TXV007 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 1. The proposed addition or change. I'm proposing we look at extending the average HP/TQ calculation from the final 2,000 rpm to maybe 3,000 rpm. 2. The reason behind the proposal. I believe that a wider RPM calculation will further level the playing field across the various cars and motor builds, 3000 RPM? We have numerous corners where an exit speed results in RPM below the final 2,000 rpm range, and without cams, standalone...a normal tune is at a distinct disadvantage in that region of the RPM range and as such will build speed more slowly. 3. Any documentation supporting the request Only my own cars data. In reviewing where I can find speed this seems to be contributing and would require a lot of money to address so, I suspect others would find the same. 4. Proposals to be submitted and signed by GTS members to be considered. (indicate Class and Region, please). Kerry James, GTS2, Great Lakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focusedintntions Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 I'm pretty sure the calculator has me input values for more than the last 2000 Rpms. What motors do you think are at a disadvantage bc of the current calculator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXV007 Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 I'm pretty sure the calculator has me input values for more than the last 2000 Rpms. What motors do you think are at a disadvantage bc of the current calculator? Yes but I believe it uses the last 2,000 RPM of your range for the calculation. Most motors with a basic tune will still have a steep HP/TQ ramp before the final 2,000 RPM so there is still a sizable advantage to detuning prior to that last 2,000 RPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daytonars4 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 I can see a change like this benefiting the Porshe Boxsters/non-M motors and other cars with steep power curves. But the S50/52 compliance files I have looked at seem to have fairly level hp/tq curves. This is even motors with off the shelf or stock tunes with restrictor plates. Some even have more tq than hp. So I honestly only see this change basically allowing everyone to run more power as opposed to helping e36's in any way. This would be a way to increase the allowed power without increasing the ratio if that's the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstreit911 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Its not considering just the final 2000 RPM. It uses a range on either side of the peak HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Wolfe Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Agree with this proposal to extend the rpm range used to calculate average HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstreit911 Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Guys: The calculator uses the highest area under the curve in a 2500 RPM range, not just the top 2000 RPM. Here is a picture that shows that different shaped curves will use a different range, regardless of the peak location and redline. Does this change your proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Wolfe Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 That's not how the calculator https://gts.nasaseries.com/gts-class-calculator/ works. This one only uses a 1500 rpm range (4 data points) to determine "Power used:". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXV007 Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 The primary question was should the range for the calculation be extended. If the range used is not the last 2,000 rpm okay, I stand can corrected. Same question about a broader range being used stands: I question if it will level the playing field further..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjkasten Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 2. The reason behind the proposal. I believe that a wider RPM calculation will further level the playing field across the various cars and motor builds, 3000 RPM? We have numerous corners where an exit speed results in RPM below the final 2,000 rpm range, and without cams, standalone...a normal tune is at a distinct disadvantage in that region of the RPM range and as such will build speed more slowly. Is this an "engine tune/power" issue or a "gearing at certain tracks" issue? I run an embarassingly stock E36 M3 engine/tranny/diff in Rocky Mountain and have found some corners at some tracks I "may" be at a disadvantage but have found other corners at other tracks where I had the advantage. I'm not sure how widening the rpm range is going to help solve this perceived issue. Maybe I'm missing something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstreit911 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Kerry can you give some examples of how this would help? Moving from 2500 range to 3000 could level the playing field for some- but conversely could make it worse for others. If the range is extended more - tuning could lower the power in a range that affects the calculation - but is outside what is normally used. This would penalize people with stock gearboxes but not close-ratio ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXV007 Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 Kerry can you give some examples of how this would help? Moving from 2500 range to 3000 could level the playing field for some- but conversely could make it worse for others. If the range is extended more - tuning could lower the power in a range that affects the calculation - but is outside what is normally used. This would penalize people with stock gearboxes but not close-ratio ones. Also in response to gjkasten question: Is this an "engine tune/power" issue or a "gearing at certain tracks" issue? I run an embarassingly stock E36 M3 engine/tranny/diff in Rocky Mountain and have found some corners at some tracks I "may" be at a disadvantage but have found other corners at other tracks where I had the advantage. I'm not sure how widening the rpm range is going to help solve this perceived issue. Maybe I'm missing something??? RESPONSE: My thought process in a little more detail is below: Even though there have been moves to restrict detuning there are still distinct advantages from being able to tune in a broad flat power and torque range, especially when you can reduce torque and power for the measured range. And, to be able to do so you need to make the leap to standalone ECU and pro tuning. My car has a healthy S50 with a very similar power curve to an S52. On most tracks there are many corners where we are exiting at around mid 4k rpm which is right where there is a large ramp in torque and with a detuned motor that is not the case. There is an advantage in coming off the corners with a professionally detuned motor. I have also looked at gearing changes but that can create as many problems as it solves so I came back to the power range and posted this for discussion. I'm not interested in taking away people's right to a standalone, limit their cc... The thought process is that with a wider range for the average power and torque calculation it would simply limit the advantage and then it's still a choice. Today I believe if you really want to run at the very front it's not a choice, in GTS you still have to take that leap into standalone and detuning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts