than an E92. My car with no ballast and 2 gallons of gas is at minimum weight for GTS3.

 

You can't use cars with $4k headers and $3k carbon fiber intakes as the basis for detuning. I chose an S65 so I could reduce output for reliability and so I didn't have to buy a lot of expensive bolt-ons to make power. Does it really matter if somebody spends $6+4+3+1k on an S54 to make 300HP or spends $10+1k on an S65 to make the exact same HP (peak or 2015 average)?

 

Other than discussing with you running GTS2 with my car at ECC due to a bad tune, I haven't looked at GTS2 numbers closely. My guess would be that S54s in 2 are 200-220HP. A worst case of 275 dropping to 200 would be 27%. I asked somebody else to post here with 2 information.

[daytonars4]

I'm sorry to have to break the news to you Micheal, but my car isn't anywhere near 320whp max. My S54 in my e36 chasis (which can't run the massive exhaust they use in e46s without chasis modifications to get that power) can't break 300whp. For reference my motor is from a 29k mile Z4M and fully refreshed. My actual max was around 298whp. Trust me, Randy tried with tuning a couple times. My max tune includes a CSL intake upgrade. The other e36 in MA with an S54 with a non-CSL setup is in the 290whp range. So using 333 as the basis for "detuning" just isn't fair or reasonable in real world situations in an e36 chasis. My GTS2 tune is 211whp which represents a detune of about 27%. I think Ron is racing at 220whp. So his detune from his 290whp max is 24%. So the "extreme detunes" you are referring to certainly don't exist in MA. If you take an actual stock e46 dyno it's around 265-280whp which means the true "detune" is even less.

 

But if they did exist, I think the better question is to ask why should anyone care? What is the data that has shown that a car with a 50% detune has an unfair acceleration advantage. I've said this a few times now. I have video and data of my car from this entire year and have not seen this benefit from the detune. There are a few guys who raced at Nationals with S52's who will tell you that on the back straight at VIR they were as fast or faster than both me and Ron.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Guest

[Michael G.]

Again, I am referring to the majority of dyno documents we see across the board and you don't need expensive carbon intake or headers to get S54 above the street level of 275. The average Dyno on mildly prepared S54 with couple simple bolt ons are at 290+ for GTS3 and all of the GTS4 cars start at 315 to 320 and more. In order to get that engine to GTS2 you need to drop close to 100 HP and in some cases even more.

 

How would you define mild vs. extreme de-tune?

 

Michael.

[daytonars4]

Again, I am referring to the majority of dyno documents we see across the board and you don't need expensive carbon intake or headers to get S54 above the street level of 275. The average Dyno on mildly prepared S54 with couple simple bolt ons are at 290+ for GTS3 and all of the GTS4 cars start at 315 to 320 and more. In order to get that engine to GTS2 you need to drop close to 100 HP and in some cases even more.

 

How would you define mild vs. extreme de-tune?

 

Michael.

 

 

I'm guessing you didn't see my post when you made your response? Ron and I aren't detuning anywhere near 100whp. The max we stated is our max. With upgraded vanos, rod bearings, etc. The e46's in GTS4 you are trying to compare us to are all running 3.5" exhaust and huge headers which can not just be bolted on to an e36. They are probably also running upgraded cams. A larger exhaust requires some chassis modification to fit it in an e36 along with pulling the motor to install headers such as what Epic sells. So why set the standard for our detune based on a setup none of us can even reasonably run?

 

We have spent a ton of time talking about the perception of cheating caused by detuning without 1 person presenting actual documentation as to the benefit that the detune gives. So let's spend a little time on real world examples. I am the poster child for perceived cheating. In my first year of racing, 8th race ever, I finished P2 at Nationals in GTS2 with an e36 S54 with Koni single adjustable suspension. I must have motored by people right? Yet you can watch the video (Which includes a lap 3 PR of over 1 second) that I didn't motor by a single person. It was either dead even or I was slightly negative to the S52's on the back straight the entire race, except the last few laps when I had a misfire but already secured the position. I can also provide an overlay of my data compared to S52's for anyone interested. I've probably looked at more GTS2 data than anyone this year bc that's how I got better. I wish the S54 did give a straight line edge, but the data says it doesn't.

