'07 Rules Pre-release Talk--split topic from Provis.

[mavisky]

Joe that system doesn't work as well as it should unless everyone's on the stock turbo.

 

Let's take my car for instance. 92 eagle talon fwd turbo. 7.8:1 compression and 10psi from the factory. That gave the car 195hp at the flywheel, so I'd take 50 points for raising the boost to 20psi on the stock turbo which would only net me maybe 275hp. On my 18g which is still a small upgrade that same boost level of 20psi gets me to 320psi, on my buddy's GT35R equipped awd it gets him closer to 500hp. if he were to turn his GT35R down to 10psi and take no points he could still be making well over 300hp due to the efficiency of the turbo and the fact that airflow makes power not pressure.

 

30psi of water pressure through your garden hose is alot different than 30psi of water pressure through the hose of a firetruck. This is where the issues are arising. How to control these wildly different turbo upgrades. My "upgraded turbo" will cost me the same as my friends under the current rules but on racegas his can make 591awhp, mine couldn't clear 400 if it absolutely had to.

[944-Spec#94]

that is why I suggested taking 20 points (or what ever you think) for ugrading or modding the turbo.

 

More boost = more hp for the same turbo

 

Once you upgrade turbo's you should take points. On top of the that again more boost = more hp.

 

Now just because you uprade the turbo with sort of efficent one rather than the best is you choice just the same if you swap cams. You would take the same points for ANY cam swap even if it not the BEST cam swap.

 

So an example could be like this

 

Boost increase over stock

 

to 10% = 10pts

to 25% = 18pts

to 40% = 25pts

to 50% = 30pts

to 100% = 40pts

over 100% = 50pts

Changed or modified stock turbo = 25pts PLUS the above scale

 

 

So you use your stock turbo and go to 20 psi vs stock of 10.

Your points would be 40pts for this mod

 

Now your friend changes turbos and goes to 20 psi

He get 40pts PLUST 25 for changing the turbo total = 65 points. Thus that would basicly put him in the next class up always.

Now what if he runs stock 10psi on this super turbo. Well he gest only 25 points to your 40. So who has more points. Well you do now. Who has more hp?

 

Clearly depening on the actual points applied and certain cars it will make sense points wise to squeeze the stock unit for all you can, but in other to swap turbos and run alot less boost.

 

Plus you need to consider what happens in running a huge turbo at a low boost. How much lag does this induce and how does that impact driveability. In the 944 turbo world you can add more boost to the stock turbo and make power. You can also swap turbos and make more power with less boost. However if the turbo is too big spool time get bad and you will waiting for ever to make boost coming out of a corner. So while you may have a bit more peak hp drivability is lost. Point is if your going to change turbos you should be forced to take some points. Of course there is always a right and wrong turbo to choose and the boost level you plan to run will be factor in determining the turbo.

 

Well given the basic nature of TT and PT rules this a common trade. Where do you want to spend your points? For some cars (NA cars for example) spending ANY points on engine is waste. Better to have box stock engine taking zero points and put all you points budget in suspension or weight reduciton. For others it may be the other way around where you spend alot on the engine since you can gain the most this way.

[Greg G.]

Hi Joe (I'll see you next month at PIR),

 

The biggest problems with your solution are:

 

1) Especially in PT, this will be very difficult to monitor for compliance. Telltale boost gauges really give peak values for the most part (including spikes on initial acceleration). Boost spikes at low rpm do not tell the story about how much power is being made in the usable rpm range.

 

2) The variance is so large depending on so many factors, and what I truly need to know to class a car is its ultimate power output. So, why bother trying to extrapolate so many variables to come up "off the mark" anyway? In this case, with there being so much variance depending on turbo size, engine displacement, intercooler size and efficiency, ECU timing and fuel maps, fuel delivery ability, cams/compression/internal mods, a system like you have suggested will end up being a weak substitute for just checking the power output of the car, and then verifying compliance with GPS units and dyno testing.

[944-Spec#94]

Hi Joe (I'll see you next month at PIR).

 

Glad to hear you are making the drive. December in PIR is perfect for track records.

 

Yeah it may not be as accurate as actual HP levels and cetainly not the easiest to police either, but if developed properly I think could get most of the way to what you want short of actual dyno runs.

 

If you look engine prep rules in all classes NA cars are pretty well undertsood. Sure every car responds differently, but a cam change, exhaust change,displacement bump or compression ratio all have a basic range of gain. With any forced induction car you have all the normal "hot rod" tricks, plus the abilty to simply force more air into the engine. Therefore I think a factor based on how much air is being force in is good way to access and Turbo/supercharged car short of an actual dyno run.

