Max HP / Dyno discussion

#21

dmwhite wrote:

[quote]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…[/quote]

Your right. I am just trying to compare the two. One is a logistical nightmare and one is not so bad. I’ve always had a junk yard motor so I could care less either way.

#22

[quote]MikeD wrote:

You’ll care when the pocket calculator comes up with the wrong magic number and you’re SOL.

Unless you think you’re spotting everyone in the field 10 hp or more already.

#23

IndyJim wrote:

[quote][quote]MikeD wrote:

You’ll care when the pocket calculator comes up with the wrong magic number and you’re SOL.

Unless you think you’re spotting everyone in the field 10 hp or more already.[/quote]

Well maybe your right. Right now I’m not worried.

#24

I enjoy watching this discussions. I can’t say I am for or against the HP limit but I am for a level playing field and for the target to quit moving. I have said this before and still believe it. You can have a procedure spec or a performance spec but can’t mix. Just imagine as a contractor being told how to do something and then having to guarantee how it turns out. I don’t mind being told how to do it and I will follow it, I don’t mind being told how it should perform or be when finished and then make it happen but to do both is unreasonable. If there is going to be a HP/TQ curve we have to match who cares how we get there. Bigger injectors, more cool air intake, different cam, what is the difference? I am sure most of us could find some more HP with a dremal tool taken to the head. It would be a fun low cost experiment if you have an extra head laying around. Point is there are a lot of low cost HP upgrades that would work with a junk yard motor but can’t be done with the procedure spec in place. I don’t mind the rules as is now and don’t know that I believe all the HP numbers running around. I could always protest if in doubt but as most I don’t ever plan to.

Just some thoughts on the issue.

Michael
#36
Great Lakes Region

#25

Steve D., unless I’m not fully understanding your proposal, the issue with basing the DQ level off of measurements of who shows up, is that different people show up. It would hardly be fair to DQ someone who built an engine just because the only other people who showed up have junkyard engines. Or, if you’re going to build up the baseline data from just built engines, how do you know they’re all compliant?

Some other thoughts …

Engine teardowns for compliance checking are impractical in a no-prize-money series that is trying to be cost-effective and fair to allow of its members.

NASA has some built up experience with MaxQData from the USTCC series and some use at Nationals. We also looked at one called Powerlog used in the Dutch Supercar Challenge to equalize competition. If Traqmate is interested in getting in on this, they should contact John Lindsay because NASA is looking at this for more than Spec E30. Cost, convenience of use, and control of the measurement device are issues when a series wants to buy some (again, cost effectively) for random testing. Traqmates run $900 or so. Maybe there is a way to get the same reports out of them so owners can monitor themselves to be confident for the day they’re randomly picked.

Having an external measurement device doesn’t mean you can treat the engine as a black box and make the modification rules wide open. You devise and test measurement schemes based on what you know about the device under test. If the device is unspecified, then how do you know if you are measuring/eliminating advantage-gaining mods?

thanks,
bruce

#26

leggwork wrote:

[quote]Steve D., unless I’m not fully understanding your proposal, the issue with basing the DQ level off of measurements of who shows up, is that different people show up. It would hardly be fair to DQ someone who built an engine just because the only other people who showed up have junkyard engines. Or, if you’re going to build up the baseline data from just built engines, how do you know they’re all compliant?
[/quote]

Assuming that you are going to have a field that consists of 14 junkyard motors and 1 built motor is a ridiculous assumption. I would expect this at-track dyno check to be done at big regional races and at nationals.

Isn’t the goal of this whole dyno exercise to identify the outliers? Seemed like this idea gained steam last year when a competitor at VIR absolutely motored the field and the crowd got out the torches and pitchforks…

My point is that collecting a bunch of dyno runs from a bunch of brands of dyno provides absolutely zip in terms of useful data. Zilch. Nada. Actually worse. Bad data leads to worse conclusions than no data.

All this begs the question. How much power can you gain with a 020-over rebuild. From a purely volumetric standpoint, a couple or 3 hp? Well within the range I would think everyone finds acceptable. What all do you have to add to be 10 hp up on the average? Balanced crank? Matched rods & pistons? Trick valve cuts? All of the above?

To raise concern that “I had a worn out block so I did an 020-over rebuild and now my motor is going to be illegal” is BS, in my opinion.

Steve D.

#27

There’s been some references in this thread and related to the idea that engine compliance could be acheived by a teardown no more involved then removing the head. My engine adventures this winter have been a learning experience. One of the things I’ve learned is some of mods that can be done to the M20 to get more out of it. Anyone that thinks that they can detect a non-compliant motor by popping off the head is dreaming. The cam, pistons, rods and crank would all have to be identified as M20 by OEM markings, and then measured and weighed.

