Jump to content
Bryancohnracing

Message from NASA National Office re: GTS Rules

Recommended Posts

Bryancohnracing

NASA GTS Drivers,

 

Please review the message below. I can be reached at [email protected]"dot"com if you have questions.

 

1. NASA feels there is a high potential of unfairness and potential for cheating in GTS by way of detuning to run in lower than expected class. (Consider a detune of more than 50 hp to meet this criteria)

2. NASA Feels the spirit of the series was not designed to have high end, high horsepower cars detuned to run in lower classes.

3. NASA feels the spending and cost barriers to entry for GTS are rising to critical levels especially in GTS1 and GTS2. Drivers should not need composite bodies, massive aero and high dollar engines in the lower classes for example.

4. The GTS rules are being reviewed by the GTS leadership and NASA Staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM

If NASA National would please require compliance mechanisms such as a dyno at every event and the use of AiM (or other standardized data) I think all of the perception of potential cheating would be null and void. We invested in NASA GTS and that is ignored. It's time for NASA to invest in compliance before calling those of us who invested cheaters.

 

Have fun defining a "detune" since people have presented stock and heavily modified engines that cannot even make the minimum HP numbers of NASA's first proposal to stop "detuning". I am still not sure how people investing intelligently in motors that last longer because they are not stressed as much is somehow cheating. I am also not sure how NASA cannot comprehend that technology moves forward and better products will enter the series, and those should not be penalized.

 

My "cheater" "high budget" GTS3 E92 M3 costs less than your "budget" NP01. Please explain how that is a problem for GTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink

NASA is mistaken.

 

The unfairness issue has been fixed by the averaging which was implemented in the 2016 calculator. There is no longer a useful advantage in having a high-end detuned engine. So items 2 and 3 have already been addressed.

 

Yes, there is potential for cheating, but no actual evidence of it. Ask the racers - we more than anyone know whether there is cheating going on. Let's not "fix" a non-problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gobuffs

You trying to get more entries into GTS1 and 2? Have you seen the cars that a student shows up in at their first DE now? Those cars would usually fall into GTS3 at minimum, maybe higher than that. GTS1 won't be a highly subscribed class.

 

I personally don't think the actual cheating is as rampant as is perceived. If National is the one that thinks there is perceived cheating then they should pay to have a car sent to a shop and inspected.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to set a floor value for power of a particular motor. For example- an S54 makes 333 FW HP, most dynojet pulls on a stock S54 are 270-280. Pulling the power to weight off an old internet document for GTS the lower limit is 12 lbs/HP. The 3000 pound minimum leads to a 250 HP minimum power. Leaving a detune possibility of 20-30 HP. If a competitor has a dyno that says 200 hp and that is what he set his weight based off of, then it is easy if he can switch maps and have an easy 70-80 HP advantage (maybe more). One possibility is saying that any detune motor can't have potential power advantage parts (i.e headers, pulleys, etc- stuff that is easy to see in a visual inspection)- if you don't need to make stock HP then why have typical power addition parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamflex
You trying to get more entries into GTS1 and 2? Have you seen the cars that a student shows up in at their first DE now? Those cars would usually fall into GTS3 at minimum, maybe higher than that. GTS1 won't be a highly subscribed class.

 

I personally don't think the actual cheating is as rampant as is perceived. If National is the one that thinks there is perceived cheating then they should pay to have a car sent to a shop and inspected.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to set a floor value for power of a particular motor. For example- an S54 makes 333 FW HP, most dynojet pulls on a stock S54 are 270-280. Pulling the power to weight off an old internet document for GTS the lower limit is 12 lbs/HP. The 3000 pound minimum leads to a 250 HP minimum power. Leaving a detune possibility of 20-30 HP. If a competitor has a dyno that says 200 hp and that is what he set his weight based off of, then it is easy if he can switch maps and have an easy 70-80 HP advantage (maybe more). One possibility is saying that any detune motor can't have potential power advantage parts (i.e headers, pulleys, etc- stuff that is easy to see in a visual inspection)- if you don't need to make stock HP then why have typical power addition parts?

 

 

The additional parts are obvious, the engine runs more efficiently. The beauty of the detune is that you can be competitive with out spending $20k on a race motor. The ideas of open power to weight ratio is what keeps racers in nasa and not scca. If I took my car to scca for example I wouldn't be competitive because they would class me so high Saying my motor is capable of a certain HP number, it's not our fault if you don't build it.

