Jump to content
Bryancohnracing

Message from NASA National Office re: GTS Rules

Recommended Posts

Vmcclure10

Just reading the World Racing League rules. Looks like Power to weight ratio, period. Simple. I like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Paffy,

 

The issue is not as much with the advantages of the de-tunes, as much as dealing with the engine potentials, when abilities to monitor compliance are impaired. S52s are restricted using the mechanical means for GTS 2, vs. ECU for S54. We can look and verify the presence and the size of the restrictor but can't verify the ECU.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

Nice to see someone do some modeling paffy. I think your charts may be making an assumption, if I'm reading it correctly, that isn't correct. If you take an actual GTS2 S54 dyno and compare to an S52 dyno, I think you'll find the charts almost identical. As a matter of fact, my friends S52 dyno has 214whp and 218 wtq. My dyno with the S54 has 211whp/206wtq. A couple other S52's I've seen have wtq=whp. Both motors have pretty flat power curves. So car to car I would think the simulator should actually show the S52 having the advantage? Now the additional 1k rpm then comes into play and it's hard for me to suggest how much of an edge that turns out to be. On paper it's an extra 1k rpm but in reality most S54 guys shift around 7500 rpm. So it really comes down to a 300-400 rpm advantage over 7000-7100 rpm S52's. I actually think all these items considered together are the reason we see the cars so closely matched.

 

If someone has wtq above whp we can avg the two which results in more weight to level the field. If someone has over 7000rpm we can add additional weight for each 100 rpm above that. Seems like simple ways to make a fairly even race between the two even more even. In GTS3 it requires a different concept due to the difference in the power band of those cars. But guess what, check my suggested method of calculating power that I posted and it creates an adjustment for all these real world issues!

 

If NASA wants to go about creating the specs for restrictor plates per class for every motor option under the sun, go for it. We'll all comply. But if the resources aren't available to even provide a dyno and data, who is going to pay for all the R&D necessary to do that? If it's less compliacted than I'm suggesting then I clearly just don't understand it. Therefore just assign the plate size for GTS2 and RRT will get it done for me!

 

S52's have both mechanical AND electronic detuning. Of course the delta isn't the same between the two though. But what I find odd is this belief that someone can add 100whp and not be noticed. Below is a video of the only time in MA that we had a GTS2 car blatantly cheat this year. He had about a 25-30whp advantage . Refused to get on the dyno or scales but pretty easy to determine that number based on "the top" Spec46 that he had level acceleration with. Spec 46 is about a 12.5 to 13 power to weight ratio which is where I came up with the whp delta. BTW, the cheater had a non-m motor. e36 325 I believe. So the idea that the CC will prevent cheating doesn't make a ton of sense. It only takes a "bad driver" 25-30whp to beat a (I'll call myself a "good" driver). Now if I had a 25-30whp advantage in GTS2, I bet that would be enough for me to beat DJ (A great GTS2 driver). Oh yea, he was DQ'd bc we protested him. We didn't wait until the end of the weekend to send an email to National to whine about cheaters and demand a rule change.

 

 

Lawrence Gibson

NASA Midatlantic

E36M3 S54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paffy

Yes, I understand the shifting at 7500. You get the same amount of "pull" at the next gear, since you're tapping into the extra torque, you don't need to shift as often and can pick your shiftpoints freely.

 

My point is that the methology of (average+max)/2 is still somewhat flawed.

 

Here's a chart where average of HP ONLY is used. The S52 actually gets an advantage on the straights, but the S54 has an advantage pulling out of corners and it becomes a wash at the end.

