FINAL 2016 Rules Posted

[Michael G.]

Final Rules for 2016 posted at www.nasaproracing.com

 

Changes from the first upload 2 weeks ago:

 

Adjusted:

 

Displacement Ratio for GTS 1 - from 2.6 to 2.8 L

 

Removed from the original version -

 

1. minimum Weight requirement of 3,000 lb. for S54 powered cars in GTS 3.

2. requirement for maximum limit of bolt on ballast of 300 lb.

3. Aero restrictions for GTS 1.

 

Edited wording / clarified :

 

On gearboxes, fixed windows, required Dyno Documentation and Impound protocols.

 

Added:

 

Peak TQ factors for Minimum Weight calculations:

 

Each car will be required to obtain Peak TQ value as part of the Dyno Testing.

 

Peak TQ will be assessed at plus 0.5 factor relative to the existing Average HP factors along all the classes and whichever is higher of two will be taken as Minimum Weight. For example, if the GTS 3 car on DOT tires has 250 HP/ 245 TQ - the minimum weight will be calculated as

250 X 11 = 2750 / 245 X 11.5 = 2817. In this case 2817 - will be the minimum weight.

 

Peak TQ values can be found in the table marked in red as well as all the other changes.

 

The TQ calculations will be added to the online Calculator soon, but for now have to be done manually.

Also, all of the Dyno tests will need to be re-calculated using 2016 updated calculator.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Series National Leader.

[7VO-VOM]

Each car will be required to obtain Peak TQ value as part of the Dyno Testing.

 

Peak TQ will be assessed at plus 0.5 factor relative to the existing Average HP factors along all the classes and whichever is higher of two will be taken as Minimum Weight. For example, if the GTS 3 car on DOT tires has 250 HP/ 245 TQ - the minimum weight will be calculated as

250 X 11 = 2750 / 245 X 11.5 = 2817. In this case 2817 - will be the minimum weight.

 

Peak TQ values can be found in the table marked in red as well as all the other changes.

I assume there is no data to show that this new calculation method is fair or balances performance in any way. So basically, NASA still refuses to provide any additional compliance enforcement while making up (un)natural classing rules that completely go against the spirit of the GTS rules. They still want to kick a completely fair, not cheating GTS3 car to GTS5 for no reason other than the perception of some spineless people who can't follow the accepted protest procedure. Thanks for destroying GTS in MA.

 

PS: The rules as written are unenforceable, so have fun with that.

[gjkasten]

I hope I am misunderstanding the calculations part.

 

I am new to GTS 2 and have done very little to add power, just a new exhaust which was more for weight reduction than power (I even run the stock airbox). To the best of my knowledge it is a stock tune on an S52 motor.

 

Last year my Average HP for DOT tires was 210.7 which gave me a weight of 3055 pounds. Torque, which was not part of the equation was at 223 ft-lbs.

 

Using the same dyno sheet, my weight for 2016 is now 3,345 pounds. A nearly 300 pound increase in weight because my torque is 13 digits higher than my average hp????!!!!!

 

Why are you using average hp and peak torque???? Wouldn't average hp and average torque be more logical?

 

And what is the thinking in removing torque from the equation one year, then adding it back in with a penalty the next?????

 

I said it in another thread, there seems to be a need to make changes right this very instant without discussing and thinking through what all of the ramifications are. Leave the rule set alone this year. Talk through the changes over the entire next season and get it right for 2017.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Just give up. There is no logic to be found in any of this crap! I'm gone for sure. Totally ridiculous!!!

[flink]

Last year my Average HP for DOT tires was 210.7 which gave me a weight of 3055 pounds. Torque, which was not part of the equation was at 223 ft-lbs.

 

Using the same dyno sheet, my weight for 2016 is now 3,345 pounds. A nearly 300 pound increase in weight because my torque is 13 digits higher than my average hp????!!!!!

