HP Limit rule? Thoughts?

#34

I cant imagine anyone spending the $4 to really cheat up a motor, I guess maybe if they were already buying a brand new set of tires for every weekend it might make sense…also at the HP tracks it is pretty obvious who has the HP…yea, just keep on stacking up the rules and teardowns and such and see where it takes the series.

maybe I am a “babe” also…hell I raced in vintage/CCA for 5 years without even doing a valve job on an engine, so I guess it is just hard for me to imagine it would be that important to anyone to cheat up an engine.

Al

#35

If you think “engine creep” hasn’t entered our series you’re just kidding yourself. See how that 148hp engine performs at the Glen or VIR…Take a look at some of the great videos out there.

Look at the discussion thresds re .20 over pistons, multiple ecu testing. Talk to the engine builders - I’m not naming names. All these tricks are for reliability :slight_smile:

The level of driving is improving each year - with that comes the need for parity under the hood. Yup, the guys with deep pockets will spring for new tires whenever needed. They sure as hell don’t stop there.

Three or four years ago good driving, set up, and 150hp was all that was needed to run up front. 160/160 is the norm now…

Although a Dyno rule has limitations and potential problems I see the point and need. I agree with Ranger’s point(s).

#36

When searching for an engine last season, I was told between $5,500 and $9,000 in various quotes.

My whole car cost $9k…not spending that on an engine.

Spec compression. Those that have decked quite a bit may have to buy a thicker gasket. This would also hopefully eliminate all the minor tweaks to the cam/valvetrain when changing deck height.

If you want to have a dyno rule, you need to pick multiple points to compare against.

There are a ton of dyno plots available at this point. Average them all, pick a min and max and go. I have no issues with this.

Take a collection and buy one:

http://store.katechengines.com/whistler-compression-ratio-tester-p174.aspx

#37

Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.

160/160 is a good built motor, 20 over, good pistons, cam timed correctly, head milled to limit, good valve job, most parts in head new, many ECUs tested to find the best. More than 165 and I get very suspicious of the ECU or other attempts to advance timing.

Whistler…saw one wrong last weekend. Fully built ITA Miata motor read 9.0 to one after calibration. I call BS because I know the man who built the motor. The Whistler operator must have EXPERIENCE operating the unit to get good consistent readings. Pulling the head off the winner is the only way to really check compliance.

And I see that DiVinney entered the ARRC and pussied out:laugh: Chuck

#38

[quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]
And I see that DiVinney entered the ARRC and pussied out:laugh: Chuck[/quote]
I hated to miss it but I had to travel to SC for my father-in-law’s funeral.

It sounded like the Spec Miata was close and mostly clean. Would have been fun to be there in a +/-40 car field.

#39

[quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.

[/quote]

Part of the idea of the rule is to give people the option of rolling the dice. If the rule specs 160, and you are over, you get DQ’d. Those guys that want to build a motor that is right at the limit may run the risk of getting a dyno that reads a bit high. Even more reason not to push it. You’ll probably know who those guys are as they would be dyno’ing before you go out to race on any given weekend.

Again, there should be enouigh dyno plots roaming around that were taken at a NASA event to compare across the board.

Nobody at nationals (in the top 4) had over 160. I guess you can count me out of the top 4 since I was DQ’d because of a chip, but they didn’t dyno X’s (can’t remember who was behind me) car. I think Anthony had 157 IIRC.

Are we just not seeing the full monte with regard to the southern or west coast guys due to non-participation at Nationals?

If a fully built motor results in about 160, make the rule at 160 and allow a +2 tolerance.

I am WAY more interested to see what happens next year with the new tire. I ran two 2009 tires on the left side of my car during the final race at nationals and picked up about 1 second compared to the 2011 tires.

#40

My thoughts on why there should not be a limit…

There are just too many variables. The vehicles that we race are over 20 years old, and parts wear. Computers are different, fuel tanks and pumps are different, air flow meters are always not 100%, and engine mileage is different, stock vs .20 over bore, just to name a few. There is really no way of policing every aspect with so many engine builders and or drivers building his or her own.