 

If I figure out how to post the data I will to this thread. But for now, the race starts at 6 minutes. It's actually quite an amazing thing to see how great power to weight works with various motors/tunes/drivers all in the same ballpark on the straight. With the edge oddly enough being the S52. The white e36 is the other S54 car that started P5 next to me. So the 2 e36 S54 cars had the 5th and 6th fastest lap times of the weekend. Maybe it's the S52's we need to ban?! The focus needs to be on compliance. Having a power to weigh class where only weight is regulated leaves a massive gap in compliance that no rule can fill.

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Guest

[7VO-VOM]

Again, I am referring to the majority of dyno documents we see across the board and you don't need expensive carbon intake or headers to get S54 above the street level of 275. The average Dyno on mildly prepared S54 with couple simple bolt ons are at 290+ for GTS3 and all of the GTS4 cars start at 315 to 320 and more. In order to get that engine to GTS2 you need to drop close to 100 HP and in some cases even more.

 

How would you define mild vs. extreme de-tune?

 

Michael.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are defining a detune by bolting on parts and tuning UP the car for your basis. If you bolt a turbo on, you can make 550HP out of an S54. Why not use that as your basis? Now you can claim people are detuning by 60%. The only realistic way to measure how much a car is detuned if from a stock, unmodified, untuned engine. If you want, I can have mine dynoed to give you a baseline for an unmodified and untuned 99k mile S54 on a NASA certified Dynojet.

 

I still don't understand how or why this is a topic of discussion for a rules change. If you are making the same HP with one car versus another, it does not matter how you arrive at that power. At the same weight, with the same drag, the car will accelerate the same either way. That is the beauty of GTS and the power to weight formula for classification.

[mcdonaldsracing]

From my post on the other thread:

 

So take my car for example: I'm running an s62 (in an e46m3) now with a published hp of 394, but in actuality puts down more like 330-340whp (from the factory). I ran my car at 296whp this past year, which would mean I detuned the car 13% (using 340 as the starting point). That is hardly an extreme detune, but if I had to guess I'd say that a car like mine is one that is being targeted. Point is, stop distorting things by saying people are detuning 40-50%! I'm not sure if that would even be possible if you're comparing apples to apples (factory whp to declared whp).

 

Also FWIW, I am running a dry sump system simply b/c the e46 subframe wouldn't allow me to run the stock oil pan (trust me, I would've rather not had to spend the $6-$8k on the stupid dry sump). I am also running manifolds from an x5, which are anything but a performance upgrade for that motor. In fact, they are more restrictive than even the stock set that comes on the s62.

[Michael G.]

We can massage numbers back and forth and claim the range of dynoes for S54 from someone's 275 stock to my 296 stock or many others we see submitted by drivers. The question - is the reason for the swap to gain performance advantage? Mechanically de-tuned S52 for the GTS2 loosing bunch TQ. Electronically de-tuned S54 or S65 maintains a ton of TQ with lowering peak HP (as well as flat HP curve). In addition to that, hypothetically speaking (please, don't take this personally ), switching from electronically 'de-tuned" to "non-detuned" condition is very easy. At the same time, unless there is manpower and equipment available for officials - policing is practically impossible. At least, in the situation of mechanical restrictor - there is a reference or possibility to check. What would you do, if you find (by accident) that in addition to the blown dyno, the engine's red line magically moved from claimed 7500 to 8200 RPM? At most Regional events - there is not even a chance to detect it.

 

I understand that we have the open Rule that allows to do whatever you want as long as you arrive to certain number. That Rule was written 10 years ago. Time changed and our ability to confirm the number diminished significantly. You must realize that we are not alone in the situation like that. Many pro - sanctioning bodies as well as Clubs are on the same boat facing similar issues and searching for solutions. We never expected a bunch of cars coming to race and trying to loose power. Naturally, you expect cars to keep or increase the power.

 

There are few different view points on a subject, including the opinion from National office to limit the power and TQ.

 

It is a two fold issue - potential advantages of swaps/detunes and our inability to police.

 

There are few directions the Rules may go, but dismissing the issue as non-relevant is not an option. We might be dealing with the situation differently, if we would have the resources and the staff to address the compliance.

