Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engine Mapping for Different Tracks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine Mapping for Different Tracks

    Any thoughts on how this should be addressed moving forward? Should all maps be required to be dyno'ed at the start of the year; should they have to be dyno'ed before any given event?

    I know that I will eventually move to a system that accomodates this, as will a number of the other water-cooled guys, so it's probably something we should get in the GCR's.

    To be clear, I do think it should be allowed, but it should also be policed (IMHO)
    Jack Ehrman
    #312 (Dark Gray Carrera w/ Orange Trim)
    JP/R6

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mehoff View Post
    Any thoughts on how this should be addressed moving forward? Should all maps be required to be dyno'ed at the start of the year; should they have to be dyno'ed before any given event?

    I know that I will eventually move to a system that accomodates this, as will a number of the other water-cooled guys, so it's probably something we should get in the GCR's.

    To be clear, I do think it should be allowed, but it should also be policed (IMHO)
    Jack,

    Just a reminder to formally submit all suggested changes to steverparker@aol.com Thanks.
    BSR #9 (Formally #321)

    Comment


    • #3
      Seems tike the question is more about how a rule might be implemented rather that proposing a specific new rule... My guess it that it's implementation would be determined by the class. Any class that allows chips or re-mapping but does not have a HP cap would be open. Re flash as many times as you like. It would be pretty hard to police I'd imagine. Any class that has a HP cap (or a HP specific number needed for a calculation like the GT classes) would need a GT classification form and dyno sheets for each individual map showing that it is in compliance. That new form and sheets would have to be declared and presented each time there is a change from the previous map. As long as each combo still keeps a competitor within the same class I would think that it should technically be legal.... I would also assume that there will be a lot more protests and dyno checks which will be complicated for all competitors. So my question is: Is there anybody that is already doing this?
      -jay

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by topley View Post
        Seems tike the question is more about how a rule might be implemented rather that proposing a specific new rule... My guess it that it's implementation would be determined by the class. Any class that allows chips or re-mapping but does not have a HP cap would be open. Re flash as many times as you like. It would be pretty hard to police I'd imagine. Any class that has a HP cap (or a HP specific number needed for a calculation like the GT classes) would need a GT classification form and dyno sheets for each individual map showing that it is in compliance. That new form and sheets would have to be declared and presented each time there is a change from the previous map. As long as each combo still keeps a competitor within the same class I would think that it should technically be legal.... I would also assume that there will be a lot more protests and dyno checks which will be complicated for all competitors. So my question is: Is there anybody that is already doing this?
        -jay
        This is how the rule is currently policed. Any time a change is made to the ECU program a new dyno sheet and Appendix D must be declared/approved prior to the event.

        Yes, there are folks that make frequent changes. One GT class car, specifically, changes his RWHP and weight (and completes a new D) for nearly every event. If he were protested he would need to be in compliance with declared RWHP (within 2%) and not just the weight/hp ratio.

        As far as having switchable maps, we require that the declared program be loaded into all separate map locations for the ECU. So, for example, the GT racers custom ECU can store four different "maps" simultaneously, but we require him to load the same program into all four locations so that switching "maps" would have no effect. If we connect to the car and any of the maps are different than one another he would be DQ'd.

        It probably makes sense to clarify this, as much as possible, in the 2014 GCRs. Ideas?

        Cheers,
        #52 (Formerly #241) - 2007 Cayman S - GT3 Class
        Competition Committee
        Vision Motorsports - Tarett - Fikse - JRZ - MantisSport - Yokohama / Trackside Performance

        Comment


        • #5
          Great explanation Selby; that clarifies it for me.

          No separate engine mapping unless you're willing to bring a fresh dyno with you to the event. I was thinking you could program 2 or 3, have them all dyno'ed at the same time and have the electronic footprint/data attached as well. Unfortunately that would most likely result in an administrative nightmare so I like the current approach.
          Jack Ehrman
          #312 (Dark Gray Carrera w/ Orange Trim)
          JP/R6

          Comment

          Working...
          X