Jump to content
Bryancohnracing

Message from NASA National Office re: GTS Rules

Recommended Posts

Michael G.

Jonb94118,

 

All good points. We are actually moving alongside your advices on many issues - we updated the Declaration Form with more details and shifting more responsibility to the driver. I was advocating more responsibility to be shared by the Dyno operators in regards to proper protocols and keeping documentation for NASA officials to cross check if needed, but was advised, that NASA can't control the third party providers. Our goal is to create and follow the standard procedures across the board. Unfortunately, we can not advocate DQ without substantiated data. WE highly encourage in car video, but we didn't want to make it mandatory. On the other hand - each Region can have a supplemental additions. For example - here in the NE, we had supplemental paragraph managing Traqmate data compliance few years ago, when those were in use, as well as now, we will be adding the paragraph on in car video - if driver protests another driver on the on track infraction (contact, passing under yellow, etc.) he required to present the supporting video - otherwise his complain will not be taken (unless there is other proofs exist - flaggers, witnesses, etc.).

The same on data points - we are considering to move to 250 RPM increments at minimum.

 

In regards to switches and maps - unfortunately (or fortunately - depending how to look at) - those drivers who declare - do not cheat. The problem usually with those who forget to declare.

 

Thank you again for contributing.

 

One more clarification - as a National GTS Director - I assumed the responsibility to reply to the most of the posts here at Forum and on the FB, since I understood that the reply from the officials is expected (as well as replied to all private messages and emails as soon as I could and as fully as possible). We are in constant communication between Regional Series Directors and even if we differ in opinions on certain issues at times - we are in general agreement and support of each other in big issues affecting the present and the future of the series.

 

I took initiative in replies on the public forums only as a representative of the opinion of the directors.

 

I also wanted to apologize for the somewhat confusing and sometimes "reactionary" sequence of events during the period of the discussion, where we could of handle things better, but many steps were out of our direct control. We are at finishing steps in revision of the Rules and should be ready to post hopefully with in a day or two. Changes can never please everyone, but we (group of directors) believe that changes made will benefit the series in the future.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ineedfood2

The great thing about GTS is its easy to pick a class based on your pockets of $'s already . If you cant handle GTS 4 because you dont have enough money to invest in making your car competitive for that series. Move down to GTS 3. Detune your car for that series. If you cant run GTS 3 because you cant afford that series. DE-tune your car for GTS2. And guess what?? If you cant afford GTS2 because some really "smart" guy figured out how to DE-- tune the great s54.... Welp guess what again.... move yourself down to GTS1. If you cant afford that class then maybe you should race HPDE. I dont think we should be changing rules based on cost of a entire series that you can choose from already based on how much money is in your pockets and what they can afford . NASA is already offering the greatest range of $ to race ratio there is GTS 1-5 ??? If you have to figure out here is some simple math. Multiply each class by $10,000. thats about what it will cost to run the class for the year. Plain and simple. If you cant handle the mighty s54 class yourself down till you can. Maybe we should label the classes GTS $10,000 GTS $20,000 etc. so people know what to expect?? I have an s52 in my car restricted for GTS2 and have never had a s54 car beat me because of engine. Im all for the de-tune 100%. If for some reason i feel not comptetitive in my class because of de-tune and i cant afford to make my car competitive i will (you guessed it) class down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10
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.

 

 

Agree with this. Much less disruptive and most of us have Aim in MA.

Vernon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing
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.

 

 

Agree with this. Much less disruptive and most of us have Aim in MA.

Vernon

 

I would 2nd this, as would most other racers I believe. Just don't make the data public in case some are worried about it being used as an advantage by the slower drivers. We could just make race results unofficial for say, a week?, to give the directors time to go over the data. Final race results would then be posted on the regions website for all to view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
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.

 

 

Agree with this. Much less disruptive and most of us have Aim in MA.

Vernon

 

From my limited reading -

 

The $400 version does not record data. It is a GPS based lap timer.

 

The $700 version does record data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc
.... Maybe we should label the classes GTS $10,000 GTS $20,000 etc. so people know what to expect?? I have an s52 in my car restricted for GTS2 and have never had a s54 car beat me because of engine. Im all for the de-tune 100%. If for some reason i feel not comptetitive in my class because of tune, and i cant afford to make my car competitive i will (you guessed it) class down.

 

I don't really have a dog in this arena, but I know what a $10K German race car looks like.

