Max HP / Dyno discussion

#61

rrroadster wrote:

You are my hero. I brought this up in the USTCC forum once after they disqualified someone for being 5% over his targeted HP at a single MAXQ calculated hp data point. They didn’t even think about the multiple 10% grades on the track. One gust of wind going downhill, and you are cheating! :slight_smile:

I don’t think MAXQ or like systems should be a basis for a DQ. It should be a means to collect aggregate data, as suggested ealier, which will help to inform the rules that will be enforced. Intepretation of the data can be frought with peril!

#62

Did my first spec e30 race this weekend, and it made me wonder what all this fuss is about. My motor was the stock, unopened 240k engine that came in the car, and we didn’t get out motored by anyone, maybe out driven…and there were guys with built motors, fresh heads, overgapped plugs, undergapped plugs, ect. I know next to zero about bimmer engines, but I’m assuming that they are like any other motor where there are only a few illegal tricks you can pull to gain any significant HP. So identify and police them. And since we only have one engine, it is even easier. Our valve covers come off in a flash so rocker arms, cam profiles and cam timming would be a piece of cake. There are more then a number of ways to check displacement and compression ratio with relative ease. A bore scope can identify piston material and shape. What does that leave? Knife edging your crank, illegal flywheel/clutch assy’s, and I’m sure a few others.

Bottom line, this is auto racing. The perfect ruleset or enforcement guideline to remove the $$$ factor does not exist at any level, and certianly not at the club level. If you have 2 identical drivers, and one has twice the budget, he will go faster. A good series just catches the poor stupid cheaters, the rich crafty ones will get away with it.

#63

mikeski38 wrote:

[quote]
the rich crafty ones will get away with it.[/quote]

That pretty much excludes the whole class, doesn’t it?

#64

Ranger wrote:

[quote]mikeski38 wrote:

[quote]
the rich crafty ones will get away with it.[/quote]

That pretty much excludes the whole class, doesn’t it?[/quote]

If that is the case what are we worried about?

#65

Does data aquisition have any way to pick up on drafting? A good draft must be good for at least 10hp, as seen by data aq.

#66

Yes, it will pick up drafting in the sense that it will incorrectly calculate HP numbers (due to the drag coefficient being different than it’s configuration constant). I suppose one could argue that you could take an average across the session, or maybe the lowest calculated number or some other guess/inaccurate form of measurement?

As mentioned previously, there are way too many variables to make this an accurate solution to the HP issue.

#67

Excuse me if it’s already been covered, but…

Couldn’t we do what other race series (not necessarily spec series) have done in the past and add a weight penalty to the driver/car that won the last race? If someone shows up with a ringer motor that isn’t blatantly obvious, give them a xx# penalty for the next race. They’d still have that motor, but now they are lugging around a little extra weight.

Might make the series even more competitive. Or it might just tick off the better racers…

#68

OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]Excuse me if it’s already been covered, but…

Couldn’t we do what other race series (not necessarily spec series) have done in the past and add a weight penalty to the driver/car that won the last race? If someone shows up with a ringer motor that isn’t blatantly obvious, give them a xx# penalty for the next race. They’d still have that motor, but now they are lugging around a little extra weight.

Might make the series even more competitive. Or it might just tick off the better racers…[/quote]

It would have been fun to see Skeen wheeling around a 3,200 lb E30. :laugh:

My opinion is that rewards weight works in a pro series where you have the same field every week, various brands, continuous development, and the ultimate goal to make the races (and the championship chase) close so lots of people tune in.

I don’t think it would improve Spec E30. Right now the situation is that some people are building to the full extent of the rules (and more, some would argue) and some are running 150,000+ mile motors.

If the goals of “low cost” (in quotes because that is a racing oxymoron) and competitive are paramount, we need a means to cap the performance of the cars. Notice I didn’t say “equalize”. I think we should still be friendly to the new, budget guy who wants to run his 145 hp stock motor. The guys who want to optimize can sneak way up to the limit.

However, nothing solves the issue of drivers not wanting to protest each other.

Even all the talk about data acq, single-dyno certification, etc. leaves out the fact that at races without an on-site dyno, you will still have to throw paper to get a guy’s motor looked at. Unless of course, we request routine tech and invest in a whistler, send cams off to a Cam Doctor, check for fancy valve cuts, look at ECUs, etc. Post-race tech is still a good way to ensure compliance.

But like most guys, I like my racing close and my car on the trailer 30 minutes after the checkers on Sunday.

Steve D.

#69

Steve, after 7 pages of dicussion: “I’m not sure that…”

Regards, RP

#70

OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]Excuse me if it’s already been covered, but…

Couldn’t we do what other race series (not necessarily spec series) have done in the past and add a weight penalty to the driver/car that won the last race? If someone shows up with a ringer motor that isn’t blatantly obvious, give them a xx# penalty for the next race. They’d still have that motor, but now they are lugging around a little extra weight.

Might make the series even more competitive. Or it might just tick off the better racers…[/quote]

There needs to be a reward associated with working your ass off to increase skills month to month. And by “reward”, I don’t mean ballast. The reward should be moving up in the pack.

#71

Ranger wrote:

[quote]OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]Excuse me if it’s already been covered, but…

Couldn’t we do what other race series (not necessarily spec series) have done in the past and add a weight penalty to the driver/car that won the last race? If someone shows up with a ringer motor that isn’t blatantly obvious, give them a xx# penalty for the next race. They’d still have that motor, but now they are lugging around a little extra weight.

