nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:52 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:33 pm
Posts: 4
B Esquire wrote:
Care to elaborate on why it's to many? Why shouldn't we measure all the power being used by a competitor?


Brian, (and Greg), I agree that expanding to 6 points is good. My usable rev range is just about 3,000 RPM, and this will even the competition for the remaining 1,000 RPM (where we only had 2,000 RPM with 4 points, since they are every 500 RPM).

My concern is if an engine uses less than 3,000 RPM on track. I can see a scenario where a car only uses 2,500 RPM, and that 6th point is way low, but they don't care since they never hit that RPM. Or, maybe the 6th point is purposefully tuned to be way low, and it brings down the average enough to make an impact.

Maybe this is a non-issue. I don't have enough data on the rest of the cars in the field to know if this could be exploited.

Is this something you are concerned about?

-Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:26 pm 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:58 am
Posts: 84
Location: Arizona
esr wrote:
as I made clear I don't get this type of racing, but is about all there is, and I am trying to race a few more years before I hang it!



Then leave everyone here alone and go race Spec Z if you want all the cars to be dead even in every single part of the track!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:08 am 
Offline
Postmeister
Postmeister

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:44 am
Posts: 1349
Location: Mooresville, NC
Savington wrote:
esr wrote:
blah blah blah


Time to call a spade a spade.

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.



How do I like this post 1000 times?


Savington - if we ever cross paths, I want to buy you a beer.

_________________
Kevin
$T2/$T3 C5Z06 #01
2015 ST2 EC Champ, 2017 TT3 EC Champ
David Farmer Racing, G-LOC Brakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:37 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: redwood city, california
we all know you like to buy stuff!




brkntrxn wrote:
Savington wrote:
esr wrote:
blah blah blah


Time to call a spade a spade.

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.



How do I like this post 1000 times?


Savington - if we ever cross paths, I want to buy you a beer.


Last edited by esr on Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:06 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline
Postmeister
Postmeister

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:44 am
Posts: 1349
Location: Mooresville, NC
esr wrote:
we all know you like to buy stuff!



Negative. We purchased a 100% stock, garage-queen C5Z06 because it slotted very nicely into PTA/TTA where our Mustang Cobras did not. The intent was to race a completely stock car with nothing more than sway bars, brake pads, and Hoosier A6s. People complaining is why we were kicked out to STx. We hesitated through 2013 when this happened and continued running a stock car and getting beat by the larger wallets. In the second half of the year, my wife and friends convinced me to 'Spend The 3uros".

Every time you guys fuss and want a change in the rules, the top racers will continue being the top racers. All you are doing is making everyone spend more money.

I don't always agree with Greg, but he understands this and I am grateful for his hesitation in changing the rules bases on complaints from cars not built to the ruleset.

_________________
Kevin
$T2/$T3 C5Z06 #01
2015 ST2 EC Champ, 2017 TT3 EC Champ
David Farmer Racing, G-LOC Brakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:55 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: redwood city, california
very smart, we should all do that and call it a day![


quote="brkntrxn"]
esr wrote:
we all know you like to buy stuff!



Negative. We purchased a 100% stock, garage-queen C5Z06 because it slotted very nicely into PTA/TTA where our Mustang Cobras did not. The intent was to race a completely stock car with nothing more than sway bars, brake pads, and Hoosier A6s. People complaining is why we were kicked out to STx. We hesitated through 2013 when this happened and continued running a stock car and getting beat by the larger wallets. In the second half of the year, my wife and friends convinced me to 'Spend The 3uros".

Every time you guys fuss and want a change in the rules, the top racers will continue being the top racers. All you are doing is making everyone spend more money.

I don't always agree with Greg, but he understands this and I am grateful for his hesitation in changing the rules bases on complaints from cars not built to the ruleset.[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:34 pm
Posts: 568
ianbarberi wrote:
B Esquire wrote:
Care to elaborate on why it's to many? Why shouldn't we measure all the power being used by a competitor?