 

The speed in the series is IMO nothing more then evolution. In our region since I started in GTS 3 years ago the times have dropped around 4 seconds a lap, that's average per group. Naturally one guy creates a pace and others try to follow, so a bunch of guys spend money. This isn't professional racing, the pool of drivers aren't all essentially on equal talent levels. That being said the money spent on the same parts doesn't yield the same results. From there it's easy to say.... Oh they cheated.

 

And car counts are down because building German cars isn't cheap. In the beginning of the series I'm sure a blue collar budget could build a podium finishing car. That's just not the case any more, it's expensive to race any car, but the German make only is an added cost. So as long as you can build other makes of cars cheaper the other series will grow and the German enthusiasts and current racers shouldn't be penalized because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Just to clarify few issues we are discussing:

 

NASA is mistaken.

 

The unfairness issue has been fixed by the averaging which was implemented in the 2016 calculator. There is no longer a useful advantage in having a high-end detuned engine. So items 2 and 3 have already been addressed.

 

Yes, there is potential for cheating, but no actual evidence of it. Ask the racers - we more than anyone know whether there is cheating going on. Let's not "fix" a non-problem.

 

Andrew,

 

At the time we discussed the calculator last year, we had few options in settings using different % ratio under the curve, double averaging peak, etc. Since some of us were concerned about the impact - we decided last minute to go with the watered down version. In retrospect - it didn't do enough. Also. to understand, the calculator doesn't really punish the flat curve by adding weight - what it does - allows peaky engines to drop weight vs. similar output by the flat curve. The trick is - unless owners of the peaky curved engines will use the allowance (which hardly anyone did) - the end effect of the impact is negligent. We will change the calculator to the original mode for 2016, but it is clear that it will not fix issues we have,

 

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to set a floor value for power of a particular motor. For example- an S54 makes 333 FW HP, most dynojet pulls on a stock S54 are 270-280. Pulling the power to weight off an old internet document for GTS the lower limit is 12 lbs/HP. The 3000 pound minimum leads to a 250 HP minimum power. Leaving a detune possibility of 20-30 HP. If a competitor has a dyno that says 200 hp and that is what he set his weight based off of, then it is easy if he can switch maps and have an easy 70-80 HP advantage (maybe more). One possibility is saying that any detune motor can't have potential power advantage parts (i.e headers, pulleys, etc- stuff that is easy to see in a visual inspection)- if you don't need to make stock HP then why have typical power addition parts?

 

Gobuffs,

 

That is exactly the scenario many drivers complain about. Many Regions have no dyno or rarely, some have occasional dyno on one day of the weekend only. The logistics of arresting the car and sending it to the outside dyno on Sunday is impossible. In addition, the ability of the dyno to catch someone who is deliberately cheating is poor, especially with modern electronics. So, we all agree that Black Boxes as an on board device must be employed.

Unfortunately, we learned that unless we will add RPM feed and possibly TPS - the data we get is not sufficient to make a definitive decision. As of now, we can possibly see the outlier and it helps, but it is not compliance tool we can use on the daily basis in a quick and predictable manner. We are probably another year from getting where we need at best if not longer.

 

So, to call NASA for investing into Dyno in every Region is not solving the issue and we do invest in Boxes, but that takes time.

 

So, on perceived cheating - it is often more damaging than real and can not be simply addressed by the statement that it is a myth. We hear complains from all over the Regions on the regular basis.

Even at National events, with all the scrutiny and boxes in all cars - we had cars, that mysteriously find another 1000 RPM above the stated (with mote power to go with it) or cars that fail to read the RPM at certain points through the perfectly fine coil feed, etc., etc. We also have number of reports from Regional events when the dyno readings on some de-tuned cars vary greatly from one pull to another.

 

Now, going back to the original topic of perception - there is nothing besides honesty (no tools NASA can employ) that can stop someone from abusing the system at this point. Old days in order to cheat - you would need to built an elaborate engine with capable aftermarket ECU. Now days, you can simply bring the stock car with stock ECU, that can be swapped with another stock re-flashed ECU if needed for rare days of dyno or a box in use, and run freely with no recourse. So, for example, what would stop me from using no-detune mode in my S54 (or S65) if I know there is no compliance tool at the track?