[loudes13]

Whatever I drive in '07, I'll be happy to dyno it and bring the sheet.

 

btw I don't know what it will be yet, but 98% sure it won't be awd or turbo.

 

Greg, good points. Seems like dyno sheets really are needed for all top cars (in each class). It's the only fair answer.

[slink]

i agree with allen, dyno sheets to our regional tt person. i know when i got my dyno sheet back (205 hp & 142 tq @wheels) the dyno guy said multiply the readings by 1.25 to get flywheel readings (256.2 hp, 177 tq) stock ratings are 240 hp , 165tq @ flywheel. he has a mustang dyno were the readings are not as high as other dyno's? so if i get dyno at the track during the national how much plus or minus would we get?

[860TTC]

i agree with allen, dyno sheets to our regional tt person. i know when i got my dyno sheet back (205 hp & 142 tq @wheels) the dyno guy said multiply the readings by 1.25 to get flywheel readings (256.2 hp, 177 tq) stock ratings are 240 hp , 165tq @ flywheel. he has a mustang dyno were the readings are not as high as other dyno's? so if i get dyno at the track during the national how much plus or minus would we get?

We can look dyno sheets from other cars of the same model to see if the numbers are "close". You should be able to find someone else with a simular S2000 to see if your motor in running strong. That's what I've done this year with my Mustang. I think that was what Greg was doing when he was dyno'ing the cars at nationals.

[bbyevo]

The only fly in that ointment is that different brand dynos give very different numbers (purposeful manipulation aside). If I were to dyno my car on a Dynojet, I would expect to see around 340-350 awhp. The same pull on a Mustang dyno would be around 300 awhp. There are some multiplication factors floating around to 'even' the numbers out, but it's one more thing that would have to be checked into. The difference is with the Dynojet numbers my car is a 9.4 hp/weight and with the Mustang it's 11...

[slink]

well i know allens s2000 did not have some of the same mods (pulleys, exhaust, ecu, air intake, valve lash settings, fuel) as i have. i think that would be difficult to compare apples to oranges. there would have to be some kind of % tolerance? because of outside temp, humidity, machine ect ... very tough job for greg to make all people happy.

[860TTC]

well i know allens s2000 did not have some of the same mods (pulleys, exhaust, ecu, air intake, valve lash settings, fuel) as i have. i think that would be difficult to compare apples to oranges. there would have to be some kind of % tolerance? because of outside temp, humidity, machine ect ... very tough job for greg to make all people happy.

 

I idea is to keep the hp/weight ratio in line. Look at the power generated not the modifications. Like any other rule, if your on the edge you may fall off.

 

The racing series all use DynoJet's - only.

[Greg G.]

Apparently, not many of you have read the '06 rules regarding the use of dynos in TT. Only the Dynojet is used for 2wd cars. (In fact, same goes for other NASA series requiring dyno testing).

[MrEvoMan]

The racing series all use DynoJet's - only.

 

I know I am a new poster here, but I am a VERY long time moderator of a well known Evo site and deal heavily with modified Evos, Tuning them, and Dynos.

 

Requiring Dyno testing is simply not feasible. You say the series all uses Dynojets? Do you realize that all Dynojets are not the same?

 

Do you also realize how EASY it is to "fudge" dyno numbers?

 

What about the ease of tuning cars now a days? Evos for example, simply need an $80 cable and free software. Couldn't they dyno on a very, very conservative map, and run the car at the track using a race map? It takes all of 10 seconds to reflash an Evo.

 

Slowoldpoop is also right... AWD Dynos in the midwest are CRAZY expensive. There's no rhyme or reason, they just are.

 

Greg... because of this, A LOT of Evos for example, are being road tuned now a days. There are even people doing "internet" tunes. The way this works, logging programs are downloaded from the Internet (they're free), and a wideband O2 sensor is hooked up. Datalogs are taken and emailed to a tuner in a different state. The said tuner looks over the logs, makes a map (timing and fuel) and emails it back to the owner. The owner installs it via a really easy and FREE downloadable utility, and runs the car again. If the owner has wireless on their laptop, they don't even need to leave their car!!

 

I don't have a solution for this, but I will strongly agree, requiring dyno testing is simply a bad way to try to make a standard.

[Greg G.]

Ok, maybe I should start a poll:

 

"How many turbo AWD owners want to be able to run only in the higher TTU class, because from what I'm being told, there are many of them that can't help but cheat, regardless of the system used?"

