I thought I would post a sample of power plot generated from my MaxQData.
The plot is from a session from last year at CMP. It shows HP/Ton vs. MPH speed for the whole session. My car weighs around 2930 lbs with me in it.
To get the @ wheel hp, the specific hp will have to be multiplied by (2930/2000) = 1.465 The highest peak on the plot is 105 HP/Ton. So, 105 x 1.465 = 153.8 rwhp. This run was in February with colder temperature.
My dynojet hp is 146 rwhp.
The result is only good as the data quality entered. MaxQdata data can be noisy and with missing gaps which will cause garbage results to show up.
Sounds like an awesomely reliable way to DQ people.
Maybe we should just draw straws and whomever gets the short one is ‘cheating’ for that weekend.
Weight can be specified because a scale can be calibrated and the test can be repeated and give the same result (over and over). I don’t see anything that gives me confidence that a dyno, or this can be used in a similar manner.
[quote]Sounds like an awesomely reliable way to DQ people.
Maybe we should just draw straws and whomever gets the short one is ‘cheating’ for that weekend.
Weight can be specified because a scale can be calibrated and the test can be repeated and give the same result (over and over). I don’t see anything that gives me confidence that a dyno, or this can be used in a similar manner.[/quote]
Every possible solution to this issue has warts. But we’re a fair minded bunch. If someone’s car seems to be stronger then average, I’m sure that we’ll go to great lengths to look for a problem with the test that might have caused the data points outside of the norm.
No one is going to get casually DQ’d. That’s not our culture.
Having a reasonable hp/torque test is important, but “perfect” is the enemy of “good enough”. I think that our obsession in finding a perfect test is defeating our pursuit of a “good enough” test. Lets create a test and deal with the warts as they come. After we test lots of folks, the known warts and the test process will become old news. And the series directors will have created an atmosphere of confidence that no one will be treated unfairly.
[quote]Ranger I agree with you in the SouthEast but keep in mind that rules are applied differently at the national level.
It makes it very difficult to build a competitive car nationally to a rule set that has that degree of variability.[/quote]
Agreed. Maybe the solution is to apply the standard at the Regional level first. That will give the testers and the testees time to work thru the problems. Like maybe we start testing this Fall just for grins. But tests starting next Feb count for Regional Points. Then we plan on running the Tests at Nationals too.
Lets talk some scenarios.
MaxQData says my motor has 170hp and try as we might we can’t come up with something that is skewing the test. By skewing I mean like really cold weather, 13lb wheels or whatever. We would have to use our imagination to come up with ways to rule out the possibilities. But the important thing is that we give the driver every chance to pass the test.
But if I can’t pass the test, Chuck hands me a restrictor plate and says put that in and test it again.
Scott: "FK you Chuck, you put it in."
Chuck: "You ungrateful Cks**ker, I put in your whole goddamned motor in."
Scott: "Oh ya, . “Ok, I’ll put it in.”
Or maybe I could take it to Balanced Performance and they dyno the motor. The numbers come out within reason, then they put some kind of seal on my valve cover and ECU.
My point is that there needs to be ways for a someone with an over-the-top motor to unscrew his situation. And we need to be presented with these mechanisms as part of implementation of the standard so we don’t have to make up too much shit as we go along.
By the time Nationals comes along, everyone should have been tested a couple of times. And if someone plans on going to Nationals, then they certainly want to get tested a couple times at the Regional level. Then there’s no surprises at Nationals. If Cobetto’s gizmo fails you, Chuck pulls out his gizmo and you pass. It’s unfortunate that Cobetto’s gizmo reads different then Chuck’s, but that is their problem, not yours.
Subject change. This hp on MaxQData business got me curious about hp on Traqmate. The newest version of Traqmate does provide hp. The absolute #'s require inputs for a lot of variables and I clearly don’t have the right mix, but it was interesting to compare me, Fred and Mike Skeen’s hp data from last year. I faired poorly.