 

urgh, you're really screwed. If you put a restrictor in there, that will reduce your peak power and won't do much at all to peak torque so it'll make things worse.

 

You could fix it with a custom dyno tune - perhaps flipping the VANOS early (like, 2000RPM) will be sufficient to kill the low-end power, dunno. But you're running a stock DME - to go off and get a custom dyno tune will be a lot of cost and hassle.

 

Sigh. I wish they just wouldn't put torque on dyno sheets at all - it only confuses people. When we talk about torque, we really mean "power at low RPMs". And that's uninteresting in racing because if you drive around at low RPMs you'll come last.

 

This rule is particularly curious when it comes to S54's revving to 8200RPM. Torque and RPM cross at 5252 RPM and with that high rev limit nobody will driving around at less than 5252 RPM. They're getting penalized for engine output in a range which is never used.

 

OK, maybe-just-maybe it's better to dip below 5252 when pulling out of a slow turn in order to save one upshift per lap, big deal.

 

My initial reaction to this change was "shrug, as long as it makes officialdom happy and doesn't screw anyone too much, let's move on". But I see now that you (and many other GTS2 S52 cars) have been badly and quite unnecessarily screwed. argh.

 

On a separate note, the rule change didn't update the power/weight table for tube-frame cars (section 5.1). Presumably it should have done so. (Do any tube frame GTS cars actually exist??)

[Snymo]

Michael, I need some help understanding this new Min Weight calculation. Using numbers from last years calculator my min weight was 2963 for my GTS2 M3 with an S52. With this new change, I am looking at 3181.

 

The calculator used the following numbers:

 

RPM:HP

3500:131.15

4000:159.66

4500:179.81

5000:193.40

5500:196.86

6000:205.95

6500:203.01

 

Redline RPM: 6950

Redline HP: 196.42

Max HP RPM: 6150

Max HP: 206.27

 

Calculated Average HP: 204.3

GTS2 Class Multiplier: 14.5

 

For 2016, we have to use "Peak TQ will be assessed at plus 0.5 factor relative to the existing Average HP factors along all the classes and whichever is higher of two will be taken as Minimum Weight" as listed in your post.

 

From the dyno run listed above, my Max Torque was 212.07. So, the new calculations are:

 

Avg HP Min Weight: 204.3 * 14.5 = 2962.35

Peak Torque Min Weight: 212.07 * 15 = 3181.05

 

So, 3181.05 is my new min weight.

 

How did you determine the 0.5 factor for Torque and what were you trying to accomplish with this change? Adding 218 lbs of ballast to my car is hard to fathom and I need some help understanding this rule change.

 

As a side note, if we go back to the 2014 calculations which used ((WHP+WTQ)*.5)*14.5, my min weight would have been 3018.68. That's a 55 lb penalty. This year, it's a 218 lb penalty.

[surlynkid]

well there goes that. I was going to move into GTS this year. now I will just stay in TT and instruct DE1/2, and pay zilch.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Ha! With the numbers I ran in gts3 this past year, my car would have to weigh 4094 lbs if I was even allowed in 3 anymore.

[7VO-VOM]

Michael,

What happened to this?

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

Displacement limits didn't change other than GTS1. Some complete BS torque rule was added. The gearbox rule changed to a mix between 2015 and the first 2016 rules.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Or what about NASA's argument that tq doesn't matter during last year's changes

[daytonars4]

Since some ideas similiar to my proposed concepts were used in an inappropriate manner I feel obligated to explain why this set of rules is actually worse than the first set.

1) The factor for torque was meant for GTS3 only. The reason for that is this is the main class where torque has a material impact. The torque is the advantage of the V8's over S54's. Therefore the 11.65 factor was meant to be used as a method to add appropriate weight to V8 cars to balance out that advantage in GTS3. Torque becomes less relevant in GTS4 because, for example, you have cars like Cups with sequentials that don't even dip below 5k rpm. You also have higher hp levels so the 11.5 factor won't even come into play for an S65 in GTS4 as it hits 340whp+ and still only has 280-300wtq.

