Max HP / Dyno discussion

#81

Ranger wrote:

Wrong. NASA CCR 17.5.1

This discussion is definitely chasing it’s own tail. Adding weight to people who have prepared their cars to the rules to compensate for those that built to less than the full rule set? WTF? Seriously. Series add weight to try to equalize differences between different platforms, not in a spec series like ours with close to identical cars like ours. The rules for our series were written to prepare cars as similarly as possible for low cost, and have done a decent job of that in my opinion.

Build the car to the rules - including the engine. Expecting everyone’s junk yard motor to be similar is as ridiculous as trying to use a Traqmate/MaxQData to DQ people based on it’s hp calculations.

Just so we’re crystal clear, as I’m seen as a Racer X apparently, I haven’t even built my motor out to the full extent of the rules.

Build your car to the rules if you want to be competitive. It’s club racing, there’s no real money or fame on the line here. If you feel you need to cheat to make yourself feel better about your hobby for 30 minutes on the weekend, be my guest. That $4 plaque or $3.50 mug can be yours. An alternative, run in the Democross. But don’t b!tch about that when the HeartBreaker II punches a hole through your gas filler neck and it fills with sand because you didn’t add proper democross specific crash protection.

#82

Just to clarify something as I see this keep coming up, the intent of the MaxQ is not to use that alone as a basis for a DQ but to use it as an indicator and add on to a dyno reading. We still don’t have a rule so let the debate continue but I just wanted to point out it is unlikely we’ll be relying on just MaxQ data to determine anything. Continue…

#83

TheRedBaron wrote:

Agree 100%.

The weight penalty is a suggestion I threw out because it seems as though the powers that be want control over performance. Digging into an engine, or adding dyno time or data logging, seems more expensive than weighing a car and adding x# of additional ballast for next weekend.

#84

OriginalSterm wrote:

[quote]TheRedBaron wrote:

Agree 100%.

The weight penalty is a suggestion I threw out because it seems as though the powers that be want control over performance. Digging into an engine, or adding dyno time or data logging, seems more expensive than weighing a car and adding x# of additional ballast for next weekend.[/quote]

We need enforcement of the existing rules, not equalization. Dyno is the only way to accurately and consistently measure the HP/TQ a car produces. Maybe data acq as an indicator as a basis for protest. Maybe add a bond on the protest in the amount of the dyno to cover the cost if the guy is found compliant. What’s the big deal in enforcement? Dredging up an old suggestion, there is more questions than answers on dynoing until there is a database of dynos that help account for altitude, temp, and dyno types. We need a baseline by region just to get started, same dyno, same day. Probably only need them from the 3 regions right now that have more than a handful of cars.

#85

TheRedBaron wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

Wrong. NASA CCR 17.5.1

[/quote]

17.5 isn’t helpful. All it says is that NASA can require a competitor to disassemble his motor for inspection at the track. Like that would ever happen just because (to continue the hypothetical scenario) I protest Fred’s motor at CMP. I’d withdraw the protest before my action would lead to that kind of goatscrew.

Trying to prevent mods via an inspection process is doomed. Some of them are too hard to detect.

It would be far more realistic for Jim to say “ok, lets look at Fred’s data and see if there is something that bears further inspection”. Or Jim could jump in Fred’s car and do some laps against someone who’s dynoed their car recently, and see what happens. There’s all sorts of ways one might come up with to distinguish between “Scott’s protest is nothing but sour grapes”, and “this car is too strong. Something is fishy”.

I’m not argueing for a rigorous standard. I’m saying that the day will come when we do have a motor protest and we need to have a better plan then…"ok, pull your motor apart tonight and we’re going to check your:
cam lobes
cylinder bore
pistons
rods and pins
head and block for excessive decking
valves for grind shape.
Head ports for grind shape and porting
ECU for custom software burned into OEM chip

etc.

NASA 17.5 is what we used to call a “finger drill”. It sounds like a nice plan on paper, but in practice it’s BS.

