Dyno numbers to the Spec E30 Regional Directors

#41

Greg is correct that the CI only gives you confidence on what range the mean (average) should fall in. That being said, an allowance on either end of the range could be allowed. I guess this all comes down to the fundamental definition of a spec series. If you have some cars that dyno at 140 and others at 160 (on the same dyno, day, etc.), is it really spec?

#42

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Age wrote:

Why would they want to mess with RP or ballast? Because nobody will know for certain they are legal until they check the dyno at the track.

With a good rule set, no one should be surprised of the results in post-race tech. Everything is verifiable beforehand.

If you want to turn post-race tech into a crapshoot, you will turn people off.

How do you write something up in the logbook? What is the true verification value of a run on another dyno that shows ‘legal’ power? What specifically needs to be fixed on the car?

Restrictor plates couldn’t be easier. Much easier than bolting in more ballast, for sure.

Steve D.[/quote]

Steve, I agree with 90% of what you’re saying here and I see we have the same goals. My thing that is being overlooked is that time is an easier penalty to assess for everyone involved than a mechanical penalty like restrictor or ballast. For example, what if 3 cars test over and local tech only has 2 restrictor plates, or what if someone is 20 HP over - do you have a different restrictor plate than the one for the 2 guys that are 7HP over?

Seems local tech should take into account the variance of the top 50% of cars for a given weekend to find out if there is some environmental issue improving performance numbers. I agree nobody wants a crapshoot at tech and if 25% of the field is consistent but over the limit on a given weekend then something is likely missing from the analysis.

#43

Age wrote:

[quote] [quote]Steve D wrote:
Restrictor plates couldn’t be easier. Much easier than bolting in more ballast, for sure.

Steve D.[/quote]

Steve, I agree with 90% of what you’re saying here …
[/quote]

Dude, that’s like 50% more than when I am at home!

I’m going to go with NASCAR’s lead on this one (at least before that Regan-Tony thing a couple weeks ago) and say I think it is important for the results to be as the cars came off track - unless someone gets popped in tech.

In other words, do I need to remember that Driver X has a 0.05 sec/lap penalty so as long as I finish within 10 car lengths in a sprint race, I win?

I think that guys who are pushing the to-be-established limit are the kind who wouldn’t think twice about having to strap in ballast or a plate. Conversely, the drive-to-the-track or hate-to-wrench-on-the-car crowd doesn’t really need to worry about the limit, right?

[quote] For example, what if 3 cars test over and local tech only has 2 restrictor plates, or what if someone is 20 HP over - do you have a different restrictor plate than the one for the 2 guys that are 7HP over?
[/quote]

I would put the burden on the competitor. If you want to push close to the limit, carry a $10 value pack of various restrictor plates to tune down to the limit.

I am counting on Carter and the statistics whizzes to avoid that trouble. But I haven’t seen the data set, don’t know what the standard deviation might be, etc.

Steve D.

#44

A restrictor plate would not be a “penalty”. Its an opportunity for a driver to make his car legal. Like steveD said it should be up to the driver to own the plates- although I doubt they sell ones specific to our cars so maybe we need to get a company (bimmerworld?) to make them for us at a few different sizes.
I dont know how quick/easy it would be to change them in and out at the track though…

Time penalties should only be for drivers who fail post race tech. There’s no other way besides a DQ that I can think of to do it. On this subject I think we need to be allowed free voluntary dyno pulls on race weekends to make sure our cars are legal.

I am starting to wonder whether regions outside the mid atl. will be willing/able to dyno several cars during the weekend.

#45

I would hope to see more severe measures taken against someone being over the hp limit. I don’t want folks to think of hp and weight-penalty as one more variable to be adjusted. I want them punished for excess hp, and therefore encouraged to fix it. I’m thinking of something along the lines of adding a minute for every hp over.

By adding a minute/hp, they can still have fun in the race, they’ll probably still beat me, but the encouragement will be strong to find a way to undo what they did.

The dyno standard needs to discourage trick motor builds that exploit hard-to-detect violations of the regs. The dyno standard needs prevent the Miata (pro) crate motor environment.

#46

Ranger wrote:

[quote]I would hope to see more severe measures taken against someone being over the hp limit.
[/quote]

I agree. DQ is the only appropriate penalty for an illegal car. Not sent home, just DQ in all sessions until the car is brought legal.

[quote]
The dyno standard needs to discourage trick motor builds that exploit hard-to-detect violations of the regs. The dyno standard needs prevent the Miata crate motor environment.[/quote]

I agree with the belt-and-suspenders approach of rules that specify stock components and factory approved rebuild techniques PLUS a hp/tq limit.

But the Miata ‘crates’ are fine. They are +/-$1,600 from Mazda. It is the ‘pro’ motors that are $5,000-7,000.

Steve D.

#47

That’s kind of where my head was at too - something like a second per lap per HP over the limit, and it must be brought into standard range before the next event or risk being DQ’d for the weekend rather than repeating the time penalty twice.