Well intended but this is risky for too many reasons to name. Drivers can play with throttle, weight, lines. We’ll never hear the end of it. In my humble opinion the dyno is the only way to go.
Why not think about this problem in steps rather than coming up with the all powerful single solution. That is to say, is there a reason the HP needs to be “Nationalized” on Day 1? There are so many variables at a National level, while they could be minimized regionally by dyno’ing cars on the same day and same dyno and with an independent person in the drivers seat. If you have 15-20 cars done on the same machine and on the same dyno you would certainly have a consistent mean, and could apply the “national” statistical method which I understood was going to be standard deviations from the mean at certain RPM points along the plot which seems workable. An Excel worksheet could be created easily ahead of time and could be filled in at the dyno shop/track and would reveal everyone’s plot on the curve. A very important point here is that consistency would give the basis for rules enforcement at a regional level much sooner than waiting for a (im)perfect national solution. Here in Norcal we could use Kevin’s shop up at Thunderhill, and strike a deal with him to dyno the field once in April and then the top 5 from any Thunderhill event at some discount to the drivers. I am sure every region has at least one track with a dyno shop on site and a similar deal could be worked by the RD.
When it’s time for Nationals, there would be a ton of regional dyno information that could be used to assess how to dyno the cars at Nationals but I would think it would be pretty predictable by then based on the ambient temp, type of dyno and the several hundred dyno plots in hand. Find a shop at Miller, run a few cars early in the week to set a baseline, use your wealth of data to assess the legal curve for that altitude, temp, dyno.
I agree with the earlier comment that perfect is the enemy of good enough, and taking this problem in steps and at a regional level could break it down enough to be manageable would get us something in hand sooner and provide critical national data to assess later in the year prior to Nationals.
What really matters more than the max hp number is the area under the power curve.
As you can see from the plot, I only hit the max hp points 3 or 4 times during the whole session. Rest of the time, I am only using about 110-120 hp.
The area under the curve is hard to gauge from this straight power plot. Without knowing the gear in use and the gear ratios, a true engine to engine comparison would be hard.
As long as the GPS data is clean, it is a very accurate way to measure the hp being used. The weight is known because the car will get weighted at the end of a race.
The line does not matter. As for the throttle, if the racer is not using the power when the power is needed to most, then yes it’s possible to hide the power but then the racer will be losing time.
If two cars were measured during a race, then the difference in engine performance will be very clear (again, as long as the data are clear.)
However, the question is how does that measured performance compare to an arbitrary set limit.
The thought process we’re working on is not to treat the MaxQ as a complete substitute for a dyno, but more simply as a way to quickly gather additional comparative data points, which could be combined with a body of dyno readings, so that eventually, with enough statistical evidence, it would become relatively evident when a car was making power outside the accepted limits.
The sooner we start regularly testing as many cars as we can, as often as we can, with both dyno and MaxQ (or similar) methods, and building a database of knowledge, then we can start to identify outliers.
Some of you guys are dismissing this because it won’t be perfect. I don’t believe a perfect solution exists that we could feasibly and affordably implement.
We have nothing in place now, and that’s even farther from perfect.
I believe our thought process is consistent with what AJ talks about…Start locally to build a storehouse of knowledge, and as competitors cross-pollinate other regions/tracks/dynos then we can start to understand and quantify the amount of variability between locations and equipment.
My point is if the number 170, 150 or whatever pick one. Lets say 165. That is the limit.
The rules have clearly said what can and can’t be done to an engine. Someone builds that engine to the rules and comes up with 170.
Okay now what.
Or
I’m building a motor and now how do I follow the rules but keep it under whatever the Max is.
With weight it is easy. HP now I have to factor in some ‘fudge’ factor if I want to be at the top HP cap. So if its 165 now I have to make 160 to make some allowance for any host of variables like weather, time of day, humidity, dyno / electric gizmo error, etc. What about at Miller? What is the altitude there? What is the impact of thin air on our motors?