 

njmp_avgonly_gts2_zpspaz7vhjc.jpg

 

Ideally, you'd want to look at the tranny gear ratios as well and calculate the average only of the "active" RPM range. That would take away the advantage of peaky motor with sequential tranny (where the "low power" portion of the RPM range is never used).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paffy

The issue with restrictor plates in lieu of RWHP I see is the advantage of limiting driveline losses. REM polishing, lighter oils and stuff that increases cost and wear dramatically become an advantage and worth pursuing

 

Personally, I would be extremely unhappy if I had to remove a carbon airbox from an S54, just so I can fit some restrictor because somebody was under an impression someone else was cheating somewhere in Texas and it brought 10 new pages of rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik911

As daytonars4 just mentioned, S52s can be electronically detuned and setup for map changes on the fly by using a $300 warchip. The S52s potential can be 280+ WHP. And can run to 7500 rpm. And externally look just like a 245whp setup. Still not clear on why the S54 would be treated any different.

 

At some point it would seem there has to be a level of trust placed in the hands of regional leaders and participants to police the outliers and keep a fair environment. If there is a local outlier then deal with it at that level first.

 

At nationals there are a huge team of compliance reps. And my experience is the top

Contenders are not the cheating type. Some have gotten caught out by dyno inconsistency, dealt with it and continued and still went on to win. But I have only raced on the west cost.

 

Back to your regular programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
As daytonars4 just mentioned, S52s can be electronically detuned and setup for map changes on the fly by using a $300 warchip. The S52s potential can be 280+ WHP. And can run to 7500 rpm. And externally look just like a 245whp setup. Still not clear on why the S54 would be treated any different.

 

At some point it would seem there has to be a level of trust placed in the hands of regional leaders and participants to police the outliers and keep a fair environment. If there is a local outlier then deal with it at that level first.

 

At nationals there are a huge team of compliance reps. And my experience is the top contenders are not the cheating type. Some have gotten caught out by dyno inconsistency, dealt with it and continued and still went on to win. But I have only raced on the west cost.

 

Back to your regular programming.

clapping_renly.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4
As daytonars4 just mentioned, S52s can be electronically detuned and setup for map changes on the fly by using a $300 warchip. The S52s potential can be 280+ WHP. And can run to 7500 rpm. And externally look just like a 245whp setup. Still not clear on why the S54 would be treated any different.

 

At some point it would seem there has to be a level of trust placed in the hands of regional leaders and participants to police the outliers and keep a fair environment. If there is a local outlier then deal with it at that level first.

 

At nationals there are a huge team of compliance reps. And my experience is the top

Contenders are not the cheating type. Some have gotten caught out by dyno inconsistency, dealt with it and continued and still went on to win. But I have only raced on the west cost.

 

Back to your regular programming.

 

One of the main reasons I got my car with an S54 is because of my friend who has an e36 with a built S52. On the conservative tune it's 270whp. We use to have epic HPDE battles and actually put down identical VIR top lap times in the 2:07's. Now we have both run 2:10's in GTS2 trim. Yet now you want a rule that includes him but excludes me from GTS2. What sense does that even make? I just don't see how that changes any perception of cheating or the ability to cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Eric911,

 

We absolutely agree with your statement that the level of trust should be placed in the hands of the regional leaders to deal with outliers.

Can you be more specific in the expectation or actual proposal what do you suggest for a regional GTS SD to do with the outlier in case there is no dyno and no on board device available?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
Eric911,

 

We absolutely agree with your statement that the level of trust should be placed in the hands of the regional leaders to deal with outliers.

Can you be more specific in the expectation or actual proposal what do you suggest for a regional GTS SD to do with the outlier in case there is no dyno and no on board device available?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

I think this is the entire point. There should be 1 device available per region to help police outliers. If this becomes too much to handle at a regional level then move forward.

 

Don't make sweeping changes until this becomes the normal and the perception of cheating is still rampant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik911

Michael

I know the AZ region had a traqmate they would put in competitors cars to help gain insight into potential advantages. I have also allowed officials to copy my data from my own traqmate to look at whatever parameters they wanted to.

 

I think most are open to allowing data acquisition via in car devices as a part of the permanent rules. I think this is a valid investment, maybe even offset somehow by membership to have at least one such device be it an AIM or traqmate, whatever to use in such circumstances. It would send a positive message that NASA is on board with compliance regionally. Kind of like the IRS, you might be audited but you might not....

