Printable View
Ok...so we know that modern cars ridiculously easy to tune. What do we do about it? How do we go about ensuring drivers are actually in a fair dogfight? Personally, I feel the very fabric of amateur racing is at stake and I know people much much smarter than I in this very group can come up with ideas and suggestions for NASA on this issue. So...thoughts?
For CMC it's easy, NASA keeps in inventory factory tune LT1, TPI, LS1, and 5.0 ECUs that will run any legal CMC car on grid. We're talking about maybe $1k in investment MAX.
The hard part is the 4.6 ECU since the allowance for tuning out emissions allows for removal of certain sensors/wires which would cause a stock tune ECM to not run right (Kevin can clarify), so maybe buy two and tune out emissions on one?
Once you have the ability to completely change the ECU, at that point you are inspecting for physical defeats like wiring anomalies and disconnected or fake resistor sensors.
Bryan and I have had this discussion, and it remains to be determined if the factory knock strategy on LS1s and possibly even LT1s are holding us back vs the 5.0 cars. We can dyno all we want and produce the right number, but rattling around on track there's no telling if we are getting knock and pull back on timing unless once one of us starts collecting some real data off the OBD. I know the street/tuner route is to tune out the knock sensors entirely.
For AI, no clue, yet another reason why I won't jump in that $$$ box anytime soon. Once you have an ECU that can detect wheel speed you can go full volkswagen if you want.
Easy, convert all the cars to electric and issue batteries at the race.
- Josh
For a 4.6 the PATS stuff would have to be tuned out since the ECU is tied to the car. You also need an ECU for a 96-97, 98, and 99+, as they are all different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranav
Not sure it’s that simple. The stock tune for ‘99 ls1 is different than for a ‘02 for example. You’d have to have tunes that worked for every year engine and any legal combination of parts and sensors. Then you’d have to verify that no sensors have been jacked with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranav
Al,Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fernandez
Did you see something in CMC at nationals that makes you think we have an issue in CMC? Maybe more random hood/OBD port sealing would provide the answer but I don't see that anyone in CMC in our area that looks to have more power than the next guy. At COTA two years ago before my engine went down on power BL (the 24) and I went lap after lap down the long straight with my car only making 246/292 and BL making very close to the CMC numbers (I can't remember exactly) and until I had to shift into fifth we were almost dead even. I personally do not believe anyone in our group is winning or out running the 55 because they are making more than 260/310. We get beat by better drivers that spend more time at the track and on the car than we do. I understand the AI issue from last weekend and if someone want to cheat they will find a way. What am I missing? Are there CMC guys thinking they are getting beat by cars with over the limit power? Maybe random dyno pulls and if a guy bust the numbers he is gone for the season?
Jerry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fernandez
It's a bit frustrating when this is listed as an issue because of modern technology. There have always been workarounds. I gave a list of potential cheats I came up with for each platform and the ways to catch them to the directors way back when (Todd and Adam in charge). I never saw anyone check anything, even when we did do periodic dyno checks which we almost never do anymore.
An example of old school for pushrod 5.0: Set up the engine so it makes legal hp with the spout connector out. It will make enough more power with it in that you will have a real advantage but not enough that it would be hugely obvious. Removing the spout connector just breaks a wire. Just break that wire somewhere else with a switch (tied into your helmet blower or something else not obvious). Trivial to find this cheat if you use a timing light. Really hard, if you don't...
Richard P.
Al-can you grab me a bud light while Craig and John get the fire ready?
Wish I could have been next to Patterson when he heard of the engine mapping switch.
I know guys with the 4.6 and LS1 run different size injectors but don't believe it's an issue with the LS at our power levels.
What is different in the tune between 99 and 02 for the LS? Yes, the 98 is different as it runs a totally different computer.
You could require everyone send their computer to one tuner to have the tune checked and locked possibly? Could limit being able to run a "tuned" computer but people could still try and fool the computer by using wiring/diodes to make it see something different.
We have a pile of 94-94, and 96-97 PCMs. Our plan is to stay LT1 and OBD1. I plan to pick up TunerCat relatively soon so we can address our own legal changes - VATS, EGR, AUTO vs. Manual, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sook
We as regional directors would require a plethora of gear to track this sort of thing. I could police the OBDII GM stuff with what I have for my personal vehicles, but that's it. I don't have a good all-encompassing answer here, and the answer isn't as simple as just opening up full tuning on the computers, because you can still employ cheater tactics to alter fuel or timing on the fly. Just be glad we're all on cable throttle motors, the level that you can cheat with throttle by wire is downright evil.
Actually, CMC is not what I'm worried about given my experience at Champs this year, for several reasons. One, the top five cars in CMC were nose to tail for both races. Second, the AIM data showed really similar accel rates for all these cars, and that tied in well with the dyno and weight numbers. Third, the computers on the aftermarket accessories are not as slick as the more modern stuff, meaning changing settings between track session and dyno session is a lot harder. Maybe there's no difference and I'm just looking at the older cars with rose colored glasses.