Basically it is impossible to build a car fully to the rules at that point because the rule and test aren’t repeatable and reliable.
[quote]My point is if the number 170, 150 or whatever pick one. Lets say 165. That is the limit.
The rules have clearly said what can and can’t be done to an engine. Someone builds that engine to the rules and comes up with 170.
Okay now what.
Or
I’m building a motor and now how do I follow the rules but keep it under whatever the Max is.
With weight it is easy. HP now I have to factor in some ‘fudge’ factor if I want to be at the top HP cap. So if its 165 now I have to make 160 to make some allowance for any host of variables like weather, time of day, humidity, dyno / electric gizmo error, etc. What about at Miller? What is the altitude there? What is the impact of thin air on our motors?
Basically it is impossible to build a car fully to the rules at that point because the rule and test aren’t repeatable and reliable.[/quote]
We can’t allow ourselves to get into a fight of:
“I built my motor strictly by the rules”.
“Bullshit, you can’t get with a rules compliant motor”.
“Are you calling me a liar?”
“You can’t get and that’s it”.
“Are you calling me a liar?”
This kind of exchange is poisonous, and that’s why we need a standard. It won’t be perfect, but smart and fair folks will try to make it as good as they can. With a standard we can get out of the accusations and simply say “your motor has too much hp. I don’t care how it was done. Just fix it”.
Our cars are supposed to be roughly equal and the rule book helps us get there. But lets not forget that the objective is the equality and the rule book is only a means to that end. And that is why the assertion that “it’s ok if my car is better then everyone else’s, because my car meets the rules” is a weak arguement. It is not ok if my car is better then everyone else’s.
And it’s very important that we avoid attacks on folk’s honesty.
In terms of enforcment, we need to keep a solid fix on the idea that we are a reasonable bunch. Lets say my new motor turns out to be too powerful. Maybe I could go to Chuck and say "According to your gizmo if I add 20lbs I’m under the threshold. So if I add 40lbs, can I race for points this weekend?
My point is that reasonable folks can find a solution. If we want to find a solution to a problem we can.
in a perfect world, where everyone builds to the rules this might be the case…in reality, people build their spec e30’s differently (within the rules of course) and the cars will not even be “roughly” equal…there are guys that choose to leave in the ~20 year old factory bushings and use calipers that have never been rebuilt while there are guys that have brand new everything on their cars…
i completely disagree with this stance…it’s a very valid argument…
if i build a car that is 100% legal, has the best of everything within the rules, and it’s the fastest car in the paddock, that is absolutely OK…it’s not my responsibility to make sure everyone else builds the same caliber car that i do…
you really cant expect to build a mediocre (had to use that) car in a competitive series/class and expect it to be competitive with guys that go all out with their builds…cars like that will never be equal
imo, enforcing the rules already in place is better than creating new rules (like hp limits) that will be very difficult to consistently enforce…
I agree except I don’t see it as a more than / less than - it’s a combination. HP/TQ at standardized levels on the RPM curve like every 500 or 1000 RPMS.
[quote]
The area under the curve is hard to gauge from this straight power plot. Without knowing the gear in use and the gear ratios, a true engine to engine comparison would be hard.[/quote]
[quote]
As long as the GPS data is clean, it is a very accurate way to measure the hp being used. The weight is known because the car will get weighted at the end of a race.[/quote]
Chi, it may be just how you wrote them, but I think these two statements sum up why this would be a whole different can of worms. It would just take some testing and comparison to see how well it stands up and standardize the expected values. Maybe it is a good solution, I don’t know without some testing of it and seeing if I can fudge my traqmate hp calc.
