Jump to content
Michael G.

FINAL 2016 Rules Posted

Recommended Posts

Michael G.

After revisiting the posted ratios the committee decided to lower the TQ factors for GTS 1 and 2 down to .25 from .5, considering the impact of the higher ratios in lower classes and changed the wording to "only when TQ is even or higher than HP". Calculator will be updated soon.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loftygoals
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.....

 

I think my presentation might have been confusing. The first 3 dynos were just examples of motors that would be negatively impacted by the rule change. The final dyno is a specific GTS3 car that will be uncompetitive because of the rule changes.

 

 

For that final example, we are talking GTS3 not GTS2.

 

Average HP weight which was legal in 2015: 198 (calculated average HP) * 11 = 2178

Peak TQ weight required in 2016: 202 (peak HP) * 11.5 = 2323

Difference: 2323 - 2178 = 145

 

I realize it is an or, but peak TQ is higher than average power, so that's the number that must now be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjkasten
After revisiting the posted ratios the committee decided to lower the TQ factors for GTS 1 and 2 down to .25 from .5, considering the impact of the higher ratios in lower classes and changed the wording to "only when TQ is even or higher than HP". Calculator will be updated soon.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Leader.

 

That takes me from 290 pounds of additional ballast to 235 pounds. Right direction, but not nearly where it needs to be.

 

Stock tune+Stock motor+Stock airbox+Aftermarket exhaust = No more GTS2 for an E36 running an S52 without a custom tune.

 

What cars will be able to run in GTS2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snymo
After revisiting the posted ratios the committee decided to lower the TQ factors for GTS 1 and 2 down to .25 from .5, considering the impact of the higher ratios in lower classes and changed the wording to "only when TQ is even or higher than HP". Calculator will be updated soon.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Leader.

While I appreciate the effort, this just feels like you guys have no data at all to plan this out. 2016v1 gets posted with rules nobody saw coming. You guys withdraw them and post an open letter to drivers about what you hope to do. 2016v2 comes out and we all freak out again because of additional rules nobody saw coming. Now, less then 24 hours later there is a 2016v2.1 for GTS1/2. It's too little, too late for me. I'll skip this year as I said earlier and see what direction you go next year. If it's data driven and common sense based, I'll come back. If not, I'll have a fancy track-day car to find something to do with.

 

Seriously disappointed in GTS and NASA management.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loftygoals
After revisiting the posted ratios the committee decided to lower the TQ factors for GTS 1 and 2 down to .25 from .5, considering the impact of the higher ratios in lower classes and changed the wording to "only when TQ is even or higher than HP". Calculator will be updated soon.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Leader.

 

 

Michael,

 

Does the committee understand they are penalizing something that is already accounted for in average HP? I understand there have been numerous debates on the subject, but physics is physics.

 

If the committee is correct that TQ has a competitive advantage over HP, then I should be able to take two identical 3000 lbs cars and put a S54 making 280 HP / 235 TQ in one and a high-end impact wrench making 3 HP / 300 TQ in the other and have the car with the impact wrench out perform the S54 car. In fact, the performance differential should be so great with the impact wrench powered car that it needs additional weight compared to the car with the S54.

 

So what does the committee think would happen in the scenario I proposed and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nova
After revisiting the posted ratios the committee decided to lower the TQ factors for GTS 1 and 2 down to .25 from .5, considering the impact of the higher ratios in lower classes and changed the wording to "only when TQ is even or higher than HP". Calculator will be updated soon.

 

Michael Gershanok,

GTS Nat. Leader.

 

 

Michael,

 

Does the committee understand they are penalizing something that is already accounted for in average HP? I understand there have been numerous debates on the subject, but physics is physics.

 

If the committee is correct that TQ has a competitive advantage over HP, then I should be able to take two identical 3000 lbs cars and put a S54 making 280 HP / 235 TQ in one and a high-end impact wrench making 3 HP / 300 TQ in the other and have the car with the impact wrench out perform the S54 car. In fact, the performance differential should be so great with the impact wrench powered car that it needs additional weight compared to the car with the S54.

 

So what does the committee think would happen in the scenario I proposed and why?

