Rule Proposal - Drop Torque From the Power Calculation

[daytonars4]

So for years myself and others attempted the flat tune you posted. Where we had a flat 215whp or whatever for something like 3k rpm. What myself and others noticed was the S50/52 cars had about a 1-1.5 car length advantage on long straights. I was unable to hold the draft. Was rather confusing, so eventually we scrapped that concept and had a curve with more of a peak. After doing that the gap to S50/52 went from 1-1.5 car lengths to about .5 car length. This is VIR which has a massive straight. Still a deficit but one where you can hold a draft a draft on straights. 
 

So what I’m getting at is I know based on what you are saying there appears to be a rules flaw. But your “fix” actually expands the flaw. Whereas at the moment the flaw that exists doesn’t actually provide someone using it a performance advantage in GTS2. This is one of those situations where on paper it looks like there’s an advantage for the S54 but in the real world it just doesn’t play out. It’s likely due to the fact that the S54 wasn’t built to run at these significantly reduces power levels. So it’s just not “happy.” Whereas a small turbo motor will run great with that type of power curve you are suggesting we allow. Frankly I think it would destroy every other car in GTS2 which is absolutely something that is not healthy for the class. 
 

Now Greg over in ST doesn’t seem to be able to wrap his head around why a car with 3k rpm of peak hp has an unfair advantage against a car with 1500rpm of peak hp. So honestly you are just better off there where you can legally exploit the ruleset. There’s no need to have 2 flawed classes in NASA.  

[ssmith]

1 hour ago, daytonars4 said:

So for years myself and others attempted the flat tune you posted. Where we had a flat 215whp or whatever for something like 3k rpm. What myself and others noticed was the S50/52 cars had about a 1-1.5 car length advantage on long straights. I was unable to hold the draft. Was rather confusing, so eventually we scrapped that concept and had a curve with more of a peak. After doing that the gap to S50/52 went from 1-1.5 car lengths to about .5 car length. This is VIR which has a massive straight. Still a deficit but one where you can hold a draft a draft on straights. 
 

So what I’m getting at is I know based on what you are saying there appears to be a rules flaw. But your “fix” actually expands the flaw. Whereas at the moment the flaw that exists doesn’t actually provide someone using it a performance advantage in GTS2. This is one of those situations where on paper it looks like there’s an advantage for the S54 but in the real world it just doesn’t play out. It’s likely due to the fact that the S54 wasn’t built to run at these significantly reduces power levels. So it’s just not “happy.” Whereas a small turbo motor will run great with that type of power curve you are suggesting we allow. Frankly I think it would destroy every other car in GTS2 which is absolutely something that is not healthy for the class. 
 

Now Greg over in ST doesn’t seem to be able to wrap his head around why a car with 3k rpm of peak hp has an unfair advantage against a car with 1500rpm of peak hp. So honestly you are just better off there where you can legally exploit the ruleset. There’s no need to have 2 flawed classes in NASA.  

So you're saying a flat power band isn't an advantage, but you don't want to let a turbo motor have a flat power band because that would be an advantage because for some reason S54 aren't happy detuned but a small turbo motor will run great.  ???? Having owned both S54 and N20 motored cars, that makes no sense to me.

I understand that a flat power band may not be the best for a track like VIR esp in GTS, as the 25% wide sampling window means you can include more of the RPM range than you actually use.  If you were unable to get an S54 to behave comparably to an S52 then I can guess at a few things that contributed (diff ratio and actual scaling of the power curve).  As for showing data on an S50 vs S54, it didn't seem to help at all when I showed data before so I'm not sure why I'd do it again (Fool me once, shame on you....)

As for ST being flawed (it is) but GTS not being flawed (it is flawed, just in different ways), the truth is GTS allows for >3k rpm of peak HP, IF you run an S54/S65.  You can run from 4726 RPM up to 8200 RPM for a 3473 RPM of perfectly flat power.  At 4726RPM, torque would be 111% of horsepower; taking 90% of that would give you the same # as HP, thus reaching the limit.  But you can't do it with any other motor.  Why?  Especially if you've proven to yourself it's not an advantage?

[daytonars4]

@ssmithat the end of the day my main point still stands. We haven’t seen the the GTS rules create any large advantages one way or another across the various engine options in GTS2. So you are unlikely to find many active GTS racers have interest in removing a tq cap to address or fix a problem that today doesn’t seem to exist. I haven’t seen any S50/52 owners who tend to be the fastest GTS2 cars in NE and MA complain about this “advantage” S54’s have over them. But what I can say is those who I talked with that saw your proposal along with seeing your power curve found it comical. If you want 210hp/300tq GTS2 isn’t and may never be the spot for you. If you want to run 210hp/230tq then come have a good time. 
 

Rules don’t generally get changed/made for the hell of it. Just my 2 cents. But hey, you are free to find a “majority” to agree with your proposal. I at least gave you some feedback to possibly give you insight as to why there’s 0 engage on your proposal. What you are proposing is not a new concept. It dates back years if not a decade. As a matter of fact there seems to be more discussion at the local level to further mod “high torque/extended avg hp” cars while you are actively trying to introduce more of them into the class. You would probably find more support as I suggest around a plan to cut peak hp rpm range than further extend for more engines as you are trying. Good luck.