Mandatory Data Acquisition at the Runoffs

[Stan Clayton]

One of the announcements made at the recent Convention is that during the 2007 Runoffs, accepting Club-owned data acquisition systems will not be optional. Competitors will be required to cooperate with Runoffs staff to install the logger and collect performance data as a condition of competition. As of now I am confident that we plan to collect data from representative pinto and zetec cars in FC (and possibly other formula classes as well).

The system used is the Action Digital DL1 stand-alone logger. The box is completely self contained at 3.1 lbs installed, and its weight counts towards one's "as raced" requirement. The logger will collect only accelerometer and GPS data, NOT any of the other data commonly collected by owner-installed DL1's.

The purpose of collecting the data is to verify on-track performance potential for purposes of competition adjustments. Competitor's data will not be shared with other competitors in an identifiable manner, but a copy of one's own data will be freely given to competitors who wish to have a copy (bring a thumb drive or other appropriate transfer device).

Regards, Stan

[DaveW]

Does that mean I'll be moving into the 20th century (not a typo) now that I may have to install DAQ? Except for the few times ICP wanted some data, I have not used it...

[Stan Clayton]

At our age, Dave, joining the 20th Century is entirely optional...

[KevinFirlein]

and what happens if the signal from the club supplied system interferes with the competitors already installed system ?

[TimW]

Are these for all cars like the CART crash boxes or just the pointy end of the grid?

[John Robinson II]

What if you dont have space to install as they would like? I would be willing to velcro it in the now optional front crush box. Besides, in a class such as FF where everything is the same why would they need to collect data to compare?

John

[KevinFirlein]

For that matter how is SCCA going to interpert what effects the different chassis and the different setups on equal chassis have on the readings ?

On the surface it sounds like an easy way of doing things but it really isnt. For prod cars it may help with power vs drag vs handling when deally with umpteen differnt car combinations. Even then it doesnt take into account the variables that are open to all.

[Stan Clayton]

Kevin, in the stand-alone mode a DL1 cannot "interfere" with other electronic components, because it does not interface electrically with any of those components. It does not share their power supply. It does not share any sensors, wiring harness, or ground. It is completely stand-alone, and consumes less than 2 peak watts of DC power from a small self-contained battery.

We used the data last year to compare straight line acceleration at various points on the track to test competitor complaints that their car was underpowered by the rules, or conversely, that we had made the enemy...er, uh, the other guys too fast. That is probably all we will attempt this year as well.

Tim, the Club owns just a dozen or so DL1's, evenly split between velcro- and tube-mounted, so odds are just a few will be used for any one session.

John, anticipating cases like yours we have arranged to borrow the 70 lbs, 2 square foot IMAX camera box from Champcar...you know, the one that mounts to the roll bar.

Stan

[S Lathrop]

We will need the basic system plus what else? Beacon reciever, GPS antana and ? Self contained means it has its own power system? The cost in England starts at 120 pounds or $240 aprox.

I don't understand what you mean by sharing competitor's data. There is a big range from something like the segment time reports that we get at a IRL or Champ car race and giving every one sufficient data to construct track mapping and performance data.

In principal I think the idea has merit but what will it be in practice? I think we should thrash this idea around some. In particular I would like to know what channels you will be collecting and at what logging rate. I am comfortable with collection the data for the purpose stated and sharing some amount of data could be fun. But I think we should have a solid understanding what the limits will be, up front.

The other question that I have is will the equipment be good enough for the intended purpose. I think the people who will be buying the equipment should have quite a lot to say about how it will be used.

[VehDyn]

I think the club owns the systems, so the competitor would not be required to purchase anything.

[Stan Clayton]

Steve, you don't have to buy anything. SCCA bought about a dozen of the units last year and used them at the Runoffs. Our units use only the 2-axis accelerometer and the GPS antenna (a little bigger than a quarter with a thin chord leading to the box). None of the other sensor ports shown in this photo are used.



By not sharing your data, I mean that we will not take DaveW's and give it to Nick...

OTOH, if the pintos consistently show more power than the zetecs we may use that for a post-Runoffs adjustment.

The DL1 is considered extremely accurate, as it uses both GPS and accelerometers. Last year people who had on-board systems found that the DL1's data were within less than a MPH of their on-board system throughout the run. Other folks with DL1's simply let us burn a copy of their flash card.