My point is to move this to action - just do something. Build a regional dyno database, make it public and enforce later this year. We were having this same discussion almost a year ago and nothing public has happened to support a power standard and now we’re into a whole new season. There’s a lot of smart ideas here but without data it is all hypothetical, and there is this running concern of how it will affect each of us - dq, motor change, or whatever. Take the fear out of it, make it a data collection exercise for the first half of this season and keep the dialog open to get as many ideas as possible. There will not be 100% consensus but there will be an acceptable majority.
And I agree with David that the HP rule enforcement should be against a car that is built the max of the rules, not the average. As long as it’s a known max and then is consistently enforced. My point on building a database is that we don’t yet know what the top 5% are capable of and where the outliers are until you do some widespread dyno testing. And if the PTB want to give a trackside opportunity to get compliant like weight or restrictor, then so be it.
in a perfect world, where everyone builds to the rules this might be the case…in reality, people build their spec e30’s differently (within the rules of course) and the cars will not even be “roughly” equal…there are guys that choose to leave in the ~20 year old factory bushings and use calipers that have never been rebuilt while there are guys that have brand new everything on their cars…
i completely disagree with this stance…it’s a very valid argument…
if i build a car that is 100% legal, has the best of everything within the rules, and it’s the fastest car in the paddock, that is absolutely OK…it’s not my responsibility to make sure everyone else builds the same caliber car that i do…
you really cant expect to build a mediocre (had to use that) car in a competitive series/class and expect it to be competitive with guys that go all out with their builds…cars like that will never be equal
imo, enforcing the rules already in place is better than creating new rules (like hp limits) that will be very difficult to consistently enforce…[/quote]
I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree. Again. Lol. I contend that the Spec philosophy is to have a series of roughly equal cars such that it becomes a contest of drivers. The intent of the rule book is to help create that environment of roughly equal cars.
Sure, I could shoot myself in the foot by running tired crappy bushings, but there’s some weaknesses to this example.
Currently we are just using the honor system on our motors. Sooner or later that is going to frazzle about the edges. On the one hand suspiciously strong motors are starting to show up. On the other hand folks are really sensitive to this so a sea-change towards accusations and ill feelings could just be months away.
I could choose to use a 300k motor that clearly has tired crappy valves.
I could take my car to a shop and tell them that I want very hard bushings, but that they are not allowed to be solid. And they install some hollow aluminum bushings and I’ve met the letter but not the intent of the rules.
Likewise I take my motor to a shop and I tell them I want a 165hp SpecE30 motor and I’ll pay them $5k for it. I tell them that the motor needs to pass tech and how else they do it is their concern. Then I show up in Feb with my 165hp motor that is, as far as I know, entirely rules compliant.
We need some kind of hp standard. We can phase such a thing in slowly and fairly. We can deal with the disputes like adults. We can’t let acid build up in our guts because we think the other guy has 170hp.
Letter of the rule, not the intent. If people choose to build to the letter of the rule (and many will), then we will have roughly equal cars at the front of the pack. If you choose to run with a smaller budget, then there is still going to be plenty of good racing there too, but don’t expect to be a front runner. And you’re still responsible for the content of your motor, if you choose to abdicate to an engine builder it’s still your motor and responsibility to be rules compliant.
The moving target of our rules is starting to become a bit ridiculous. There are already rules in place that tell us how we can and can not build our cars. Why do we need to put a limit on HP when in theory (as David and Jim have pointed out) could be exceeded within the rules.
Should we consider having the rules available via a RSS feed?
But whatever… we all know this is going to happen regardless of the soundness of any arguments made against it. All we can ask and expect is there be a sufficient amount of data collected before a rule is put into place. Let’s not rush into this. I don’t even know why “we” have chosen to go with MaxQ? Have “we” truly explored all of our options?
9d3 wrote:[quote]
Chi, it may be just how you wrote them, but I think these two statements sum up why this would be a whole different can of worms.[/quote]
AJ, I agree. At times like these, I am glad I am not racing.
