Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Video killed the radio star

  1. #11
    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.
    Al Fernandez

  2. #12
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby RichardP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Friendswood, TX
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Fernandez View Post
    Yes, if you want to cheat you can,
    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?

    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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Casey_SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    402
    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...
    2012 NASA-TX American Iron Champ
    AI #29

  4. #14
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby ShadowBolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Georgetown, TEXAS
    Posts
    4,268
    Blog Entries
    2
    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

  5. #15
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby RichardP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Friendswood, TX
    Posts
    1,198
    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.

  6. #16
    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...
    I like the idea but am technology challenged so I have no idea how it would work.

    ......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!

  7. #17
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby Supercharged111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardP View Post
    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 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?
    RM CMC Director

  8. #18
    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.
    Al Fernandez

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •