Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

[Dave Barker]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Yes, I need a proof reader. Lets start at 1:30 (apparently we have the room from 1 PM on)

[Dave Barker]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Another topic which has been brought up for discussion:

It seems some OEMs now have ECUs smart enough to run on high octane race gas and to get some performance improvement from the use of this gas. In the past we have allowed the use of race gas as it was assumed that cars that would actually benefit are already taking a lot of engine PIPs. Now it seems that cars can be rated at the factory with street gas but perform better on race gas.
There are a number of solutions to this issue which deserve some significant discussion. We would be happy to hear from anyone with reliable information.

[10gt61]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Not sure how you can say the track is unsafe? If you are referring to the incident that happened to Rob McCauley a few years ago, that was a dumb track configuration that should never have been setup that way...

Grant, Although I also enjoyed Grand Bend, we learned through experience that there were safety issues. That weekend, there were competitor's concerns over the anti-clockwise configuration, that would have had a vehicle that lost brakes at the end of the airstrip straight, crash into a concrete barrier. Not good. We ran a clockwise configuration and unfortunately Rob's no brakes incident occurred.

I would suggest the moral of the story is:

1. Consider the track you are going to run carefully, and,
2. Be vigilant in checking your car, especially the brakes!

[craig]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Another topic which has been brought up for discussion:

It seems some OEMs now have ECUs smart enough to run on high octane race gas and to get some performance improvement from the use of this gas. In the past we have allowed the use of race gas as it was assumed that cars that would actually benefit are already taking a lot of engine PIPs. Now it seems that cars can be rated at the factory with street gas but perform better on race gas.
There are a number of solutions to this issue which deserve some significant discussion. We would be happy to hear from anyone with reliable information.

I think that makes more sense than looking at changing the Type R's HP rating (IMO essentially) because its ECU can adapt to different fuels - as Honda isn't the only one using an ECU from the Bosch torque-based Motronic family.

Unfortunately, it might well be a difficult rule to enforce. OTOH, there is that optimization principle - if gas is a free 'mod,' then competitors who could benefit, should be.

[Grant Galloway]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Can I run Ethanol Race Fuel without pips?

If so I will order a drum..

[Dave Barker]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

I think the issue we have is that HP is rated on street gas but if cars can gain power by running race gas, how do we classify them? As Craig has mentioned, given that we don't look at the type of fuel that people use, this may just be optimization. So do we rate the HP on the basis of race gas or street gas?

Banning the use of race gas is not fair to those with highly modified engines but nor is it fair to classify a car based on race gas power if most drivers want to compete on regular street gas.

There are at least a couple of possible solutions but would be happy to hear of more.

1) make race gas an authorized mod only for cars with more than a certain number of engine PIPs ( my guestimate to be at least 5 but that is strictly a guess)

2) make the use of race gas require the modification to ECU PIPs i.e 2 PIPs for naturally aspirated cars and 3 PIPs for forced induction. I think most cars running race gas are already taking these PIPs but the new manufacturers are getting smarter and the required ECU adaptability is written in at the factory.

[craig]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

A couple ideas - I ran with both organizations last year.

SCCA - http://www.sccahq.com/time-trials-rules/
There are four preparation categories (not classes) in SCCA Time Trials; the two lowest categories use this rule, and the next highest category uses the same rule except E85 is allowed. Fuel is unrestricted for the top class.

08. Fuel

Sport Category vehicles will use fuel which is “Federally approved for use on public highways.” This does not allow racing-type fuels which are available at service station pumps.

Fuels comprised of more than 15% ethanol may only be used when specified by the manufacturer (e.g., in the owner’s manual for flex-fuel vehicles).

Propane or CNG (compressed natural gas) fuel may be used in any category provided that the following conditions are met:
The tank must be located in a safe location on the car and be firmly and securely mounted. This does not permit the cutting of vehicle sheet metal (e.g., the trunk floor) for tank installation.
The tank must conform to Federal and local container standards and have an emergency relief/cut-off control.
For use of propane or CNG as a fuel, no changes to the induction system of the engine may be made with the exception of the necessary fuel lines to the carburetor or fuel injection. There may also be no other engine parts changed.
The entire system must meet local ordinances covering the use and transmission of compressed gas.
Propane or CNG may not be used in combination with another fuel.

GridLife - http://www.grid.life/trackbattle-time-attack-rules/
Five preparation categories (not classes).
Bottom category: only pump gasoline. No alternative fuels like E85
Next two categories: any leaded or unleaded gas; and E85 okay
Top two categories: anything, including Methanol.