Here are some more thoughts;
GPS only measures approximate location. From that location information, eventually power generated can be calculated. However, assume you have a strong tailwind which pushes your car when accelerating. That will skew the power generation.
The unit proposed for testing by Carter is only a 5Hz unit. 10Hz would be better but the 5Hz unit is a self contained unit, is cheaper, and very portable.
It’s not easy to generate RPM vs. Power plot like a dyno plot from just the GPS location information.
as far as i can tell, all the spec e30 cars are “roughly equal” already. they all seem to lap road atl in the 1:40 to 2:00 range…roughly equal is a very subjective term and spec e30’s will never be truly equal cars without a MUCH stricter rule set (all spec parts, spec alignment, sealed single source motors, etc, etc, etc)…without all that, the cars will continue to be different…some will be faster than others, period.
from what i’ve seen, spec e30 is already a contest of drivers…the guys that consistently finish up front are talented drivers. they also are typically the type that make sure they 1)are driving completely legal cars and 2) have very good equipment (not crappy worn out bushings, for example)
what weaknesses? if cars are going to be equal, they will need to be the same…not one car on 20 year old rubber bushings and another car on fresh poly/etc bushings. one car with a tired 200k mile motor and one with a brand new crate engine…etc, etc…if there are differences like this amongst the cars, there will always be pretty significant speed differentials…
the engine rules should have been enforced all along…if anyone thinks that someone is cheating, there is a protest system in place…no need for accusations and ill feelings, that’s just being childish…
this is exactly my point…that is clearly within your rights to do…but you absolutely can not expect the rules to make your car “roughly equal” to a car that is running a fresh crate motor…
people can and do run old tired motors (i’ve driven spec e30’s with them) and those cars just cant keep up in the straights with a car that has a fresh motor…who is to blame for not being competitive in that situation?
i thought all bushings were solid? i personally have never seen any in gaseous or liquid form
if the example you’ve given actually meets the letter of the rules, then there is an issue with the wording of the rules that should be addressed. typically in this situation, suspension bushings of alternate (non-metallic) materials are allowed (not hollow metallic ones).
“as far as I know, entirely rules compliant” is not good enough…it is up to the racer to ensure that his car is compliant…what i mean by this is that if a racer hands a shop money and they give him an illegal motor/car/etc, it’s the racer’s problem…“the shop said it was legal” has never been an acceptable excuse for non-compliant parts…
from my understanding of the spec e30 rules, there are already standards (rules) for engines…if you feel that someone has an illegal motor, or any other parts, there is already a system in place to police this (the protest system)…there is no need to worry about who has what hp, if you think someone is cheating, protest them…
guys,
this is the start of investigating creative ways to test for compliance. There are no rules being changed right now.
It would be helpful if the discussion was in the tone of “we’ll have to consider this …” vs. “I’m clearly smarter than anybody who would even think of doing this …” You may well be, but it isn’t a helpful attitude. We’re all in this together for fun.
This technology has been successfully used in USTCC and there are similar technologies that are being used around the world in professional series to equalize dissimilar cars. Chi, GPS technology has moved past only giving an approximate location.
This is the start of a process, not an imminent dictate.
thanks for listening,
bruce
Actually, GPS based timers can be quite accurate. My TracMate generally is within .001 seconds of the AMB timer. Now, since TM has started allowing horsepower to be shown on the graphs, I have found, for my car, the program within 1-2hp. They have not as yet allowed you to program the weight of your car into the compilation, but I should hope that is coming.
Accelerating a known weight over a measured distance will give hp numbers. Gear does not matter. If you want, dyno your car in 3, then 4, then 5th and compare the results.
The only true way to insure parity is for all to be dynoed on the same dyno the same day. There is just no other way. Chuck
![http://spece30.com/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/MaxQ_Power_vs_MPH__Small_.jpg[/file]](http://spece30.com/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/MaxQ_Power_vs_MPH__Small_.jpg%5B/file%5D){kind=link}