#28

I don’t disagree with what you’ve written, I just don’t think competitors will like a different max hp/tq at each race - or are you suggesting that the data is collected at the major races, a limit is set, and then applied at all races (where dynos are available)?
thanks
bruce

Steve D wrote:

[quote]leggwork wrote:

[quote]Steve D., unless I’m not fully understanding your proposal, the issue with basing the DQ level off of measurements of who shows up, is that different people show up. It would hardly be fair to DQ someone who built an engine just because the only other people who showed up have junkyard engines. Or, if you’re going to build up the baseline data from just built engines, how do you know they’re all compliant?
[/quote]

Assuming that you are going to have a field that consists of 14 junkyard motors and 1 built motor is a ridiculous assumption. I would expect this at-track dyno check to be done at big regional races and at nationals.

Isn’t the goal of this whole dyno exercise to identify the outliers? Seemed like this idea gained steam last year when a competitor at VIR absolutely motored the field and the crowd got out the torches and pitchforks…

My point is that collecting a bunch of dyno runs from a bunch of brands of dyno provides absolutely zip in terms of useful data. Zilch. Nada. Actually worse. Bad data leads to worse conclusions than no data.

All this begs the question. How much power can you gain with a 020-over rebuild. From a purely volumetric standpoint, a couple or 3 hp? Well within the range I would think everyone finds acceptable. What all do you have to add to be 10 hp up on the average? Balanced crank? Matched rods & pistons? Trick valve cuts? All of the above?

To raise concern that “I had a worn out block so I did an 020-over rebuild and now my motor is going to be illegal” is BS, in my opinion.

Steve D.[/quote]

#29

Steve,

Getting back to your original idea of track testing all the cars - why not just use the track to measure the relative power.

If there is a long straight at a track, just do a rolling start WOT fix gear run (eg. either 3rd or 4th gear starting from 20 mph).

One test driver can take out each car and do a test run to see how long it takes to cover a fixed distance or a fixed rpm range.

Take the results and then apply your deviation.

#30

Well, I just spent 30 minutes writing a reply and the frickin website gave me an error message when I hit submit!!!

Short version.

I sell data acquisition and I am 100% against mandating a brand of data logger (even if it’s something I sell). I don’t agree with that or forcing people to do that. Also there are a lot of variables in how the units are set up that can impact the logs. SCCA National office has their own loggers that they bring to National events and the Runoffs. They set them up & make sure there is consistency. They are in boxes, powered by batteries and have a roll cage clamp mount for quick install and easy leveling (bubble level). They control the whole thing, no one is DQ’d from the data alone. That I’m ok with, but requiring me to run a specific brand totally rubs me the wrong way especially if someone already has a system for something different.

You can’t fix this issue with dyno plots. There’s a reason why this is a long standing historical issue – there is no simple fix!!

If build a motor to the written rules and it doesn’t pass what ever test/criteria/limit get’s set up? what happens then? I have to build another one?

Just because everyone has good intentions that doesn’t mean they can create a good fix for this issue. As long as there’s racing it will be an issue. Even sealed motor classes have issues. Want a seal kit for Spec Racer Ford? It’s for sale for the right price. Want to put RFID clips in epoxied sealed cups over head and pan bolts on crate motors (MX-5 Cup initially), people found ways around that as well.

#31

I am on a very tight budget and am not for any rule that forces me to spend more money on something (sealed engine, data logger) just for the privilege of showing up.

I’d like to have a Traqmate but it is not in the budget right now

I like the impound / dyno the top 5 at the track idea. If there is no dyno at the track and a protest is filed? Then the protesting competitor pays for all expenses to dyno or tear down the defendant’s car.

Consider our scenario in FL. Four cars in the whole region. I am a back marker against you fast guys in the SE but I am a front runner down here. We have a race next month, I don’t have $900 for a Traqmate. If the Traqmate rule in in place that means I’m DQ’d before I even leave the house? Does that mean I don’t even show up? Screw that.

Don

#32

leggwork wrote:

[quote]I don’t disagree with what you’ve written, I just don’t think competitors will like a different max hp/tq at each race - or are you suggesting that the data is collected at the major races, a limit is set, and then applied at all races (where dynos are available)?
thanks
bruce [/quote]

I am suggesting that data is collected at shops all around the country using ONE brand of dyno. That data is used to set a limit AND determine a reasonable “outlier” test (i.e. X standard deviations from the mean).

Once at the track, the yardstick (dyno) may change, but the field determines the mean. The national data determines the acceptable deviation from that mean.

Yes, this relies on the assumption that neither (a) everyone shows up cheating or (b) almost everyone shows up “down on power.”

Don -

I would love to think that protests should work. But that breeds bad blood in my alliterative opinion. Hell, I invited people to protest my illegal sway bar setting - days in advance - at the last race and nobody did it. The last big protest I heard of at an SCCA national race in Florida? Bond for a full engine tear-down was set at $6,000, I believe. Eff that. It’s easier to get on the interwebs the next day and intimate that my competitor has a cheater motor. :ohmy:

Chi -

Dyno testing at the track is cheaper than burning all the track time it would take to log data for each car.