 

2) You are screwing GTS2 cars which tend to naturally have flat or slightly inverted curves. By adding the .5 factor for that class you are literally only serving the purpose of slowing the entire field. Even with S54's in GTS2, S52's still had a torque advantage. So now with S54's out of GTS2s anyway, what's even the intent of this rule for this class? Now everyone will have to chase down custom tunes to try to somehow create more of an S54 type Curve with their S50/52. Annnndddd, Randy wins again.lol Sometimes it seems like rules are sent out without anyone even forward and back testing it in multiple classes.

[Michael G.]

The TQ was added based on many arguments that the removal of the TQ last year was a mistake and there were many cars taking advantage of the high TQ values. We run many scenarios and agreed that adding .5 alongside the HP was the right number. It may need to be adjusted, if we will find it to be needed. The displacement is strictly seen as engine potential, so the displacement size is used to limit cars to certain classes.

 

Michael G.

[Snymo]

The TQ was added based on many arguments that the removal of the TQ last year was a mistake and there were many cars taking advantage of the high TQ values.

OK, please explain how your thinking changed from the first edition of the 2016 rule set to this edition? What specifically made you do this and why was it not included in the first set? I'm really trying to stay open minded about this, but finding it hard without some context of what you guys are trying to do here.

 

Also, at what interval do you see this being adjusted? As needed, monthly, yearly, at your discretion? What data will you use in making a decision?

 

Thanks

[gjkasten]

The TQ was added based on many arguments that the removal of the TQ last year was a mistake and there were many cars taking advantage of the high TQ values. We run many scenarios and agreed that adding .5 alongside the HP was the right number. It may need to be adjusted, if we will find it to be needed.

 

Michael G.

 

Is 290 pounds of balast (on top of the 100 I am already running) enough to justify an adjustment?

 

How many dyno charts did you guys run on S52 engines? Based on the immediate feedback in the Rocky Mountain Region, everyone is adding obscene amounts of ballast and we all run S52's.

[Michael G.]

We are planning to look at numbers through the year and decide if there is need to adjust for 2017. Based on our numbers there is no obscene amount of ballast, but may need to re-tune or use different restrictor plates. The thinking didn't change from the first version to this one. We realized that the limit for Displacement is wrong for GTS 1 since that would affect many cars now running in 1. there was a strong opinion from before on returning to TQ values, which were dropped last year.

 

Michael G.

[gjkasten]

We are planning to look at numbers through the year and decide if there is need to adjust for 2017. Based on our numbers there is no obscene amount of ballast, but may need to re-tune or use different restrictor plates. The thinking didn't change from the first version to this one.

 

Michael G.

 

You don't think that 300 pounds of new ballast on a car that was legal last year, on a factory tune, is obscene (aka excessive)? A 3355 pound GTS2 car? Really?

 

Please share your numbers, I have shared mine. I'll send you my dyno charts and all the paperwork from last years and you can see for yourself what I'm talking about. I'm sure that there is more than just one car that would really like to see how you guys came to this conclusion.

 

I'm not sure what first version you are talking about (2014, 2015, or 2016v1?), but none of them penalized a car like this. The initial version you had up for 2016 actually allowed me to drop 30 pounds which I was happy with. Hell, I would have been ok with adding 30 pounds (no happy, but ok). Adding 300 pounds is crazy.

[wazgtsRacer]

Ok... I've been biting my young tongue for a while. I am the epitome of a cash strapped racer... I am currently 28 but started racing at 26 and was active duty army officer. I never had a huge budget to race and still have a small calculated budget. I started when I bought Johnathon Vasquez's old car and raced in gts3 in the SE. I decided to thrown a restrictor plate and add ballast last year to run gts2 with my bone stock s52 (1200 junk yard pick up after I popped a head gasket and found some internal issues with my old motor). Last years rules I thought were silly because first I don't have he money to throw around on a custom tune... I'd rather spend that on me driving and consumables to tune my skill set. So I threw in my restrictor plate got a Dyno plot and added a crap ton of weight to get to just over 3080lbs in my car that was 2800 ish no fuel and me in it..