Yes, if you want to cheat you can, and you will likely get away with it for a long time. That's been true since the beginning of motorsport. That doesn't mean the best course of action is to stick our head in the sand. However, this is still amateur racing, which means the focus has to be on the fun and not on validating compliance so solutions have to be simple.
Yes, that's true. It's always interesting how people get caught. The funniest story I've heard is back from when computer controlled cars were still pretty new. In order to check the computer, you had to remove it from the car and stick it in some machine. They checked a computer, found it good, and said the guy was clear to go. He started up the car and drove away. The computer they checked was still in the machine. The computer and harness in the factory position wasn't the one controlling the car. I pointed this out several years ago at nationals when they were sealing up everyone's OBD2 connectors. Are you sure that's the only OBD2 connector in the car?Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fernandez
I was reminded on this again last week when I removed the computer from my racecar. It still has the remnants of the anti-tamper tape that Todd Covini put on it. It's a bit sad because 1) the tape missed the main connector he was trying to make sure I couldn't remove, and 2) that connector he missed isn't the port that you use to tune that computer. Oh well, it looked really official. It's still better than when he put that anti-tamper tape over my hood pin to seal it. That crap pulled the paint right off my hood when we got to the dyno...
Richard P.
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet but the main difficulty here stems from trying to measure performance off the track and all the resulting "opportunities" that creates for cheating. If we could focus that same time, energy, and money on measuring actual on-track performance during the race you'd render most of the classic cheat methods irrelevant. The most obvious way to do that is standardize on a data system with enough resolution to accurately compare longitudinal and lateral g forces against a known baseline for each class. I think we've already standardized on AIM, I just don't know if it has a high enough resolution to become the primary factor in a DQ decision. Anyhow, once the right data logger is chosen, make a series rule requiring a NASA official to secure a NASA-owned data logger in the top 3 qualifying cars prior to each race. Maybe for bigger races like Nationals, Summer shootout, etc. make it the top 5 qualifying cars. Sure, it introduces a new set of problems to solve but it also does away with a ton of old problems we'll never be able to solve. As for the cost, if the data approach became refined enough to no longer require dynos it would more than pay for itself at that point. What's the combined spend (NASA + competitors) for dyno services at Nationals alone? Most competitors would likely contribute at least a portion of their annual dyno budget towards a data solution that replaced dyno requirements...
Great stuff Casey. Did the AIM (or whatever) puck not work well enough years ago when they were putting them on cars? Then the dyno could be used as a tool for the car owner to check the health of the engine instead of compliance only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey_SS
JJ
The big benefit of the data acquisition stuff is to look for comparisons between different cars on the track at the same time to find outliers that should be investigated further. It can't really be used for compliance like a dyno that applies corrections for atmospheric conditions. You can't set a maximum compliance acceleration number that can't be exceeded, for example. Cars are going to perform differently in different conditions. There is also uphill, downhill, headwind, tailwind, draft, etc. We don't want to get in a position where people are saying wow, the conditions are crap, I bet I could get away with a bigger restrictor without popping my max number. Or: Oh, crap! A front blew in during the race and half the field was disqualified!
Richard P.
I like the idea but am technology challenged so I have no idea how it would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey_SS
......I just wanted to add on your dyno/cost comment. Mid Atlantic has a dyno at EVERY EVENT. I don't know what NASA pays when we are sent but we pay $75 for 3 test pulls. I often podium and the last 3 years I've been sent to compliance dyno over a dozen times (and voluntarily put my car on it 4-5 times to test before the weekend started). Several months ago I had a 261 avg on Friday (plenty of weight) but had a 269 avg after Sat qualifying. CRAP!
I don't know if it'd be grounds for DQ, but you could seal some hoods. It may may be a little painful at first, but then again if the entire field appears to have picked up a head of steam shouldn't the likely conclusion be an environmental change?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardP
We've used GPS devices to compare cars and test rules for balance over the years. We're actually on the third generation of such devices with the AIM Solo2. Before that, NASA had Traqmate boxes, and before that we had these little pager shaped gizmos which we'd mount with these rubber boots that had magnets. I remember I had about twice as many of the boots as actual devices and I'd mount the empty boots on cars anyway lol.
I've not had a chance to play with the Solo2 but according to the AIM guys, the technology has matured such that they are far more accurate than before. Richard's statements still hold true, however. You cant use GPS to compare to dyno numbers since the GPS data is affected by ambient conditions, aero drag, rolling resistance, road inclination... That said, you certainly can use it to measure relative power across cars during the same session, spot a difference, and then go hunting for a reason on the car. That is exactly what happened in AI at Champs this year.