Brian, (and Greg), I agree that expanding to 6 points is good. My usable rev range is just about 3,000 RPM, and this will even the competition for the remaining 1,000 RPM (where we only had 2,000 RPM with 4 points, since they are every 500 RPM).

My concern is if an engine uses less than 3,000 RPM on track. I can see a scenario where a car only uses 2,500 RPM, and that 6th point is way low, but they don't care since they never hit that RPM. Or, maybe the 6th point is purposefully tuned to be way low, and it brings down the average enough to make an impact.

Maybe this is a non-issue. I don't have enough data on the rest of the cars in the field to know if this could be exploited.

Is this something you are concerned about?

-Ian


I agree this is a real issue. I understand the intention of 6 points, which is to give cars with sloped power curves an advantage to the flatter curves. But all of these solutions make the assumption that we are trying to level existing cars who will not change their curves or ranges, when in reality it is just as easily manipulated by tuning as 4 points, in fact, almost more so. As you pointed out, I could tune my car to make incredibly low power at my 1st point in an effort to raise the average of my other points. It could easily backfire(no pun intended) on rules writers.

If we really wanted our estimation of Work to be as accurate as possible(thereby ending the torque v power debate for all time) our numbers should be a summation over a range of as many points as possible, like 50 rpm. We have the data from the dynos. If the series is interested, I could write such a calculator. 500 rpm increments is still a very inaccurate estimation, especially for those 4 cylinders that make peak HP at or near redline.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:07 pm
Posts: 156
Location: New Braunfels, Tx.
Just to be clear and accurate about this:
4 data points covers 1500 rpm range
6 data points covers 2500 rpm range

_________________
2003 MINI Cooper S


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:34 pm
Posts: 568
Alan_Wolfe wrote:
Just to be clear and accurate about this:
4 data points covers 1500 rpm range
6 data points covers 2500 rpm range


While that is probably the intention, that is not how the math was set up.

The Interval of the evaluation = the partition size * number of points. So 4 points x 500rpm evaluates a 2000rpm interval, and 6 a 3000rpm interval. You can't arbitrarily make the evaluation exclusive of the lower partition.

The ST rules describe a Riemann Sum(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum) when they add up the points as a means of evaluating different curves against one another(dividing by the constant 4 does nothing). One problem is that a LEFT sum (as opposed to RIGHT, or MID) is codified in the rules by 8.2 "If any of the above data points at higher RPM than Max HP RPM do not exist due to redline, then those potential data points will not be used in the calculation of Avg HP". LEFT sum is an OVERESTIMATION of area under the curve PROPORTIONAL TO THE SLOPE OF THE CURVE. A flatter curve means less of an overestimation.

This will not go away by adding more points.

Without even getting into the "race-ability" advantages of a flat curve(which we should not, because it too difficult to quantify), you can now see why so many people have chosen to tune their cars as flat as possible: because the ST rules math will give engines with a steep power curve a weight ratio disadvantage right off the bat.

As I suggested, the best way we can deal with this is to decrease the partition size, which increases accuracy. Simply increasing the interval does nothing.

Poor 4 cylinder NA. I feel your pain... And wait until the Rotary shows up. Poor poor rotary.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:22 pm 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:59 am
Posts: 93
Going to 6 data points will have a significant impact on avg hp, so if that’s the direction please consider a comparable adjustment to the base ratio. Many of the cars that have been racing in ST4 (e36’s/350z’s/S2000’s etc) are already at or beyond what they can reach for power to weight. Without an adjustment expect this to become more of an E46/E92 M class which I don’t think is the intention.

GTS chose to not use a 3k rpm band in the averaging bc it allowed too much room for tuners to make adjustments to exploit it. If someone has a sequential which can stay primarily around a 2k rpm range it’ll make a mockery of this revision. But I guess since sequentials aren’t a concern in ST4 it doesn’t matter as much.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group