 

With this new rule... My dirt cheap motor, lack of racing budget, and lack of space in my car for more ballast you are asking me to add over 160 more lbs of ballast!?!? My motor puts out 216lb/ft x 15 that's 3240. From my old 3080!? I might as well remove my plate and remove the weight and hope I'm close to gts3 #s. But I don't have the cash for the big time areo or an s54 swap or an e46 where i would need to be competitive!

 

I don't get it. Last year you argued how torque was simply a measure of force and HP was a measure of force over time thus HP is the only measurement which is a direct correlation to a cars acceleration potential... Which is by the rules of physics a true statement.... So what's changed!?!?

 

What I am seeing is that the GTS leadership is trying to eliminate cheating and equalize the playing field( right on good intnetions no one wants to race with cheaters). But what you are doing is forcing racers like me on a tight budget spend more money on ever changing set ups, while many front runner and gentlemen with big budgets who don't mind spending the money can experiment until they find he loophole or perfect set up with the ever complicated and changing rule set. You are hurting me the low budget racer. The guys with the money will find optimized solution. Why not make he optimized solution simple!

 

At least when I was in gts3 I knew I would never be able to compete up front in my e36 S52. I knew that if I did I needed to develop an e46 s54 or bigger. Gts2 that's where my platform and budget would allow me to compete... Please please please follow he KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid! That's why the majority of us joined this series. We like German cars, they work great at the track and damnit it was "WAS" a simple series to understand the rules in! Now I have to either invest in a custom detune of my s52 or somehow someway find a way to squeeze another 160lbs on my already 280lbs of ballast! Thanks

[Snymo]

We are planning to look at numbers through the year and decide if there is need to adjust for 2017. Based on our numbers there is no obscene amount of ballast, but may need to re-tune or use different restrictor plates. The thinking didn't change from the first version to this one. We realized that the limit for Displacement is wrong for GTS 1 since that would affect many cars now running in 1. there was a strong opinion from before on returning to TQ values, which were dropped last year.

 

Michael G.

Thank you Michael for answering part of the question and skipping out on the rest. However, your other answers speak volumes. Things like "there is no obscene amount of ballast" when 2 weeks ago you wanted a 300 lb limit. Like "the thinking didn't change from the first version to this one". Really, nothing changed on your end but in two weeks you decided that torque was a big enough advantage to require a separate multiplier? A "strong opinion", by who? You, the National office? Come on man!

 

I also just read the following on the Facebook page. Eric Wonger wrote:

"For the GTS2 guys, you may just need to re-tune to get that torque number lower. National unfortunately had to go this route because they wanted GTS to look a certain way. TQ values were reintroduced to try to minimize big motor swaps into lower classes. Until we can iron out compliance measures, they had to adopt these rules to placate the perception of cheating."

 

Wow, I'm not sure what way National wants GTS to "look", but this isn't the way I want to look or the way I want to participate. NASA is a for-profit entity so by definition they exist to make money. In response to these changes, I'll be voting with my wallet going forward. I will not be participating in NASA events with these GTS rules in place. I won't even move my car to a different class, PTx or STx, as there is no point in putting money into an organization that is so set on standing their ground without so much as a hint at the data or context behind their decisions to its user base. I'll go find somewhere else to play until the rules come back to being grounded in logic and data. Until then, good luck....

[mcdonaldsracing]

Amen brotha!!! I'd be right there with you if it wasn't for the fact that I have so much fun with the people I've met through NASA. Rest assured though, I'll be trying out different organizations and seeing what i find.

