Video killed the radio star

[Sook]

Easy, convert all the cars to electric and issue batteries at the race.

- Josh

[Fbody383]

Easy, put all the PCM's in a box and issue at the race.

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.

[Supercharged111]

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.

[Al Fernandez]

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.

[RichardP]

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.

[Casey_SS]

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...

[ShadowBolt]

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

[t500hps]

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!