Stan

[John Robinson II]

Stan, you did not answer my other question... can I mount it in the nose box? At 70 lbs I will be able to remove most of the ballast and seeing as how it would be ahead of the front tires it will help with that inherent swift under steer .

John

[Peter Olivola]

Deleted. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted.

[Stan Clayton]

Sorry John, I was having so much fun with the first question I missed the second one.

Yes, it can go in the foot box...anywhere it can sit or mount flat with the proper orientation, and where we can snake the ~6' long antenna chord to there the wafer can see the sky.

Stan

[jgaither]

I have one of these. Mainly, you'll have to mount it where it is flat - horizontal the track - which can be tricky on some formula cars. Next you have to have the small GPS antenna outside the bodywork and it too needs to be pretty flat. Next, you have to give it power - either an extra 12v source or that of the car. Finally, you have to have it in a place where you can push the red button in order to begin the recording. Now, that can be a real trick if the driver can't reach it or if bodywrok has to be removed to get to it. On a production car & using a power lead with one part permanent to the battery and the other a quick connect to the DL1, then all this is pretty easy and portable. A bit more challenging in our small open wheelers. Not impossible, just not terribly portable and quick to use.

[KevinFirlein]

Stan my question was based on whether or not 2 GPS data systems would end up interfering with each others reception. I have no idea which is why I asked.

[John Robinson II]

Stan,
i wanted to mount everything in the nose box... my CDS gps based system will work like that, I dont have any flat surfaces that would be acceptable to mount it on, the space is already occupied by top secret data systems, if I told ya bout them Cole would have to off ya.

John

Hey have you heard anything about changes to HPT?

[kea]

How many of these box's is SCCA buying, enough for the whole Run-off entry?

[bryancohnracing]

We (NASA) used the MazQ GPS system at the NASA Championships last year for exactly the same reasons that SCCA is doing this. NASA saw fantastic results.

The system is a stand alone with no interface to that car, powered by a 9 volt battery. The MaxQ is about 2 1/2 inches x 4 inches x 4 inches, in a clear lexan box so the antenna sees through. Cool stuff. We used that 3M velcro or ty wraps to install them, and they didn't care about absolute level. I'm not sure why...Unlike the SCCA system, ours is one unit that as long at it could see the sun it worked. Don't forget we don't have formula cars or sports racers to worry about...

The data can be used for numerous things, as our goal was to check parity between 4wd WRX's and Evo's and Vette's, Vipers, etc. They run in the same Time Trial class within NASA (TTR) and normally use a dyno for compliance. 4wd portable dyno's don't exsist so we used the MaxQ GPS in it's place.

I crewed on Thursday at the Runoffs for my old friend Jim Lynch who races a T1 Viper. John Bauer (Tech guy from SCCA) came by and installed the SCCA unit before qualifying in about 5 minutes. No space problem onthat car, but the size of the unit would have been tough to install in many formula cars, and the antenna was magnetic (like a sat radio antenna).

Stan, I assume the system in question is going to packaged smaller than what I saw? It was about the size of a red brick, give or take.

We did not share data with anyone btw, including the car owner. We could have, but saw no reason and no one complained.

We plan to use them again in 2007.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan my question was based on whether or not 2 GPS data systems would end up interfering with each others reception. I have no idea which is why I asked.

Got it! No, they can't interfere on that basis, either. You can mount them side-by-side if needed without any issues.

John, I heard at the Convention that HPT are evaluating bids on unspecified track "upgrades", so changes to the configuration are possible. That said, their senior representative at the Convention was very careful not to commit to any particular course of action. OTOH, there are several suspicious blanks on their 2007 schedule: 2-15 April, 30 Apr-11 May, and 22 May - 8 June, all before the first HPT Nat'l.

Stan

[Ken Rozeboom]

I suppose they want this in FF so they can decide what is needed in "competition adjustments" when they combine all non-wing open wheel classes for the 2008 Runoffs....

[Stan Clayton]

No Ken. The few units we have (compared to the number of cars) means that the loggers are reserved for those classes where there are significant questions of parity. Examples of what we looked at last year were; did the VWs in GP have an advantage over Hondas, did the Corvette really have it over the Viper in T1, and do 1st gen Miatas have an insurmountable advantage over later generation cars in SM? [No, no (opposite), yes.]