 

or

 

"How many turbo AWD owners want to be able to run only in a separate class, just for AWD turbos, regardless of all other mods (or lack thereof), because we will have a problem with cheaters otherwise?"

 

I keep hearing you guys stating that this solution won't work, but you never give an idea of a solution that will work. The more that I hear from the owners of these cars, the more I think that we need to mandate the owners of these cars to purchase the GPS units that we ran at the Championships, and run them in every session, as well as baseline dyno testing to help ensure compliance (or run in the higher TTU class). There is no way to fairly assess points for these cars for upgrading the turbo. Evo's can make 400 hp or 800 hp with upgrades. At least with 2wd turbos, we have the ability to snatch the car from impound and dyno test it at many tracks.

[MrEvoMan]

I keep hearing you guys stating that this solution won't work, but you never give an idea of a solution that will work. The more that I hear from the owners of these cars, the more I think that we need to mandate the owners of these cars to purchase the GPS units that we ran at the Championships, and run them in every session, as well as baseline dyno testing to help ensure compliance (or run in the higher TTU class).

 

Well, an easy solution for Evos, is use the datalogging program in your favor. There is a "dyno" feature that comes with a utility called Evoscan, that has a shocklingly accurate Dyno graphing program. It is something easily plugged into an OBD-II port on an Evo and can quickly produce a repeatable dyno result.

 

My questions, is why is it just the AWD turbo guys? I may be new, but I can't believe that we are the only types of cars in question when it comes to compliance. Not all of us would bend the rules, others, like myself, pride themselves on winning the right way.

[StealthTT]

Ok, maybe I should start a poll:

 

"How many turbo AWD owners want to be able to run only in the higher TTU class, because from what I'm being told, there are many of them that can't help but cheat, regardless of the system used?"

 

or

 

"How many turbo AWD owners want to be able to run only in a separate class, just for AWD turbos, regardless of all other mods (or lack thereof), because we will have a problem with cheaters otherwise?"

 

I keep hearing you guys stating that this solution won't work, but you never give an idea of a solution that will work. The more that I hear from the owners of these cars, the more I think that we need to mandate the owners of these cars to purchase the GPS units that we ran at the Championships, and run them in every session, as well as baseline dyno testing to help ensure compliance (or run in the higher TTU class). There is no way to fairly assess points for these cars for upgrading the turbo. Evo's can make 400 hp or 800 hp with upgrades. At least with 2wd turbos, we have the ability to snatch the car from impound and dyno test it at many tracks.

 

It's already fixed if Greg Greenbaum does as he says he will with the rules.

 

I don't think MrEvoMan has read the whole post.

 

No points assessed for modifications needed to run that hp level.

--Levelled the peak hp versus average hp discrepancy.

 

Spot checks and/or GPS for anyone that seems too fast or is protested.

--Keeps people from cheating or penalizes them if they do.

--This works for NA cars as well.

 

It's only fair for us to dyno.

--Paying for just 3 dyno pulls is only around $125. If you don't want to pay that, you're being unreasonable.

--Save the tuning for the street if that's where you want to do it. Dyno tuning is expensive, but just pulls are cheaper.

--It also helps you class yourself. I don't want to be in TTU, so I'll dyno tune to keep myself in the class I choose.

--It can work in your favor. Unlike an NA car, you can easily tune your car for lower hp and run more efficient!

 

Be Reasonable People!!!

The purpose is to be competitive in the class, not to have blatantly higher hp so you can dragrace people on the straights.

[Greg G.]

We can easily dyno 2wd cars at many of our tracks if necessary (seal ECU ports, boost controllers, wastegate actuator adjustments before competition). Most of the turbos that we have in NASA turn out to be AWD or run in one of the unlimited classes anyway. Some of the 2wd forced induction cars (with OEM computers) cannot be reflashed except by the manufacturer (like Dodges--and Cobalts too I think). Late model ECUs are becoming very problematic, though. Gains by the forced induction cars are potentially much greater than those for NA cars though.

[StealthTT]

A potential protest or threat of spot checks will keep people honest...or they'll pay for it when they're caught.

 

Cheaters aren't welcome and are handled appropriately!

 

Please people, do what you can to facilitate having a place to play.