 

So, unless we will start limiting either displacement / HP / TQ / weight or combination of those per class - we don't see the way to address the problem at this time.

 

We continue to work and discuss, but the need for a change is clear and urgent.

 

By the way, the vast majority of Regional Directors are fully on board and part of the process as we speak.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gobuffs

That is exactly the scenario many drivers complain about. Many Regions have no dyno or rarely, some have occasional dyno on one day of the weekend only. The logistics of arresting the car and sending it to the outside dyno on Sunday is impossible. In addition, the ability of the dyno to catch someone who is deliberately cheating is poor, especially with modern electronics. So, we all agree that Black Boxes as an on board device must be employed.

Unfortunately, we learned that unless we will add RPM feed and possibly TPS - the data we get is not sufficient to make a definitive decision. As of now, we can possibly see the outlier and it helps, but it is not compliance tool we can use on the daily basis in a quick and predictable manner. We are probably another year from getting where we need at best if not longer.

 

So, to call NASA for investing into Dyno in every Region is not solving the issue and we do invest in Boxes, but that takes time.

 

I disagree that a dyno is needed at all events with my proposal. Set the floor value of what a motor (ANY motor) can be detuned to. I didn't finish my thought in the other post as I copied it from something I posted on Facebook and didn't grab the followup post I made. Continuing with the S54 example. Dyno pull on a stock motor is 275 for argument's sake. Giving the racer leeway to drop another 25 HP gets down to a floor value of 250RWHP. 250/333 is roughly 75%. Set the min power level for a motor at 75% of the factory rated HP. This, however, will not work well with turbo motors (another issue that should be addressed sooner rather than later).

 

So, on perceived cheating - it is often more damaging than real and can not be simply addressed by the statement that it is a myth. We hear complains from all over the Regions on the regular basis.

Even at National events, with all the scrutiny and boxes in all cars - we had cars, that mysteriously find another 1000 RPM above the stated (with mote power to go with it) or cars that fail to read the RPM at certain points through the perfectly fine coil feed, etc., etc. We also have number of reports from Regional events when the dyno readings on some de-tuned cars vary greatly from one pull to another.

 

Ok....so REQUIRE RPM and TPS input into the black box on cars with FBW. Even on cars without FBW you could require these and the racer woudl need to implement. TPS signal is present on a S52 but since there is a no CAN data....but it can be logged easily. But instead of that fairly simple fix, you guys go off and create this really crazy no motor of this kind in this class...

 

Now, going back to the original topic of perception - there is nothing besides honesty (no tools NASA can employ) that can stop someone from abusing the system at this point. Old days in order to cheat - you would need to built an elaborate engine with capable aftermarket ECU. Now days, you can simply bring the stock car with stock ECU, that can be swapped with another stock re-flashed ECU if needed for rare days of dyno or a box in use, and run freely with no recourse. So, for example, what would stop me from using no-detune mode in my S54 (or S65) if I know there is no compliance tool at the track?

 

You can control cheating 100%. If you think you can you are sadly mistaken. None of the professional series can and they have people on staff that it is their job to control rules. Assume you, like the rest of us, have a day job that takes up a lot of your time.

 

To control ECU swapping you can issue the dyno operator a tamper proof sticker that they affix to the ECU that puts whatever data you want to put on there- day of test, max power, max torque, conditions. Easy to check for a sticker at the track.

 

So, unless we will start limiting either displacement / HP / TQ / weight or combination of those per class - we don't see the way to address the problem at this time.

 

What???? The rules ALREADY limit HP, torque and weight. BMW club already limits the mod classes to displacement. Over the years the thought has been "Why do displacement, NASA power to weight is soooo much better." I'm not your primary customer...I usually race with BMW club. Your main custoemr are telling you they don't want displacement rules. I proposed an alternate floor minimum HP value that is EASILY calculated for ANY motor. I feel like to have brushed it aside as your (you being the rule makers) reply to this is basically "we are going to do this in some fashion, we really don't want you input." My work does this all the time...they ask our input but don't really want it (that is the PERCEPTION, since you are big on fixing perception).

 

We continue to work and discuss, but the need for a change is clear and urgent.

 

By the way, the vast majority of Regional Directors are fully on board and part of the process as we speak.

 

I hope that is true, as I have heard from 2 regional directors that have said that this rule changed was forced on them without anybody listening to their input. Sounds like the rule change is coming from the ivory tower. The regional directors are the guys that are talking to the racers every weekend. Might behoove you guys to listen to what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

We have no illusion that any Rule will sto 100% of cheating.

