Rules for 2013

[iamrazor]

I'll toss this idea out there...

Since the "new rules team (for lack of a better term)" has asked for member input, perhaps there could be a few threads created to discuss certain topics with more granularity? This would keep each thread more focused to the topic at hand. I know trying to navigate 16+ pages of rules discussion can be difficult.


$.02 deposited

[StephanAlfa]

I tried to read all 16 pages ... wow! interesting site! I don’t think this "rules" link has ever been so discussed!

I commend the guys who put this list together, nicely done.
This rating is similar to my Alfa club when having competition events except it does not "punish" you with much of the "fit and form". If you add a roll cage and put competition seats (all encouraged in a stock class) you could get bumped in class (in the case of the Alfa club).
Of course there are holes, see 16 pages of write up from various members and the feedback is overwhelming...

A couple of points I have:
1) WHAT?!?! NO ALFAS LISTED? Hummmm.... . Yes I don’t have an Alfa right now but the 4C will be launched at the Detroit Auto Salon .. and we do have members who have Alfas (Milano, Spider, etc. .. of course excluding those fake Alfas aka Mia_ _...)
2) I currently drive the 2001 BMW 330i. I just did an assessment using the spreadsheet and had to use "BMW 330i 2006 model because there was no other year to choose from. So I am guessing the HP is bigger for that year model compared to mine (225 vs. 255) will make a difference. Using the 2006 model this puts me at T-60 = ST-4 (old class) where everything on my car is "bone stock". I tried other combinations to come closer to HP rating but the other BMW models had features (performance) that were not equal to my model car. Interesting .. and very challenging class! If this is true, then it wil leave me "room" to hopefully either tweak the car (suspension: Urethane bushings all around) and maybe a intake/exhaust thingy that will still a) keep my car "stock as a daily driver and b) make it to the top of the T-60 ranking? Or will the list be properly adjusted so that I can get the true T ratings using actuall specs from the year of the car?

Bottom line: a wider list of vehicles needs to be added in order to accommodate everyone's roster. Wonder if we can start at least by the list of vehicles all COM members have currently as this will satisfy - say - 95% of the "fit" in the spreadsheet and deal with the exceptions as we progress.

[zchris]

I have no dog in this fight as I have not run with COM since the early 90's. But I have seen in other clubs, when you have sweeping rules changes, you will disenfranchise some poeple. And they will leave the club. If you leave the rules alone, nobody leaves. So you have to ask youself if these self serving changes are being made for the betterment of the club, or to quell your own boredom. I see this happening all the time in the SCCA. Poeple fixing problems that didn't exist except in there own minds. And every time the club membership shrinks.
Chris

[n1gzd]

A few small comments from a supporter of this rule.
I have three cars that would benefit from this rule change.

1) My 2003 Saab Vector which is currently classed SPB would not have any chance of being competitive with the current system but the it would be in a much slower class with the proposed system.
2) My 1995 Miata which is currently in ST4 will be more competitive in T50 (or possibly T40 because it is almost there) now that it does not have to compete with the T60 cars.
3) My MG Midget which would currently be PC could not be competitive in that class. In the new system it would be a T40 (starting with a negative assessment number).

so from my perspective, every car that I might drive would benefit from the proposed classification system.

I am sure that everybody will look at there points and decide if they need to tweak their car to better position themselves (something that people do with the current system). However, there are now more choices for what to tweak.

Rebecca

[Chrispy]

Since the "new rules team (for lack of a better term)" has asked for member input, perhaps there could be a few threads created to discuss certain topics with more granularity? This would keep each thread more focused to the topic at hand. I know trying to navigate 16+ pages of rules discussion can be difficult.

That's a good idea. If anyone has a specific rule topic they want to debate, feel free to start a new thread. Just title it "Rules for 2013 - xxx" so it stands out.

[Chrispy]

Bottom line: a wider list of vehicles needs to be added in order to accommodate everyone's roster. Wonder if we can start at least by the list of vehicles all COM members have currently as this will satisfy - say - 95% of the "fit" in the spreadsheet and deal with the exceptions as we progress.

The list of vehicles is incomplete, since it was largely borrowed from elsewhere and corrected as needed. Most of the time you should find a vehicle that is close (same production series), and if necessary you can correct the weight, HP and torque numbers in the sheet (using manufacturer specifications) to get an accurate base class and base points. This only works if there is something there already from the same production series since different series may have different suspension setups and thus a different handling index.