 

LOL Physics is fun! It's already been discussed and shown in data that an E36 with an S54 has no real-world benefit at GTS2 power levels over an S52, and yet it is still banned. Unfortunately they apparently want to see built engines and not cheaper engine swaps in GTS. Trying to use data is unfortunately logical, the correct method and sadly keeps falling on deaf ears. We could even arrange dyno and / or track testing to prove this with two cars at the same facility, however there doesn't seem to be any desire or concern over keeping existing customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loftygoals
LOL Physics is fun! It's already been discussed and shown in data that an E36 with an S54 has no real-world benefit at GTS2 power levels over an S52, and yet it is still banned.

 

 

Yep. I did a lot of analysis before the 2015 rules and published a number of articles here regarding it. Here's a shortened version on my blog:

http://www.clown-shoe.com/#!Horsepower-vs-Torque/c144o/5580f30b0cf299727821d68e

 

Although the S52 falls within the 2016 displacement rules for GTS2, it's not really a competitive motor for GTS2 any longer. In stock form or using a restrictor plate, it will make more torque than hp, incurring the .5 penalty. You'd be better off with a smaller displacement motor that makes less torque but more power, such as a modified 2.5L. You'll be able to make the same average HP, but not take the .5 penalty, thus gaining an advantage.

 

The funny thing is that I just bought a S52 to put in my BMW M Coupe that I was going to run in GTS2 in 2016. For GTS2 I was going to run it bone stock with a restrictor. It was going to be an inexpensive way to get my BMW M Coupe back on track and competitive. Now I'll have to either build this S52 to make a lot more power for GTS3 or sell the motor and build a smaller displacement motor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abad46
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.

 

I am in the same boat... I am currently in the middle of building my car for GTS4 and now with these new rules, I can't even run the class I was building it for! I'm forced into GTS5, which I will not do.

 

I've gotten numerous phone calls ranting about these new rules as well as complaints of how unprofessional this organization is and I can only agree. No, it's not professional racing but can we at least pretend? To arbitrarily and drastically change a ruleset and mishmosh everyone's class is ridiculous. GTS leaders should be looking at how the racers feel when they pull sh*t like this... You guys look shady and untrustworthy. Why can't you be transparent? Can current GTS racers vote to impeach? I thought to myself 2 weeks ago "Oh good. National is involved now, they will get this straightened out" and unfortunately they didn't care enough to truly be involved. Most organizations post drastic rule changes midway through a current season for the next year so it gives racers time to be better prepared. ST is trying something new this year, but they did it right by choosing 1 class to test it on, not screw up the whole field with some hairbrained idea last minute. I don't have facebook but if the comment from above is true regarding how national wants GTS to look, their vision must be to close the class down to gain car counts and grow other classes. With these new rules, they will succeed.

 

As for my build? I am on hold for the moment to explore going to ST or somewhere else. I just can't stomach spending my hard-earned money running GTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught up on all the "updates to the updated updates"... man, I'm confused.

 

Had dinner with one of my fellow TTD friends who was also thinking about going GTS2 and building our cars more with that in mind. We are wondering how many folks we can pull into PT* with us when the time comes, as based on all of this fun lately, it doesn't seem like the spirit of GTS is a good fit anymore.

 

Maybe in 2017.

 

Or I've got a ton of friends pestering me to sell the M and join them in Spec3...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wazgtsRacer

I am trying to understand and comprehend all the new rule changes. I do not believe that the NASA officials or our GTS leadership is intentionally trying to drive out anyone or create undue hardship towards anyone. Their intentions are to create series where there is room for all drivers on all different budgets and will different cars. They also want to discourage any form of cheating that may or may not go on. I understand these good intentions, but the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

 