The current limits of HP /Weight has no impact on the large displacement de- tunes.

We have 14 Regions, so 2 Directors you be heard from is a small number. By the way, one of those 2 is no longer with us for other reasons and I don't know who is a second one - I am not aware of anyone who is against.

 

Michael G .

GRS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

By the way, in order to add RPM and possibly TPS will require a different hardware since Solo I is not capable. We are waiting for Solo II to be introduced at PRI. Then we will need to test and develop the protocol. The box will also require the external satellite antenna, external power and a permanent mount. The goal is to have the device that will only require quick insert of weight values at scales after the race and will generate fail / pass sign. And if needed can be looked deeper at the data at impound.

With all of that I can't see it in actual use for another year or more.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Go buffs,

 

We are trying to avoid going the route of listing all kinds of engines raced in GTS to come up with minimum power and trying to come up with simpler formula. The first proposal actually tried to do exactly what you offered, but it was angrily refused.

One of the issues we have that it seems no proposal is ever good enough no matter what, and no counter proposal was ever made, even though someone mentioned constructive discussion took place.

It seems like there is a denial of any issue present in GTS and it is all in screwed up heads of the officials.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gobuffs

You are right it will be difficult to write a rule that won't make somebody mad.

 

My proposal is "Every motor must run at at least 75% of factory advertised flywheel HP at the wheels. Also, any motor running at less than 85% of factory rated HP cannot have any power advantageous parts and must be stock from intake thru headers."

 

Don't come back saying it won't work. At least come back with "we will take it under consideration". Otherwise my perception will be you are looking to change your proposal to piss less people off than actually considering other alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blake T.

 

To control ECU swapping you can issue the dyno operator a tamper proof sticker that they affix to the ECU that puts whatever data you want to put on there- day of test, max power, max torque, conditions. Easy to check for a sticker at the track.

 

 

So back in the day when you had to swap EEPROM chips this was a viable option. Now you can have a switch in your car to adjust maps on the fly. Here is an example - Available Tune Configurations:

 

From Lindsey Racing -

 

The M-Tune is available in Four different tune configurations. Each of the Four tunes comes with up to 16 different individual maps in which you can select which map or pair of maps that best suits your needs. The main considerations are engine displacement, fuel used, and injector sizing.

For example you may want to run Pump Gas on the primary map and be able to switch to E-85 on the secondary map. In the case of the 2.5L Tune 1 configuration below, that would be the 3/4 map pair. Once you set your jumper switch on the chip board during the initial chip board installation to the 3/4 map pair position, the car runs on map 3 then on map 4 if you make the jumper connection. Or you can install a switch to toggle between either map depending on fuel availability.

- See more at: http://www.lindseyracing.com/LR/Parts/944MTUNE.html#sthash.4TVWeYiN.dpuf

 

Or From BimmerWorld -

 

You now have complete control of the calibration that is in your car, switchable from modified or stock at will. For customers concerned with warranty, the factory calibration can be reinstalled before a trip to the dealer, leaving absolutely no trace of “tuning”. After service/warranty work, you can then reinstall your Epic Motorsports calibration.

 

Many Epic Motorsports calibrations include the ECI tool at no charge or $100 (correct price for your tune will be reflected at time of processing). The Epic ECI is only available when purchasing an Epic calibration or for previous Epic calibration purchasers. ECI loads coded Epic files only -this tool provides an easy method to load and switch calibrations, and does not give you the ability to view and modify your own files. Epic ECI marries to the ECU of your car on installation, after which it cannot be used on another car.

 

Or for your tow vehicle from Sinister Diesel -

 

Includes 5 custom tunes for a DSP5/CSP5 switch so that you can switch between tunes while driving. Our tunes are economy, tow, street, hot, and race. Please specify in the stated area if you want any other specific tunes.

 

Just some examples of what is out there and readily available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
Unfortunately, we learned that unless we will add RPM feed and possibly TPS - the data we get is not sufficient to make a definitive decision.

 

So, on perceived cheating - it is often more damaging than real and can not be simply addressed by the statement that it is a myth. We hear complains from all over the Regions on the regular basis.