Instead, the SpecE30 CCR could say something like “that if a motor protest is lodged at a regional event, then the Regional Series Director, or Regional NASA Director are encouraged to come up with a non-invasive means of determining if there might be merit in the protest. Those means might include comparing data, doing some laps against comparable cars, or simply questioning some of the other competitors. The director will make a judgement call based on their experience. If the director believes that the protest has merit, then the case will be brought to National for further consideration. If the director believes that the case for merit is not overwhelming, then he can dismiss the protest.”

I just pulled that out of my butt, so don’t get too worked up by the exact content. My point is that we could have some kind of useful roadmap that gives general ideas for how to deal with a motor protest. That’s a lot more useful then NASA CCR 17.5.

The current ruleset doesn’t allow any director to do anything realistic at all. That is not useful.

#86

Wow…Shakespeer said it best…“much ado about nothing”

Dyno is the only way. I have studied the TM data on my car from road Atlanta extensively. At one point on the track I make 140hp, at another I make 218, and at a third 67. There is no way to compensate for altitude changes or drafting/head winds, where the accelerometers are mounted, etc… Just too many variables such as tuning the suspension allowing one person to get to the gas 1/2 second faster than another…which equals a couple of car lengths at the end of the straight.

If there is a question, most tracks have a dyno convenient. If legal, NASA pays for the run: if not competitor pays. Fair for all. My opinion…Chuck

#87

TheRedBaron wrote:

I don’t disagree with what you are saying.

My only objective is to provide a cautionary tale. Look at our engine ruleset and try to pick out the opportunities to pick up 1/2 hp, or 1, or 3. There are many small legal mods you could make that will add up to meaningful differences.

The motor rules are much tighter in SM and you can get a crate motor from Mazda for $1800. Or a “pro” motor for $7000. Given the additional allowances on our motors (not to mention the other 2 cylinders), it is not hard to imagine a full-out 100% LEGAL build hitting 5 figures.

If everyone is OK with that, I can be OK with it too. But we haven’t even seen the tip of the iceberg regarding built motors in our class. But we will as the class grows.

And there is absolutely NO PURPOSE in having MaxQdata point out that we might oughtta check into some dude’s motor if nobody will ever man up and throw paper when they truly think someone is illegal. Tear downs are expensive, but they are the only way to know for sure.

If Geegar is as close as we can come to a Racer X in the Southeast, we’re probably safe for a while. :stuck_out_tongue:

Steve D.

#88

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]

I just couldn’t resist the temptation of saying “me too”.
Actually my move to GTS is a fact after the Nationals at Miller since after three years in the Spec E30 series in Socal, I was only able to race against a couple of the Norcal region drivers who came visit me to the California Speedway last year. Every year I keep hearing guys “I’ll be ready, I’m getting a car ready, Next season” etc, etc
Not only that, but the GTS rules book has only four pages, it’s pretty much ‘race what you bring’ kind of racing. I’ve seen guys from a pro-trailer, with a 5-people crew, air jacks and changinr rubber every session, to a single person team, sleeping in a tent, carrying just one set of racing rubber in the trunk, and driving home in the same car they were racing. In addition, there are more cars in GTS than in the Honda Challenge or Spec 944 series that they run in their own group.

#89

Ranger wrote:

[quote]TheRedBaron wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

Wrong. NASA CCR 17.5.1

[/quote]

17.5 isn’t helpful. All it says is that NASA can require a competitor to disassemble his motor for inspection at the track. Like that would ever happen just because (to continue the hypothetical scenario) I protest Fred’s motor at CMP.
Instead, the SpecE30 CCR could say something like “that if a motor protest is lodged at a regional event, then the Regional Series Director, or Regional NASA Director are encouraged to come up with a non-invasive means of determining if there might be merit in the protest. Those means might include comparing data, doing some laps against comparable cars, or simply questioning some of the other competitors. The director will make a judgement call based on their experience. If the director believes that the protest has merit, then the case will be brought to National for further consideration. If the director believes that the case for merit is not overwhelming, then he can dismiss the protest.”

I just pulled that out of my butt, [/quote]

Hey, here’s an idea - put all that BS back and pull a dyno out of your butt. (LOL -couldn’t resist. Ranger, don’t kick my ass when we finally meet…:laugh: )