 

You be hard pressed to build a competitive 944 Spec car for $10K. Light cars benefit from fancy shocks, carbon fiber, custom gears, and wings just like the higher classes. The arms race in the Great Lakes GTS1 class is good evidence of this. The only way you'd get GTS1 to be a class of $10K cars is to make GTS1 944Spec+SE30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
I am actually working with AiM on adding TPS and other data channels to the standard BMW PT6 CAN protocol. When my car is back on its wheels they offered to send me a beta version and they expect to have it released before year end. Once I have that, my car is going to the dyno. The comparison method should be similar if not easier than the current black boxes and it would be more definitive. A percentage deviation would simply need to be determined and could be constantly refined based on known non-cheaters.

 

I have no problem with you running your Cup car in GTS1. More competitors is always good. I also think restricting aero in GTS1 is foolish. All classes should be the same except for power to weight. I am glad you enjoy spending money to then wear out and break your car in order to spend more money. I, on the other hand, would like a reliable car. I would rather spend my time at the track racing and hanging out with friends instead of fixing the car. Then when I go home, I'd like to spend money on upgrades and beer instead of repairs and shop charges.

 

Your concept of displacement limits are foolish, will drive up costs and do absolutely nothing to reduce cheating, whether actual or perceived. If anything, it encourages cheating by providing an obvious benefit to built engines and aftermarket engine controls. It will also have to be constantly adjusted for newer technology and available engines. In your mind it may not have to change, since it looks like the displacement limits were determined (by you?) looking at a list of Porsche models over the past 35 years. The outlier is 928s which would all be in GTS5 despite making GTS2/3 power without an expensive custom built engine.

 

I'm pretty sure most people joined GTS so we could build and race whatever we wanted within the simple and fair power to weight structure. You thought your displacement rule met harsh resistance. Let us know when you get your "dollars per class" rule written so we can universally pan it, point and laugh, then go race elsewhere.

 

Thanks for the sarcastic banter.

 

PS: I hear your 997 is for sale. Are you get tired of Spec-Cup Car or does it cost too much to run? Feel free to detune that thing to come play with the cool kids. Not only will you possibly have more fun, but you might save some maintenance money so you can afford to buy me a beer or two in thanks.

 

 

 

I was not being sarcastic. If everyone was running AIM units and there is an expectation to review the data from the winner, or the top 3 from the two races and the qualifying session, how much time do you think it would take to review a half an hour of data of each of those. I know as a series director that we are already pulled in 5 different directions and most of us also race. If we are going to go with analyzing the data at the races, then we would need someone at the race who could take on that task.

 

You say I pretend to know your car, well, I would challenge that you pretend to know my car too. I have had 0 dnf's this year and other than brake pads and tires I replaced nothing on the car all year long. No, I had put my car up for sale, but I am now not selling it. My plan was to step back to a 996 cup car and make it a frankencup with a very large engine and very wide body, but I have since changed my mind. I am planning on putting together a detune to have the option to come to 4 for it. I may or may not have already started talking to Randy about that.

 

Now, The next bit is a joke, or sarcastic. Just a warning. Maybe we should go with the PCA strategy of categorizing GT cars. Just assign a power per liter and assume that everyone has built their engines to the max. That would make the dyno, these rule discussions, and detuning completely out of the question.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

The CC concept only works in theory but not in the real world as GTS exists today. When you base classes on CC with no power cap everyone has to build out their motor to be competitive. You can simply look at some of the BMW CCA classes to understand that. They have guys with e36 M3 motors rated for 240whp putting out 280-290whp with the same CC's. Those are $15-20k motor builds. I don't think anyone in GTS2 wants to have to drop 15-20k into a motor in order to be competitive.To avoid that, you would then have to start going down the list, motor by motor, of every mod that is and is not allowed. So rather than a dyno and data being necessary, you now have to start doing teardowns at impound every weekend. I would say that almost every racer in GTS1-2 is not running their motor "maxed out." This actually helps to keep costs down. In GTS3 a majority aren't maxxed either. GTS4-U is where guys are running maxed out and spending much more money to do it. Frankly, that's one of the core basis of GTS that exists today. Sure, you can change that if you want. But I can't afford to play that game where now S54's will have to be built to be competitive in their "designated no power limit class." I won't even get into how CC isn't a direct correlation to power across models. You can have a 3l Porsche 968 motor that's hard pressed to hit 220whp, whereas even the 3l M3 motor is 240s. So you will be creating natural advantages/disadvantages even among bone stock motors.

