Max HP / Dyno discussion

#1

Since the “Announcements” thread regarding the Max HP rule is closed to general posts, I thought I would put in my $0.02 here.

By way of background, I have been working for several months with several bright guys on a ruleset for SSM, a more restrictive subset of Spec Miata. I am the token dumbass on the committee.

I am NOT proposing that SE30 do what SSM is doing. But I believe there might be some benefit to looking at the approach we have come up with.

Our goal is to produce a nationwide ruleset for NASA SSM that would also work for SCCA (Atlanta Region and Southeast Division have been quite receptive). Borrowing on some other SCCA regions’ experience, we want to dyno tune and seal the motors at a certain horsepower ( +/- 2-3%). Given the variation between brands of dyno, it is our opinion that a single-brand dyno program is the only workable solution. Let’s say we pick DynoJet as the brand (given its ubiquity) and identify a few models within that brand that are consistent in terms of readings. Hopefully that means that all competitors are within a couple hour tow of a shop that can dyno, tune and seal the car.

How do you handle at-track checks? You use any dyno that is available. Run all the cars and use the relative results. Who cares if a DynoJet says everyone has 153 hp and the KrapTastic 3000 RollerFutz says everyone has 174. We’re just trying to identify outliers, right?

The method we’re considering would DQ anyone who is more than X times the standard deviation from the mean. Like this:

dyno_data_hypothetical.JPG380x562

I’ve got 4 scenarios. I don’t know whether you DQ at 1X, 1.5X or 2X the standard deviation. Opinions? Criticisms? Other than the “sealing” part, could this approach work for SE30?

Steve D.

#2

Steve, thanks for posting the ideas. A cross section using severeal governing bodies with racers of years of experience is something to be considered.

I’m not sure that…

Since I’m not sure, I’ll back away from the keyboard.

RP

#3

My 2 cents. It seems like more thought has been put into your formula than what we’ve seen so far.

My issue with any of these caps. .20 over is measurable and repeatable, 2750 lbs, measurable and repeatable. Those things are the same in GA. as CA. as UT. etc…

If I want a car built to the rules I can easily go up to that point and no farther.

Anything with dynos or electronic tea kettles w/ wind chimes has a margin of error. So now I’m going to spend my hard earned $$$ on a new motor and I have to factor in some type of ‘dyno margin’ vs. just following a rule book that has easy to understand values that are consistent and use universally accepted standards of measurement.

I take this issue seriously because we’re talking about handing out DQ’s and there are a lot of ‘what ifs’ that no one fully understands or can explain when it comes to dyno tolerance, influencing factors, etc. Oh and building a motor is expensive.

Either follow, apply, and enforce the rules as written or pick this arbitrary number and say “go nuts” but don’t go over.

If 162 is going to be the magic number I think we may have seen / heard that you can follow the rules for engines as written and be over. Despite what was said when we started down this bunny trail.

Of course it is ironic we have a guy b!tching about the $400 springs which we spec’d and figured out years ago but the whole motor thing is still a bit gray and loosey goosey.

Steve - these aren’t shots at you, appreciate the insight / discussion.

#4

Steve, thanks for posting. I believe one area you may want to look at would be taking HP/TQ readings at set points on the RPM curve rather than just max, lest you end up with curves that peak very early providing an advantage out of turns and indicating an overbuilt motor.

It seems to me, as I’ve posted here before, that for SE30 we need to collect data from a variety of regions on track available dynos so the rules makers can put some stakes in the ground about hp range, expected deviations from region to region, and from dyno to dyno, and during different weather conditions. In that sense, I agree with your Rollerfutz example and we would need data to identify what an outlier looks like. If it were up to me, I would simply collect data, post the dyno runs on the forums for transparency and adjust the rules when there is enough data to be confident. The Series Regional Directors are reasonable and smart guys and will do the right thing, but right now there’s more questions than direction because there is not enough hard data.

I’m not sure where the MaxQ data thing works into that, but am willing to wait it out because it seems at least there is some progress. May need to factor actual car weight into the MaxQ as I believe it may affect the reading. Just .02.

#5

Steve D wrote:

this sounds like a logistical nightmare…

i like the open discussion about the subject but in principle, i’m against hp/tq limits in a series that already has enforceable engine rules…

in theory i agree with jim about opening up the allowed modifications if there is a max hp/tq rule…this will make it easier/cheaper for more people to get to that limit which might help level the playing field in terms of straightaway speeds…

i’m still curious about the reasoning for the hp/tq limits to begin with…

-is it because some cars are making “too much” power? compliance checks of the rules already in place could police that

-is it to lower the cost of being competitive? the guys that are willing to go all out on motors will be the ones spending the money to make sure they are right at the hp limits at each point along the curve…i don’t really see this rule affecting what people do/dont spend as much as some might like to think…in general, the people that are consistently at the front of competitive fields are the ones that put forth the effort (driver development, setup time, test time, best parts, etc, etc), regardless of the rules and i dont see that changing with hp/tq limits…

#6

Maybe we could have a discussion on how to enforce the existing engine rules.

