Jump to content
Vytis_a

Rule proposal: remove CC restriction across all GTS classes

Recommended Posts

Vytis_a

I have noticed quite few people mentioning that they would vote for removing CC restriction across all GTS, so I figured I will create separate thread and see if this actually goes somewhere.


Main and pretty much only reason for it is possibility to switch between classes to have more cars racing in same class rather than low number of entries scattered between GTS classes. For most of the cars it is easy as downloading new tune or just adding weight.


I think it would benefit every class. Guys with S54 could race GTS2, detuned V8s could go to GTS3 etc. It will allow more cross over and maybe even expand classes. Stop cars going to ST, since it is legal in ST.


There was numerous times this season I had to race myself at GTS4 where I could have raced in 6+ car GTS3 field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r0nd3L

I support this proposal.


In addition to typical BMW S54/S65/etc setups, I know there are some older cars with M60/2 and some Porsches that are punished unfairly by CC restrictions.


Having flexibility to run in a class that has more entries would be great and could promote more diverse car fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

I support removing cc restrictions all together as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TXV007

I support the proposal too. Allows flexibility in classing and should help keep numbers up.


Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

Gents,


I hope you all aware of the history behind the CC limits. Trying to avoid engaging into lengthy discussion, would like to ask a simple question - how do you propose policing the compliance in the Regions with no Dyno at the track when high displacement car shows up to run in the lower class - for example E90/S65 in GTS 2?


Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions
Gents,


I hope you all aware of the history behind the CC limits. Trying to avoid engaging into lengthy discussion, would like to ask a simple question - how do you propose policing the compliance in the Regions with no Dyno at the track when high displacement car shows up to run in the lower class - for example E90/S65 in GTS 2?


Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 


Michael,


The same way you'd police any other car running in GTS2 or 3. The regions choosing not do to proper compliance checks is not the fault of the competitors. One can cheat just as easily with a built s52 (hello ip motor making 270whp) as any other motor with more cylinders. As far as I've seen none have ever done any sort of displacement checks on any motor even at a national level event. So what's the point of having that rule there anyways when it's never been enforced or checked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

The use of rules are not a form of compliance. I still don't understand the people who fail to realize that. You don't need an S65 in GTS2 to blow the doors off of everyone. I know someone with a 300whp 2.5l N52 for GTS2. Many others have 240-250whp S52's. How in the world is a CC limit going to force them to race legally? If most people are at 14.5 and the cheaters are decent drivers 13, I'm sorry to have to tell you. YOU HAVE NO CHANCE! Unless you have compliance tools it's foolish to think that cc limits somehow level the playing field. In Midatlantic we have a dyno 80% of weekends and use AIM for data 100% of weekends. This is how we enforce power to weight rules. If your region doesn't want to make the investment to do either, then maybe it's time to reconsider racing in that region unless they want to invest to make sure racing is fair.


There's an S52 on HPDRE marketplace right now that makes 294whp. Guess an owner of that would be on the honor system racing in GTS2 in some regions?lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vytis_a
Gents,


I hope you all aware of the history behind the CC limits. Trying to avoid engaging into lengthy discussion, would like to ask a simple question - how do you propose policing the compliance in the Regions with no Dyno at the track when high displacement car shows up to run in the lower class - for example E90/S65 in GTS 2?


Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

 


Michael,


I would suggest seal OBDII port and ECM and send car for re-testing. Also, use rule 6.7 from GTS rule book used for AWD cars.


"In the event of a protest against an AWD car, the protested and protesting parties must

both be represented at the re

-testing. Retesting must follow the same procedures and

the fees will be paid by the party in error. If a GTS official’s presence at the re-

testing is

required, the party in error shall pay the GTS official’s expenses. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

Vytis,


That is easier said than done. First of all, this paragraph refers to the protest procedures, not a regular compliance protocol, so technically it would require a protest by the driver. Also, I don’t think that option was ever enforced in the whole time of the class existence since practically it would require arresting the car and transporting it probably long distance to the outside dyno if such even available. The worst part that, as you know, the power of modern electronics in OEM ECUs of late models is much superior to the stationary dyno test. Simple enabling of stationary front wheel sensors would do the trick, not speaking of more sophisticated options.