Even at National events, with all the scrutiny and boxes in all cars - we had cars, that mysteriously find another 1000 RPM above the stated (with mote power to go with it) or cars that fail to read the RPM at certain points through the perfectly fine coil feed, etc., etc. We also have number of reports from Regional events when the dyno readings on some de-tuned cars vary greatly from one pull to another.

Data should be in all cars at all times. Mandating a system might not be feasible at this point, and NASA having black boxes to toss in cars also might not be available yet, but who in GTS doesn't have SOME sort of data system in the car? (trackmate, AIM, racekeeper, motec, PI, vbox, race-technology, etc.) I suspect nearly everyone has some kind of data device that records speed and RPM.

Make turning in certain data points mandatory for all official sessions. Speed, RPM, TPS?

 

Now, going back to the original topic of perception - there is nothing besides honesty (no tools NASA can employ) that can stop someone from abusing the system at this point. Old days in order to cheat - you would need to built an elaborate engine with capable aftermarket ECU. Now days, you can simply bring the stock car with stock ECU, that can be swapped with another stock re-flashed ECU if needed for rare days of dyno or a box in use, and run freely with no recourse. So, for example, what would stop me from using no-detune mode in my S54 (or S65) if I know there is no compliance tool at the track?

 

Then the black boxes getting tossed in the cars could be very last minute, and could still be GPS only for now. They would be used to compare to the data from the other car-specific box. We are purely looking for data tampering at that point. MUCH easier to police.

 

Your RPM vs speed isn't linear at some point? RPM is lying. declare your gearbox ratios and diff ratio and tire size, and if you are found to have exceeded your calculated declared max revs while accelerating, you are busted. This is fairly trivial stuff, and data could be in nearly any format, or from any data system.

 

Then we only need the scrutineering to be reasonable and intelligent. Spot the differences, and if it is a performance advantage, its a DQ. If its not, bring it to their attention so it can be fixed. The only grey areas would be data system doesn't work for a session or a sensor dies. (see: bring it to their attention), but an analysis of most of the rest of it can be made, and does that cars data match its previous data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
There is no longer a useful advantage in having a high-end detuned engine.

There still is... it lasts longer than a high strung older motor, which makes it cheaper, which means more tires/brakes/aero bits/coffee/red bull/etc.

 

 

The classing being weight/power means we shouldn't care at all HOW the power is made. I can't run my S54 in GTS2? how about my M20 with S54 crank/rods/pistons and DVANOS head welded on? technically legal. Which one is cheaper? One is a "detuned" stock motor, and the other is "performance modifications" to an engine, which is apparently what NASA wants? What exactly is the difference in end result, other than cost?

NASA shouldn't care if you put an S65 in your E46 or an M10 in your E90. The competitors shouldn't care beyond "if it works, and its cost effective, maybe i should try that too." Hence all the S54 E36's, which are CHEAPER than building a crazy S52US.

Were S54 E36's faster than S52 E36's? at the same peak power, yes. at the same total power, no.

 

Why are we trying to make specific rules per chassis or engine in GTS? Wasn't the point openness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Also might be useful to point out that for those of us running epic tunes, the eci cable needs to be plugged up to a computer and the obdII port in order to change tunes. Changing tunes cannot be done on the fly, like you can with an aftermarket engine mgmt system. ALSO, those of us that do have different tunes have separate DME's with the tune on them. We would have to switch the dme out of the car in order to change our tunes. I don't know of anybody that continually switches their tune using the cable b/c of the counter that is in the dme. Our dme's can only be flashed so many times before they lock up and become useless (there is a way to unlock them again, but I think it involves taking it apart and doing internal work. Very complicated and not something just anybody can do). Just pointing out these few things that you left out about those of us running stock BMW dme's with epic tunes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
Why are we trying to make specific rules per chassis or engine in GTS? Wasn't the point openness?

