 |
|
On the chip front, yes the idea was open chips but must have stock rev limit and HP cap does not change. Just a cheaper way for those not quiet ready for a rebuild to extend the life of the motor between rebuilds as a fresh motor + chip should be over the HP cap.
Anybody have any other ideas? Can we agree that we’d rather see people spending their dollares racing at the track than spending a big chunk of their racing budget on a motor build?
Jeremy,
You know, the more and more I think about your idea, the more and more I like it.
It is a much more simple and cost effective way to level the paying field for the guys who are a bit under powered. The guys with the engine builds don’t have to do a thing.
Now, the rev limiter issue is in the programming and most chips raise the rev limiter. However, there is nothing to say that one can’t be created and sold. Or, how about this idea, allow the rev limiter to be wherever you want it. Why cap the rev limiter if we are going to already have cap’d HP and TQ numbers? Personally, I would say allow a chip, but no matter what the chip does for you, it can’t produce anything that would exceed the set parameters.
Now these are rough thoughts, but it sure is making a lot of sense to me.
You should write up your proposal. I know that rules are constantly being re-evaluated and ever evolving.
Just so people don’t think I’m naive… I know there is the potential guys with more money & time to chase getting custom chips burned to go with their $motors$, but my thought is the benefit for them is going to be less than the guy with a under powered motor.
With higher rev limits (or no limit) there may be additional unintended consequences and possibly more motor failures on track which impacts the safety of everyone. I’d prefer to not add another variable but I need to find out more about what’s available for chips or for custom chip tuning.
I’d like to hear some from some of the detractors/devil advocates of this idea to help sort it out before writing a proposal. I’ll also try to find out more about what it would take to get chips without a raised rev limit.
To know what the downside is you have to know what is possible with objective data. In other words, you take a 155whp engine and have someone build a custom chip tuned specifically for your car and see what it gets. Do you get a wtq bump total under the curve? Is it only a small bump, but across the full range? At the end of the day you would need a lot of test time and then you would have a sample of one so you’d have to do it on a few cars to at least get an idea of the spread. Even then, small cheats on head porting would benefit from a chip more than a completely stock engine. Once you open the door I don’t know how you shut it. If people really wanted to clamp down I really only see one way. It has to be simple and a chip isn’t simple as you can modify/customize. I don’t like the ability to raise the rev limit as then you can stay in the whole peak longer. Remember that effective power is more area under the curves at the effective range. If someone makes more power at 4k rpm, who cares, but if you make more from 5k-6300 then that matters. If your effective is 5500-7k then you would make more under the curve for sure.
The simplest rule is a flat HP/TQ rule with 2 compulsory tests during the year or at a known dyno. That is a pain, but not undoable. I don’t even believe in the “shape” portion of the rule as it is subjective to a degree in my opinion.
Now, I don’t know this engine well enough, but if there is only 2-4whp/tq available with a custom tune then have at it. Who here knows what is possible? I’m sure some here do…
[quote=“allin” post=77524]To know what the downside is you have to know what is possible with objective data. In other words, you take a 155whp engine and have someone build a custom chip tuned specifically for your car and see what it gets. Do you get a wtq bump total under the curve? Is it only a small bump, but across the full range? At the end of the day you would need a lot of test time and then you would have a sample of one so you’d have to do it on a few cars to at least get an idea of the spread. Even then, small cheats on head porting would benefit from a chip more than a completely stock engine. Once you open the door I don’t know how you shut it. If people really wanted to clamp down I really only see one way. It has to be simple and a chip isn’t simple as you can modify/customize. I don’t like the ability to raise the rev limit as then you can stay in the whole peak longer. Remember that effective power is more area under the curves at the effective range. If someone makes more power at 4k rpm, who cares, but if you make more from 5k-6300 then that matters. If your effective is 5500-7k then you would make more under the curve for sure.
The simplest rule is a flat HP/TQ rule with 2 compulsory tests during the year or at a known dyno. That is a pain, but not undoable. I don’t even believe in the “shape” portion of the rule as it is subjective to a degree in my opinion.
Now, I don’t know this engine well enough, but if there is only 2-4whp/tq available with a custom tune then have at it. Who here knows what is possible? I’m sure some here do… [/quote]
I like the dialogue and this is where fine tuning starts. Look, this may not be the answer, or it could have great merit. But until we look into different options, we won’t know. I’m not saying it’s the answer, but I am not ruling out the possibilities. But remember, those who want to cheat will find a way to do so.
Personally, I would love to see an ECU draw just before the race and everyone runs what they are handed.
But that’s just me.
I am against any new rules at this point. The mid season rule change is a huge boondoggle and you think Nasa would have learned that from last year.
There should be a HP and TQ cap but it should be added together and then divided by 2 to give you one number to reach for.
I am not against a chip rule I just think it needs careful consideration with feed back from alot of racers. Possibly a poll of sorts. It needs to be implemented at the beginning of a new season and not until lots of testing has been done.
Not sure how many racers from the east who have already signed up for Nationals know that it will be run under a different set of rules. Might be a few who decide not to participate based on the new rule set.
Hopefully this will be the last year that NASA decides to do a mid year rule change.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. I echo Palacio’s earlier post. We’ve been running these cars with HP to weight rules for over a year now, and this local rule gets rolled out and voted on at one race (Just happens to be the one that I can’t make), and now we’re told a month or so before the National race that this will be “the rule”. Total crap. I, for one, set the car up to be a 155hp contender. If I knew that we could run 162hp without a weight penalty, when I blew up my last engine two months ago I would have put a 162hp engine back in it.
This late inning rule changing has to stop.
Buzz, I completely agree that there needs to be a good amount of input and consideration. It is simply rough talk at this point and research needs to be done. A flaw may be found and it and the idea is worthless. The key is there is discovery, talk and a well thought out plan.
As for the rule change, steady as she goes. NOTHING has been approved by NASA yet and NOTHING has been made final.
The leadership at NASA didn’t just get the job yesterday. They are racers, too and have seen things like this before. Allow them to do their job and reserve your judgment until they have come to a conclusion. Once they do, listen for their thoughts and reasoning as to why they feel it was best to, or not to, put any rule change in place and at what time. Once you have heard everything, then you should form your opinion of the process. However, you are clearly not alone in how you feel about the possibility of the rule change being implemented mid-season.
Remember: Quick to judge, quick to anger…slow to understand.
I talked to Will Fauls today, he confirmed there will be no mid-season rule change, and that the SE30 nats will run with the rulebook as it sits.
I am sooooo glad they came to their senses.
I believe the current rules need fixing but NOT before Nationals.
They didn’t change a thing. I think someone started to spread some misinformation/gossip for his own entertainment.:lol:
Not really Rob. As Scott can verify, the Directors are anticipating a rules change that has been proposed to NASA by our National Director. The proposed rules change is NOT a rumor.
Someone talking with Will is only that, a conversation. However, if you think about it, there is nothing to really announce as the rules on the books today are what we are all suppose to be running.
Now, that doesn’t mean this rules change won’t take effect next year, but that remains to be seen.