[loftygoals]

The TQ was added based on many arguments that the removal of the TQ last year was a mistake and there were many cars taking advantage of the high TQ values. We run many scenarios and agreed that adding .5 alongside the HP was the right number. It may need to be adjusted, if we will find it to be needed. The displacement is strictly seen as engine potential, so the displacement size is used to limit cars to certain classes.

 

Michael G.

 

 

Could you please share some examples of these scenarios? How exactly can you "take advantage of high TQ values"?

 

 

 

We are planning to look at numbers through the year and decide if there is need to adjust for 2017. Based on our numbers there is no obscene amount of ballast, but may need to re-tune or use different restrictor plates. The thinking didn't change from the first version to this one. We realized that the limit for Displacement is wrong for GTS 1 since that would affect many cars now running in 1. there was a strong opinion from before on returning to TQ values, which were dropped last year.

 

Michael G.

 

I think there will be a lot of obscene ballasting. A bone stock BMW S52 will take the torque penalty, and thus have to run an extra 107.5 pounds. A bone stock BMW M20 (such as a Spec E30) would need to take an additional 77.5 lbs. Even a bone stone NA Porsche 944 (think 944 Spec) will have to take an additional 70 lbs. All of these additional weight figures are solely based on the additional .5 penalty. Once you consider the delta vs. average HP, the numbers only increase more.

 

Here are some dyno's to back it up:

 

1998 BMW M3 with aftermarket cat back

 

 

Collection of Spec E30 Dynos

 

 

Example of a 944 Spec Dyno

 

 

The most disturbing thing about this is that these motors are all nearly 100% stock running stock computers. These are exactly the kinds of motors budget and beginning racers run. So with an effort being made to attract new racers, why are stock motors being penalized?

 

Now another example is a GTS3 racer here in Texas.

 

1979 BMW E21 3L M20

 

 

He is working to get his car back together for the first race of the season, which is just over a month away for us in Texas. I called him after seeing the final rules. He hadn't seen them because he's been in the garage working on his car. His car is a 1979 BMW E21. It uses a BMW M20 with a S50 crank to make 202 HP / 202 TQ. Under the 2015 average HP rules, his average was 198 HP. That translates into a minimum weight of 2178 lbs. Now, he has to take the extra .5 multiplier based on TQ. That results in a 2016 minimum weight of 2323 lbs. That's an increase of 145 lbs on a sub 2200 lbs car! That's equivalent to a 200 lbs increase on a 3000 lbs race car.

 

So what's this racer to do? The car is completely non-competitive in GTS, now. It doesn't have enough power to cross over in to ST. It has too many points for PT. Basically it can't be run with NASA any longer.

 

This guys was racing on a budget, too. He built a light car with a cheap parts bin motor to control build and consumable costs. The motor doesn't have e-throttle or adjustable cam timing to manipulate the tuning. Basically, it is exactly the kind of car and racer that the rule changes were trying to protect. Unfortunately, the 2016 rules may have ended his ability to compete with NASA.

 

-bj

[Nova]

Amen brotha!!! I'd be right there with you if it wasn't for the fact that I have so much fun with the people I've met through NASA. Rest assured though, I'll be trying out different organizations and seeing what i find.

 

Nothing like getting your provisional license and looking forward to racing more in 2016 only to have your car DQ'd because it has a motor swap (S54) not an expensive built S52. I guess I should be happy that I haven't invested too much time racing with NASA before I leave. Have fun next year.

[mcdonaldsracing]

Amen brotha!!! I'd be right there with you if it wasn't for the fact that I have so much fun with the people I've met through NASA. Rest assured though, I'll be trying out different organizations and seeing what i find.

 

Nothing like getting your provisional license and looking forward to racing more in 2016 only to have your car DQ'd because it has a motor swap (S54) not an expensive built S52. I guess I should be happy that I haven't invested too much time racing with NASA before I leave. Have fun next year.

Oh, I'm done with gts for sure. I can either run my car around 4k lbs and play in 3 or 4, or run it without the weight in and no competitors in 5. Mine was a newly swapped car that I spent a ton of money on just last year, so this is infuriating to say the least.

[Bigcloud]

The TQ was added based on many arguments that the removal of the TQ last year was a mistake and there were many cars taking advantage of the high TQ values. We run many scenarios and agreed that adding .5 alongside the HP was the right number. It may need to be adjusted, if we will find it to be needed. The displacement is strictly seen as engine potential, so the displacement size is used to limit cars to certain classes.

 

Michael G.

 

 

Could you please share some examples of these scenarios? How exactly can you "take advantage of high TQ values"?

 

 

 

We are planning to look at numbers through the year and decide if there is need to adjust for 2017. Based on our numbers there is no obscene amount of ballast, but may need to re-tune or use different restrictor plates. The thinking didn't change from the first version to this one. We realized that the limit for Displacement is wrong for GTS 1 since that would affect many cars now running in 1. there was a strong opinion from before on returning to TQ values, which were dropped last year.

 

Michael G.

 

I think there will be a lot of obscene ballasting. A bone stock BMW S52 will take the torque penalty, and thus have to run an extra 107.5 pounds. A bone stock BMW M20 (such as a Spec E30) would need to take an additional 77.5 lbs. Even a bone stone NA Porsche 944 (think 944 Spec) will have to take an additional 70 lbs. All of these additional weight figures are solely based on the additional .5 penalty. Once you consider the delta vs. average HP, the numbers only increase more.

 

Here are some dyno's to back it up:

 

1998 BMW M3 with aftermarket cat back

 

 

Collection of Spec E30 Dynos

 

 

Example of a 944 Spec Dyno

 

 

The most disturbing thing about this is that these motors are all nearly 100% stock running stock computers. These are exactly the kinds of motors budget and beginning racers run. So with an effort being made to attract new racers, why are stock motors being penalized?

 

Now another example is a GTS3 racer here in Texas.

 

1979 BMW E21 3L M20

 

 

He is working to get his car back together for the first race of the season, which is just over a month away for us in Texas. I called him after seeing the final rules. He hadn't seen them because he's been in the garage working on his car. His car is a 1979 BMW E21. It uses a BMW M20 with a S50 crank to make 202 HP / 202 TQ. Under the 2015 average HP rules, his average was 198 HP. That translates into a minimum weight of 2178 lbs. Now, he has to take the extra .5 multiplier based on TQ. That results in a 2016 minimum weight of 2323 lbs. That's an increase of 145 lbs on a sub 2200 lbs car! That's equivalent to a 200 lbs increase on a 3000 lbs race car.

 

So what's this racer to do? The car is completely non-competitive in GTS, now. It doesn't have enough power to cross over in to ST. It has too many points for PT. Basically it can't be run with NASA any longer.

 

This guys was racing on a budget, too. He built a light car with a cheap parts bin motor to control build and consumable costs. The motor doesn't have e-throttle or adjustable cam timing to manipulate the tuning. Basically, it is exactly the kind of car and racer that the rule changes were trying to protect. Unfortunately, the 2016 rules may have ended his ability to compete with NASA.

 

-bj

 

 

How did you calculate your minimum weight? I'm using the current 2016 formula of

 

avg hp * 14.5 = weight

 

peak tq * 15 = weight

 

if I take your calculated 2016 weight of 2323lbs and invert the equation to

 

avg hp = weight / 14.5

 

peak tq = weight / 15

 

 

160 avg hp = 2323 lbs / 14.5

 

154.87 peak tq = 2323 / 15.0

 

Your comparing a dyno of 202 whp and 202 wtq with an average whp of 198. If we take and use only the max torque value

 

202 peak torque * 15 = 3030 lbs

 

Am I missing something here??

 

Don't forget the avg hp.....peak torque multipliers are an OR condition and not an AND condition.....

[ILIKETODRIVE]

GTS transplants coming over to ST:

 

[mcdonaldsracing]

lmao