#7

Data acquisition looks like the only way to go. Carter talked about requiring the top 5 finishers to have the traqR maxQdata data logger. They are working on a deal to cut the price in half for Spec E30 racers. This would allow a simple 10 minute download of all the drivers in the top 5 and then based on the pre-determined HP/TQ maximum the drivers would be DQ’ed or penalized if necessary. If you don’t think your going to finish in the top 5 then you don’t need to buy the unit. If you finish in the top 5 and you don’t have the data logger you would be moved to 6th place. Sounds a little peculiar but this is becoming the norm in a wide variety of motorsports. It’s not a significant investment and it’s a lot easier to deal with and less time consuming than spending time on the dyno between, after, or before races.

#8

Much like the spec exhaust everyone practically has a TraqMate.

So what do we do - go for something that no one has.

If this is the decision, I hate to make ultimatums, especially the type that no one but me cares about, but I’ll be racing KP or ITS or GTS1 or PTE. I will have finally seen enough of this nonsense.

#9

9d3 wrote:

That discussion has come and gone. The logistics required to check cam profiles, CC volume, cam timing, port dia, mass air flow meter voltages, etc. is just rediculous. There are too many things to check.

HP levels at pre-determined RPM levels is the only way to determine if an engine is legal.

#10

So why do we have those rules in place? Is it merely a suggested guideline?

#11

IndyJim wrote:

[quote]Much like the spec exhaust everyone practically has a TraqMate.

So what do we do - go for something that no one has.

If this is the decision, I hate to make ultimatums, especially the type that no one but me cares about, but I’ll be racing KP or ITS or GTS1 or PTE. I will have finally seen enough of this nonsense.[/quote]

Were talking about the same cost as the spec exhaust.

#12

IndyJim wrote:

apparently

#13

dmwhite wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

this sounds like a logistical nightmare… [/quote]

It’s a lot quicker to run cars through the dyno than to remove the intake manifold and head.

Enforceable rules? As a non-wrencher, I prefer the dyno solution to the engine tear-down solution (especially for Saturday races).

I can only give my opinion: it is a nice belt-and-suspenders approach to supplement the current rules.

I look at it like driving style. You are still free to run right up to the ragged edge and risk a DNF/DQ, but if your goal is to finish races and have fun, you can back off just a hair and be safe.

MikeD wrote:

[quote]
Data acquisition looks like the only way to go. Carter talked about requiring the top 5 finishers to have the traqR maxQdata data logger. [/quote]

Don’t the mid-pack guys want to know they aren’t getting motored?

IndyJim wrote:

I would argue weight is no more repeatable from track to track than hp/tq is from dyno to dyno.

I don’t see the dyno checks (at your local shop) as being a burden. Who, honestly, among us is worried about this rule? OK, now keep your hand raised if you have been to a dyno in the last year? Everyone? Good.

There needs to be a mechanism (restrictor plate?) to allow an easy de-tune for guys who have invested a lot of money in a motor. They should not be required to junk it in the event they need to back it down from the limit to feel safe.

Regarding MaxQData… I couldn’t agree with Jim more. Granted I am biased because I own a TraqMate system and Glenn Stephens is a friend of mine. I am at a loss for why we are not talking to him. If he’s good enough for Koni and Grand Am teams, seems like their widget would be fine for us.

Steve D.

#14

MikeD wrote:

[quote]
Were talking about the same cost as the spec exhaust.[/quote]

I hear you and in the grand scheme of things it isn’t a drop in the bucket it is just the principle. At some point enough is enough.

#15

IndyJim wrote:

[quote]MikeD wrote:

[quote]
Were talking about the same cost as the spec exhaust.[/quote]

… it is just the principle…[/quote]

Apples and oranges. If a third of the class already owned one type of exhaust that accomplished everything you want in a spec exhaust, and the PTB’s spec ANOTHER type of exhaust…

Steve D.

#16

Wait that is what happened. oh…

#17

Steve D wrote:

[quote]dmwhite wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

this sounds like a logistical nightmare… [/quote]

It’s a lot quicker to run cars through the dyno than to remove the intake manifold and head.[/quote]
dyno’ing all cars (as you mentioned) vs compliance checks under the current rules? probably quicker to pull a head off a protested or “randomly selected” car than to dyno each car in the field…

checking your weight at an event is just a little bit easier (and cheaper) than verifying your hp/tq…you can roll over the scales just about any time you want and it’s easy to add weight if you need to…not so easy to get your car on the dyno and subtract hp/tq if needed…

what is the hp/tq limit?

#18

dmwhite wrote:

[quote]
what is the hp/tq limit?[/quote]

It has not been set, for the mock test it was 162.

#19

Elephant4 wrote:

which was my point…so i guess everyone should be worried at this point :wink:

#20

MikeD wrote:

[quote]9d3 wrote:

That discussion has come and gone. The logistics required to check cam profiles, CC volume, cam timing, port dia, mass air flow meter voltages, etc. is just rediculous. There are too many things to check.

HP levels at pre-determined RPM levels is the only way to determine if an engine is legal.[/quote]

ironic that you list some of the ways to check engine compliance then say that checking hp levels is the only way to determine legality…