 |
|
To keep the drivers up-to-date…
The Spec E30 Regional Series Directors have dyno numbers to review and we will discuss it over the weekend.
I’m thinking that we’ll have the maximum HP/TQ Rule in place after a couple of days of discussions, and after we get NASA’s approval of course. We should have the proposal to NASA early in the week.
Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director
Thanks for the update carter. I’ll be checking in very frequently for the announcement- the sooner the better! 
I hope your talking to dyno experts to understand what variance can been seen based on conditions.
jlucas wrote:
Good thought. I’ll make some calls to the dyno manufacturers tomorrow.
We have dyno numbers from several cars and several dynos and also have the ambient temp, barometric pressure, and humidity, on some of the dyno sheets.
In building the database, we have seen some variations with the different brands of dynos. My car pulled 15 more hp on a Mustang dyno, than on a Dynojet. I told the guy that day that I hope his dyno was reading high because if it was correct, my engine was illegal.
We are also discussing how we can fairly deal with a specific dyno that is reading high at the track.
So, we’re still discussing the HP/TQ Rule, and how to write it so that it is fair, and easy to use.
At Summit Point this year, my car, Skeen’s car, and Jon Allen’s car were all dyno’d, one after the other. Basically, the HP peaks were 154.49, 154.10, and 154.47. And each engine was built by a different builder, in different states.
We are also looking at more numbers from more races but those are pretty good.
It is critical that we get this done correctly, so we’ll need a few more days. Not a few more weeks but I’m hoping we can get it done by the end of the week, or before.
We (the Spec E30 Regional Series Directors and me) will also discuss minor allowed modifications to the Spec Exhaust for fitment (we know it’s already happening and we want it to be legal, and better for the drivers), a diff lockup rule (we have some good numbers from the track), finalizing the spare tire rule (hasn’t been an issue at the track lately but needs to be settled), the future of the 318is in Spec E30, requiring the stock airbox (cheap and simple and many drivers tell me they want it), allowing any E30 fuel tank (to level the playing field and so a driver can get one from any parts car), clarify the class letters on the cars.
The HP/TQ rule is on the front burner and we will move each additional issue up as we complete the issue ahead of it.
Also, Jeremy, I need your mailing address. Can you send it to me? carterhunt@aol.com
Thanks,
Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director
Carter -
I appreciate all the efforts by you and the regional directors. Since they may have been buried in the Summit Point thread, I want to restate a couple points:
I think the max HP/TQ rule is a decent first step to address the perception that some people are bringing HUGE power (+15hp on the field). This shaves a little off the top of the loophole, but…
Setting a max HP/TQ still leaves a LOT of room to play with the engine to develop the greatest ‘area under the curve’ while still producing a legal single-point maximum reading
Due to variation between dynos - even dynos of the same brand - this rule creates a situation where a competitor doesn’t know if his car is legal when he shows up at the track. Same situation exists with weight, but you can quickly add fuel or other ballast to get legal. We need something simple (like restrictor plates?) to enable people to show up, roll on the dyno and make an adjustment to be legal. You can’t - for the health/PR of the class - have a situation where people get sent home unless they had an accurate, repeatable way to determine if they were legal before they loaded up to go to the race.
Steve D.
I think the max HP/Torque is a great Idea, but I think the implementation of it is going to be very difficult and maybe painful.
Steve D you bring up some good points, but from I have seen many people will not find out their engine is over the HP/TQ limit until they are in impound. I would like to see a warning/time adjustment penalty. First time you break out you get 0.25 sec added to your time for every Hp/Tq over, 2nd time to Break out you get 1 sec added for each HP/TQ. 3rd time your out. or something like that. **You can’t break out at all or harsher penalties at nationals.
This is of course knowing nothing what the limits are going to be. Just a stab in the dark. With My 200,000 Mile motor I am not worried about it, yet.
Steve, you probably weren’t around to hear it, but the initial plan was to have several RPM points where there was a max hp/tq number. IOW, you can’t be over 100hp at 3k, 125hp at 4k, or 150hp at 5k (or whatever). At least, this was my understanding.
I think the hp/tq rule needs to be something like you can’t be more than 1 standard deviation (or two, whatever is fair) from the mean of those dyno’d same day.
mskeen wrote:
Thanks for that background. I wasn’t aware that was the plan. Makes perfect sense (but now I have to cancel that week-at-the-dyno family vacation I had planned :lol: :huh: ).