[bbyevo]

Well I for one do NOT want to run in TTU. My TT car is a daily driver (very close to it anyway), and I do not have the means to develop it into a competitve TTU car, even if I wanted to - which I don't. Yes it is easy to tune an Evo (not the only turbo or awd turbo mentioned in this thread, btw), but at a regional level isn't a dyno sheet enough proof? It's beginning to feel like because I own one these cars it's assumed that i am either already cheating or that I will be, hence the need for drastic restructuring of the rules.

 

Put the car on a dyno. Use a correction factor if the dyno is not a DynoJet. Throw a GPS system on any car that is obviously outpacing the rest of the class by a certain percentage to verify the numbers. Why does this have to be so hard? The guys I'm running with will know pretty quickly if my stated 350 whp is really more like 400 or more, don't you think?

 

A quick look at the OH/IN TT results from '06 shows less than 10 Evo drivers, and only 1 other AWD turbo car (A4). The midwest results are mostly incomplete (on the NASA TT site anyway), but how many cars

are we talking about here? I really think the bigger issue is at Nationals, and I think the GPS solution worked well. I still vote for hp/weight and let the cheaters beware.

 

I'm really glad this class is growing, but at the end of the day all I want to do is drive my car and have some fun.

[kbrew8991]

I've got no issue spending $50-$75 to provide a dyno sheet for my TTF car. I'll bet it'll be ~116whp and ~130wtq like it was a year or so ago too

 

What I do have an issue with is being charged 2 points for camber and not assessing the same penalty to anyone else outside of "factory ranges"

 

either allow us to align our cars to our likings for free, or charge anyone points for being outside of factory specs.

[phoenixR34]

What I do have an issue with is being charged 2 points for camber and not assessing the same penalty to anyone else outside of "factory ranges"

 

either allow us to align our cars to our likings for free, or charge anyone points for being outside of factory specs.

 

On *most* cars that have factory adjustment, you typically can't get more than a degree or two. Whereas with a camber arm, camber plate or special bolt kit, you might be able to get 3-4 (or more). I think +2 is plenty fair.

 

You might argue then that a car that has factory camber adjustment (ex. S2000) has a big advantage over a car that doesn't (ex. 350Z) and that's true, because that's two points and S2000 might not have to carry to get the same result. I would say, well, that's life.. there are always cars that are more ideal for certain classes.

 

If you want to argue this point, then what about cars that have factory ride height adjustment, adjustable ignition timing.. heck, air pressure adjustments that deviate from stock should be penalized too, right?

[Greg G.]

1 psi = 1 pt.

[StealthTT]

1 psi = 1 pt.

 

Great now I have to figure out a way to put a switch inside the cabin for two-level tire pressure next to my two-level boost controller switch.

 

Ugh, no Mister Inspector, those are old switches I don't use anymore. The wires stop at the firewall. I swear.

[kbrew8991]

What I do have an issue with is being charged 2 points for camber and not assessing the same penalty to anyone else outside of "factory ranges"

 

either allow us to align our cars to our likings for free, or charge anyone points for being outside of factory specs.

 

On *most* cars that have factory adjustment, you typically can't get more than a degree or two. Whereas with a camber arm, camber plate or special bolt kit, you might be able to get 3-4 (or more). I think +2 is plenty fair.

 

You might argue then that a car that has factory camber adjustment (ex. S2000) has a big advantage over a car that doesn't (ex. 350Z) and that's true, because that's two points and S2000 might not have to carry to get the same result. I would say, well, that's life.. there are always cars that are more ideal for certain classes.

 

If you want to argue this point, then what about cars that have factory ride height adjustment, adjustable ignition timing.. heck, air pressure adjustments that deviate from stock should be penalized too, right?

 

the bolts I'm using are from Toyota to replace the factory crappy ones (and I have the TSB for it too). Where it gets me peeved is that its ok to use these bolts points-free as long as I'm within the factory specified range (and not even what you can get out of the stock bolts).

 

the car has a crappy part, I replaced it, and got points for using its capabilities....... the S2000 guys, etc whoever/whatever/etc aren't getting charged the same way

 

SCCA (the most feared organization when it comes to changing stuff like this it seems) even allows you to run these in Stock class autocrossing... to thier full capibilities too. They hardly let you change wheels and de-option your car but they'll let me do that. (bring on the we're not the SCCA comments ). Just an example of how silly this seems to me to count as a modification. It is a repair.

[slink]

i did not read this whole thread, but i am SURE somewhere greg said camber is free (no points ) for 2007.

[Markus]

i am SURE somewhere greg said camber is free (no points ) for 2007.

 

Oh yeah, that was in the "appease Ken Brewer" thread.

 

- Mark