nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:50 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:49 am
Posts: 7
Location: Minneapolis
1. The proposed addition or change.

I'm proposing we look at extending the average HP/TQ calculation from the final 2,000 rpm to maybe 3,000 rpm.

2. The reason behind the proposal.

I believe that a wider RPM calculation will further level the playing field across the various cars and motor builds, 3000 RPM? We have numerous corners where an exit speed results in RPM below the final 2,000 rpm range, and without cams, standalone...a normal tune is at a distinct disadvantage in that region of the RPM range and as such will build speed more slowly.

3. Any documentation supporting the request

Only my own cars data. In reviewing where I can find speed this seems to be contributing and would require a lot of money to address so, I suspect others would find the same.

4. Proposals to be submitted and signed by GTS members to be considered. (indicate Class and Region, please).

Kerry James, GTS2, Great Lakes.

_________________
E36 GTS2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:00 pm
Posts: 32
I'm pretty sure the calculator has me input values for more than the last 2000 Rpms. What motors do you think are at a disadvantage bc of the current calculator?

_________________
Chris Davis
NASA MA GTS2 #17


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:49 am
Posts: 7
Location: Minneapolis
focusedintntions wrote:
I'm pretty sure the calculator has me input values for more than the last 2000 Rpms. What motors do you think are at a disadvantage bc of the current calculator?


Yes but I believe it uses the last 2,000 RPM of your range for the calculation. Most motors with a basic tune will still have a steep HP/TQ ramp before the final 2,000 RPM so there is still a sizable advantage to detuning prior to that last 2,000 RPM.

_________________
E36 GTS2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:42 pm 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:59 am
Posts: 94
I can see a change like this benefiting the Porshe Boxsters/non-M motors and other cars with steep power curves. But the S50/52 compliance files I have looked at seem to have fairly level hp/tq curves. This is even motors with off the shelf or stock tunes with restrictor plates. Some even have more tq than hp. So I honestly only see this change basically allowing everyone to run more power as opposed to helping e36's in any way. This would be a way to increase the allowed power without increasing the ratio if that's the goal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 964
Location: Naperville, IL
Its not considering just the final 2000 RPM. It uses a range on either side of the peak HP.

_________________
Chris Streit
GTS4 Porsche #15
Spec Miata #115


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:07 pm
Posts: 156
Location: New Braunfels, Tx.
Agree with this proposal to extend the rpm range used to calculate average HP.

_________________
2003 MINI Cooper S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:03 am 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 964
Location: Naperville, IL
Guys:

The calculator uses the highest area under the curve in a 2500 RPM range, not just the top 2000 RPM. Here is a picture that shows that different shaped curves will use a different range, regardless of the peak location and redline.

Image

Does this change your proposal?

_________________
Chris Streit
GTS4 Porsche #15
Spec Miata #115


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:07 pm
Posts: 156
Location: New Braunfels, Tx.
That's not how the calculator https://gts.nasaseries.com/gts-class-calculator/ works. This one only uses a 1500 rpm range (4 data points) to determine "Power used:".

_________________
2003 MINI Cooper S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:49 am
Posts: 7
Location: Minneapolis
The primary question was should the range for the calculation be extended. If the range used is not the last 2,000 rpm okay, I stand can corrected. Same question about a broader range being used stands: I question if it will level the playing field further..?

_________________
E36 GTS2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 am 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:10 pm
Posts: 59
TXV007 wrote:

2. The reason behind the proposal.

I believe that a wider RPM calculation will further level the playing field across the various cars and motor builds, 3000 RPM? We have numerous corners where an exit speed results in RPM below the final 2,000 rpm range, and without cams, standalone...a normal tune is at a distinct disadvantage in that region of the RPM range and as such will build speed more slowly.



Is this an "engine tune/power" issue or a "gearing at certain tracks" issue? I run an embarassingly stock E36 M3 engine/tranny/diff in Rocky Mountain and have found some corners at some tracks I "may" be at a disadvantage but have found other corners at other tracks where I had the advantage.

I'm not sure how widening the rpm range is going to help solve this perceived issue. Maybe I'm missing something???


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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