The only formula class I foresee it being used on this year is FC, where we want to gather additional data as part of our on-going program to integrate the zetec and alloy head into the class.

Stan

[JByers]

How about if they work towards an unrestricted zetec that competes with the F1000?

[Ted and Nancy]

On general principals I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons.
When you let the camels nose under the tent flap there is no stopping it.
Potential competitors that are making rule changes based on the information will see the data, like you Stan and every other member of the comp board and board of directors. This is not aimed at you Stan but you know someone will use for unintended purposes once it is there.
What is to stop additional sensors from being added, none!
Loss control (insurance) will have access to data, which could mean the elimination of some classes based on potential for injury. The insurance companies are already trying the same thing on your streetcars but the outcry from people like ACLU has held it off for now.
I know that there are certain areas in Europe that you are not allowed to take a rental car (eastern Europe). They have GPS tracking and recording installed in many of the cars and if you go into these areas your contract is cancelled.
Will SCCA use the system to certify or de certify some tracks?
Will tech be instructed by the people with "access to the data" to investigate the legality of a car with the SCCA data tap because it is too fast.
As well intended as you are Stan what about the guy with the position after you?

I think the potential for abuse of something like this is so high that it should be stopped NOW.

[S Lathrop]

Thank you Ted.

As Ted points out, you will have a lot more information about competitors than just their engine output. This is like giving all your medical records to you insurance companys.

I also have a problem with the intended use of the data. You want to use the data to equalize the performance between engine types in several makes of cars. The data you are collecting combines all the variables that are found in a single class of race cars. You might have 4 or 5 different makes of cars. The Zetec cars as a group will be newer and probably better prepared, my guess only. I am afraid that because we are all mortals, politics will be involved in the decissions.

All of the cars have transponders. You can get the same infromation from more recivers in the track.

I have watched this same process of equalizing production cars play out for over 39 years I have been involved in SCCA. I played this game in FF in the '70s with a Cortina powered very light weight car against the Uprated heavier cars. This is not what formula car racing should be about.

I think the best way to equalize the engines is to repeat the Summit test after the aluminum heads have come on the market. If you have one driver with an aluminum head Pinto who dominates as happened last year, will you make a competition adjustment? Last year it was a superior effort of one team, next year it will be an unfair advantage. What have we come to?

For what it is worth: For the G sensors to be accurate the unit needs to be mounted as close to the center of the car as possible. If the unit is mounted in the nose as John wants, you will measure both yaw and later acceleration, with out distinction.

[RobLav]

Statistically speaking, this is the wrong way for SCCA to go about it.

1) It needs to be a blind test - those who have the box in the car cannot know about it (which is highly unlikely).

2) Because of the small sample size, the results will be statistically insignificant. You cannot make decisions from it with any reasonable level of confidence.

[DaveW]

Statistically speaking, this is the wrong way for SCCA to go about it.

1) It needs to be a blind test - those who have the box in the car cannot know about it (which is highly unlikely).

2) Because of the small sample size, the results will be statistically insignificant. You cannot make decisions from it with any reasonable level of confidence.

Rob,

I agree completely. In ANY statistical evaluation (especially when the difference may be small), you need to have a statistically significant number of samples (the number of samples necessary is inverse to the magnitude of the difference you are trying to evaluate) so that the possibility of incorrect data interpretation is minimized. A one or two sample test means nothing. The next time it is run, it's just as likely the results would be reversed.

[Rick Kirchner]

If my memory serves me right, using the military quality control system, the minimum sample size is 13 if you are going to sample. That's based on some rather stodgy and conservitive methods from the 40s thru the 70s. There are some newer methods that would allow smaller samples, but that implies a well designed test to gather the data, as opposed to random sampling.

So, if you are just randomly selecting from a lot and inspecting for anything, the min size is 13. Lot size less than 13, you inspect them all. I can't remember the reference document, some long defunct MIL-handbook or MIL-STD.

I guess next time we spec out a common ECU it ought to have GPS and logging built in!

[RobLav]

Oh... and I forgot to mention all the uncontrolled variables that Steve mentioned - which zero's out any confidence in the results.

Trying to attain parity is simply a waste of time. It's like when our government gets involved for the supposed benefit of "We The People". It simply screws it up.