In both SCCA and GridLife, stock ECU programming mods are allowed even in the lowest class, hence the strictures about E85 - which seems to be the favourite fuel for tuned turbo cars (except the Type R, as the direct-injection high-pressure fuel pump can't flow high enough for E85).

[Elliot]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Grant, Although I also enjoyed Grand Bend, we learned through experience that there were safety issues. That weekend, there were competitor's concerns over the anti-clockwise configuration, that would have had a vehicle that lost brakes at the end of the airstrip straight, crash into a concrete barrier. Not good. We ran a clockwise configuration and unfortunately Rob's no brakes incident occurred.

I would suggest the moral of the story is:

1. Consider the track you are going to run carefully, and,
2. Be vigilant in checking your car, especially the brakes!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe Grand Bend Raceway has an excellent safety record when the Technical Circuit, Mod Circuit and Screaming Alien Circuits are used as they were designed, to be run Clockwise. As you suggest “Consider the Track you are going to run carefully”, which I would suggest to run the track as it is designed. The Clockwise Rob’s no Brake incident was on a modified version of the Technical Circuit which replaced Turn 1 and Turn 2 with a straight which resulted in a long straight headed towards the back of the Drag Strip grandstands. To put blame on the Track seems wrong, I believe the people who decided to change the layout should also take responsibility for the change in safety.

I would love to see OTA Time Attack return to Grand Bend Raceway. Obviously it is up to the committee to decide considering many things, but to say a Track is not safe based on past decisions to change the design of the layout is I believe, a little unfair to a facility.

I’m anxious to see the 2019 Schedule.

[Slowpoke]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

1:30pm to 4:30pm. Then the banquet at 6pm. I have 15 power cards to help keep people entertained between events.

[Dave Barker]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Any idea of the average lap times on the various tracks at Grand Bend? I do remember running the Mod circuit and is was pretty short. At least at Shannonville we have no shortage of track and I think Grand Bend would be similar to running just the Fabi or Nelson tracks which we gave up a long time ago.


BTW, is Dunnville still in use?

[Elliot]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Here are an example of Lap Times based on the same driver with the same car (991 GT3) during June - July 2015 - all run clockwise:
Grand Bend Raceway’s Technical Circuit - 69.97
Grand Bend Raceway’s Screaming Alien Circuit - 67.35
Grand Bend Raceway’s Modified Circuit - 54.80

[Dave Barker]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

You were happy with the concrete barriers in the runoff area at the end of the main straight or have they been moved?

We had felt it was only appropriate to run the track(s) clockwise.

[Grant Galloway]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Dave, The track is meant to be run in the clockwise direction.. Just like every other track we run on..

Have we ever run DDT or TMP Counter Clockwise??

The Technical Layout, Screaming Alien and the Modified Layout are all meant to run clockwise.. There is absolutely no issue with safety when run in this direction.

The issue with Rob going off was due to running a modified version of the technical track as John mentioned above.

I would rate Grand Bend as the safest track I have been on, in fact run off areas are more abundant and safer than any place else..

ie: Giant Mountain end of TMP Straight, Bumps at shannonville when you go off and guard rails at DDT with no run off areas if you miss your braking zone.

I have spun more at Grand Bend than any other track, without incident..

Grant

[Elliot]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

You were happy with the concrete barriers in the runoff area at the end of the main straight or have they been moved?

We had felt it was only appropriate to run the track(s) clockwise.

There are no concrete barriers in the runoff area at the end of the main straight, never have been. Yes, the only appropriate way to run the Tracks is Clockwise.

Bottom line Grand Bend Raceway offers three Circuits that would be safe and appropriate. Thanks for considering a return to Grand Bend Raceway.

[jimmo-san]

Re: Competitors' meeting Nov 3, Topics for Discussion

Something I thought for a few years now that would be good for OTA competitors to have would be a reporting of the financial results from each season.

For the accounting nerds among us, an Income Statement showing revenues (cash from event fees) and expenditures (track rentals, marshal fees, insurance, track rescue, EMS personnel, etc.) would help us all understand how well OTA is performing, financially speaking. We all have a vested interest in the success of OTA. Financial results are a big part of that, I assume.

Better yet would be a breakdown of the financial results by event, so that we can understand which events make money and which events break even or lose money. (Financial results from 2015 might help us all understand why an event at Calabogie is not being considered for the near future. ) If GBR is financially risky, we'd like to know that too.

I can understand why there might be some reluctance to make this information available. There might be some concern that there would be nit-picking over some expenditures here and there. We could all promise not to nit-pick.

This info could be made available on a password-protected site, possibly the same one as the PIP schedule site, if that goes ahead. Or presented verbally at some point. (If this is already done, please pardon my ignorance.)