[blindsidefive0]

I tried to read all 16 pages ... wow! interesting site! I don’t think this "rules" link has ever been so discussed!

I commend the guys who put this list together, nicely done.
This rating is similar to my Alfa club when having competition events except it does not "punish" you with much of the "fit and form". If you add a roll cage and put competition seats (all encouraged in a stock class) you could get bumped in class (in the case of the Alfa club).
Of course there are holes, see 16 pages of write up from various members and the feedback is overwhelming...

A couple of points I have:
1) WHAT?!?! NO ALFAS LISTED? Hummmm.... . Yes I don’t have an Alfa right now but the 4C will be launched at the Detroit Auto Salon .. and we do have members who have Alfas (Milano, Spider, etc. .. of course excluding those fake Alfas aka Mia_ _...)
2) I currently drive the 2001 BMW 330i. I just did an assessment using the spreadsheet and had to use "BMW 330i 2006 model because there was no other year to choose from. So I am guessing the HP is bigger for that year model compared to mine (225 vs. 255) will make a difference. Using the 2006 model this puts me at T-60 = ST-4 (old class) where everything on my car is "bone stock". I tried other combinations to come closer to HP rating but the other BMW models had features (performance) that were not equal to my model car. Interesting .. and very challenging class! If this is true, then it wil leave me "room" to hopefully either tweak the car (suspension: Urethane bushings all around) and maybe a intake/exhaust thingy that will still a) keep my car "stock as a daily driver and b) make it to the top of the T-60 ranking? Or will the list be properly adjusted so that I can get the true T ratings using actuall specs from the year of the car?

Bottom line: a wider list of vehicles needs to be added in order to accommodate everyone's roster. Wonder if we can start at least by the list of vehicles all COM members have currently as this will satisfy - say - 95% of the "fit" in the spreadsheet and deal with the exceptions as we progress.

Hi Stephan - thanks for the read and the feedback. We tried to capture as many COMSCC cars as possible - I actually went through the last 5 years of time trial results when putting the list together; there's probably about a dozen or so different models or years that are off or missing...but that's why we're working on version 1.1. For your car, I would suggest choosing the 330ci instead of the e90 330i; this is almost identical to the sedan, except for maybe weight. The sedan and the Ci model (non ZHP) will have the same performance adjuster, so go ahead and overwrite the weight, HP, and TQ as 3318, 225, and 214, respectively. You should then get a total base class of 53 points. This means you have another 7 points to use on tires and other mods, and still stay in T60 (with all the Miatas and such), or add 17 points and run with a plethora of cars in T70 (where I'll be).

If you have a couple Alfa's that you would like to have added, let me know, and please link to the specs (some of these aren't easy to find). However, in general I would ask that these submission be limited to cars that folks actually plan on running...it takes time to add cars and make tweaks to the rules.

[brucesallen]

Bruce and Alex, we're getting this thread pretty off topic.

Here's the answer that should keep everyone happy.

Yes, the torque multiplier changes the effective torque at the wheels but the measurement on the dyno drum is always constant since it is divided by velocity. It is neither crankshaft torque or wheel torque, but rather is wheel torque multiplied by gear ratios which effectively gives you crank torque but with all drive-train losses taken into account.

The bottom line is the dyno works in essentially any gear, and if run in shootout mode should be highly comparable to other dyno's of the same make, and with a known drive-train/dyno loss estimate calculating true crank hp/torque within a few percentage points should be possible.

Please lets leave it at that and move back to discussion on actual proposed rules related subject content. Let's please only discuss dyno's again as they relate to rules class calculation.

Thanks!

This is NOT off topic. The rules specify the use of manufacturer/crankshaft horsepower and torque for Touring classes and dyno horsepower and torque for Super classes. I disagree and believe crankshaft results should be used for both (even if calculated) to allow ease of transition between Touring and Super classes. So we need to understand what the dyno results mean and how to perform a mathematical conversion to crank torque and horsepower. I have yet to hear anyone reveal (except my guess) how the dyno torque numbers are calculated.