If I am accurate, these new rules are designed to eliminate the ability to “cheat” with a higher horsepower motor being detuned for a lower class. There are two ways one can look at this as cheating. First, a larger motor detuned for a class provides an unfair advantage towards more “natural” cars in the class. This is where last year came into play and had the average of the power. I do not think anyone would disagree that a car that made 300 HP from 4k to red line versus a car that only peaked at 300hp at red line has an advantage in acceleration potential. I have no issue with using the average HP towards the upper (race usable) RPM to calculate our HP/weight. It does open a bag of worms that was discussed last year but through proper compliance measures I think it can be properly implemented fairly. The second way is for a motor that has the capacity of 400hp detuned to 300hp have a go button, whether it be switch, button, or linked into a turn signal lever, the cheating driver can do something discrete when driving for a short period of time to make a pass or gain an advantage. I have not seen concrete proof of this occurring but surely is possible. But then we have racers with several tunes for differing classes, but most are swapping out DMEs or something physical to ensure no one has the impression of cheating. These are 2 ways someone can “cheat” with a detuned motor.

 

Ok so we want to eliminate this opportunity to “Cheat” (again I do not think it is cheating to have a detuned motor, I have an S52 with a restrictor plate in it) how do we do it?

 

Lets implement a torque rule?? No, I completely disagree with any torque measurement being used in GTS… reason being PHYSICS. TQ does not equal acceleration potential. HP does. Eloquently put by many and the officials last year, TQ does not coincide with acceleration potential. TQ should not be in our calculations what so ever. And the average of the HP eliminated cars with high tq advantage due to the flattening of their HP curves. Please do not make duplicitous rules that “solve” the same issue.

 

If we are hell bent on removing large detuned motors out side of their “natural class” we then need to establish “natural classes.” This is going to start sounding like PT series. Is an E36 a natural GTS2 car, is an E46 GTS3, is a P-Cup car a GTS4 or 5? It opens a HUGE bag of worms. Not impossible to accomplish, but will take a long time to come up with, and run the risk of destroying the series. Do I think a restricted cup car should be able to run in GTS-1!? Probably not… but what ever dousche bag that tried that would not have a very warm welcome in the GTS-1 field I can imagine. Should a E46 with a detuned S65 be allowed in GTS-3 or maybe even 2!?… I personally do not have a problem with that, but many may think that the motor is out of its natural class. Should an E36 with an S54 detuned be allowed in GTS-2… again I have no issue with that but again the motor is out of its ”natural class.”

 

There is no doubt in my mind that newer chassis are more capable than older chassis. Thus the reason the E36 is now a GTS2 car not a GTS3 car like it once was a few years back. So there is some merrit to two equally prepped cars one a E36 and one an E46 with equal drivers, the E46 is the more capable race car. But again creating natural classes I feel is not in the spirit of GTS.

 

So if we do not establish natural classes by chassis, do we then limit the amount of detuning allowed. This is probably the most reasonable option I can see. Still opens a HUGE bag of worms, but to say you can only detune up to 25-30% of your motor's natural HP it would eliminate large detunes for those hell bent on stopping it. But again, what is a motor's natural HP? A list needs to be created and established. Example. An S52 natural HP is say 240whp.. at 30% it can be detuned to 168hp (3108lbs for a GTS-1 car). A S65 has a published hp of 444. so lets say it looses 10% to the wheels, so lets just call it 400whp. 30% detune would be 280hp. At 280hp an e46 with a S65 would need to be 3,080lbs (a normal running weight for an e46). It would probably be a more simple way to keep cars/motors in their “natural” class or at least limit a motor going down a max of 1 class.

 

This would be a good alternative to a CC rule. CC is a bigger can of worms because who says a motor was stroked or destroked… to many variables and the last thing anyone wants is to do motor tear downs. Again if the intent of NASA is to eliminate large amounts of detuning, the % of allowed detuing seems like the only viable option albeit one that I don’t feel is necessary.

 

The issue with all that is proposed above is the complexity it creates. The beauty of the old rule set, peak HP x class multiplier was the simplicity of it! Easy to game, and easy to calculate and easy to enforce. The flattened hp curves due to detuning was addressed last year and I feel in the next few years can be accepted. The “go Button” thing is always going to be hard to find / enforce and only data acquisition will be able to find it… and eventually the cheater will slip up and be caught… then life time ban from NASA. But again I am not convinced that so many people or anyone for that matter are doing it to justify a need for a rule change. We did have in incident at last years nationals in GTS2 where the video evidence was pretty damning, but that's the only real case I have seen.

