cbuzzetti wrote:


with a power cap you should expect to see 20+ RMR cars at Nationals. We had 20 +3 at a non crossover event in 2012.

I have not read this enough to see if anyone has stated this remark but one thing to consider is that a dyno technically only measures TQ and RPM and not actual Hp. Hp is derived by a formula after Tq and RPm are measured (it is like tq x rpm/ 5252 or something close to this, I am not a math guy sorry).

That said, some of these guys (a few years ago) running in 944 cup figured out a way to increase Tq and lower Hp. Not sure how they did it but they had to change the rules to reflect a variance between the 2 numbers so people could not manipulate the HP and Tq numbers. The kicker is that these items can generally be manipulated by fuel mapping and cam and other factors but they still found a way to do it and it made life hell for those of us running a stock set up.

My point, if you are going to have a rule for HP then you need to have a variance in place so people are not able to do what occurred by others before (same happened in the GTA series a few years ago, people were changing out the cams to get lower end tq).

I know some people will argue this but I have seen it first hand and can tell you that you are opening a door for people to cheat in a different direction (in some regions you have little in the way of scrutineering going on so people are cheating anyways, at nationals it is obviously different).

Good point Joe, we do have two legal cams to run and someone is undoubtedly looking at that to see what benefit can be had. As long as the cam is legal there is nothing we dan do.

It may require teching the cams at Nats if a car dynoes with high tq numbers.

Thanks for bringing up a valid point.

Looks to me like this is a done deal, bring it!

SvoChuck wrote:

We are aware of that potential, and I did talk to Bill Comat, among others about their current experience in Cup. One thing that is different between us, and the other series referenced, is that we still have a very strict Spec ruleset in place. This tightly limits what can be manipulated to change the TQ curve. This was not the place with Cup. Custom headers and chip tuning are effective for these things, and are not legal in spec. People will have to cheat on the existing Spec rules to manipulate the HP and TQ curves to any significant degree. If they are going to go that, that can do that now, with even more benefit (i.e. make HP and TQ).

Again we have not seen cheating, and we tore motors (including my own, ugh) down to taking heads off, cams out, and oil pans off, at Nationals over the last two years. I am not specifically trying to reign in cheating here, and I don't expect it will start now. There is more to be gained under cheating on the existing rules, than with a dyno cap.

We already have, and will check cam specs at Nationals with the "Cam Doctor" As an aside, what what interesting is not only that the cams we checked were legal, but had essentially no measurable wear - impressive for 100,000 mile + harware! The early cams vary by 1mm in one spec. I don't have data to say was this means in output, but it is a very small difference in the cam spec, and would not seem to have a lot of potential for manipulation.

One other thing, 944 Cup initially did not have a TQ cap at all, just HP. Between that and all the options available - chips, headers, custom pistons, 2.7L motors, etc. there was an open door to make big TQ numbers.

Also, 944 Cup did have more cheating going on to begin with.

Finally, they used a variety of dyno types, which does make for a lot of variation - Dynapac, Dynojet, and Mustang dynos are all different. We are limiting this to the more common, and consistent Dynojet inertial dyno.

We have worked hard to take lessons from all over on making this the best rule we can.