[Brendan]

This is NOT off topic. The rules specify the use of manufacturer/crankshaft horsepower and torque for Touring classes and dyno horsepower and torque for Super classes. I disagree and believe crankshaft results should be used for both (even if calculated) to allow ease of transition between Touring and Super classes. So we need to understand what the dyno results mean and how to perform a mathematical conversion to crank torque and horsepower. I have yet to hear anyone reveal (except my guess) how the dyno torque numbers are calculated.

I think Bruce is right here. I realize the rules are not final, but this needs to be nailed down. Dyno readings for certain dynos can be manipulated. Different brands of dynos will read vastly different for the same car and tune. Hell, even the same dyno will read different on different days for the same car (Even though that may be the car adjusting itself for the conditions). And, if you're comparing manufacturer advertised claims, that's from an engine dyno in controlled conditions, so some cars will still be over/underdogs based on how the manufacturers report and if they're under or overstating.

I realize that there is no way to get this perfect, but the rules should be explicit to what brand of dyno, what mode it is run in, and crank vs wheel etc. And it'd probably be helpful to have some experience what totally stock cars run on the brand of dyno chosen to get an accurate read on actual drivetrain losses as opposed to arbitrarily picking 15% or 20%.

[Chrispy]

This is NOT off topic. The rules specify the use of manufacturer/crankshaft horsepower and torque for Touring classes and dyno horsepower and torque for Super classes. I disagree and believe crankshaft results should be used for both (even if calculated) to allow ease of transition between Touring and Super classes. So we need to understand what the dyno results mean and how to perform a mathematical conversion to crank torque and horsepower. I have yet to hear anyone reveal (except my guess) how the dyno torque numbers are calculated.

That part is not off topic.

Dyno results are effectively crank power minus drivetrain loss and dyno manufacturer variance. Known dyno's can use a fixed multiplier to calculate crank power. Right now we are assuming 15% for all RWD results and 20% for all AWD vehicles, obviously that isn't perfect since there is a large variance between a Dynojet and a Dynodynamics. Dynojet reads roughly crank minus 13% and a Dynodyamics closer to crank minus 20% for a RWD car. The part that is known is that the dyno gives results that directly correlate to crank power, the part that is unknown is by exactly what percentage, and whether the results should be corrected for atmospheric conditions.

So here is your conversion formula:

Generic for either HP or torque
Crank power = wheel power * 1.15

The specific multiplier needs to be determined by dyno brand and configuration/calibration as indicated above.

The Super page doesn't necessarily need to use the same formulas as the touring page since they aren't being directly compared to touring results, however it would be fair to consider a dyno correction factor.

[Chrispy]

Dyno thread created, please continue dyno discussion there.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4047

[agrabau]

BA- "I have yet to hear anyone reveal (except my guess) how the dyno torque numbers are calculated."

Bruce I told you in the middle of pg. 16 on this thread how the dyno torque numbers are calculated. (load cell) You emailed me to ask me to respond to these threads so I came on the forum and responded. Why would you bother getting me over here if you weren't going to take 2 seconds to read my reply? very frustrating

[Grippy]

In the base assesments for any car, is there any consideration for "electronic nannies" ie. traction control, stability control, launch control etc. or is it just based on power/weight and suspension design? it seems that newer cars with all the gizmos have a huge advantage, especially in the rain. It seems there should be points added for every acronym your car has.

[Chrispy]

In the base assesments for any car, is there any consideration for "electronic nannies" ie. traction control, stability control, launch control etc. or is it just based on power/weight and suspension design? it seems that newer cars with all the gizmos have a huge advantage, especially in the rain. It seems there should be points added for every acronym your car has.

Gordon this is accounted for in the handling assessment (as one of the factors), and so gets added on to the base point assessment. You'll notice in the list that the Nissan GT-R gets the highest handling assessment mostly because it's computer magic allows it to do things that defy it's power to weight ratio. Most other cars like mine have a form of rudimentary traction control, but is completely unusable wet or dry for anything but street driving and so is always disabled. Some vehicles like the Corvette have a competition mode that is usable, but has to be turned off to extract the most out of the vehicle at least in the dry but might be usable in the wet.

[Resolution78]

most the guys that track there boss 302's also turn everything off...... that is the more experienced drivers who can actually drive dog snot out of these things.....maybe ill get there after a year or 2 of practice