 

I am personally in favor of mechanical de-tuning - at least we can check the presence of the plate. You will be surprised how much restriction needed just to drop few HP. To choke down S65 to 260 or S54 to 200 mechanically is a task. So even to drop 25% would be extreme.

 

So, what is wrong with the idea of racing the car where it belongs with in narrow range of detuning?

 

Michael G.

[mcdonaldsracing]

But Michael, the only way most of us (in fact, all of us in MA) can change our tunes is to switch our dme's. There's absolutely no way that we can change our tunes on the fly, in car. All of us that have other tunes, have another separate dme that we have to physically change. The only guys that you'd have to worry about changing tunes on the fly are the ones with aftermarket engine mgmt systems that would allow that. If that is what you're worried about, then I would look at ways to police aftermarket engine mgmt systems rather than trying to police detuning.

[Michael G.]

We are really trying to avoid developing separate protocols for aftermarket vs. stock management. National wants compliance and simple Rules.

I am not suggesting that someone switching DMEs on the fly. But as I mentioned above, we had situations when the "de-tuned" DME was found to be not very de-tuned. But the reality is that as of now, we don't even have the protocol in Rules to ID the DMEs. None of the DMEs are marked or numbered or related to the dyno papers. You in MA and at Nationals were scrutinized very differently from the way it works at most event in the most Regions - with no Dyno and no Black Boxes - it is simply word of the driver.

 

Yes, the whiners and complainers might be back markers or driving under developed cars. But it takes only one car to be caught - to justify the complaints. And what they say - with no dyno and no Black Boxes at the track - driver can put any DME of choice. The conversations like that certainly affect the moral of the series.

 

We have an ongoing joke of Sunday Tune or G-Tune (we have dyno mostly on Saturdays). We had situations when de-tuned car was dynoed twice in course of the same day showing drastically different numbers. Was it switched DME or unstable map? Certainly, could be the fault of the dyno operator, but if other 10 cars right on the money - unlikely. I am sure there are many variables and it may not be fair to paint all with the same brush, but from the perspective of the people in charge of the organizations, we should find the way to straighten things and organize with in the available resources.

 

The long and vocal exchange on the FB recently brought by few ST guys accusing GTS drivers in cheating doesn't help the impression we made of the series.

 

So, back to the original question - how do we deal with all those issues at once? I see it as a combination of steps -

1. work on the impound and compliance protocols,

2. work on PR,

3. work on Rules,

4. establish transparency by mandatory upload of the dyno to the website and public access to it, as well as open access to Black Boxes data.

5. Ask National Office to share their long term and short term vision of GTS with drivers.

 

Anything I missed?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Then there's also the tq issue....last year national leadership and I'm guessing some directors established that tq doesn't matter. I'm sure we could go back and find those threads pretty easily, unless for some reason they've mysteriously disappeared. So again, I'm wondering why all of the sudden y'all are worried about tq?

 

And as for swap question....Cabrera said he did it for the flexibility to run in different classes and/or different organizations. Makes a lot of sense if you plan on running somewhere else where you can use all the power available to you. As for myself, I did it for the perceived advantage that I thought Edgar had at the 2014 ECC. I was close at that final race, and pretty much had 2nd in the bag until my s54 blew up due to cutting an oil line down earlier in the race. After having that good of a run in the 2014 ECC, I wanted to do whatever I could, within the rules, to ensure that I would be near the top in the 2015 ECC. That eventually led to me doing an s62 swap, a little different from Cabrera's s65, but I wanted to try a different route (less hp to detune and more tq). Well, I think you know how my year went Out of probably 16-20 races this year, I only finished 2. My dnf's were due to a bunch of different reasons and a lot of bad luck. I did, however, get to run a number of laps throughout this past year and I'll tell you, the car was by no means any faster (mph wise) than it was with the s54. So far, the only difference I've been able to notice is that I can leave the car in a higher gear in certain turns than I used to be able to. I still have a bunch of development to go through with my car, but In time I'm sure I'll get back to where I used to be time wise with my s54. My entire car changed from the power delivery, to the balance, and the weight, so it has been a lot to get accustomed to so far. My fastest time this past year in gts3 trim was almost 2 seconds slower than my previous fastest time at VIR with my s54. Just an FYI.

