NASA's New GTS Rules For 2011....
11-26-2010, 12:59 PM
#62
I'll stir the pot a bit as well as it does appear to me that this is exactly where the GTS series is migrating. Not a criticism, as the GTS series seams to attract guys that like to develop their cars, and the rules certainly have spawned a lot of tight competive racing in this region. However, the concept that it is a cheaper option than PCA GT class racing is really not accurate. I predict that in order to have a competitive car (in the very near future), you'll have to build a monster engine and then "detune" to create a completely flat HP curve at the exact threshold for your HP/weight class.
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
I have seen guys in very underprepared cars spank on built to the max cars with restricted motors and flat torque curves, etc etc purely because of driver/setup.
Now of course, if you get a pro-caliber driver coming in with a super prepped car he is going to win. But the honest truth is a pro-caliber driver in even a pretty under prepared car is probably going to win as well.....
11-29-2010, 02:37 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
AND there is a simple rule change that could fix all this! Some here know that I helped the GTS rule makers with the HP/weight rules at the beginning. However, i gave some advice that was not taken to solve ALL problems that would happen, once guys started to figure out ways to "tweek" their engines to meet the rules. (which seems to be happening now)
HP to weight is great as a equalizing tool, but absolute weight is as well.
(not to mention ALL the other factors that do matter like suspension set up, chassis set up, etc etc, but I could care less about as long as I got a equal hp to weight and absolute weight, ill race anyone!) anyway, what i suggested to the GTS folks, was to not use the torque averaging, for engines that made more torque than HP (numerically vs ft-lbs), what i suggested was a way to simply average the HP for any car. then, there is no fuss. no averaging for the torquy guys, and none for the flat hp guys vs the peaky hp guys that HAPPEN to have less torque than power. So, how do you do it?? same for both. you average the HP for 3-4 different points. max rpm, max hp rpm 80% of max rpm and70% of max rpm. that is the range most any engine is used (sans someone with a close ratio gear box) and that is what you measure. How easy is that. you want to use a close ratio gear box, then you toss out the 70% RPM value. there, even playing field. no tweaking will really help here.
Now, I would add two other factors, one of which is already added. (use of slicks) But, absolute weight is as big of a factor as slicks, so maybe on that same slick chart, use the 2200 to 2700lb as one range, and 2700lb to 3000+.
that way, if you are light and on slicks, you dont have the double whammy advantage. This way, we create, more close racing. racing that will show trade offs at different tracks with equal drivers.
just a few thoughts.
HP to weight is great as a equalizing tool, but absolute weight is as well.
(not to mention ALL the other factors that do matter like suspension set up, chassis set up, etc etc, but I could care less about as long as I got a equal hp to weight and absolute weight, ill race anyone!) anyway, what i suggested to the GTS folks, was to not use the torque averaging, for engines that made more torque than HP (numerically vs ft-lbs), what i suggested was a way to simply average the HP for any car. then, there is no fuss. no averaging for the torquy guys, and none for the flat hp guys vs the peaky hp guys that HAPPEN to have less torque than power. So, how do you do it?? same for both. you average the HP for 3-4 different points. max rpm, max hp rpm 80% of max rpm and70% of max rpm. that is the range most any engine is used (sans someone with a close ratio gear box) and that is what you measure. How easy is that. you want to use a close ratio gear box, then you toss out the 70% RPM value. there, even playing field. no tweaking will really help here.
Now, I would add two other factors, one of which is already added. (use of slicks) But, absolute weight is as big of a factor as slicks, so maybe on that same slick chart, use the 2200 to 2700lb as one range, and 2700lb to 3000+.
that way, if you are light and on slicks, you dont have the double whammy advantage. This way, we create, more close racing. racing that will show trade offs at different tracks with equal drivers.
just a few thoughts.
I'll stir the pot a bit as well as it does appear to me that this is exactly where the GTS series is migrating. Not a criticism, as the GTS series seams to attract guys that like to develop their cars, and the rules certainly have spawned a lot of tight competive racing in this region. However, the concept that it is a cheaper option than PCA GT class racing is really not accurate. I predict that in order to have a competitive car (in the very near future), you'll have to build a monster engine and then "detune" to create a completely flat HP curve at the exact threshold for your HP/weight class.
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
