2016 Rules Revision

[Michael G.]

The Rules Committee decided to perform the revision of the Final version of the Rules for 2016.

As of now the Rules are being edited and will be re-posted as soon as ready.

The decision is based on the fact that the displacement formula, as previously considered max HP limits, still leaves the window of opportunity to game the system and may punish certain cars by pushing outside of expected class. We also agree that we need more time to search for the solution and hopefully come up with the better answer. We will be collecting more data, surveying drivers and work on advancing the compliance tools working with AIM.

Few directions to explore - possible re - introduction of the TQ values, possibly along side with improved Calculator, further looking at Displacement, Max HP and Weight limitations, use mechanical restrictors, etc. Constructive input from drivers would be greatly appreciated, hopefully outside of statement "GTS is fine and has no need for improvement" or "all officials are stupid jerks with the only goal to ruin everything".

Also, wanted to mention that the revision in process is only in regards to the Displacement limits. All other changes. The factor for FWD cars, maximum ballast, removal of the Dyno forgiveness, updated calculator, updated wording on documentation requirements and impound protocol as well as updated wording on fixed Windows and gear boxes will stay in effect.

 

There is more work to be done.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir

[focusedintntions]

You might also might want to clarify the s50b30 motor statement as it pertains to US vs euro motor. Any 1995 M3 looking to compete in gts2 (people like me) has a US s50b30 in it. Very different motor from the euro version.

 

I don't think there should be displacement limit to any class, however I do think that torque should be part of the power to weight calculations regarding the limits for each class. That in itself would limit some motors to specific classes.

[pmk]

Constructive input from drivers would be greatly appreciated, hopefully outside of statement "GTS is fine and has no need for improvement" or "all officials are stupid jerks with the only goal to ruin everything".

With respect, we tried that through the rules comment process. I don't remember very many comments to the effect that "GTS is fine and no changes are required." I remember a lot of good discussion about compliance and different ways that might be accomplished. At this point, when we get a list of new rules that either weren't discussed at all or were nearly universally disfavored by those providing comments, what other conclusion is possible except "the officials are stupid jerks who are doing whatever they want, regardless of who they screw in the process?"

 

Also, wanted to mention that the revision in process is only in regards to the Displacement limits. All other changes. The factor for FWD cars, maximum ballast, removal of the Dyno forgiveness, updated calculator, updated wording on documentation requirements and impound protocol as well as updated wording on fixed Windows and gear boxes will stay in effect.

In other words, "instead of sticking you with 10 of the 10 rules you said were a bad idea and didn't want, instead we'll stick you with 9 of the 10 rules you said were a bad idea and didn't want, and we'll possibly add in the 10th rule at a later time. Why aren't you happy with that?"

 

As I stated in my letter to the National folks (and to the regional director), I don't think anyone here is against rule changes to help grow the series. But the fact that you feel like you don't have the optimal solution yet (with regard to data acquisition and analysis) is emphatically NOT a reason to adopt this "solution" that doesn't solve any of the current problems with the series, will definitively drive some current competitors away, and will have cost amateur racers who are spending their own free time and disposable income on this hobby a great deal of wasted time and money building a car within the existing rules. It defies all logic to argue that massive rule changes (and the resulting climate of instability and uncertainty) are a good way to try to attract new drivers into the series. What assurance will the new drivers have that you won't just do the exact same thing to them that you did to the previous competitors?

[daytonars4]

Thankyou for taking the current racers into consideration! ...... Conceptually, the simplest way to maintain a level playing field is using an approach similar to what is done for sequential's. There is a known quantifiable advantage to it. As such, there is a .2 penalty. Considering that a lot of people still take on the cost of the upgrade it's fairly safe to say that many still believe there's an advantage of having it. The best way to accurately maintain a level playing field is by being able to quantify the benefit of modifications that you want to "penalize." When data supports the penalty it's much easier to swallow.