[mcdonaldsracing]

The rules are fine, go ahead and knock yourself out with the other options. I'm all for it! All of the other options I would get behind. I'm especially interested in option 5 though, since it appears that we are no longer able to govern ourselves and national leadership is making all the decisions for us

[7VO-VOM]

Michael, you are skipping over the fact that my car is not a swap. What you are discussing doesn't just apply to swaps. You are also saying that NASA is effectively punishing the largest(?) GTS regions, NE and MA, with rule changes because NASA itself in regions other than MA can't ensure compliance with a dyno. It sounds like NASA needs to fix their own regional and national issues across the board before messing with a specific class. Your #1 and 5 should be done before 2, 3, and 4 are even considered.

 

I would not be opposed to running a restrictor plate to ensure that people are not swapping tunes on the fly. My only stipulation would be that you can't set a maximum detune, either electronically or mechanically. Setting the maximums would result in people spending thousands on tuning, to make the car run properly at certain HP levels with the restrictor plate both in and out. It's simple enough to calculate airflow through a restrictor plate to roughly limit power to a number. GTS could specify the sizes in 10HP increments. It's simple to implement and measure for compliance. You certified at 296, so use a 300 restrictor. The downside is that every car will need to be retuned for the restrictor. It is also another barrier to entry for new racers. Some new people have enough trouble with the dyno paperwork. Now you are throwing in something that may not be fixable on race day. That's not a good way to increase participation.

 

The argument that the power to weight rule is out of date is absolutely false. I could swap tunes easier on my 1984 Porsche than I can on my 2008 BMW. No cables, computers, or restarts... just a switch. Electronic retuning/detuning is just the scapegoat in this. It's really the ability to tune at all. Why is a 200HP S54 in GTS2 more of an issue than a 300HP S54 in GTS3, or a 280HP S65 in GTS3 more of an issue than a 380HP S65 in GTS4? The policing issue is exactly the same in all 4 of those cases. And there we are, back at NASA's inability to provide a dyno or other compliance measurement as the real problem.

[Michael G.]

200 HP S54 potentially is more of a problem than 300 HP S54 - because without compliance tools at hand there is no way to say if it is one vs. another.

Many Regions have problems bringing dyno to the track and some even have none. And I don't expect that to change over night.

 

What changed with time about HP/Weight? - 10 years ago we didn't have cars that can easily de-tune stock ECU until S54 and S65.

 

Also, somehow no one proposed to mark or seal ECUs. Should we consider that? Would it be seen as an attack on freedom of choice too?

 

 

Michael G.

[daytonars4]

Michael, you keep referring to the advantage of the detunes. I already posted a video above which shows that in GTS2 the S54 does not give a straight line acceleration advantage. Ron is in the video as well. I can also provide data from this year overlaid with e36 S52 data to once again show the lack of advantage. It's very difficult to expect anyone to shake the perspective of me detuning being an advantage if the GTS Director keeps relaying a myth that is not backed by facts. Did I think it would be, of course. I thought it would be a reliability advantage, acceleration advantage, and give me the ability to run a max tune to chase down my friends GT3 in HPDE's. Turns out the acceleration advantage never materialized. Also appears that both John and Edgar with their S65's were actually faster with S54's in their cars. So please, when you speak of the advantage again please bring some type of actual data to support the concept. I am honestly open to seeing it. My friends GTS2 S52 tune is 222whp 218wtq. My tune is 211whp/206wtq. Where is this swap torque advantage you a referring to in GTS2? Where is all the S52 torque loss that you are referring to? The S52 curve can be made pretty darn flat, but of coruse not as flat as an S54. The torque advantage is there with the S65 in GTS3 but it doesn't exist in my GTS2 tune. And since Ron doesn't out accelerate me I'd guess it doesn't exist in his either. But you probably have his dyno and should know better than me. Last year NASA said torque doesn't even matter so why are we even talking about it this year?

