In 2009 we introduced the use of a limit on torque produced on the dyno as a combination of HP and torque. This proved useful as it eliminated some crazy torque numbers that were being produced prior to the limit of TQ and an overall drop in the power output.
But as racers do, they evolve their cars around the rules, and this year we saw the trend of the lead cars towards dropping the HP being produced in favor of pumping up the TQ numbers and still come in under the total limit.

So in 2010 we want to tweak the power limits to curb these higher TQ numbers being produced to be more in line with a factory ratio between HP and TQ. The rule being considered for 2010 would be to keep the same HP/TQ combined limits, but further limit the TQ numbers so that TQ can only be 5% more then the actual HP being produced by the engine being tested. No change would be made to the HP limit.

[quote]Dave as a 944 Cup competitor I like your efforts to equalize the power of the cars, both in Hp and Tq.

comatb[quote]

Re: (Director) 5:40 PM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by Director »
I see the point being msde by Tim/Pat on example 3, because both numbers are so much lower then the limits, with the excpetion of the 5% rule, that when u give the old eyeball test, seems ok. But prior to setting a total HP and TQ limit I dont think I ever saw a number like that as car underproducing HP just showed up tired on the tq side. Wasnt til that we started seeing these types of numbers in example 3, and always from a built engine..
But, I dont think Tim has it right in his 2nd set of exmples beow per the proposed rule

" the following are all legal:

147.6 RWHP @ 140.4 FT-LBS and Combined = 144.0 Illegal as Hp over 144.0
140.3 RWHP @ 147.7 FT-LBS and Combined = 143.8 Illegal as 140.3+5%=147.3
144.0 RWHP @ 144.0 FT-LBS and Combined = 144.0 Legal

The following are illegal:

144.0 RWHP @ 136.7 FT-LBS and Combined = 140.4 (LEGAL -TQ NOT 5 OVER HP
137.1 RWHP @ 144.0 FT-LBS and Combined = 140.6 (ILLEGAL) Illegal as 137.1+5%=143.9
136.0 RWHP @ 129.1 FT-LBS and Combined = 132.6 (LEGAL) Legal
136.0 RWHP @ 142.9 FT-LBS and Combined = 139.5" (ILLEGAL - TQ 5%) Illegal as 136+5%=142.8


Thanks



My take on the numbers with the calculations for clarity.


Modified by comatb at 9:00 PM 11/5/2009




Director


Re: (Tim Pruitt) 3:55 PM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see the point being msde by Tim/Pat on example 3, because both numbers are so much lower then the limits, with the excpetion of the 5% rule, that when u give the old eyeball test, seems ok. But prior to setting a total HP and TQ limit I dont think I ever saw a number like that as car underproducing HP just showed up tired on the tq side. Wasnt til that we started seeing these types of numbers in example 3, and always from a built engine..
But, when I get back home on Monday, I can recheck the old dyno sheets to see for sure what we were getting prior to having a total limit.

Thanks






Tim Pruitt


Re: (944 #24) 1:13 PM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daves Son, That sounds like a tractor.
So per the proposed rule the following are all legal:

147.6 RWHP @ 140.4 FT-LBS and Combined = 144.0
140.3 RWHP @ 147.7 FT-LBS and Combined = 143.8
144.0 RWHP @ 144.0 FT-LBS and Combined = 144.0

The following are illegal:

144.0 RWHP @ 136.7 FT-LBS and Combined = 140.4
137.1 RWHP @ 144.0 FT-LBS and Combined = 140.6
136.0 RWHP @ 129.1 FT-LBS and Combined = 132.6
136.0 RWHP @ 142.9 FT-LBS and Combined = 139.5

My car is at 138.9 RWHP @ 141.3 FT-LBS so I have nothing to worry about unless I can miraculously find some more HP and/or Torque. I just want to make sure that everyone understands the performance envelope that is being proposed.

Keep up the good work.

BTW...I'm okay with the 5% HP/TORQUE rule.

Modified by Tim Pruitt at 3:14 PM 11/5/2009




944 #24


Re: (Tim Pruitt) 12:13 PM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by Tim Pruitt »
I think scenario 3 should NOT be illegal. The car has NOT reached the combined total of HP and Torque 288.