 

The AIM analysis is a lot simpler than you describe. I watched it first hand one weekend in MA where after a race we pulled up 4 racers data (moreso as a training session than compliance.) You are only pulling the fastest lap from each driver for the overlay. Within about an hour we were able to go through corner by corner to let each driver know where they were losing or gaining speed. So if this were just a matter of compliance checking acceleration on the straight, it wouldn't take nearly as long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
The AIM analysis is a lot simpler than you describe. I watched it first hand one weekend in MA where after a race we pulled up 4 racers data (moreso as a training session than compliance.) You are only pulling the fastest lap from each driver for the overlay. Within about an hour we were able to go through corner by corner to let each driver know where they were losing or gaining speed. So if this were just a matter of compliance checking acceleration on the straight, it wouldn't take nearly as long.

This. You would probably have time to pull the two fastest laps and cross-check all straightaways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

For compliance, especially in data review - we need protocol, not subjective comparisons of the fastest laps. If you expect us to have the tool we can use predictably - it must meet all of the compliance requirements, including transparency, reproducibility, grounds and mechanism to protest, etc. This is far beyond a quick glance and overlay of few laps.

 

In regards to CC - it is not an open CC format - it is still limited by HP/TQ/Weight, dyno, etc., so very different from BMWCCA concept.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

Micheal, without a dyno and data at events you have absolutely no way of regulating power. Therefore how do you have any idea how much power someone has even if its a 3.2l S52 engine. For all you know it could be the 240whp or 290whp variant. You have absolutely no idea which. Hence why the CC idea goes right back to square 1.

 

The data isn't subjective. If you have 2 cars in the same class.

Car A exists Oak 5 mph faster than car B

Car B all of a sudden is the same speed as car A by the middle of the straight

By the end of the straight, eventhough car B exited Oak 5 mph slower than car A, B is now 15mph higher top speed. This is a delta of 20mph

 

How is that subjective to say that car B clearly has more power? Now maybe if the allowancae delta is 10mph, fine. But it's easy to select some number that makes it an obvious cheater situation. The difference of a GTS2 and GTS3 top speed on the back straight is about 15mph. Therefore the delta should be some number lower than that. Use 2-3 laps and if it's consistent and not a case of drafting, DQ. That's a hell of a lot better than the no dyno/no data world in most regions today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

I don't see how mph is relevant to what you should be using to check compliance.

You need to confirm that the basic engine sensor parameter values on the track are very close to the readings produced on the dyno.

This can be handled in excel or a more sophisticated analysis program, but in any case should be largely automated and 0% subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4
I don't see how mph is relevant to what you should be using to check compliance.

You need to confirm that the basic engine sensor parameter values on the track are very close to the readings produced on the dyno.

This can be handled in excel or a more sophisticated analysis program, but in any case should be largely automated and 0% subjective.

 

You are looking at a level of analysis that does not exist today, maybe in 2017/18. I am using a level that has already been used the past year. It was used at Nationals as a 2nd tier check on dyno data. If 2 cars have the same power the acceleration will be similar. That's the whole idea of a power to weight class. A GTS2 car should not have the same acceleration rate as a GTS3 car if they both exit the prior corner at the same speed. If it does there's a problem. Regionally we were able to verify a 25whp advantage with exactly the data I described. The dyno was over and the acceleration was as I described which = DQ. Your scenario requires a dyno which has already been explained as not being available for all regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

We are working on adding RPM and TPS to data shortly and hopefully will move away from dyno at least in a form it is being used now.

Yes, we used the acceleration data based on the math channels developed by AIM, but it is work in progress. We changed the protocol slightly even between WSC and ESC based on our findings and new ideas. If AIM would not provide support and made Roger C. available at both events - we would never be able to manage the analysis. It is far from being easy and automated.

By the way, adding RPM will allow us to calculate HP and TQ as well.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4
We are working on adding RPM and TPS to data shortly and hopefully will move away from dyno at least in a form it is being used now.

Yes, we used the acceleration data based on the math channels developed by AIM, but it is work in progress. We changed the protocol slightly even between WSC and ESC based on our findings and new ideas. If AIM would not provide support and made Roger C. available at both events - we would never be able to manage the analysis. It is far from being easy and automated.