 

Bottom line, the issue these rules are designed to address (large detuned motors) is up for debate whether it is an issue at all! If we hypothetically agree we need to limit detuning, adding in a tq rule is just in effective. The Average HP rule effectively eliminates an advantage of a flat hp curve verses a peaky one. Adding “Natural” classes of cars is a difficult proposition due to the large amount of variables and time it would take to create an effective list. And I feel it is not in the spirit of GTS. Adding a % of allowed detuning to me is the most feasible. It still sucks because we then need to publish a list of “natural” hps per motor. That list can pretty easily be created by looking at manufacturer specifications. Still this adds complexity. The CC rule adds issues in how to enforce it without engine tear downs. What we need to do is stop throwing rules at a problem that can be fixed with proper enforcement of the 2015 rule book. If we quit putting efforts into new rules and put it into using data and dynos to continuously monitor racers we will be a great series!

 

Sorry for the length of this opinion. But I feel that we are going down a slippery slope and we have many passionate racers out there that are very deterred about the new rules and the way they have been presented(another debate I don't need to get into). We need to KISS it. Keep It Simple Stupid and enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
We did have in incident at last years nationals in GTS2 where the video evidence was pretty damning, but that's the only real case I have seen.

I can't believe you brought that up. I also have a hard time believing anyone is still that misinformed and commenting on it. It shows that nobody bothered to read any of the analyses presented.

 

Attempts at discussions on compliance checking with data went nowhere, as that event screwed it all up. They disqualified possibly the only legal car. They disqualified the most scrutineered car, and they took the win away from the ONLY car that crossed the scales after the feature race.

 

I strongly suggest everyone re-read the "compliance checking in GTS" thread from a year ago, and the links posted by the disqualified individual.

A little more attention back then, and actually reading what was said as an attempt to help fix a problem, possibly could have prevented where we are now as we could have a real compliance tool *now*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flink
Sorry for the length of this opinion.

 

Useful, thanks. There isn't much to disagree with here. And you're 100% correct about torque!

 

Let's just stick with the 2015 rules (which fixed the fairness issue) and get the black boxes working to address the compliance issue. Another season or two of the status quo won't kill us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wazgtsRacer
I can't believe you brought that up. I also have a hard time believing anyone is still that misinformed and commenting on it. It shows that nobody bothered to read any of the analyses presented.

 

I don't have all the info regarding that situation... just what the video showed and knowing he was later disqualified. Maybe it demonstrates why we need to simply use the data along with the dyno to enforce the rules we have, instead of using a new rule set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

wasgtsRacer,

 

You are spot on in many aspects, with few exceptions - we have more examples than the one you mentioned, and your proposal on % off the HP in limiting detuning - is exactly what we proposed initially, which was attacked as no tomorrow. And by the way, there is one more scenario in potential cheating you didn't mention - in cases where there is no dyno at the track and no other compliance tools in the hands of officials - you don't even need to bother with the button or built sophisticated tune - just run higher set DME out of the couple available. And it is not just the perception - we actually had cases like that. So, after the route of restrictor plates and %of detuning was rejected we turned to displacement option as the measure of the engine potential.

 

By the way, I am sure it will be an object of another wave of attacks - but we are still working on the changes to the Rules, which will be posted soon.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
I don't have all the info regarding that situation... just what the video showed and knowing he was later disqualified. Maybe it demonstrates why we need to simply use the data along with the dyno to enforce the rules we have, instead of using a new rule set.

He was disqualified based on video, and the "data" was the only possible "legal" method for disqualification at that point, so they used that. The problem is they had no method for using it, so they just pointed to it, i suspect, assuming that nobody would question the man behind the curtain.

 

The issue being they disqualified someone who is so "plays by the rules" he was actually a technical steward for IMSA at the time.

 

If we want to enforce the rules we have, we have the current methods only (no data). if we want to use data, the data analysis needs to fit the rules, which means the data needs to be able to spit out a dyno plot. At the time of the DQ, it would have been enough to spit out a peak number for the "dyno" reading, but now it needs to produce the entire curve, as we need to then put *that* curve through the magic calculator. This is likely why they keep trying to come back to looking at acceleration, as they want to slowly but surely bend the rules to fit the tool, and not the other way around.