 

Do I really need to explain why I would rather race my e36 M3 in GTS2? E36's are competitive in GTS1 and GTS2. E46's are competitive in GTS3 and GTS4. It's pretty simple in that the mechanical grip of an e46 is substantially higher than an e36. The chassis aerodynamics of an e46 are substantially higher than an e36. Yes, I know that WCC was won by an E36. But to compare that car to mine is unreasonable. I run single adjustable koni's. He runs MCS. I run 245's. He runs a serious wide body kit that enables him to run an e46 tire setup. It's a beautiful build, and mine isnt' even close. I made the decision to buy an e36 bc that's what fit my budget. For me to spend $10-15k upgrading my car to be competitive in GTS3 isn't something that's in my plans. I chose GTS2 and convinced 3 of my friends to buy GTS2 cars this summer. If we aren't welcome in GTS2 then that's your business decision we'll respect and find another racing option.

 

Let's say you have your way and ban S54's from GTS2. What are you actually accomplishing. You still have no ability to police power if NASA can't afford to provide dynos and data at all events. Therefore you can have people with S52's that have power anywhere from your proposed 215whp to the upper end of 255whp for the allstar motors. Lets not even mention the built S52's that depending on build can be anywhere from 260-290whp. If NASA can't fund $2k dynos who is going to fund $2k-$4k motor tear downs for every GTS2 car to verify who is or isn't built? We have a proposal discussing a 4whp dyno grace. Why even talk about that if you have no ability to even check power at events.

[7VO-VOM]

What changed with time about HP/Weight? - 10 years ago we didn't have cars that can easily de-tune stock ECU until S54 and S65.

HP hasn't changed. Weight hasn't changed. Their effect on the dynamics and competitveness of cars hasn't changed. Cars being able to easily change tunes hasn't changed. Again, my 31 year old Porsche could be easily tuned with a tool I could rent or buy 10 years ago. I can't do my own BMW tuning from home. I could change the Porsche's tune on the fly. I can't change tunes on my BMW without a laptop and a cable. The perception of things being different or more challenging shows the ignorance of the people who believe it. People could cheat before. People can cheat now. Nothing discussed here outside of more dyno and data compliance will change that.

 

Also, somehow no one proposed to mark or seal ECUs. Should we consider that? Would it be seen as an attack on freedom of choice too?

Go for it. It doesn't really help much. Not all cars need to swap ECUs to change tunes.

[jvanhouten]

In my view, I think we need to work most on step #1 more than anything. With sufficient impound and compliance protocols, it should reduce the cries of cheating (warranted or not) and thus improve PR.

 

Why can we not require each driver to purchase their own "black box" Aim solo ($300 according to a post in another thread, iirc) and have the data collected in impound after the race? Yes, it is an additional expense on the driver but it's approx the cost of one tire but it's something you can run year after year and is maybe 5% of the cost of just the required safety equipment when you build a car. Let's gather the data and spend the time on developing the analysis tools. I spent a lot of time talking to Caddell about his process at ECC and it isn't terribly complicated. With the black boxes in the cars at every event, there is a reasonable expectation on the part of a cheater that he could get caught unlike now where there is _zero_ chance if there isn't a dyno present. Just having the black boxes in the car should assure non-cheaters that there is an effort to catch those that are as well as be a reasonable deterrent to those that are contemplating cheating.

 

If $300 is going to make or break you going racing, let's be honest, you probably shouldn't be racing

[Michael G.]

John,

 

We are working on it and ultimately, that will happen. But there are few obstacles on a way still. We still need to teat new Boxes, which will have (we hope) RPM feed and may be more (TPS, external antenna, power, mount, etc). Also, more importantly, AIM and NASA will need to decide and agree on the business model (price, rights, ownership, etc.). We also will need to develop protocols that are realistic to utilize with limited manpower at Regional events. We can't use the box if reading it will require the IT expert on site and if it is time consuming. With all that said, yes - this the goal. What I personally think - if we are lucky and all goes smooth, we are probably at least a year away.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[gobuffs]

This posted on another board...

"All the GTS guys (at the front) out here just run standalone and hit a switch when they have to go on the dyno to lower the power output."

[7VO-VOM]

This posted on another board...

"All the GTS guys (at the front) out here just run standalone and hit a switch when they have to go on the dyno to lower the power output."