By the way, adding RPM will allow us to calculate HP and TQ as well.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

At this point I'm confident you have reviewed a lot of data in your role. Are you seriously going to tell me you can't tell the difference between a GTS2 (210whp) and GTS3 (280whp) car while reviewing data? I've only been familiar with AIM for about 6 months and the difference is blatant to even me. Your entire premise for the CC idea is that no one will be able to add 100whp anymore. Even if you use the limited capability of AIM that exists today you can't add 70whp without it being blatantly obvious. I wish I knew how to post pics on this site so I can show people unfamiliar with data how easy it is to tell the difference. Now if we get into 10-15whp range cheating, I would agree that it would be hard to spot. But then again, even the CC idea doesn't address that either since the 240whp S52 can be made to look the same visually as the 290whp S52. Both of which even if declared would still be GTS2 under a 3200CC rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Yes, we can see the difference. The issue is that while it is being tested and data accumulated for the development of the protocol, we are not ready to employ the devices as compliance tools yet. We will, but not yet. If we wouldn't see the difference - we wouldn't continue developing.

The rotation of the boxes cover a small percentage of events and being used primarily for data collection - not as compliance devices.

 

Most of the S52s still need a restrictor plate to claim de-tune unless they use aftermarket ECUs.

 

Michael G

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn
I don't see how mph is relevant to what you should be using to check compliance.

You need to confirm that the basic engine sensor parameter values on the track are very close to the readings produced on the dyno.

This can be handled in excel or a more sophisticated analysis program, but in any case should be largely automated and 0% subjective.

 

You are looking at a level of analysis that does not exist today, maybe in 2017/18. I am using a level that has already been used the past year. It was used at Nationals as a 2nd tier check on dyno data. If 2 cars have the same power the acceleration will be similar. That's the whole idea of a power to weight class. A GTS2 car should not have the same acceleration rate as a GTS3 car if they both exit the prior corner at the same speed. If it does there's a problem. Regionally we were able to verify a 25whp advantage with exactly the data I described. The dyno was over and the acceleration was as I described which = DQ. Your scenario requires a dyno which has already been explained as not being available for all regions.

 

To be clear, this level of analysis has been available to lowly amateurs for more than a decade.

I am not suggesting that you need a dyno at every event - my proposal could easily work if only relying on data from the dyno pulls used for the classification forms.

The idea is to look at the basis engine parameters (not HP) during a race and confirm that they are consistent with a compliant dyno pull.

The standalone dyno check at an event is ripe for abuse/manipulation; taking measurements on the track (where it matters) addresses that.

 

Btw, Race Technology sells a "Power Logger" which has been used as a compliance tool in a number of series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

When I said "exist" I meant in NASA world. As in the capability of the AIM Solo devices that NASA had in the field in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy

To those saying "just compare data between the top X cars"...

Stop it. it doesn't work like that.

 

Imagine comparing 3 cars, but now consider that they are the same car. Hell, even consider they are driven equally well.

Car 1: stock E36 328is. (2.93 open diff. stock shocks. crap tires.)

Car 2: Car 1 with a 3.46 LSD.

Car 3: Car 2 with MCS doubles, sticky tires, no external mirrors, flat bottom, wing, all seams taped off, fenders sealed, etc.

 

Which one is faster? Faster where? Which one has the most horsepower? Which one is cheating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4
To those saying "just compare data between the top X cars"...

Stop it. it doesn't work like that.

 

Imagine comparing 3 cars, but now consider that they are the same car. Hell, even consider they are driven equally well.

Car 1: stock E36 328is. (2.93 open diff. stock shocks. crap tires.)

Car 2: Car 1 with a 3.46 LSD.

Car 3: Car 2 with MCS doubles, sticky tires, no external mirrors, flat bottom, wing, all seams taped off, fenders sealed, etc.

 

Which one is faster? Faster where? Which one has the most horsepower? Which one is cheating?

 

Your comment gives me the impression you have not sat down to compare data in the manner I described. I have looked at numerous GTS2 car ... E36 M3 S54, Porsche 968 3l, e36 built S52, e36 stock S52... All with various levels of modification.... All with various suspensions. All with various levels of driver from Mike Skeen (a pro), to DJ (GTS2 Recrod holder), to new guys. The straight line acceleration from Oak to turn 14 is comparable among all these cars regardless of the power level or modifications chosen. The delta is within about 5-8 mph regardless of the scenario If any one of those cars exceeds the power to weight ratio by a substantial amount (20+whp) it will be obvious to spot. If you would like a tutorial or some actual data shoot me an email and I'll be glad to share.

 

No one in GTS2 would be running an open diff 2.93 and winning, so no. I don't have data of an example like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
To those saying "just compare data between the top X cars"...