 

Going back to just peak power would be nice as it would simplify things. (though it doesn't penalize the smart people who optimize the cars within the rules, which is what NASA is after now... everyone is equal, right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7VO-VOM
So, after the route of restrictor plates and %of detuning was rejected we turned to displacement option as the measure of the engine potential.
Michael,

That is only half true. Restrictor plates were not rejected. Arbitrary and nonsense % were rejected. The proposal was a 15% electronic detune and an additional 10% by mechanical means, with the requirement to prove the last 10% by removing the restrictor. In most modern electronically controlled engines, they need to be tuned to the restrictor. The things that were rejected were percentages based on factory claims, not reality, and the restrictor removal test.

 

It is easy to calculate the amount of air that can pass through a restrictor. It makes no difference if a tune drops power to that level or if the restrictor does it. A 34mm restrictor limits an engine to 330-340hp. If I install one of those, claim 330hp, dyno 330hp, remove the restrictor and dyno 330hp, who cares what the 'natural' (or whatever bullsh_t term some want to apply) horsepower is? Billion dollar corporations have spent millions (probably tens of millions) to pull more air through that orifice to make more power, and in 30 years they have gained 10-20hp.

 

The rule makers need to stop focusing on forcing cars into certain classes. The spirit of GTS, as stated on the GTS website and by tens of competitors throughout this process, is that you can build whatever you want and simply be classed by power to weight. Stop listening to dumba$$es who don't understand torque/horsepower and think $25k+ custom built motors have less room to cheat than larger displacement and lower maintenance stock 'junkyard' motors. Any (un)'natural' classing, cc restrictions, 'detune' restrictions, artificial percentage restrictions, or other arbitrarily determined modifications to the rules WILL kill GTS. That is if this nightmare over the 2016 rules have not already done so...

 

*My example above is from WRC. Learn from professionals.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
wasgtsRacer,

 

You are spot on in many aspects, with few exceptions - we have more examples than the one you mentioned, and your proposal on % off the HP in limiting detuning - is exactly what we proposed initially, which was attacked as no tomorrow. And by the way, there is one more scenario in potential cheating you didn't mention - in cases where there is no dyno at the track and no other compliance tools in the hands of officials - you don't even need to bother with the button or built sophisticated tune - just run higher set DME out of the couple available. And it is not just the perception - we actually had cases like that. So, after the route of restrictor plates and %of detuning was rejected we turned to displacement option as the measure of the engine potential.

 

By the way, I am sure it will be an object of another wave of attacks - but we are still working on the changes to the Rules, which will be posted soon.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

If you want something easy to check/enforce, then we need simplicity in the rules. As much as I dislike restrictor plates, that is an easy answer. come up with a simple formula for weight vs "power". Power in this case would be restrictor size based on displacement.

At that point, simple compliance check is weight, restrictor size, and then stall test. "cheating" would be limited to incorrect displacement, and there are a number of minimally invasive methods of checking that on most vehicles.

 

The GPS compliance tool is not that difficult as a concept. The hard part will be making the data make sense easily for the official overseeing the operation trackside. The tool needs to spit out power figures and drag estimates, and we need to sanity check all of it. The range of drag will vary based on other cars around, and that drag change will be easily muddied into a power change. Without a decent procedure set in place, this could get complicated. (i.e. data is turned in within 15 minutes after each session. if something seems off, the vehicle will be notified within 1 hour. the vehicle will then have 1 hour to reply (be that video of the lap/segment in question with another car attached to its front bumper or whatever). a decision is then made within X minutes of that .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Michael.

 

Again, I agree with you on restrictors. But considering that we have a wide variety of cars, we need to have a fair amount of ground work to be done. I personally like the idea and would consider a pilot project with some volunteers on different makes and models. I do agree with your statement on Black Boxes as well, and we recognize the need for protocol in place. Both of the issues are well on our radar.