Might make the series even more competitive. Or it might just tick off the better racers…[/quote]

There needs to be a reward associated with working your ass off to increase skills month to month. And by “reward”, I don’t mean ballast. The reward should be moving up in the pack.[/quote]

Just an argument for the weight penalty as it pertains to higher hp motors…

How hard do you have to work to beat a guy whose motor makes 10% more power than yours and everything else is “equal”? Will you ever beat him if he’s a descent or good driver?

#72

OriginalSterm wrote:

Yes - if you are a better driver. And you race in the rain. :wink:

My point is that you are advocating using weight to compensate for results, not engine. The further the “equalizer” gets from the source of the inequality, the more difficult it is to balance. I would take on 50 lbs for 5 horsepower at Road Atlanta, but I wouldn’t make that trade at Barber.

If we set a horsepower limit at a reasonably achievable level, we are less likely to have someone 10% up on another (unless that other guy is running an untouched junkyard motor). I don’t think we should equalize to the lowest common denominator - or the highest.

Steve D.

PS - And I agree with Robert’s sentiment. I am not sure that… But I enjoy throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. I am not optimistic that my ideas will be heard or incorporated by the powers that be. But I am optimistic that SE30 will continue to be a fun, competitive series regardless of the new rule (if any).

#73

Steve D wrote:

[quote]OriginalSterm wrote:

Yes - if you are a better driver. And you race in the rain. :wink:

My point is that you are advocating using weight to compensate for results, not engine. The further the “equalizer” gets from the source of the inequality, the more difficult it is to balance. I would take on 50 lbs for 5 horsepower at Road Atlanta, but I wouldn’t make that trade at Barber.

If we set a horsepower limit at a reasonably achievable level, we are less likely to have someone 10% up on another (unless that other guy is running an untouched junkyard motor). I don’t think we should equalize to the lowest common denominator - or the highest.

Steve D.

PS - And I agree with Robert’s sentiment. I am not sure that… But I enjoy throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. I am not optimistic that my ideas will be heard or incorporated by the powers that be. But I am optimistic that SE30 will continue to be a fun, competitive series regardless of the new rule (if any).[/quote]

This would also be true without a hp cap, would it not?

#74

OriginalSterm wrote:

Which part?

#75

Steve D wrote:

[quote]OriginalSterm wrote:

Which part?[/quote]

That you could beat the guy with the stronger motor by just being a better driver.

If someone builds a spec legal engine and gets more power (no matter how much), good for them. Beat them in the rain, beat them in the corners, beat them with strategy.

BTW, I’m not against making things even with hp. This was just something to throw out there as an alternative to hard to enforce statistics and varying degrees of assumptions.

#76

OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

[quote]OriginalSterm wrote:

Under the current rules, I agree. For the long term health of the class, my opinion is we need a cap on hp or a revision of the rules to prevent $10k motors from being “worth it.”

#77

OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

[quote]OriginalSterm wrote:

Under the current rules, I agree. For the long term health of the class, my opinion is we need a cap on hp or a revision of the rules to prevent $10k motors from being “worth it.”

Steve D.

#78

I agree with that 100%. Having someone outspend the rest of the field and clean up would be pretty discouraging for the series as a whole.

But, like someone suggested in another thread, have an expert provide experience/data that shows what the max potential is for the M20. I can’t imagine this engine takes simple “mods” all that well, making a $10k motor an exercise in futility. I could (and hope) be wrong.

P.S. Discussions on this board are a million times better than the bickering on other boards.

#79

Steve D wrote:

My point exactly.

One of the things I’ve learned in my motor adventure is that there is a lot that can be done to get more hp. Many of which would be extremely difficult to detect.

We can all tell when someone has more hp. We exit a turn with more speed, pull up to their bumper and then while drafting on them, they leave us.

I don’t have an answer for the hp cap problem. But if I go to Jim and tell him “my motor is dyno’d at Atlanta’s Balanced Performance at 155hp. Here is my official protest against Fred Switzer. He is consistantly pulling away from me, Devinney, Geiger, Robinson and Foushee. We are challenging his motor”. That puts Jim in a position where he needs to adjudicate the challenge.

Maybe he could arrange for Fred’s car to go to Balanced Performance’s dyno. It’s seen a lot of Spec E30’s.

Then once Jim has seen the dyno charts he can make the call. Of course Fred is no dummy so he’ll have swapped out his M50 and put his M20 back in.

Alternately, we could ask for Fred’s Traqmate data and see if it clearly shows more hp then mine.

My point is that right now we have no mechanism to adjudicate a motor challenge. Nothing. But eventually there’s going to be a motor challenge. I think that it would be better to have some generally agreed upon ideas as to how to proceed, then to have to make something up on the spot.

The plan could be as vague as "See if a Traqmate or a specific dyno is an agreeable means to measure hp. If anything indicates >170hp or a point in the hp curve that seems >5% high relative to published SpecE30 dyno charts, then consider further testing. Otherwise consider dismissing.

Even a vague plan is a plan.

(Torque neglected for simplicity)

#80

Ranger wrote:

[quote]My point exactly.

One of the things I’ve learned in my motor adventure is that there is a lot that can be done to get more hp. Many of which would be extremely difficult to detect.

[/quote]

I’m not arguing you can’t do a lot. But how much is there to gain from these mods with a low compression, poor breathing, antique motor? Is it the difference between a high mileage junk yard motor and a factory build engine? Is it the difference between a stock rebuild and first oversize overbored rebuild?