Stop it. it doesn't work like that.

 

Imagine comparing 3 cars, but now consider that they are the same car. Hell, even consider they are driven equally well.

Car 1: stock E36 328is. (2.93 open diff. stock shocks. crap tires.)

Car 2: Car 1 with a 3.46 LSD.

Car 3: Car 2 with MCS doubles, sticky tires, no external mirrors, flat bottom, wing, all seams taped off, fenders sealed, etc.

 

Which one is faster? Faster where? Which one has the most horsepower? Which one is cheating?

 

Your comment gives me the impression you have not sat down to compare data in the manner I described. I have looked at numerous GTS2 car ... E36 M3 S54, Porsche 968 3l, e36 built S52, e36 stock S52... All with various levels of modification.... All with various suspensions. All with various levels of driver from Mike Skeen (a pro), to DJ (GTS2 Recrod holder), to new guys. The straight line acceleration from Oak to turn 14 is comparable among all these cars regardless of the power level or modifications chosen. The delta is within about 5-8 mph regardless of the scenario If any one of those cars exceeds the power to weight ratio by a substantial amount (20+whp) it will be obvious to spot. If you would like a tutorial or some actual data shoot me an email and I'll be glad to share.

 

No one in GTS2 would be running an open diff 2.93 and winning, so no. I don't have data of an example like that.

 

 

 

While we won't likely have data for a 2.93, i suspect we have a mix of 3.15, 3.23, 3.46, 3.64, 3.73, and 3.91 (and I have a 4.25) in E36's alone. In just GTS2, we have M50's, M52's, S50's, S52's, and S54's, again just in E36's, and a wide mix of methods to get to a peak (or total) power figure, wide range of weights, varied aero, etc.

 

After the "issues" at ECC2014, I went through libraries of data for known cars. (Due to my occupation, I have plenty of data from WC, Grand Am, IMSA, WEC, and various club level cars as well.) I even have odd ones like a GTS3 E46 M3 with and without aero (same car with and without the splitter and wing) on the same track, same driver, same tires, same day. I did as much as I could with cars of known weights and known power curves or peak power numbers. I was able to look at "the same car" at the same track, same day, same driver, same engine/mapping, with different tires, different gearing, different aero configurations, and other such "variables" that could easily happen during a race weekend. I intentionally turned off RPM and TPS, and would also look at random laps instead of just fastest. The principle being to "spot" trends with the limited (GPS only) data set NASA would have.

 

NASA is essentially gathering speed only. We can plot acceleration and somewhat bound where things should be... but we cannot look at speed itself. Even acceleration we need to carefully consider, as the above "3 car" scenario points out. A 15+ mph variation at the end of the straight might not be "out of the ordinary".

 

With speed only, it is very easy to have one car appear "more powerful", and this is when looking at the same car. Add to that that we've already had a problem with a car that didn't even appear faster in data get DQ'd, and I'm exceptionally skeptical of non-professionals being able to spot a difference. There is too little understanding of data, let alone physics, in the organization to push something like this into full effect.

 

I did all of the above again with TPS and RPM in an effort to define how to calculate drag (aero and rolling) and then get a better engine power figure/curve. This was the only way I could get in the ballpark of a "compliance tool", and I said as much last year. If we do not have the ability to spit out an engine power plot, check it in various gears, and compare that to the one from the dyno itself, we don't have a compliance tool. Even with calculating drag, I still needed to (at this point manually) correlate the different gears/ratios along with speed/drag to make sure it was consistent between gears as it should be. Luckily i had a test case that had different power in gears to test. (in a series where traction control is not allowed, but it doesn't say you can't make less power in the lower gears.) It is exceptionally easy for something like that to get lost in the noise of drag.

Then we get to figure out when a car is in clean air or not.

 

This notion turned into an amusing thread last time, with no understanding of why we would discuss (bring up) such nonsense. But here we area again, full circle, almost a year later.

 

If you wish to discuss more, or share your data/analysis approach, my email is [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

The example I described is not "speed" alone. It's a delta in speed from Oak tree to turn 14 at VIR. You can't just look at the top speed of a car to determine if it is cheating or not. You have to look at what the exit speed was from the prior turn. The motor is almost irrelevant. As I already said, I've gone into detail with GTS2 data this year and there has never been a 15mph delta among the top guys EXCEPT when we had a guy who was blatantly cheating. Everyone in my region due to the size of the track and required top end speed runs a 3.64 or 3.73 in their e36's.