 

7VO-VOM,

 

We realize the shortcomings of the proposal on restrictors and detuning, but, to be fair, the types of the constructive replies we hear now (Thank you), didn't happen that time - mostly cursing and nasty comments.

 

wasgtsRacer,

 

There are number of polarized opinions on benefits and value of TQ in racing, but interestingly, we see many more cars with much higher TQ numbers since it became free last year with the use of the calculator. And now many more being upset once the penalties were proposed.

 

By the way, we are still considering the actual factor, and seems like arrived to agreement to use the existing (old) HP ratios for whichever is higher - average HP vs. TQ dropping the previously considered higher ratios for TQ. The updated Rules should be posted shortly, after we complete the proof reading - we hope to be the last version for 2016...

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel

If the GTS directors and NASA management were planning to make radical changes to the GTS rules for 2016, it would have been a much better idea to have started the discussion back in August, so that something reasonable would be ready to publish at the end of November.

 

At least two NASA regions have races scheduled in January of 2016.

 

In the middle of December, making radical changes to the GTS rules will not give a reasonable amount of time to the GTS racers in the regions with January races to implement the changes.

 

At this point, the only reasonable thing to do is adopt the 2015 rules for 2016 ---> no changes.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

rabbit_diesel,

 

Depending what do you mean by radical changes. All the changes in rules for all classes were supposed to be completed around December 1st. Many were still in works a weeks later. We are ready to publish tomorrow, which is 2 and a half weeks later - not perfect, but actually better than many times before.

Any changes, small to some might be big to others and vice versa. We actually estimate the changes will affect very few. And none of the topics were new and discussions were carried on even a year ago during the same period of Rule changes. But, yes, you are right - in an ideal world, that would be the case.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

Michael, the reason the % detune proposal was so vehemently rejected was b/c whatever (insert choice word here) came up with the idea wanted to start the percentage detune based off the factory numbers. It is absolutely ridiculous to start with that number and not account for any drivetrain loss of hp! I could probably guarantee you that would have been accepted if somebody would have actually thought about it in real world terms and not based the detune off of some fantasy hp number that all the tuner kids believe their car actually has. The problem was that y'all were stuck on using the published hp numbers and were unwilling to bend on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

mcdonaldsracing,

 

I am not arguing that the proposal was worded right. I am saying - what followed was not a conversation, but a screaming act. We repeatedly asked for constructive remarks and got 99% of bashing in return. We were not stuck on anything and very willing to bend by the way.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcdonaldsracing

So I have a question: WHY are these proposed rule changes not being thought through before they being released to us??? Is it too much to ask that the leaders of GTS should think about and take into consideration all the ramifications of the proposals before they are released? I mean, c'mon, why would you start with an at the flywheel hp number to set detune percentages on? And why would you introduce tq penalties and not actually do some research first on how it will affect certain cars, classes, etc? If you don't want the bashing and harsh criticism, then spend some time to actually think these things through before releasing them to us! AND, if you want to introduce changes to the series (that were not actually proposed by racers) that are going to affect a lot of cars and re-align classes, then it needs to be made public well in advance of the proposal period so that a proper constructive discussion can take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

We are still working on the updates to the calculator, which should be ready for release early next week along side with the updates to the Rules.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel

Have the new classing rules been tested using car-race simulation software, in order to get some idea of whether the new torque inclusion might be reasonable? If so, then let us see details of each car instance, and the results for each car instance.

 

If not, then I suggest running the simulations using the BMW e30 chassis with at least three engines widely separated in torque characteristic (in order to make more apparent any possible problem with the classing rule). Perhaps these instances, with identical chassis and transmission in all:

 

1) 157 HP @ 5900 rpm; 154 ftlb @ 4300 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(If more data points are needed, they can be picked off the graph in Appendix D of the 2016 SpecE30 rules.)

 

2) 157 HP @ 4500 rpm; 220 ftlb @ 2500 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(If more data points are needed, then let me know and I will generate them for you.)

 

3) 157 HP, flat from 5300 to 7000 rpm; 155 ftlb, flat from 4000 to 5300 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(Assume the engine has been modified such that this is reasonably possible.)

 

Adjust the weights in the various simulations in order to discover what you need to know.

 

Will

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...