Which has nothing to do with 'detuning' restrictions and everything to do with NASA's inability to provide basic tools for compliance nationally.

[daytonars4]

This posted on another board...

"All the GTS guys (at the front) out here just run standalone and hit a switch when they have to go on the dyno to lower the power output."

 

 

Anyone in GTS who wants to compare their data to the front runners is always free to in MA. And frankly that's probably the reason why the level of competition in MA is so high. The guys at the front share their data with the guys at the back which enables them to get faster much quicker than they could otherwise. I even watched one of the top racers in my region share his data with a new GTS3 driver in another region who then ended up beating him with the new found knowledge at nationals. So the next time someone from out of class makes a comment like that (which is probably related to them being passed by a lower power GTS car) ask them for their data. Then overlay that data with the GTS car. And once they see that even though they have a much higher speed in the straight but are getting killed in the corners maybe they'll shut up? The only way to end perceptions of cheating is with hard data. No point getting into wars of words that will change nothing. I regularly run lap times faster than cars in other classes with 50-100% more power. Am I surprised if any of them would think I'm cheating? No. Do I care? To be completely honest, no. But I'm always up for a good laugh if they want to send me their data so I can attach mine and give them a tutorial as to the "how and why."

 

I give up on all of this. This has gone from being a fun hobby for me to having to be concerned with proving that anyone who wins isn't a cheater. e36 M3 with S54 swap for sale. Contact me for details.

[D_Eclipse9916]

I have to wonder if this new rule is more to "make GTS appealing" versus actually trying to limit cheating. I do agree; 100k+ E92 M3s, and $40k engine swaps are killing GTS3 from a numbers perspective. I know plenty of guys that wont touch GTS3 because they think they need a $40k motor swap or 100K E92 to win. That's wrong, but that is what is perceived. The origin of GTS was wide-open, but so are most classes just starting out. Making a GTS3 class have the winners running around with $100k machines deters new members from running in it. Then our "budget" GTS2/1 classes are now filtering down with what used to be "baller" S54 motors.

 

If you want GTS2/3 to continue to attract new members (most racers are 3-5 year turnover so you need new members), you need to make sure you don't scare people away with high $ builds. If that's the purpose of this new ruleset, it makes a lot more sense. Trying to catch cheaters? Nah won't work at all.

[daytonars4]

Your point makes perfect sense and is a conclusion someone from the outside can come to. But then you look at the Nationals results and in GTS3 P1 and P3 were S54's. Then in GTS2 the e36 S54 cars had the 5th and 6th fastest lap times of the weekend for the class with only 1 finishing on the podium. For my regional results P1 and P2 in GTS3 were S54 cars. In GTS2 an e36 with an S50 won the title! So we can either feed along and say "yup, the swaps are evil lets ban them." Or we can address the people bringing up the concerns by saying "here's the race data of the cars and actual race results which say that the swaps are unnecessary and likely a waste of money."

 

The reality is that with the changes it will be the same guys winning next year since most of them are not impacted by this. So then what happens since clearly the perception won't change when the same guys are winning? All this does is alienate a bunch of guys who will saw screw this and find somewhere else to race. If this will bring in a hoard of new racers then go for it. But considering MA (which probably has the most V8's in GTS3 in the country) already has the one of the strongest GTS fields, I find it hard to see it directly causing a gain in cars. Maybe the reason GTS is so strong in MA is because we have AIM and a dyno at every event so everyone knows if they lose it's bc they have to drive better?

[7VO-VOM]

We should also dispel the myth of the prices. My E92 M3 is not $100k despite being quite loaded and I paid a high end shop to do everything. A couple different choices that would have had a negligible effect on performance, and it's a $60k car. That is about the same as it would've cost to build an E46 M3 to the same performance level.

 

A $40k engine swap? Sure, they exist. Mcdonaldsracing's was more than that. I don't know what Epic charges for theirs, but I'd expect $25k for a manual S65 in an E46. $10k engine, $5k in other parts and programming, $10k in work. Look at some of the S54s in GTS3/4 or C-Mod and they are $25k+ strokers or Dinan 'Clubrace' motors... with an expected life of ~50hrs.