 

So there's a ton of scenarios you mentioned that I never would see because frankly, if you are running those ratios, you aren't on the podium with the type of builds that exist in my region. I actually by mistake ran a 3.23 stock diff at VIR once. The crazy thing is .... It had the same type of acceleration on the back straight. I only lost about 5mph. If you have a better method of compliance for a region like yours with greater variety, I'm all ears? Apparently my region is the only one that actually has data AND a dyno every weekend. So I'm just trying to make suggestions to help the other regions so my region doesn't get screwed due to a lack of compliance everywhere else.

 

This idea that everyone in GTS2 being limited to 3200 cc would prevent cheating is absurd. If you have looked at data yourself there's no way you can claim that you can't tell the difference between a GTS2 and GTS3 car. Which is the whole point, getting rid of this theory that people are adding on an extra 100whp to win races. Even cheaters only need 20-30whp to beat much better drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
The example I described is not "speed" alone. It's a delta in speed from Oak tree to turn 14 at VIR. You can't just look at the top speed of a car to determine if it is cheating or not. You have to look at what the exit speed was from the prior turn. The motor is almost irrelevant. As I already said, I've gone into detail with GTS2 data this year and there has never been a 15mph delta among the top guys EXCEPT when we had a guy who was blatantly cheating. Everyone in my region due to the size of the track and required top end speed runs a 3.64 or 3.73 in their e36's.

 

So there's a ton of scenarios you mentioned that I never would see because frankly, if you are running those ratios, you aren't on the podium with the type of builds that exist in my region. I actually by mistake ran a 3.23 stock diff at VIR once. The crazy thing is .... It had the same type of acceleration on the back straight. I only lost about 5mph. If you have a better method of compliance for a region like yours with greater variety, I'm all ears? Apparently my region is the only one that actually has data AND a dyno every weekend. So I'm just trying to make suggestions to help the other regions so my region doesn't get screwed due to a lack of compliance everywhere else.

 

This idea that everyone in GTS2 being limited to 3200 cc would prevent cheating is absurd. If you have looked at data yourself there's no way you can claim that you can't tell the difference between a GTS2 and GTS3 car. Which is the whole point, getting rid of this theory that people are adding on an extra 100whp to win races. Even cheaters only need 20-30whp to beat much better drivers.

 

 

The more complicated this discussion gets the more you are pointing out the challenges with in car monitoring.

 

The entire argument you make is that both cars have static tunes. That neither car has the ability to unleash the power at any point in time for any amount of time. If I had the ability to change tunes and I knew I was being monitored, I would have a momentary button and I would push the button (on occasion) in slower corners as I was exiting them so that it would appear, rather than I had extra power, but I was able to get on the throttle harder that one time, then I would not do it there again for several laps (or maybe never again, after all, all I need to do is lead, to dominate) Then, the region compliance officer (see back to that again) would be looking at mine and the other podium sitters. He would spend about 20 minutes going over the data. He might discover a few anomalies, but only if he was really looking there for them and knew where to look. And, at 20 min per competitor for qualify and race, he just spent 2 hours per day going through the data for one of the 5 GTS classes.

 

If you are saying that you think that anyone who looks at data would not be able to look at the slope of the curve at steady state and determine the Hp based on the weight and rate of change, then you are correct. But, as others have said, the aerodynamic efficiency of the car also comes into play. If you do not believe me, then we need to get together with one of our 996 cup cars as we play with restrictor plates and wing and spoilers and I can show you how I can give a car 50 Hp and offset it with better aero so the speed at the end of the straight is exactly the same, the slope of the acceleration curves in the straights is almost identical, but the speed through the corners is exactly what shows up to give the car better lap times.

 

And, then, how much cheating do you think it would take that we should notice or be able to act on. 20Hp, 40Hp, 60?

 

As Michael said, there is a LOT of work to do before we can launch a full compliance protocol. We want it to be transparent, but the more transparent it is, the easier it is to defeat.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

I think you are understanding my point from the wrong perspective. My point is that this, even with flaws, is better than the 0 compliance that exists today in most regions. Talking about Cups and GTS2 cars are worlds apart so I don't doubt what you are saying. My friend with his 997.2GT3 street car saw a difference of 5 mph at Mid-O just by adjusting his wing angle. But the slower the car is the lower the impact of aero. So to be honest, something that I suggest in regards to GTS2, which is where I race, probably doesn't work for GTS4 where those impacts of aero become more pronounced.

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...