The bottom line, we know that cheating can be done with any engine old and new alike. But newer models with higher displacement, high performance potential out of the box and easy modifiable management presented a different challenge. CC limits were not the perfect solution, but the one we felt the best available at a time. Once will develop on board compliance tool (hopefully soon), we will be equipped better to deal with it.


Michael G

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

Michael,

There’s currently an s52 for sale with a 294whp dyno chart. How are you proposing to do compliance on a legal motor for the class that makes so much potential hp if there’s no dyno? It can run a full standalone engine management solution just like any other motor, that you mention led in the post above. What do you propose is the solution for monitoring that? That motor uncorked would be 80whp higher than my motor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

Chris,


I don’t have a good answer outside of the usual list of options, none of which are sufficient. The difference is that those 290 HP S52s are not a regular thing and require a lot of labor and engineering. The stock S54 with tuned ECU is a simple and straight shot and much less expensive. And as impossible to police I might add.


I am not trying to be defensive or combative. I am racing myself at the end of the day and subjected to the same emotions and judgements. We need to figure out the best way to address the interests of all - the guy in the front as well as the guy at the back. May be we need to encourage the guy with doubts to be vocal and speak out to address the issue instead of complaining behind fearing the recourse. May be we need to work together to build a community of acceptance instead of favoritism. May be we need to look after the rookie and extend the help instead of riding the A personality wave. None of the Rules will satisfy all. Put yourself in the shoes of the guy in charge and listen to both sides of the argument. I have plenty of drivers sending messages of concern about removing CC limits since that was acting as an imperfect, but a gate for time being. I don’t see much of a tool in our hands aside of an honor system until will get such hopefully with on board boxes.


Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

Michael,

I understand the difficult position you’re in. But all discussions and concerns should get addressed in a public forum such as this for everybody to have fruitful feedback with each other. I agree that Anybody messaging privately about concerns and solutions should be redirected to that forum (whether here or something like Facebook). In the MA region we are fairly open with sharing data with each other and try to review stuff with anybody new in hopes of making them feel more welcome as well as get them up to speed so they have more fun.


The more transparent the whole process is and all discussions are the easier it is to accept any decisions that do come down. I think most of us are pretty level headed intelligent people that can accept decisions one way or another as long as we can understand the why.


Personally I view the cc limit rule, with no way to enforce it or the other rules we have, no different than installing a light in a dark room, but not giving it any power to turn on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

There doesn’t seem to be a 1 size fits all solution. If a region like CA, GL etc wants to have cc rules Bc they don’t want to use real compliance tools then let them. It makes no sense but if that works for them so be it. If MA rather have an open rule set since we actually have a dyno and AIM as part of our normal process, then give the region the ability to do that. NASA can run whatever they want for Nationals. At this point most of us have no interest in going anyway so let us have our fun regionally.



Lawrence Gibson

GTS2/3

Midatlantic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rokkit

I feel the current system is working well. If we are going to propose a power bump to gts2 we should also keep displacment limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ev
Gents,


I hope you all aware of the history behind the CC limits. Trying to avoid engaging into lengthy discussion, would like to ask a simple question - how do you propose policing the compliance in the Regions with no Dyno at the track when high displacement car shows up to run in the lower class - for example E90/S65 in GTS 2?


Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

As I read this response all I hear is "We are unable (or unwilling) to police cheaters, so we will only police poor cheaters by restricting a perfectly acceptable engine solution. So if you have money, cheat away and build a wicked motor for 20K+ because we won't look".


CC limits in a P/W class as a way of preventing cheating is only a way of placating those who want you to do "something" instead of the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qwertymess

I support removing all CC limits from GTS. I am all for bigger run groups, and overall more drivers in each GTS group. All this talk of cheating and getting your doors blown off because of said motor is a bit out of hand to be honest. GTS was an open rule set for the most part, but if we keep on restricting it, than the fields will just get smaller. I ran my car in GTS3 until that class died essentially in Great lakes. I frankly dont feel like running the car in GTS4 (no money), so now i run in ST4. Does it work, yes... But i would like the ability to run in GTS2.

On a side note for those among us that live true to "displacement rules all" mentality; I've actually gotten my doors blown off at Mid Ohio by a Honda CRX thing... It had like 170HP.... The big bad S54 just couldnt do it i suppose :lol:

P.S. The driver of that CRX is a beast. (maybe we should put handicaps on fast drivers and only allow them to drive with one hand behind there back?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×