 

The perceived advantage of the swaps that were the focus of the CC rule is the additional torque it allows. After a year of black box testing is there now any real world data that shows the acceleration advantage? If it can be quantified it's much easier to penalize. If it can't then penalizing it becomes a tad more complicated. If we then use dyno racing to create a level field, it would be important to come up with a method to account for the torque advantage in a rule/penalty. So if the calculator is adjusted to take torque into consideration below 5250 and whp above you are now accounting for not only the benefit of a swap but also forced induction motors. You would have to determine the "normal" ratio of whp to wtq that you are looking to achieve per class. Then from there you would have to have an adjustment that would increase weight for the "additional torque" for that specific car. Anyone below the expected torque should not get a benefit which prevents people from maybe artificially reducing torque and having a sequential that stays in the higher rpm range that makes the torque irrelevant. As an example, if the baseline is saying that a GTS3 car should have peak 280whp/240wtq, a car with peak 280whp/280wtq should receive additional weight from the calculator. Something like this prevents you from having to single out any specific motor types.

 

This same concept if used for GTS2 would not result in any change for the vast majority of dynos I have seen. S50/S52/S54 properly tuned can all have relatively flat dynos where avg and peak whp is very close to average and peak wtq. Even a stock e36 m3 has whp only a few points higher than wtq. I actually think that this is likely the reason that my data and race video from the year does not show an acceleration difference for an S54 car over an S52. You can possibly say that a 1 to 1 ratio is expected. So if you have 210whp/210wtq, that's expected. If you have 210whp/230wtq then there's some extra weight necessary. Or if someone has a turbo accomplishing that, it's the same concept. But I've never seen a dyno look like that for GTS2, maybe others have?

 

 

Can anyone explain the basis for the ballast rule? Why is 300lb the magic number? A person can have a car that's been extremely lightened and therefore needs to add ballast to make their class. You could have another driver with the same exact car with more OEM parts left on, which makes it easy for the same car to make weight for the same exact class. Is one car inherently less safe than the other for some reason if they achieve the same overall weight? This does not in any way impact me, but it does impact a competitor I would like to keep racing with, as well as potentially future competitors.

 

Lawrence Gibson

Mid-Atlantic

GTS2

e36 S54

[JS154]

You might also might want to clarify the s50b30 motor statement as it pertains to US vs euro motor. Any 1995 M3 looking to compete in gts2 (people like me) has a US s50b30 in it. Very different motor from the euro version.

 

I don't think there should be displacement limit to any class, however I do think that torque should be part of the power to weight calculations regarding the limits for each class. That in itself would limit some motors to specific classes.

 

Even so, there is nothing in the rules preventing someone from running ITB's and head porting and Pankl rods and knife edged crank and custom carbon intake/plenum on a US engine.

 

This was not really thought through very well at all.

[flink]

Thank you for reconsidering these changes.

 

By far the most damaging change for Norcal is the requirement that S54-equipped GTS3 cars weigh 3000+ lbs. Nobody is going to do that and it impacts almost all the GTS3 field. And GTS3 is the only GTS subclass which has significant car counts (average 3.7 cars in 2015, best turnout was 6). As I said before, this change will wipe out my race class, so please don't do this.

 

 

For a bit of perspective, here are the three GTS3 races from this year's Western States Championships:

 

 

In front of me are Tristan with an S54 and Mike with an S65. I have an S52 and for reasons unknown, I mowed those mofos down. Sure, they have "more torque!!" than me. But I have a gearbox! It just doesn't matter.

[Matt G.]

Trying to stay constructive...

Lets try to focus on what we could do, rather then what was/is wrong. How might someone regulate the class and provide a level of equality across the wonderful build flexibility this class offers?

 

Mandated restrictors perhaps? I have had good experience using them in the past. Certainly they can be taken advantage of using displacement, and forced induction. But the advantage gained is nearly mitigated, and is a much smaller margin then nearly any other option I can think of. Class policing becomes very easy as well, check for the correct restrictor, and that the car cannot run with said restrictor in place, and your done. Class leaders don't have to be able to identify certain species of motors, or determine displacement deviations.

 

It's easy to determine what size restrictor equates to a given HP (within a small margin for error), and if issued with a certified dyno sheet could be used to correlate hp/wt. The wide depth of GTS classing would require many restrictors, but perhaps it's as simple as defining them to increments that fit within the desired HP limitations?

[flink]

How might someone regulate the class and provide a level of equality across the wonderful build flexibility this class offers?

 

This has already been achieved! Average power under the useful power curve. This will equalize acceleration. It was a great change and nothing remains to be done.

[mjmccoy]

How might someone regulate the class and provide a level of equality across the wonderful build flexibility this class offers?

What sort of equality are we really looking for in open class racing? Typically the winner will either have more talent or more money. Are we to come up with an equation to describe that and balance accordingly?

 

We keep chasing power, but we continue to leave EVERYTHING else open... and then we have an issue of "but there is still perceived cheating". There is probably a greater chance of there not being cheating... but we are still trying to "fix" it anyway. and the only thing we can think of to fix the problem, apparently, is power.

 

 

 

Mandated restrictors perhaps? I have had good experience using them in the past. Certainly they can be taken advantage of using displacement, and forced induction. But the advantage gained is nearly mitigated, and is a much smaller margin then nearly any other option I can think of. Class policing becomes very easy as well, check for the correct restrictor, and that the car cannot run with said restrictor in place, and your done. Class leaders don't have to be able to identify certain species of motors, or determine displacement deviations.

 

It's easy to determine what size restrictor equates to a given HP (within a small margin for error), and if issued with a certified dyno sheet could be used to correlate hp/wt. The wide depth of GTS classing would require many restrictors, but perhaps it's as simple as defining them to increments that fit within the desired HP limitations?

 

Having a restrictor size vs displacement vs weight would be a good start... And very easy. bigger engine, smaller restrictor (unless supercharged, then all the same). Still used in LMP2 even.

 

Which brings up another issue. wtf would NASA do if you show up with a hybrid? I can already see the heads exploding with that one.

 

but what are the chances someone with more engineering budget still makes more total power... and probably on better tires, with better suspension, and less drag.

are we equal yet?

 

and if we have restrictors, why would we have dyno certifications? I can't think of a time i've seen both used for classing. if I have a restrictor, i should be classed by the restrictor. if I dyno, i should be classed by the dyno. if i have both, which one is used for classification, and why?

 

I don't think at any point the target was to make everything "equal"... what you bring still matters. the target was to make it so that everyone had an equal shot at doing whatever they wanted within the confines of their budget, so long as they stayed within their weight/power classing. Weight/power was meant as the great equalizer. Leaving everything else open makes it less equal... then trying to re-equalize the intangible with the only bits you can see/measure... you're never going to get there.

[mjmccoy]

How might someone regulate the class and provide a level of equality across the wonderful build flexibility this class offers?

 

This has already been achieved! Average power under the useful power curve. This will equalize acceleration. It was a great change and nothing remains to be done.

 

That fixed some of the "problem". but was that problem really a problem?

 

If someone had an S52 and swapped to an M50 manifold, they tossed away a bunch of torque/power down low to gain a bunch up top. Common modification. Works well.

If they then decided to run GTS2 with that, and added a restrictor and left the M50 manifold on instead of swapping back to the M52 manifold, whose fault is that?

 

Optimizing the used powerband should be an exercise left to the competitor, not micromanaged by the sanctioning body to level the playing field for those who can't figure it out on their own. If someone wants to build a peaky motor, or someone wants to build a torque monster, both are potentially equally valid approaches to the problem that GTS poses. It can come down to gearing, driving style, etc.

 

Now we are faced with power being "balanced out" via a calculator to spit out a weight. its much easier for everyone to adjust to a target weight, as most are comfortable adding/removing ballast. It isn't *necessarily* an engineering task.... but now we likely assume that everyone should be even closer... which probably makes the "well then he must be cheating" even worse... when we haven't tried considering any of the other MAJOR factors in vehicle performance.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Good points McCoy

[richiebosco]

I have yet to read any positive comments on the engine/tune adjustments. Some of the other things (FWD: for instance.) had some positive feedback.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Guest

[ineedfood2]

Rules will always change and some will love them and some will hate them. But please when the rules are posted in the GTS rule book for the upcoming year, let them be final. or wait to post them till they are final and talk on the forum to get ideas before posting them. We started to make "moves" according to the rules posted and spending money to do so. Hopefully when the rules get re-posted we wont have to tell customers they wasted there money.