This. GTS is becoming a German Honda Challenge... smiley_eyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blake T.
Also might be useful to point out that for those of us running epic tunes, the eci cable needs to be plugged up to a computer and the obdII port in order to change tunes. Changing tunes cannot be done on the fly, like you can with an aftermarket engine mgmt system. ALSO, those of us that do have different tunes have separate DME's with the tune on them. We would have to switch the dme out of the car in order to change our tunes. I don't know of anybody that continually switches their tune using the cable b/c of the counter that is in the dme. Our dme's can only be flashed so many times before they lock up and become useless (there is a way to unlock them again, but I think it involves taking it apart and doing internal work. Very complicated and not something just anybody can do). Just pointing out these few things that you left out about those of us running stock BMW dme's with epic tunes

 

 

Good info - thanks for sharing. My point was merely that "sealing" the DME/ECU with tape is no longer a viable option with today's technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1

Until there is a dyno at each event all of this is just noise. New rules will not change the fundamental problem GTS has, no way to properly police the current rules.This is NASA's problem: They are not able to see the three fingers pointing back at them when they point the finger away saying (insert whatever rhetoric here) is the problem. When NASA takes our money they are implying they will provide a safe fair level playing field. NASA is not holding up its end of the bargain. Until the National office provides the regional directors with the proper tools to police the rules it doesn't matter what they do. Someone will find a way to game it. Then they will change the rules again and it still wont matter because they still can't police it. As I said in the beginning NASA can't police the rules. Until that changes you guys are all talking and no one is listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
PRI: How about if a car dominates and other competitors feel it is illegal?

Flaherty: We do our own tech inspection, which in NASA means sending the car off to a dyno instead of pulling a cylinder head to see if it is ported. So, the dyno check tells us if the car is in compliance with what the driver gave us in the first place.

PRI: Sounds like easy policing to me, eliminating those time-consuming engine teardowns after the race.

Flaherty: That’s what we felt early on, and it’s been very successful. Today, about half of our classes are power to weight ratio, and half are engine specific. Both work well, and it’s another element where we can deliver either of the desires or philosophies in racing. 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. (Note: NASA has an impound area with a dyno on site and regularly checks top finishers in all races.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1
PRI: How about if a car dominates and other competitors feel it is illegal?

Flaherty: We do our own tech inspection, which in NASA means sending the car off to a dyno instead of pulling a cylinder head to see if it is ported. So, the dyno check tells us if the car is in compliance with what the driver gave us in the first place.

PRI: Sounds like easy policing to me, eliminating those time-consuming engine teardowns after the race.

Flaherty: That’s what we felt early on, and it’s been very successful. Today, about half of our classes are power to weight ratio, and half are engine specific. Both work well, and it’s another element where we can deliver either of the desires or philosophies in racing. 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. (Note: NASA has an impound area with a dyno on site and regularly checks top finishers in all races.)

 

Wish they actually did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

That statement by Ryan F. was made years ago...

 

In regards to AIM Boxes - we currently have 12 boxes rotated as 2 packs of 6 between different Regions, meaning it covers only fraction of events at best.

Considering that we are planning to move on to the new version in 2016, I expect the same amount at best. Meaning, until we are ready to roll with the finished product - it can not be viewed as a compliance tool - beta-testing at best. So, figure we are anywhere from one to two years away at best from the time we can count on it.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

So how about making it a requirement of the people that run these bigger motors in lower classes that they have their own unit in their car compliance checking. That would eliminate a lot of cars that you would need the units for. I mean, let's face it....if you're spending the money to perform an s54, s62, s65 swap, or building a car with one of those motors, then you've most likely got another $500 or whatever to spend on a "black box" for compliance. For those that already have a swap car, buy a unit if you want to continue to run in the class of your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM

That quote by Ryan Flaherty was a whole 4 years ago, but I don't see how that matters. It was made more recently than any GTS car I've seen on track left the factory. Did NASA even provide the promised dynos in 2011? Are around half of NASA's classes still power to weight based? I don't see how that quote being old dismisses NASA's responsibility to provide adequate compliance tools as simple as a dyno. Why does NASA feel their responsibility has declined over the last 4 years?

 

If NASA can't provide adequate compliance tools for another 1-2 years, any changes to the class based on the 'perception' of cheating should be at least 2-3 years out. Rules stability for that time period would serve well to grow the class instead of the recent attempt to kill it.

 

Here's an idea, include a data log in the dyno cert. Then you have a baseline to compare throttle position, injector duty cycle, pedal position, and RPM against on track data which can be black box or driver provided. Then when NASA cannot provide a dyno, there is still a compliance mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Matt,

 

NASA is very particular in protecting the rights of drivers not to reveal the performance data and according to CCR none of that can be used for compliance only the data from the NASA device can be used. Even at VIR, once I obtained the permission from drivers to gather the data - few cars had selected channels disabled and I had no power to complain or request. Meaning, we can only rely on the data gathered by the approved data device installed and approved by NASA. In addition to that, the protocol of analysis has to be standard and equal, as well as transparent. It is not a matter of someone looking into data and making subjective call.

