Quote Originally Posted by Casey_SS View Post
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.

JJ