nasaforums.com

For reasons provided in the prior posts, am opposed to sealing of OBD2 ports for Spec Iron.

_________________
Darren Brady

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!

RCR100616a

Class: This rules request would apply to AI/AIX/SI. I’m using the AI rules as the base for the modifications.

Recommended Changes: Section 10. Regional Championship Points add the following text:
Points will be awarder as listed in the NASA CCR with the following exceptions.

1.Competitors will not be allowed to drop disqualifications.
2. Any competitor that has been suspend for a race will receive an un-droppable 0 points finish.
3. Any competitor accumulating 10 points in the Drivers Points System will receive as a minimum an un-droppable 0 points finish.

Reasoning:
We have had a lot of contact this year. Less in class contact will make these series more attractive and reduce costs.

You can accumulate points in the Drivers Points system without having been DQ’d. 10 points is the number that forces you to appear before the Incident Review Board (IRB). Accumulating 10 points in a season shows that the driver is a repeat offender. Item 3 was added for the case which the driver was not suspended by the IRB.

Per the CCR Section 27.11 item 7 this would not include passing under a standing or double yellow. The penalty for that is reposition to last place and that is what our region does.

I would like to do more about in class contact, but I can’t think of anything that would be enforceable.

End RCR

I kinda like this one. Should have the intent to have drivers not be overly aggressive and attempt low percentage passes. Yes, its racing, but its also club level racing and we pay out of our own pockets to fix our own cars. Fortunately in the NE region, I don't think we had a single contact all season with any Ai cars, but I know some other regions have been having some issues. By not allowing a competitor to drop a DQ, it carries a little more weight.

_________________
AJ Hartman Racing AI#24
facebook.com/ajhartmanracing1
AJHartmanRacing.com
2013 NASA NE AI Champion

RCR-AI-102216 allow spare tire well to be removed

I don't see an issue with this one. Rule 7.3.d "For installation of a fuel cell or fuel tank access. OEM fuel tanks must remain in their original location. Fuel cell location is unrestricted but must comply with the Nasa CCR." kind already allows it depending on interpretation. Removing a few lbs of sheet metal isn't a class changer, plus, since the fuel tank/cell needs to be sealed from the driver compartment, you will need to add some sort of covering back over the area, negating all but a few lbs of an advantage. Its a free mod that allows people to swap fuel pumps if need be without having to drop the tank. I can't quite see any other advantages than that.

_________________
AJ Hartman Racing AI#24
facebook.com/ajhartmanracing1
AJHartmanRacing.com
2013 NASA NE AI Champion

I have no problem saying I submitted this one after my DQ at nationals for being 2tq over at 2300rpms.

RCR-AI-093016 dyno procedure change - ignore power below 3000

Recommended Changes: I would like to add a dyno procedure to the rule book for turbo charged cars in which the power prior to 3000 rpm is negated. Otherwise the dyno procedure will be performed the exact same way. This could also apply to NA cars so one dyno procedure covers all cars, but they don't have this issue.


Reasoning: Due to the turbos spooling up from such a low RPM, they will overshoot, or spike when the throttle is stabbed, and a false readout of Max TQ will occur only for a very brief moment. These spikes are followed by dips of a lower than normal readout, thus almost canceling out the spike. This undulation seems to happen prior to 3000 rpm as the computer and waste gates try to stabalize the system, and seems to steady out in the course of about 200-300 rpms. The readout from 3000 rpm to red line is more representative of true power when the car is on track as the turbos stay spooled up higher and have less of an over shoot, if any, since they are already loaded. Coupled with the fact any power prior to 3000 rpm is useless on track, these spikes before 3000 rpm should not be taken into account.


How I feel this will help the series: I feel it will open up the series to turbo cars. The 3.5 EcoBoost is a fairly easy swap gaining popularity, along with the 2.3 liter that is in the new Mustangs will eventually be coming into the series and both will face the same issue. I feel this will reduce costs associated with these engines as they wont need larger turbos that spool up slower to reduce spikes, wont need externally waste gated turbos as the factory units are internal waste gates, and won't need to pay a tuner tons of money to spend countless hours fine tuning the car for an RPM range that will never be used.

End RCR

Curious how people feel about this one as turbos are coming. I'm the only one at the moment, but we will have to figure something out sooner or later.

_________________
AJ Hartman Racing AI#24
facebook.com/ajhartmanracing1
AJHartmanRacing.com
2013 NASA NE AI Champion

AJ, Two clarifying questions, the spike is real right, while maybe not at an RPM that is all that useful, the spike would propel the car forward based on that power. I just making sure we don't think it only happens on the dyno for some reason. Secondly how much higher is the spike than the next highest level of power and torque. I didn't feel that your car was under power as we raced together at WGI, also didn't feel like it was over either seemed pretty consistent with the rest of the group. If we are talking about a significant increase that might be an un-fair advantage to the rest of the field. I would guess it could be tuned out if need be.

Thanks
Makr

_________________
Mark Adams
Team UBR #75 AI
Team UBR #76 AI (or what ever)

I also think the spike might be at tip in, not necessarily at low RPM's so while a dyno sheet shows this a 2,000 rpms, on track what keeps this spike from being at 4000 rpm's as you at apex apply throttle and therefore boost, seems like the wastegate might be slow to react creating a slight over boost for a bit. Either way it is real boost producing real power just not for very long. I would also think this rule could be programmed to apply power at tip in no matter what RPM, but look like a spike on the dyno at tip in, but due to dyno procedures appears to be below 3k rpm. This rule, like most of the others seems to complicate enforcement with little value to the competition.

