These are PROPOSED Changes only based on driver and director suggestions. These two items are variations on the same theme. Please comment on each of the poposals as written here.

2011-7a) Data Acquisition with limited data sharing
Proposal: Cars at time may be required to install a data acquisition device (supplied by the series) to monitor and log performance on track. Parameters measured will be speed, and lateral and longitudinal acceleration. The full data set will become property of the series. The full data set will be supplied to the competitor and data consist of ONLY a speed vs position plot will be shared with all drivers. If a driver already has a system installed, data may be extracted from this driver owned system to meet this requirement. Tapering with data or data acquisition equipment will be subject to penalty. Data will not be used in 2011 for pass/fail compliance, but maybe used as guide for compliance inspections.
Justification: Gathering data over multiple drivers on multiple tracks will establish a performance baseline for 944 spec power levels. This data can then be used to identify possible outliers for power levels and more precisely direct subsequent compliance inspections. It is believed that data acquisition can spot performance trends, but may not be accurate enough to generate compliance quality hp numbers. For that reason data alone cannot be used in 2011 for strict pass fail compliance. Compliance will be passed on the strictly defined rules as noted. The sharing of limited speed vs position plots will limit concerns of cars seeming to accelerate away from others by being able to visualize the acceleration curves.

2011-7b) Data Acquisition with no data sharing
Proposal: Cars at time may be required to install a data acquisition device (supplied by the series) to monitor and log performance on track. Parameters measured will be speed, and lateral and longitudinal acceleration. The full data set will become property of the series. The full data set will be supplied to the competitor, but NO data will be shared with drivers (regional 944-spec directors and regional NASA officials will have access to the entire data set). If a driver already has a system installed, data may be extracted from this driver owned system to meet this requirement. Tapering with data or data acquisition equipment will be subject to penalty. Data will not be used in 2011 for pass/fail compliance, but maybe used as guide for compliance inspections.
Justification: Gathering data over multiple drivers on multiple tracks will establish a performance baseline for 944 spec power levels. This data can then be used to identify possible outliers for power levels and more precisely direct subsequent compliance inspections. It is believed that data acquisition can spot performance trends, but may not be accurate enough to generate compliance quality hp numbers. For that reason data alone cannot be used in 2011 for strict pass fail compliance. Compliance will be passed on the strictly defined rules as noted.

I think NASA gives the race director the power to do what is being asked for . That is kind of what I did at Nationals . Walked up to 4 cars and put TM in them. collected the data then did not share it.

Here in RMR we share data on a regular basis and we have other plans in this area.

So we need data to see if we have any cars that have too much power. How that is done or even if we want a power limit Nationwide ?

Nationwide power limits, by any metric, are not one of the rule proposals listed above for this year.

An ex-SCCA & current NASA official emailed me this on that question:



I am OK with either of the listed options above, and am waiting for the "vote" to come in before anything is decided...

If any competitor (Series Director) is to be able to viewing the data then some of the potential advantage should be nullified by the limited sharing proposed in section a).

Possibly some restrictions on retention of the full data file once HP data is extracted would allow less resistance as the raw data would not then be available for long term analysis. (e.g the data is to reviewed by the Director and competitor at the track and numbers extracted. Then the Director, at the track, deletes the file.)

Offers to share data by the racer is not restricted in any way .

Maybe Traqmate could help with a module to extract only certain data into an offload file and have the raw data erased.

I support the interest in additional compliance monitoriung, but am not sure that a "HP Max" is yet required, **As long as existing rules on engine build are enforced**

Of the 2 choices presented I lean towards option a)

Actually, on more thought I'm OK with Data Aq as a pointer to more detailed inspections but uncomfortable haveing Data Aq as THE enforcement medium. (eg let it point towards other inspections but dont let it be definitive as justification for non compliance)

DA should only be used if there is a suspicion of a car with too much power.

This should be instigated by a fellow competitor (not a Director) by using the current protest rules in place with NASA.

That way if none of the competitors are having an issue then it is a non-problem.

No way it should be the regional directors decision to test a car with out prompting from a fellow racer and filing the proper protest paperwork.

I am however OK with that being the case at Nationals. That is a different situation and calls for different stratagies.

Other than that I am currently opposed to DA since it appears that it is not an issue in most regions.