So, the only way to implement the data compliance is to develop a tool capable of quick and predictably easy call of pass and fail type, when no specialist on site required to interpret the data. From where we are now - learning to analyze and sending data to AIM for secondary evaluation and developing boxes with higher capacity - I can only guess - at least 2 years away (I hope sooner, but doubt).

Short of capable on board compliance device - we have no answer unless we will choose restrictions in Rules (which hopefully might be reversed or reconsidered once we have the on board tool developed).

 

That is where we now.

 

In regards to perceived cheating, we had situations with drivers taking advantage of poor compliance enforcement. Some got caught at National events, some never attended, but all regularly drive locally with damages done to the series when suspected but never formally caught.

 

I personally would love the system to function well just on the basis of trust and honor. Unfortunately, we learned the hard way that not all drivers treat the system with respect and just look for loopholes.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
That quote by Ryan Flaherty was a whole 4 years ago, but I don't see how that matters. It was made more recently than any GTS car I've seen on track left the factory. Did NASA even provide the promised dynos in 2011? Are around half of NASA's classes still power to weight based? I don't see how that quote being old dismisses NASA's responsibility to provide adequate compliance tools as simple as a dyno. Why does NASA feel their responsibility has declined over the last 4 years?

 

If NASA can't provide adequate compliance tools for another 1-2 years, any changes to the class based on the 'perception' of cheating should be at least 2-3 years out. Rules stability for that time period would serve well to grow the class instead of the recent attempt to kill it.

 

Here's an idea, include a data log in the dyno cert. Then you have a baseline to compare throttle position, injector duty cycle, pedal position, and RPM against on track data which can be black box or driver provided. Then when NASA cannot provide a dyno, there is still a compliance mechanism.

 

 

Interesting idea. How would this be analyzed at the regional event level and by whom after every run. What system would be used to analyze this. It would obviously have to be standardized so that the person doing this activity would be well versed it it. Would there be a GTS compliance officer for every region or would the expectation be that the GTS series director would be doing that as well. Are you looking to volunteer for this position. If so, I would be interested in seeing more detail on your proposal. Maybe make your region a pilot site that after proving it out, the process would be moved to all other regions and the national event. You would need to put together finite triggers that would identify when a car has changed its state that it would normally see or what you would see when the car is on the dyno. If you did not, you would have drivers (as we have seen) being very disgruntled about the lack of transparency with the process. What I guess I am saying is, that if you want to be part of the solution, then great, help out and lets go. We might be able to shorten the length of the development. I would be happy to buy and carry an AIM in my car. I currently use an RLC unit, could we use that instead. After all, I already have it.

 

Also, there are two sides to this. Not only to keep the risk, or extent of non-compliance to a minimum, but also to keep the costs down. Let me give you an extreme example. I run a 997 GT3 Cup car in GTS 5. Now, we will be moving forward with the no areo rule change. No aero means just was originally came on the car from the factory. Well, without any other restriction, I can actually restrict my car down to 140 Hp and run in GTS1. Full aero package, after all, that is what came from the factory. So, I would be racing my 100k car against all of the 10k cars that you would normally find in GTS1 with big wing, big spoiler, wide wheels. I know this is a good combination, after all, it is what my 944 had back in 2011 when I ran GTS1.

 

Compliance tracking with electronic means is very important and we should have a GTS committee focused on just that subject, but at the same time steps do need to be taken now to limit the groups exposure to non-compliance as well as cost of the entry level driver. And, I suppose I am talking about the lower classes. I guess I never understand why a person would take a car capable of 400 Hp and limit it down to GTS3. Part of the fun of spending the big bucks to have a rocket ship is to run it as a rocket ship. Especially when you can spend half as much and have a car that fits in the same class. Maybe a rule structure that says that you can only spend x on your car for gts1, 2x for gts2 and so on.

 

Displacement limits is a good way of doing both (or another method of natural classing) It has the ability to keep costs down in the lower groups and it also limits non-compliance because it reduces the amount a person could potentially (and I hate to use the word) cheat.

 

As far as rule stability, the GTS rules are the most stable rules of any race organization that I have ever been associated with. Everything from PCA to SCCA to Grand Am. Some groups change rules twice a year and some provide BOP rewards after every race.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...