Much the same goes for blocking off OBDII ports (just ask the time trial guys), No need to remove spear tire well, except for putting in a cell, already addressed. We attract more drives the more consistent our rules are. Adding small clarifications seems fine but big changes seem to detract from the series.

Thanks
Mark

_________________
Mark Adams
Team UBR #75 AI
Team UBR #76 AI (or what ever)

Here are my additional comments on proposed rules:

RCR-AI-093016 dyno procedure change - ignore power below 3000, turbo cars make high/max tq very low, 2000rpm or so and this is not
in the typical rpm range seen on track.

This would be too easy to manipulate, confusing low rpm's with when more throttle was added. Not good to add.

RCR-AI-100616a dq's / zero points count for season points can not drop dq

This should be left to the CCR - all classes should calculate points the same, creates confusion for Directors to keep score only for AI

RCR-AI-100616b season dyno sheet must be with +-15hp of dyno compliance test or DQ for making power changes.

No value or reduce cost, if a car dyno's over it's weight at the end of the race it is dq'd. Who cares about any thing else. For sure can't DQ a car because it dyno low by 15 hp. Lots of things can cause this, and most would not create an advantage or even be on purpose.

RCR-AI-100616C if dyno compliance test greater than +-15hp from season dyno, season dyno becomes invalid and compliance dyn
becomes new season dyno and must pay for dyno test.

No for same reason above.

RCR-AI-100616d clarify track width language to include 'tire buldge'

This will complicate enforcement, we all have the same tire buldge any way so no benefit to the compitition.

RCR-AI-100716a log max throttle angle via ecu for compliance dyno

No way to enforce this or to easily determine without hooking a laptop up to ECU, again who cares dyno the car if it's over DQ

RCR-AI-100716b update language to include 'air filter tape not permitted as restrictor

Again, who cares if it falls off then dyno the car if it's over DQ.

RCR-AI-102216 allow spare tire well to be removed

No value or reason to allow this, already allowed if adding a fuel cell.

_________________
Mark Adams
Team UBR #75 AI
Team UBR #76 AI (or what ever)

I wish I had a rock solid answer for you but I do not. I do not have access to, or the funds to pay someone with a dyno to just do some runs and pulls on a loaded dyno, from varying rpm's, and varying the speed of tip in to come up with a definite answer. I will say that Kevin Adolf (owns Flim Flam Speed and who tuned Steve Nichols car) was arguing FOR me at nationals. His rough take on it was that since its just an inertia dyno we get certified on, and such a low starting rpm, my turbos being so small that when they spool up, and even with the internal waste gate wide open, their inertia coming up will overshoot and cause the spike. Again, being unloaded, that spike is exaggerated. But in real world situations, being loaded and lets say even a low rpm of 3000-3500 rpm coming out of a slower corner, the turbos are already spinning much faster. So stuff happens a little slower so the waste gates can keep up when loaded, and since the turbos are spooled higher already, they don't overshoot as much, or if at all. The other argument I have is on starts this season. Al Watson can attest to this. I think any time I qualified in front of him, he would pass me by turn one. If the spike was real, why wouldn't I get a jump on him at the start?

I know turbos are coming to Ai eventually. Even the 2.3 in the new mustangs can easily make Ai power numbers. Aftermarket computers, or having to upgrade to different turbos with external waste gates, or extensive tuning to mitigate this unusable spike are all expensive options. This is club racing so am looking at it from a monetary standpoint. Hence why I'm just asking for any RPM prior to 3000 rpm to be negated. Otherwise, the dyno procedures will remain exactly the same.

_________________
AJ Hartman Racing AI#24
facebook.com/ajhartmanracing1
AJHartmanRacing.com
2013 NASA NE AI Champion

Added to your comments in red Mark.

_________________
AJ Hartman Racing AI#24
facebook.com/ajhartmanracing1
AJHartmanRacing.com
2013 NASA NE AI Champion

Mr. Adams,

The control system on AJ's car in this case is oscillating as it stabilizes after the throttle is mashed at 2,500rpm. Because the system has inertias (turbo impeller, engine rotational inertia, air mass in the exhaust and intake systems) and compliances (air in the exhaust and intake system) it is going to resonant like any other system. The system is ringing (going above and below its target output with ever decreasing peaks and dips) due to a lack of damping. Since this system is complex, it isn't a simple job to modify it to stop the ringing under all conditions of load, throttle position, rpm, etc. Even if you could perfectly adjust the damping in the correct locations in the feedback system to stop the ringing under all conditions of load, rpm, throttle position, etc, the resulting throttle response would be too poor to use in a racecar.

The main problem here is that we are trying to use a dyno which applies a large inertia to measure the steady state power output of an engine. When the system is excited with a massive transient condition (0 to full throttle in zero time), it is going to resonate. If we had access to a load dyno (noninertial), then this would no longer be a problem, since the resonant behavior would never be excited. Given that it isn't practical to dyno these cars on a noninertial dyno, it makes the most sense to change the dyno procedure to exclude data that is known to not be representative of the engines power output that is available to accelerate the car.

If you want to understand more about system ringing, I would look at the link below as a starting point. It isn't going to be possible to prove that if you integrate the area of the peaks and dips in a system that is ringing, you end up with zero, in a 10 minute internet post. Perhaps some of the other engineers who read this forum will chime in and confirm this to help convince you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_(signal)

The fundamental thing to understand here is that in any ringing system, the area of the peaks is going to be equal to the area of the dips. This means that the average level through this range is what actually represents the systems average ability to do work. It makes no sense to pick a peak or a dip value, especially when below the operational range of the system in this case.

Perhaps modify the RCR to lower the rpm range down to 2,500rpm?

_________________
Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support