Wouldn’t that make illegal the entire BeerTech and Malt Liquor Tech teams? Oh, wait! That’s deviancy.:woohoo: They might be ok on the dyno.
Steve D.
Mike - you make a good point. However, I would suggest using a confidence interval (CI) rather than a standard deviation. It is something we commonly use in research and is a more reliable indicator of the population variance, mean, and std dev. It is usually in the range of 90 to 95%. If someone falls outside of the range (i.e., above the CI), a weight or time penalty could be levied. You could also argue that those that fall below the lower bound (i.e., lower hp/tq and outside of the 95% CI) be allowed to run a lower weight.
Ed
edavidson wrote:
[quote]Mike - you make a good point. However, I would suggest using a confidence interval (CI) rather than a standard deviation. It is something we commonly use in research and is a more reliable indicator of the population variance, mean, and std dev. It is usually in the range of 90 to 95%. If someone falls outside of the range (i.e., above the CI), a weight or time penalty could be levied. You could also argue that those that fall below the lower bound (i.e., lower hp/tq and outside of the 95% CI) be allowed to run a lower weight.
Ed[/quote]
I hope the power to be read what Ed just said. This is a more fully thought out plan than any others I’ve heard/read.
[quote]Mike - you make a good point. However, I would suggest using a confidence interval (CI) rather than a standard deviation. It is something we commonly use in research and is a more reliable indicator of the population variance, mean, and std dev. It is usually in the range of 90 to 95%. If someone falls outside of the range (i.e., above the CI), a weight or time penalty could be levied. You could also argue that those that fall below the lower bound (i.e., lower hp/tq and outside of the 95% CI) be allowed to run a lower weight.
Ed [/quote]
If I understand what you are saying, I like the idea of the margin of error.
But if you are proposing that weight penalties and gifts are given based on power readings, I have to disagree. This can create a situation where guys may come to the track with 170hp knowing they will have to carry ballast or vice versa to try to gain an advantage. Spec series are competitive and cheap because the rules keep everyone on the same stuff, not because they try to equalize different cars.
I think there should be major time penalties for those who are found to be over-powered and no sympathy for those who are under.
ps- edavidson, how are the repairs coming?
allenr wrote:
Oh no you don’t. That’s complete bullshit. Sympathy for the underpowered is entirely reasonable. It’s the least that we can do for the poor wretched SOBs.
My reasoning was not that guys on very low budgets shouldnt be able to have the car to run up front. I was pointing out that its not in the spirit of a spec series to try to equalize different types of cars.
But heck since you bring it up, how would you feel if you invested a few K in a motor as a lot of guys have only to find that you just bought yourself a couple chunks of ballast to go with it?
Robert’s point is still valid though. If you gift people by offering lower weight to lower powered cars, some people might try to take advantage of it. Would be nice to run a lighter car on tighter tracks or during long races. It’s their problem if the car is subpar.
Nah you guys are taking me too seriously, I was just going for a laugh. I’m not suggesting lower weight for low hp cars, nor higher weight for higher hp cars. Too complicated and outside the spirit of the class.
But if the power spec system has a way to add time for a motor having too much power, I might be ok with that, but it would have to be a fair amount of time. None of this .25 second business. That would give a guy a chance to put the correct parts back on his car, while reducing the hysterics that every rule change seems to create.
I figure that the hp spec that comes out is liable to be a little on the lenient side to reduce the amount of bitching. Like 160hp peak and likewise too high at the various rpm points. From every dyno chart I’ve seen, if you’ve got >160hp you have more then you should. And this series is about the driver not the car.
But in the end it doesn’t matter to me. I’m just here in this driver skill oriented series until I can find a series oriented on being good lookin’.
edavidson wrote:
+1 for using CI over standard Deviations as it accounts for all the variables.
Let me be clear… I like the idea of giving some one penalty weight if the show up and are beyond the acceptable range. But just like the weight rules, you get that 1 pass. You can’t continue to show up beyond the acceptable range. as for under powered cars… I’m with Skeen. Too bad for you. There should be a maximum acceptable rule. If your car is putting down less power than Al’s car, then you may want to think about getting a new motor.
There are a lot of problems with a weight penalty. Where to get the exact amount of ballast and how to safely secure it in every car is just the beginning.
It think there should be a time penalty proportionate to the number of hp over. maybe .5 sec in quali per hp? 5 secs. per hp in the race?
Although this could ruin someone’s weekend who happens to be reading one hp over the limit every time