What if it was 120 HP and 159 TQ?




Pat Sheridan


11:37 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it possible that the
Example 3 car above has lower torque throughout the entire range than the
Example 2 car? If so, why would the Example 2 car be legal and the Example 3 car illegal?
It could mean the Example 3 car had the same (even slightly less) bottom end power than the Example 2
car, but did not also have the right airflow/exhaust/other to get power up high in the
rev range right?


If the intent is to keep the "shape" of the torque curve more like
factory, why not just draw up a graph with a max torque line and post it on the 44cup site? If you go above the curve at any point its a DQ?

Dave, from your years of seeing all the dyno charts i'm sure you have a gut, "I know it when I see it", feeling for what should be legal/illegal.
Lets put that to paper.

GTS needs a broader rule for hp/tq because they need to equalize lots of different engine types, configurations and manufacturers.

For Cup, we all have the same engine which in theory should all have the same curve. OK, maybe one curve for a 2.5 and one curve for a 2.7.

Super Cup has a greater variety of engines with fewer samples (dyno runs) of each type in the past, so it might not be possible/feasable for Super Cup.


Thoughts?





Racin44


11:19 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim, Dave's rule tweak would take away some of the need and incentive to do much mucking with the engine and still be able to be competitive. This saves costs, which is important to this and every series at this point. I like it.



Tim Pruitt


Re: (Director) 9:40 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think scenario 3 should NOT be illegal. The car has NOT reached the combined total of HP and Torque 288.





Director


Re: (comatb) 7:52 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our National Champion has it right. Thanks.



comatb


Re: (Tim Pruitt) 7:41 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim you are asking the right person.....Dave, but here is my opinion as I see it.
Example 1. is illegal as 144+151.2 totals 295.2 which is over the 288 max combined allowed.
Example 2. is perfect as long as it is 142.0 + 146.0 which totals 288, but 0.1 over on the Hp or Tq numbers would be illegal as they would total 288.1.
Example 3. Illegal as 135Hp + 5% = 141.75 max Tq allowed.



Tim Pruitt


Re: (Director) 5:33 AM 11/5/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave,
To clarify the rule:

It would be that MAX torque and MAX HP bust be within 5% of each other.

For conversation sake and examples:

1) My car is at MAX 144RWHP and MAX Torque of 151.2 FT-Lbs. My interpretation is: Torque and HP are within the 5% allowed but the Combined average of HP and T = 147.6 which means I need to tune a little more.
2) My car is at MAX 142RWHP and MAX Torque of 146 Ft-Lbs. I am within 5% and the average of HP and T = 144. That's perfect.
3) My car is at MAX 135RWHP and T=143 ft-lbs. I am well below the 144 combined total but but out of specification because my Torque is not within the 5% limit of the RWHP.

Correct?





Director


Re: (joecycles) 8:14 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by joecycles »
What is the "norm" for these engines? If you look at a spec chart on an 85.5 engine from the factory it produced 143 hp and 137.1 torque. ........The question I have is if people have engines with higher torque numbers then what are they doing to get the higher numbers (assuming that a stock rebuild will produce close to the above numbers)? Dave, I do like that you are tightening up the rule. It brings it closer to in-line in my opinion.


Joey:

For years we relied upon HP numbers only, and the TQ numbers were left open to any number achievable. Going back over many many Cup dyno run results from prior years, most cars had TQ numbers that were either a few under or a few over the HP numbers. The 2.7L engines seemed to run higher hp/tq numbers then the 2.5.

Then we started seeing dyno results with TQ numbers that were as many 10-12 points higher then the HP number. We later discovered that some of the high TQ numbers were coming from things like a stroker engine.

So at that point we deicided to put a cap on TQ numbers as part of a combined HP/TQ total, using the GTS series model for controlling power. This move helped narrow the power spread in class and eliminated the more egregious cases of power abuse. This year we then noticed in a few frt runners that the power numbers made an odd change where engines were sacrificing HP to be able to move up the TQ numbers. So with this proposal we are attempting to get back to a HP and TQ number ratio that is closer to what we consider to be normal, with some margin for error.




ferraridriver69


Re: HP/Torque Limits (Tim Pruitt) 4:41 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by Tim Pruitt »
I wish we had the opportunity to perform a test like Grassroots Motorsports magazine did with the spec miata cars.
Get three car/driver combos 1) Highly prepared and winning, 2) Mid-Pack and 3) Back of the Pack.