What i think would be the only way to control engine output would be sealed engines. We have a spec exhaust, a spec engine? With a spec engine a stock rebuild could be built and put on an engine dyno and have true hp and torque numbers before it gets into a car. Simple fuel pressure testing, compression, dme, and cam timing could be checked at the track for possible cheeters. But everyone would have to buy a spec engine which would never happen, unless it could be set at a later date like 2015. I believe a spec engine, with stock bore, could be built for around $2,000 and would need a simple rebuild every 2-3 years for maybe under $500 bucks.

All that would never happen, so just drive what you have. I have a stock rebuild engine and about 10hp down from the highest engines. I have fun racing and sometimes win races. Can i throw down 5-7 grand for a new engine, sure, but i dont think its really worth it. Some of my best and exciting races have been ones that i have lost.

Peter Thibault

#41

And to add to my point, there is also no real punishment for breaking the rules. How many times have you heard of someone not knowing they had a chip in their car? Under weight is one thing, illegal parts is another. More punishment, less cheating…

Peter Thibault

#42

Whatever happened to the discussion a few years back regarding a data logger being transferred amongst cars. Supposedly this device could track hp via acceleration rate/hp?

Throw it on few cars while gridded and see what disparity exists… I,m not talking about producing exact hp numbers but I bet you could detect some outliers…

Each spec series director would have one, paid for by a general fund, and would utilize at each race weekend. No prior knowledge of what car it,s going on.

pick apart!

#43

[quote=“PDS” post=69267]Whatever happened to the discussion a few years back regarding a data logger being transferred amongst cars. Supposedly this device could track hp via acceleration rate/hp?

Throw it on few cars while gridded and see what disparity exists… I,m not talking about producing exact hp numbers but I bet you could detect some outliers…

Each spec series director would have one, paid for by a general fund, and would utilize at each race weekend. No prior knowledge of what car it,s going on.[/quote]
My understanding is that when that was tried the results were all over the map.

While I’m not opposed to dyno testing I’m not particularly in favor of it either. There are too many variables that affect the results for chassis dyno. A water brake engine dyno is another matter, but who wants to pull their engine for a dyno test. The condition of the tires, how perfectly aligned they are on the roller, ambient temperature, engine temperature, etc. are all factors.

Then there is the issue of how you evaluate the results. Peak numbers aren’t as important as the shape of the torque curve (i.e. area under the torque curve). A “cheater” motor that had a flatter torque curve than normal from, say 4800-6200, that met the peak number requirement would blow the doors off of a legal motor.

#44

[quote=“PDS” post=69267]Whatever happened to the discussion a few years back regarding a data logger being transferred amongst cars. Supposedly this device could track hp via acceleration rate/hp?

Throw it on few cars while gridded and see what disparity exists… I,m not talking about producing exact hp numbers but I bet you could detect some outliers…

Each spec series director would have one, paid for by a general fund, and would utilize at each race weekend. No prior knowledge of what car it,s going on.

pick apart![/quote]

Last Spring I spent some time trying to use my years of Traqmate data to evaluate the engine that came in New #6. It seemed to me to be low on power and I wanted to see if the data confirmed that. Even with years of data to draw upon, my own data and others, it was surprisingly difficult to set up comparisons that I felt were valid. I would not have understood just how hard it was, until I actually tried to do it.

There’s a number of variables that are hard to control for. A couple off the top of my head are:

  1. HP and torque are rpm dependent so a comparison requires that the two cars be at the same speed.

  2. Inevitably that “same speed” occurs at different places on the track so there has to be a nice flat stretch so the two different places are both flat.

  3. How do you account for car weight and wheel weight? 8lbs of wheel weight is significant. Less so is the 30lbs of gas that we burn in a race.

  4. There’s no good way to control for head/tailwinds or drafting? Even being 50’ behind another car has an impact.

  5. Temp makes a difference.

There were other issues, that’s just an example. It took me 4hrs of studying data before I was ready to say “New #6 is at least 10hp under my best historical engines”. If it hadn’t been for CMP’s dead flat front straight, I might not have been able to do it at all.

#45

7 AFM’s $500 delivered Cont US

Spend your way to the front by spending some $ with me

Thanks

Al
wabmw25@aol.com

#46

I talked to a guy at e30tech last year that had created a little niche by rebuilding and calibrating AFMs. It wasn’t cheap tho.

I have a F/A meter on my dash. In Old #6 it was connected to the Traqmate so I was collecting F/A data, but I’m less obsessed now and I never got around to connecting it to the TM in New #6. IMO that’s the way to deal with optimization. Change something, go do a track day or two, study the data and then change something else. That’d be a lot more reliable than the experimenting on the dyno when the DME doesn’t have time to adapt Long Term Fuel Trim (LTFT) to whatever you changed.

