Rule proposal - mandatory accelerometers

[rlipner]

1. The proposed addition or change.

 

Proposal to have a standardized accelerometer in all GTS race cars which can be uploaded to race control

 

2. The reason behind the proposal

 

Since GTSs primarily a HP/WT series, and at most races, dynomometers are not present, the use of an in car accelerometer would provide for better monotring of the rules.

 

3. Any documentation supporting the request

 

None, however, I do believe there has been plenty of dialog about this issue over years to substantiate this proposal.

 

4. Proposals to be submitted and signed by GTS members to be considered. (indicate Class and Region, please).

 

Roy Lipner. Great Lakes. GTS 3/4

 

Thank you,

[Zach H.]

Roy, the rule proposal period is for active GTS racers only!!!! KIDDING!!!

 

Joking aside, I think that is in the works already with the new style black box. However, I have not heard any news on that development since ECC 2016. The only issue I see is there will have to be someone on staff to review that data for compliance at the track.

[Cnsprcy]

Roy, the rule proposal period is for active GTS racers only!!!! KIDDING!!!

 

Joking aside, I think that is in the works already with the new style black box. However, I have not heard any news on that development since ECC 2016. The only issue I see is there will have to be someone on staff to review that data for compliance at the track.

 

forget this thread Zach. Why aren't you signed up for Sebring?

[Zach H.]

honest answer, I can't afford it. too far away at a track known of beating up equipment. Ill loan the title to someone for a year until nasa wakes up and makes a national championship again!

 

UPDATE: per national, new black boxes will be tested at ECC this year! this is still a great rule suggestion but with no real way to enforce locally, I don't see it gaining traction.

[rlipner]

Zach,

 

My comments are not directed at you because you are the real deal when it comes to speed and ability.

 

Why am I not racing in NASA? There are numerous but a couple of them deal with rule enforcement and yes, flagrant cheating. Look, like most of us, I'm not looking for my next ride pro funded ride in WC or IMSA. I'm sure many of you are looking for that seat and, I wish you nothing but good fortune.

 

My desire to race is to have fun, be safe, enjoy the people I'm with and compete hard and fair. And yes, Podium. All for a plastic trophy and possibly some contingencies. When I was involved with NASA, rule enforcement with GTS was very lax. No dyno, weak adjudication of non racing incident issues etc. From what I gather it hasn't improved much since my last NASA race three years ago.

 

I think the series can continue to stick its head in the sand and refuse to strengthen enforcement. Bottom line is the numbers have dwindled in the series and I think the rule set and enforcement have a lot to do with it.

 

Another recommendation would be to make it a European Car Series. Not an original thought but one worth rekindling.

[focusedintntions]

If we can find something that works well and easily i support this. That being said though we at least once a weekend and sometimes twice in the MA region. There's a dyno at every event.

[Michael G.]

We are actively working in developing the in car data boxes for compliance with AIM since 2012. We expect to test the new hardware before the end of the season and will move into the phase of finalizing the protocol. As soon as we are confident that the method meets our needs, we will consider the implementation.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

[cwbaader]

FYI...I hope it has come a long way since 2012. I have used TraqMate extensively trying to monitor HP/TQ and could N E V E R come close to a dyno sheet. Once said my 325e motor made 8oo FT/LB torque!!! No thanks. Another reason my license has lapsed.

[Michael G.]

cwbaader,

 

Yes, it is completely different approach in collecting data and analysis. What is more important - it is a product that being developed by AIM to fit our needs, not like a Traqmate, WITH which we had to utilize what they had in the commercially available unit. Hope to see you back once we make sure the unit is reliable.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[Jimmy L]

Will competitors be required to purchase on of these to run GTS?

[Michael G.]

Once we confirm that boxes work as a reliable compliance tool and develop the protocol which would be clear and allows drivers to self check, we will strongly consider mandating units for every GTS car as transponder or in car camera currently. We expect that the new boxes will use the RPM feed as well as power supply, which would need to be made available in every car. We hope to control the cost in a way to make it easily affordable. We will also consider carrying few units per region to rent, as transponders currently for occasional visiting car. But we are not there yet, so any details would be very speculative at this point.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

[mikew968]

A lot of us have AIM. You would hope the AIM products would have the protocols built in.

[Michael G.]

mikew968,

 

No. Even though it is AIM, the protocol needs to be developed to collect and analyze the data relevant to our Rules. Unfortunately, it is more complicated and it took us almost 5 years to get where we are now and we are not at the end of the road yet.

 

Michael G,

GTS Nat Dir.

[mjmccoy]

Perhaps the rule makers sharing what they are trying to accomplish would make it easier for people to weigh in with meaningful suggestions. What exactly is the goal? What are you trying to balance?

[ace37]

Is the idea simply to check acceleration down the main straight for P/W compliance? And with what type of system, AIM or an iPhone?

 

If aero performance wasn't so different from car to car it might give an idea on power and power to weight, but with the wide variety of cars running there would be a lot of variables. In most circumstances I suspect acceleration data, taken alone, would not provide conclusive evidence of cheating. Perhaps an exception would be a dramatic ECU map change during a race such as a increasing turbocharger boost by 5+ psi.

 

If that's the type of thing the proposal intends to accomplish (ECU recalibration), mandating the use of a general purpose data recorder might do a better job. More data would be available than just acceleration, and a few data analytics gurus might be able to come up better criteria. AIM data acquisition? For nationals only, or locally? And a lot of folks don't want that data shared with competitors, so that would have to be considered.

 

My personal thought is if the performance data cannot be reliably acquired and then used straightforwardly for a specific and clearly defined objective, it's hard to persuasively argue that the data collection should be mandatory and competitors should bear the costs. If it can, it's good to discuss. But the benefit and the cost of the change both need to be rather tangible.

 

A clear requirement might be to require AIM data acquisition systems in all cars competing in nationals. To make sense as a proposal, the proposal would need to explain what collected data should be used in what ways. Then we could argue about whether the cost of compliance is justified by the merits of the proposal.