As for having BW or some other sole-source shop build Spec E-30 restrictor plates for us, I recall a similar experiment a year or so ago and it was met with let’s say a lukewarm reception.

#48

I meant the “pro” motors, thanks for pointing out the distinction. I fixed the origonal post to make that more clear.

1sec per lap isn’t nearly enough penalty when 6-8secs per lap separates 1st from last.

#49

Just some observations and concerns

How do you treat car that have removed power steering / AC versus cars that still have it?

Who drives the car on the dyno? Anyone who has ever played on a dyno knows how easy they can be to manipulated.

Will this be an additional cost to the drivers? (keep in mind the goal is to keep down overall cost if we have to pay $70 a weekend to get our cars tested and we run 15 races thats $1,050 to keep racing cheap)

I am by no means an expert on engine building but I do know there are many things that can be done to make an engine more powerful.

Ideas from a Performance engine building class at
Pennsylvania College of Technology

Fore example: the block can be machined submerged in oil at operating temperature
(results: is a more perfect seal between rings and cylinder when at operating temp)

An older block (many heat cycles) will make more power than a newer one after machining (less shifting of material under operating conditions and over time)

Perfect ring end gap

Blocks with less core shift / uniform cylinder wall thickness will make more HP/TQ

Obviously different oils can have a huge impact on HP/ TQ

Even slight differences in bearing clearance can change HP/TQ

Proper break in procedures

cylinder wall finish

Balanced valve seat pressure and fuel injectors.

How well do your valves seal to the valve seats in the head/ over different heat ranges

Hell even the amount of air in the crank case can change HP/TQ numbers. Less air less drag on rotating assembly _____________________________________________________________

   My point is I understand we all want to keep cost down. I am personally all for keeping things as cheap as possible. But at the same time I understand that this is racing. People are going to use the rules to squeeze every bit of speed out of the cars. If you want to build a motor correctly (aka to make the most hp) and stay with in the rules why shouldnt you be able to make 10hp more then the guy behind you. Everyone has the same choices to make. And it is inevitable that some people will have more hp than others.

Build and drive your cars to the best of your abilities / money if someone is faster than you at the end of the day Thats racing

My 2 cents

Daniel Graybill

#50

Gents – from the standpoint of a newcomer, still slaving away at building a car: I came to spec e30 to escape the ever escalating costs involved in fielding a competitive car in improved touring and spec miata. I can give you many first person accounts of the frustration involved in being soundly beaten by money - not skill.

From the rule book… “The SpecE30 Series is a competitive, fun, safe, affordable racing series….” These should be the overriding principles in all rules discussions. I think it can be fairly said that any car which passes tech will be safe (with the possible except of the bronzit’s) and fun – therefore the rest of rule writing and enforcement should focus on making the series as competitive and affordable as possible.

We could argue ad nauseum about the potential variances between dyno’s, operators, ambient conditions and cars. The only true way to eliminate every variable would be to have a “spec”, spec e30, with a fresh bmw crate motor installed, run on the dyno at every event. Then we could have all the other cars bench-marked against this reference. Since this isn’t going to happen, I think we have to agree there is intrinsic difference between any group of roughly twenty year old cars, prepared or otherwise – let alone all of the other factors. The goal of the dyno should not, therefore attempt to equalize the field, but to discourage and reveal cheating. It should also discourage “creative” rule interpretation – ie building a balls-to-the-wall pro motor intended to yield better than factory horsepower. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this – it just doesn’t meet the spirit of se30 rules. If you’re looking for auto racing darwinism, spec miata is your calling- there you can bring your think tank rule interpretation and your thick ass wallet straight to victory lane.

I think we can all agree that most any measure of rule enforcement is better than none at all. Everyone will have there own agenda in how they get enforced, but those who only seek to win by spending stupid money on their car should keep in mind that you are racing in an affordable, club racing level, series. I also used to race in the barber dodge series, where prior to every race weekend the cars were driven by a pro driver then performance adjusted via exhaust restrictors. I can tell you that this was one of the best, most competitive series I have ever raced in. Reason? On any given weekend the driver with the most talent at least had a chance to win – regardless of how much money he spent. It also meant that people of similar talent levels could race against each other without concern of the equality of their cars. Obviously this method of control is impractical for us – but the principle is correct: competitive and affordable.

#51

mougl1 wrote:

I agree with this and most all of your post, but we already have that. We have dynos. We have cars that are CLEARLY making more power. People obviously aren’t discouraged from making “creative” rule interpretations unless they get penalized. We need to do more than just “reveal” the differences, because that has been done and didn’t change anything.

#52

Skeen, I must have missed the clearly revealed high hp motor post. When did some blow past mid 150s?

#53

[quote]jlucas wrote:
I hope your talking to dyno experts to understand what variance can been seen based on conditions.

Carter wrote:
Good thought. I’ll make some calls to the dyno manufacturers tomorrow.
(…)
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.
[/quote]

At the same Summit Point event this year, along with Carter’s, Skeen’s, and Allen’s, Skip Bennett’s car dyno’d at 169 peak. His engine was built by a different builder in a different state.