 

If someone mysteriously slows down when the device is put in their car, that might put a bullseye on that competitor to keep an eye on.

 

I know this is nothing new or earth shattering, but somehow the details and rules of using these seems like a worthwhile long term goal for NASA. And I think you have already supported this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Eric911,

 

It is all good, but again, as stated before, as per CCR - we are not allowed to download and use the driver's own performance data for compliance.

We stopped using Traqmates for compliance 2 years ago in GTS because the data is very subjective and not reliable. AIM units are in beta testing stage and might require another year or two of development. None of the options you offered can be used for compliance at this point, and even if to be used but protested by any driver - will not stand the grounds.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik911

Yes I understand, so that rule needs to be addressed. That was more my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

We will be certainly changing the way we deal with protests and DQs as well as the public information and transparency. We are working on the new website, which, aside of being more modern and more functional, will allow us to create a databank of all dyno declarations / graphs for all cars.

The plan is make the upload mandatory once it is tested. It will also be available for all drivers to review.

We will also be more transparent with protests and DQs. But strangely enough, up to now, despite of many complains on suspicious cars, very few protests were actually filed.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

So just to make sure I understand you correctly. There is almost no official reporting of cheating but we HAVE to change the rules to stop all the cheating. MIND ..... BLOWN!!!!.... I don't even think we officially reported the GTS2 cheater we had. But frankly, we all bashed him so intensely that he packed up wihtout finishing the weekend and has never been heard from again. Even the threat of us using the dyno/AIM etc was sufficient for him to never even want to race with us again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

Surely there must be a misunderstanding.

If you want to check compliance using TPS, MAP and RPM (and whatever other sensors), you can do that with any basic logger. In such a scenario, the logger is simply logging voltages, there is no subjectivity involved. Interpreting GPS is where the haziness lies.

Why not to simply commit to confirming that the parameters I listed above and stop chasing the GPS unicorn?

It would be signficantly cheaper to implement and extremely easy to compare values on the dyno vs. the track (assuming someone is competent in excel, or a "real" data program like Matlab).

Race Capture Pro will handle, Race Technology DL-1, even the relatively dated Traqmate basic with the data add-on will handle, among others.

It is hardly the case that anyone should be throwing up their hands that "nothing" is available for compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1

Sorry been away for a while. Didn't we just go through this whole thing last year to take TQ out of the equation? Was all of data presented to take TQ out all wrong? I don't understand. We look like a monkey F##$ing a football going back and forth one year to the next. If I was standing on the outside looking in I would just laugh and go somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
Eric911,

 

It is all good, but again, as stated before, as per CCR - we are not allowed to download and use the driver's own performance data for compliance.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 

What is the reason for this rule? If the idea is to protect a "secret tune" (sorry for the simplistic language), then possibly reword the CCR such that whatever secret information is obtained stays strictly with the NASA officials and is not made public to the rest of the racers. From what I am seeing on the threads, most people are willing to show all of their data (unless I missed someone that objects). Or simply make a GTS rule that data gets shared (our rules on racing room are different than CCR, so why not this?). It may be that the rule being referenced is not terribly important to GTS racers?

 

For an overall rule making viewpoint:

 

For the 2016 season, the rule set essentially stays the same as it was last year. If you want to keep some of the "minor" changes and use 2016 as a trial basis, I bet some (probably not all) people would be on board with that. Spend the next year presenting ideas/concepts, having active discussions, and come up with a plan (not bashing, but it doesn't appear there was a plan this year).

 

If you need a committee of people, then ask for volunteers, assign Series Directors from the different Regions, and come up with some vetted ideas that aren't presented in November - more like June or July or earlier so there is a chance to discuss, revise, tweak and adjust as needed.

 

Right now everyone is working against a time crunch which is serving no ones interest and only generates distrust between racers and the leaders.

 

Just random observations of a Rookie GTS driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

If we would consider overriding the CCR in regards to getting the performance data out of the cars, we would also need to mandate the presence of the data systems and probably of a certain type / capacity, which many will object to. What do you do with someone who has no data system in the car?