But if that idea goes through, I’ll volunteer to be the test driver. :wink:

Steve D.

#33

Steve D wrote:

[quote]
Dyno testing at the track is cheaper than burning all the track time it would take to log data for each car.

But if that idea goes through, I’ll volunteer to be the test driver. :wink:

Steve D.[/quote]

Oh by no means use the track time. I was thinking more in line of lunch time ‘parade laps’ :wink:

#34

Steve D wrote:

[quote] I invited people to protest my illegal sway bar setting - days in advance - at the last race and nobody did it. The last big protest I heard of at an SCCA national race in Florida? Bond for a full engine tear-down was set at $6,000, I believe. Eff that. It’s easier to get on the interwebs the next day and intimate that my competitor has a cheater motor. :ohmy:
Steve D.[/quote]

Steve after the 410 thing we all knew how you’d roll. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

#35

9d3 wrote:

Forgot to address this earlier.

In the SSM program, we are planning to have set limits for HP & TQ every 1,000 rpm from 4k to 7k. I agree that you need to spec the limits AND the area under the curve.

What this will beget is a lot of testing by the guys who want to snug up to the limits. I’m OK with that.

Steve D.

#36

spec e30 is not contemplating making everyone buy a traqmate.
In an earlier post I said the device has to be cost-effective enough for the Series to buy them for random testing.
bruce

donstevens wrote:

[quote]I am on a very tight budget and am not for any rule that forces me to spend more money on something (sealed engine, data logger) just for the privilege of showing up.

I’d like to have a Traqmate but it is not in the budget right now

I like the impound / dyno the top 5 at the track idea. If there is no dyno at the track and a protest is filed? Then the protesting competitor pays for all expenses to dyno or tear down the defendant’s car.

Consider our scenario in FL. Four cars in the whole region. I am a back marker against you fast guys in the SE but I am a front runner down here. We have a race next month, I don’t have $900 for a Traqmate. If the Traqmate rule in in place that means I’m DQ’d before I even leave the house? Does that mean I don’t even show up? Screw that.

Don[/quote]

#37

Steve, I think you offer some compelling solutions - setting a baseline on a common dyno and figuring out the deviation at each 1K interval along the RPM curve. Counter to your point, I do believe that collecting data from different dynos / altitudes / temps will have some use to understand expected outcomes - there’s only a handful and probably 90% would by on Dynojet or Mustang. Carter has had dyno runs from the same dyno for each of that last two nationals, and that was sent to a statistician a long time ago - couldn’t that be used for the baseline. Stands to reason those are motors built to the rules and could be used to set the standard deviation.

A logger can be a screening device, but any DQ should be on a dyno so the rules will have to be ready for that. Not sure why that extra step is necessary - just dyno the top 5 from 1-2 races per year.

I’ll say this - if I really was building to the extent of the rules and planning to finish top 5, I would probably want to buy a dyno run or two on that exact same dyno at the track when a race was not on the line to be sure I was in compliance. That is a small price to incur when looking at how much is being invested in the top 5 cars in our region.

#38

[quote]9d3 wrote:

I’ll say this - if I really was building to the extent of the rules and planning to finish top 5, I would probably want to buy a dyno run or two on that exact same dyno at the track when a race was not on the line to be sure I was in compliance. [/quote]
And what would you do if your newly built motor was over the magic numbers?

#39

leggwork wrote:

[quote]spec e30 is not contemplating making everyone buy a traqmate.
In an earlier post I said the device has to be cost-effective enough for the Series to buy them for random testing.
bruce[/quote]

Funny that’s not what Carter’s latest post implies…
"During a discussion among the Spec E30 racers at VIR at our Saturday cookout, none was overly concerned about the possibility that the Traqr may be required in the future, especially considering that the cost is less than the cost of two tires, and that it would be a one-time purchase.

Spec E30 racer Carlton Goldthwaite offered the idea that the unit not be required but that if a driver finishes in the top five and has chosen to not have a Traqr, his/her car will be repositioned to 6th place. With that, midpack drivers can choose to not buy a Traqr, or to buy one later. This is an interesting idea and we are certainly willing to review all other ideas.

As we move forward, we appreciate any and all suggestions from the Spec E30 drivers and I will continue to report our progress as we get closer to an enforceable horsepower rule"

While Traqr is one of the most cost effective options, I’m still concerned about repeatability, how the limits are set, what the variance is going to be, etc…

#40

Even thinking about requiring us to buy a specific data logger is BS. All the worse that it’s not the data logger that is most prevalant in our series.

Making our cars cost more is bad. Screwing with our current culture of sharing Traqmate data is bad. Traqmate was designed for road courses and MaxQData was designed for Autocross. We use Traqmate for reason, lets not screw with something that works.

That aside, the idea of using a data logger to check the top 3 for unusual hp, or to use it to identify dyno candidates is interesting. If NASA wants to buy some MaxQData devices and use them in some compliance role, ok, but that’s on their dime.