#54

victorhall wrote:

At the wheels?? Hmmm…

#55

I’m not going to guaruntee he’s not cheating but I’ve talked to him about this and he says that his motor is not particularly strong- the secret is getting rid of “drivetrain drag” like lighter wheels, less oil in tranny (or dif. I dont remember). I dont know who’s going to believe it (me included) but thats what he says :huh:.
Could it be a possibility that he just really has it dialed in right?

#56

mougl1 wrote:

[quote]If you’re looking for auto racing darwinism, spec miata is your calling- there you can bring your think tank rule interpretation and your thick ass wallet straight to victory lane.
[/quote]

I gotta tell you, this criticism of SM gets kind of tiring. There is no debate that the top cars are expensive, every rule gets pushed to the limit (isn’t that why they wrote them?:stuck_out_tongue: ), but your statement discounts the drivers.

To win in SM, you have to drive a smart race and never put a wheel wrong. Any number of guys showed up with $35k cars at MidOhio. I would say easily half the field. Who took the checkers? A friend of mine who races every weekend and is absolutely tireless with car prep, suspension setup, data analysis, etc.

There is a lot of time to be shaved with car prep and seat time. It is auto racing’s biggest cop-out to point at the winners and say they ‘bought’ their podium finish.

IMO, Spec E30 is more of a tinkerer’s class. I don’t think an arrive-and-drive spec series is a fair comparison to SE30 because it doesn’t allow the range in budget that (pretty much) peacefully exists in SE30 today.

Steve D.

#57

victorhall wrote:

[quote][quote]jlucas wrote:
I hope your talking to dyno experts to understand what variance can been seen based on conditions.

Carter wrote:
Good thought. I’ll make some calls to the dyno manufacturers tomorrow.
(…)
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.
[/quote]

At the same Summit Point event this year, along with Carter’s, Skeen’s, and Allen’s, Skip Bennett’s car dyno’d at 169 peak. His engine was built by a different builder in a different state.[/quote]

Actually, Bennett’s car turned a peak of 167.38 that day.

But yes, it was clearly well above the other three cars that pulled a peak of 154.xx

We are waiting for the thoughts of one more Regional Series Director (he said he will get back to us and I know he will soon) and then I will write a first draft of the rule, to be examined by all the Regional Series Directors. I know there will be some minor tweaking and then we will send it to NASA.

And I don’t want anyone to think that we are trying to “equalize” the engines. We are writing a simple and straight-forward rule that will provide a maximum power level for the engine/drivetrain, measured on a chassis dyno. If you have built a “standard rebuild” per the rules, you will not need to wonder if your engine will be legal. We are providing some wiggle room for different dynos, etc.

Plus, these rules are not updated only during the off season (although this is a good time to consider these things) and we can make some adjustments, additions, etc. after we feel comfortable with the first implementation of the Rule. And we are also considering the fact that most regions will not have a dyno at the track and that no one will know if/when a dyno will be there. The rule cannot be written so engines can be dyno’d and adjusted for power every weekend. If we raced at the same track every weekend and had an on-site dyno, that might work.

Again, this first rule will be very simple, with the possibility of expanding it as we go, and as we see how it is working. Initially, it will not involve tuning engines at the track, adding time penalties,or adding weight to certain cars. I’m not saying those ideas won’t work, but that we won’t go that far, at the beginning.

We appreciate everyone’s comments here and we should have it finalized as soon as we get the final comments from the Regional Directors and NASA’s approval.

Lastly, the other issues to be considered are much simpler and should be finalized in just a few days, once we move to them.

Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director

#58

Sounds great! How about keeping the process open? Share the draft, get our comments. Share the Series Directors’ comments and input etc…
-Vic

#59

Carter wrote:

[quote]victorhall wrote:

[quote][quote]jlucas wrote:
I hope your talking to dyno experts to understand what variance can been seen based on conditions.

Carter wrote:
Good thought. I’ll make some calls to the dyno manufacturers tomorrow.
(…)
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.
[/quote]

Again, this first rule will be very simple, with the possibility of expanding it as we go, and as we see how it is working. Initially, it will not involve tuning engines at the track, adding time penalties,or adding weight to certain cars. I’m not saying those ideas won’t work, but that we won’t go that far, at the beginning.
[/quote]

Good rule or bad rule, it just needs to be enforced or we’ll continue to have newcomers that will come in and exploit loopholes or “get by” until caught and penalized. No enforcement/consequences = lack of integrity of the rule set.

#60

Update - We are discussing two versions of the Max HP/TQ rule, written by two Spec E30 Regional Series Directors. After some discussions on these two versions, and an agreement, it will be sent to NASA.

Also, as this is the most important rule in the current group of issues to discuss, we are taking more time. The remaining issues will be settled very quickly compared to this one.

Your Regional Series Directors are level-headed and have your interests at heart. We are doing a good job discussing this issue and we should have it to NASA in the next few days.

Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director