Back a couple years ago I had an AFM that had it’s spring adjusted a few clicks. As a result my engine was running scary lean. This is all in an old thread. Your AFM matters.

#47

Has anyone on this thred ever talked to a competitor in the paddock about their engine? Isn’t that the first step?

A few years back we did an ECU swap, the car that got mine would not run. On Sunday that car won with it’s original ECU…

By the way, I have a windshield that is 1.38 lbs lighter than all my other e30 windshields, I will sell it for $500, it is used.

Al

#48

[quote=“FARTBREF” post=69281]
By the way, I have a windshield that is 1.38 lbs lighter than all my other e30 windshields, I will sell it for $500, it is used.

Al[/quote]

:laugh: Now THAT is funny right thur. In my younger years, I’d be on this.

#49

A threat without action or consequence is simply a bluff.

That being the case, one must be ready to have their bluff called. If you loose having bluffed, the next bet will no doubt be an “all in” call.

#50

[quote=“Foglght” post=69260][quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.

[/quote]
I am WAY more interested to see what happens next year with the new tire. I ran two 2009 tires on the left side of my car during the final race at nationals and picked up about 1 second compared to the 2011 tires.[/quote]

Here is a great example of something…it’s not always the engine. At mid-ohio, the locals and freqent runners know one thing most do not, and that is what the course likes. The inside poop was true that you should run your most beat up, older tires that are short of cording…that track LOVES RA-1’s at that stage. New tires…no big deal.

All this talk of cheaters and such is fine, but let’s face it, the group knows who is cheating and who is not by their driving vs. their finish. Come on, you all have seen the guy who blows apex’s and looks more like he should run in Fomula-D, but still pulls on you out of a corner he went for style points in. If you have to cheat for a $8, you are welcome to one of mine. Now take it and go home.

Just my .02

#51

[quote=“Fooshe” post=69291][quote=“Foglght” post=69260][quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.

[/quote]
I am WAY more interested to see what happens next year with the new tire. I ran two 2009 tires on the left side of my car during the final race at nationals and picked up about 1 second compared to the 2011 tires.[/quote]

Here is a great example of something…it’s not always the engine. At mid-ohio, the locals and freqent runners know one thing most do not, and that is what the course likes. The inside poop was true that you should run your most beat up, older tires that are short of cording…that track LOVES RA-1’s at that stage. New tires…no big deal.

All this talk of cheaters and such is fine, but let’s face it, the group knows who is cheating and who is not by their driving vs. their finish. Come on, you all have seen the guy who blows apex’s and looks more like he should run in Fomula-D, but still pulls on you out of a corner he went for style points in. If you have to cheat for a $8, you are welcome to one of mine. Now take it and go home.

Just my .02[/quote]

I’m getting confused about the $8 comments. Are you just referring to the trophies?

If so, that’s a bit naive.

Some guys have deals with sponsors outside of the main contingencies. The main ones from Toyo and bimmerworld add up to about $500 for the weekend for 2 wins. I wish it were more, but such is racing. Add in other sponsorships, and you could be talking about $1k+ per weekend and that is nothing to sneeze at.

#52

A threat without action or consequence is simply a bluff.

That being the case, one must be ready to have their bluff called. If you loose having bluffed, the next bet will no doubt be an “all in” call.[/quote]

Well, that’s what I’m saying. We’re budget racers. The threat of a teardown is empty because no individual can afford the rebuild if wrong. If there’s a community fund (and therefore a teardown costs “less”), the threat of action is REAL.

#53

Seems too simple.

Give us a max rule as a guideline.

It has to be a guideline, not an ablosute number. We,ve been doing this for almost 10 years. We’re, collectively, not stupid. It isn’t necessarily the number, rather the area under the curve. but a number tells new goobers in the series that we are watching. 160/160 sounds good to me. However, I don’t make the rules.

Test cars on same day/same dyno/same place. Otherwise the number(s) are meaningless.

Outliers are handed some strict penalty weight.
Have a nice day/year/don’t come back.

No tear downs, no questions, have a nice day (or year, until your engine comes to be tested with a curve like everyone else’s) driving around with your penalty weight.

RP