All the Pinto aluminum head did was screw up progress - the natural Darwinian selection process is simply slowed in this case, thereby prolonging agony.

The FC engine has to eventually be the Zetec now. But I still don't understand how an engine that I can buy in the junkyard for $350, which must remain very stock in the car, somehow ends up being a $15K proposition.

[D.T. Benner]

The basic engine you can buy in a junkyard for $350 is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just as you can buy any late model high performance 4 cyl. engine from a wrecked car does NOT mean it's ready to bolt into a formula car chassis? What you are going to use is what the auto parts people refer to as a "long block" and the cam drive belt,pullys and covers and the water pump!
Think about it? No matter who's engine you want to use you can't just bolt it in and go racing. If you want to do it the low buck way you can find a way to do some of the conversion requirements your self but it's the trade off of your time verses the money you spend on the parts that are available and proven to work.
If you want to tinker around you can build a Formula "S" car from almost any small 4 cyl. engine?

[Ted and Nancy]

I think the bottom line is.
THIS IS NOT MEGA DOLLAR PRO RACING.
The club is not entitled to my DRIVER/car performance information.

It leaves open all kinds of decissions that SCCA could make i.e. my driver is too slow to run in FA so lets restrict what level of performance she can handle based on the data.

[Thomas Copeland]

I have no problem putting a box like that into my Zetec FC while at the runoffs or at any other time the SCCA asks.

[Thomas Copeland]

RobLav said:

"I still don't understand how an engine that I can buy in the junkyard for $350, which must remain very stock in the car, somehow ends up being a $15K proposition"

Not to get too off topic but to answer your question.

Rob, I mustva asked myself that same question a zillion times over the last 2 years and even now when I own 2 Zetec engines I still haven't been able to answer that question to any degree of complete satisfaction. But some of it is starting to make sense. What I used to think is that they (whomever they is or was) took a $50 stock engine, bolted a bunch of aftermarket crap to it, and turned it into a $15,000 monstrosity. But then, I don't know the big picture either. I probably (and most likely) got it all wrong. Maybe they really do need all that stuff on it to make it work properly. I don't know enough about race engines to say so.

Once you own all the stuff that bolts onto the engine only then can you think cheap. The block itself costs peanuts compared to all the special stuff you have to bolt to it to make it work. You need a modified oil pan to fit the motor into the formula car chassis (that makes sense), a Pectel ECU, air box and fuel injection module, flywheel, and basically a whole glob of stuff (some of it stock) from wiring to hoses, that together costs more than $11,000. The list I had for converting my Pinto over was 2 pages long. I finally ended up just buying a car with a Zetec already in it. Anyway, after you aquire all that then can you buy the cheapest element to go Zetec...the actual engine itself.

I did see a (gulp) carb Zetec that was built for less than a third of the current legal Zetec, but alass, that one is not legal (at least not yet) in FC. I'm not sure how they would be able to enforce the parity rules on ECU Zetec vs. Carb Zetec. Nor am I sure that you could build it for the same price as the owners of that one did it for. But I'm with you. The Pinto has been living on life-support for too long. But not everybody is in a position to convert to Zetec so we have to accomodate them. In a perfect world the switch to Zetec would have happen years ago.

I think the only way to get a mass conversion from Pinto to Zetec going is to make the Zetec conversion either cheaper or close to what it is to re-build a Pinto. Only when that can happen (someday in utopia) will the excuses for keeping Pinto around sound like utter lunacy (if they don't already). And the only way I can see a cheaper way than now to convert to Zetec happening is with a carb Zetec.

[DaveW]

Oh... and I forgot to mention all the uncontrolled variables that Steve mentioned - which zero's out any confidence in the results.

Yup:
1. Fast on the straight vs lots of downforce/fast in the corners
2. Avons vs Goodyears vs Hoosiers
3. Construction/compound "A" vs "B"
4. Citation vs VD vs Piper (edit) vs Swift
5. Elite vs QS
6. Driver "A" vs driver "B"

And these are obviously not all of them...

[R. Pare]

Don't forget:

1 : Old Age

2: Treachery

3: Sandbagging

[R. Pare]

I think the bottom line is: my driver is too slow to run in FA so lets restrict what level of performance she can handle based on the data.

Geez, Ted. Don't let Nancy know you said that!!!!!