Have each driver drive each others cars, make any at track adjustments for driver preference (Shock settings, sway bar settings, etc.). Run three sesssions in each car and record lap times.

This could be very enlightning


Tim, I also agree with you on this but once again it boils down to the question if the any of the cars are running in a legal configuration and if they are who is to say that it will be the same for the upcoming race, bringing the whole conversation back to where it started. Still the subject of multiple maps has not been adressed and therfore such a test may not reveal anything.



comatb


Re: HP/Torque Limits (teamhardent) 3:41 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by teamhardent »
Tim, that's a great idea. We could organize something at a practice day prior to an event.

Can't way to try out Bill's car


Sorry but I'm so old and had so little time in my car this year that I need all the practice I can get. Besides I'm not sure you guys could handle ALL THAT POWER! I'll be glad to be one of the test drivers.... you can call me anytime.



teamhardent


Re: HP/Torque Limits (Tim Pruitt) 1:49 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by Tim Pruitt »
I wish we had the opportunity to perform a test like Grassroots Motorsports magazine did with the spec miata cars.
Get three car/driver combos 1) Highly prepared and winning, 2) Mid-Pack and 3) Back of the Pack.

Have each driver drive each others cars, make any at track adjustments for driver preference (Shock settings, sway bar settings, etc.). Run three sesssions in each car and record lap times.

This could be very enlightning


Tim, that's a great idea. We could organize something at a practice day prior to an event.

Can't way to try out Bill's car




joecycles


Re: (Racin44) 12:42 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the "norm" for these engines? If you look at a spec chart on an 85.5 engine from the factory it produced 143 hp and 137.1 torque. (For sake of argument purposes my car dyno'd at 138 hp and 135 tq.). I got the spec from the Pelican Parts website (FYI).
This sounds like the natural readings from the factory in 1985. The question I have is if people have engines with higher torque numbers then what are they doing to get the higher numbers (assuming that a stock rebuild will produce close to the above numbers)? I am not trying to instigate a riot here, but if the tq numbers are that much higher then I must believe people are getting purpose built engines.

If this is wrong please correct me. I am insurance agent not an engine builder. I ask this as I am not made of money, I do not have open dyno time and I don't have an endless crew of people to help me make my car perform that much better.


Dave, I do like that you are tightening up the rule. It brings it closer to in-line in my opinion.





Racin44


12:10 PM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAR951, in theory the change that Dave is talking about would make it easier to be in compliance and be competitive WITHOUT spending more money. He's trying to cap those that are tweaking the engines AWAY from their natural power/torque curves. I like this proposal.



Tim Pruitt


Re: HP/Torque Limits (DAR951) 11:25 AM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish we had the opportunity to perform a test like Grassroots Motorsports magazine did with the spec miata cars.
Get three car/driver combos 1) Highly prepared and winning, 2) Mid-Pack and 3) Back of the Pack.

Have each driver drive each others cars, make any at track adjustments for driver preference (Shock settings, sway bar settings, etc.). Run three sesssions in each car and record lap times.

This could be very enlightning




DAR951


Re: HP/Torque Limits (comatb) 10:48 AM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote, originally posted by comatb »
Dave as a 944 Cup competitor I like your efforts to equalize the power of the cars, both in Hp and Tq.

Got it. I'm done.




Tim Pruitt


Re: HP/Torque Limits (comatb) 9:56 AM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I applaud any opportunity to level the playing field. Hopefully, we will find the answer. But please hurry, because I am working now to get my car ready for 2010. If there any potential changes please put them on the table ASAP.
I just want an opportunity to arrive at a gun fight with a pellet gun instead of a pocket knife.

Thanks for all the hard work,

Tim Pruitt





comatb


Re: HP/Torque Limits (Director) 9:41 AM 11/4/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave as a 944 Cup competitor I like your efforts to equalize the power of the cars, both in Hp and Tq.







ZeroForum ©2008 RelyNet, Inc.

Dave,

Has the HP/Torque rule been cast in stone for 2010 yet?

TP