3rd place finisher in GTS 3 at VIR had no data in the car for example.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

2016 GTS rule.... All cars are required to have a data logging system for compliance purposes. A $400 AIM isn't going to break anyone. We suggested this a long time ago but you said NASA won't allow it which is why we are HERE. If someone really can't afford one they can rent it from NASA just like we do transponders. For the right price ($75 a weekend just like a transponder) I'll even provide a few devices locally for rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
as per CCR - we are not allowed to download and use the driver's own performance data for compliance.

Sigh. Again:

 

So rigidity is > getting it right?

And:

 

2.7 Officials / Rules Hierarchy

This section is intended to clarify hierarchy among some officials and rules. Where there is a conflict, the

following order should be used. Each item on this list supersedes the prior listed item whenever there is a

conflict:

• Club Codes and Regulations

• Class Rules

• Local or Event Supplemental Rules

• Drivers’ Meeting Information

• Orders From Officials

• Race Director

• Regional Director

• Executive Director

• Medical Staff (with regards to patient care and their duties).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
If we would consider overriding the CCR in regards to getting the performance data out of the cars, we would also need to mandate the presence of the data systems and probably of a certain type / capacity, which many will object to. What do you do with someone who has no data system in the car?

3rd place finisher in GTS 3 at VIR had no data in the car for example.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

One option may be to make it a phased in system. AIM appears to be the preferred system of NASA, so instead of dropping a bomb in December of one year, announce that for the 2018 season, every car will have an AIM device of XXXX model. This allows for people with existing systems that are not compliant to make the switch, allows people that don't have data systems the opportunity to purchase the correct one and lets people that are contemplating entering the series in the next year the chance to know what the expectations are. As people start to buy preferred system, the ability of NASA to policing compliance goes up. By 2018 it is 100%.

 

We seem to be stuck on solving problems right this very instant when a measured approach may be more appropriate. If the concern from NASA mgmt. is the eliminating the perception, or real act of cheating, then this shows positive steps are being taken in the direction to squash those that cheat while not dropping the hammer on all the current competitors.

 

For the record, I don't have a data system (yet).

 

I really think there are solutions out there that will satisfy the needs of mgmt. and the racers but they need more time and focus than is allowed in a 15 day review period on a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.
Eric911,

 

We absolutely agree with your statement that the level of trust should be placed in the hands of the regional leaders to deal with outliers.

Can you be more specific in the expectation or actual proposal what do you suggest for a regional GTS SD to do with the outlier in case there is no dyno and no on board device available?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 

I would bet that the majority of cheating or the perception that there is a cheating problem, could be quelled if a standard protocol for compliance checking was implemented across the regions. Something as simple as validating what is stated on the declaration form for how the competitor has detuned would likely catch the majority. There would need to be consistency in how and when this is done - immediately after qual, each race, etc. Obviously an outlier would be scrutinized more closely and competitors would need to agree that there is discretion given to the NASA officials/directors for a decision. For those with tunes that are easy to switch, the onus would be on the competitor to come up with a means of proving that what they are currently running is legal and as declared.

 

A compromise for the upcoming season, in order to satisfy most concerns, might be to allow for more discretion by the officials to DQ a competitor even without a dyno onsite in addition to agreeing upon a standard protocol to be followed at each event. Video is always a useful tool for showing inconsistencies and is something we all have. Longer term goal for the regions without a dyno would be to work towards either getting one, and/or implementing the AIM system once it is out of beta testing. For the possible pwr/weight advantages that an S54 over an S5x might have, I would think that using more data points along the HP curve would even that out. There are valid points made with regards to racers running an s54 in GTS2+ for economic, availability and longevity reasons. I am currently running an s50 in GTS2, but I'm pretty sure that when that motor finally dies, I will move towards an s54 as the swap is becoming more economically feasible.

 

Would also like to say thanks to the NASA officials and regional volunteers/directors for working towards an agreeable solution. I'm sure most of us understand that it's never an easy job to satisfy everyone.

 

Jon Burgis

NorCal

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...