[Larry]

Stan,

They PROBABLY will not interfere! You statement that they cannot or will not is a gratuitous assumption--probably correct, but in improper assertion. Every electronic device emits some RF energy, and therefore may cause some degree of interference. This is why the airlines prohibit using PEDs (portable electronic devices) except by permission--which is usually on the ground, or well after takeoff and before the approach to landing. This includes restrictions on when you can use cell phones, computers, calculators, blackberries, strawberries and raspberries. The only PEDs they don't prohibit are pacemakers.

As far as doing the G-calculations, I suspect they are done arithmetically, and not by using a G-meter, as the arithmetic calculations can be extrapolated from the GPS PVT (position/velocity/time). In my daily job, I work on GPS for the FAA.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the system weighs so much. The Blackline GPS (which I happen to carry), does everything this system does, and only weighs a few ounces including a remote data-logger that operates using Bluetooth technology.

Larry Oliver
international Racing Products

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,

They PROBABLY will not interfere! You statement that they cannot or will not is a gratuitous assumption--probably correct, but in improper assertion. Every electronic device emits some RF energy, and therefore may cause some degree of interference. This is why the airlines prohibit using PEDs (portable electronic devices) except by permission--which is usually on the ground, or well after takeoff and before the approach to landing. This includes restrictions on when you can use cell phones, computers, calculators, blackberries, strawberries and raspberries. The only PEDs they don't prohibit are pacemakers.

In any practical sense they CANNOT interfere with each other (per the DL1 engineer and another EE familiar with the device I consulted before answering that question), any more than your digital wristwatch interferes with your cell phone, or the DVD drive in your laptop interferes with surfing the web. Since the DL1's antennas are active, if one twisted the antenna leads together at just the right number of turns per inch for their entire length, the signals MIGHT induce interference, but just setting the boxes next to each other can't do it in any practical sense.

I participated in the joint FAA-DoD electronic device testing program in the early years of the millenium, the results of which completely debunked the myth that passive or even active consumer electronic devices can interfere with aircraft control and navigation systems. None of them, not even cell phones have any detectable ability to interfere with flight systems. The reason one may not use them critical phases of flight is to minimize "loose object" damage in case of a crash. Even cell phones cannot in any practical sense interfere with flight systems, which is why the FAA was going to permit their use in-flight until the public outcry about rude cell phone users derailed the idea.

As far as doing the G-calculations, I suspect they are done arithmetically, and not by using a G-meter, as the arithmetic calculations can be extrapolated from the GPS PVT (position/velocity/time). In my daily job, I work on GPS for the FAA.

Larry, that is not correct. The DL1 has an internal 2-axis accelerometer which it uses in conjunction with the GPS to create very precise 2-d performance records.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the system weighs so much. The Blackline GPS (which I happen to carry), does everything this system does, and only weighs a few ounces including a remote data-logger that operates using Bluetooth technology.

Larry Oliver
international Racing Products

Thanks for the tip about the Blackline...I'll look into that.

In the meantime, like everybody else I am waiting to hear Ted's explanation to Nancy that she is "too slow"...

Stan

PS - The unexpected weight of the SCCA's DL1s has to do with their being equipped with an internal battery and charger, plus the ruggedized case and mounting hardware. That said, it is still probably heavier and bulkier than the latest gadgets.

[Thomas Copeland]

By law every electronic device in this country must meet at a minimum FCC Class B specification which prohibits the interference of other electronic devices by the device. As a mechnical engineer at Dell Computer in the early '90's I spent many hours on the "range" testing computers such as the Latitude as well as cleaning up the mess on motherboards left behind by the double E's (electrial engineer genius's),

At Dell and at other computer and tech companies I mustva tested closed to 20-25 different electronic devices. To sell any device that interferes with other electronic devices carries with it the potential of a heavy fine as well as recall of the device. No company in their right mind would risk that (even though I've never hear of it happening for that reason).

Like Stan says, with the airlines it probably has more to do with the potential of "loose items" flying around during takeoff and landing than any interference issues. The airline might tell ya it's for "interference" reasons, but when was the last time you believed anything an airline told you anyway?

[kea]

Stan,
You still did not answer my question, so let me ask this way.
How many $$$$ is SCCA going to spend for this, once a year exercise?
Do I sense my dues increasing again!
Keith