The GGR forum has reached it's end, but posts are still available read-only for posterity. We invite you to make posts and discussions on the GGR Facebook page.

Performance Software

Use this forum to ask questions, clarifications, and issues about current rules

Moderator: David Leong

Post Reply
User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:17 am

It has come to my atention that the day of the
performance chip are over.
You can flash the memory of the car to get more performance. The
classification rules needs a section for this. Trying
to match cars can now be impossible. Here is a link to
the performance question.
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.ph ... ntry118260
How many points do you add if someone adds performance software? The next question is how do you tell?
Paul

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Performance Software

Post by Dan Thompson » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:09 pm

the answer is Paul, you can't tell, anymore than if they put in a chip.
or lots of other mods that really can't be seen.

this is all gentleman racing and hopefully everyone (at least most) behaves accordingly.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:38 pm

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply.
Shouldn't there be a place in the car classification system that
says the car has performance software. I estimate that the
performance software adds about 40hp. How many
points would 40hp be?
I am not saying that this is not gentlemen racing. All I am saying is that if someone
adds performance software to there car, shouldn's there be mod points in the system
so they can add this modification.
Paul

User avatar
psmith
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:31 pm

Re: Performance Software

Post by psmith » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:35 pm

from item 45b: Engine management chip is not stock

The engine has a non-stock engine management chip for that engine type. The engine has an aftermarket replacement chip The engine management chip has been re-written with non-stock parameters. The engine management system has been augmented with an additional control unit used in conjunction with the stock engine management system.

This would cover an actual replacement chip (as in the older cars), or a new program on the stock control unit (as with the newer cars). For either AX or TT it's a 5 point item.

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: Performance Software

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:11 am

and the reason the just changing a chip or program isn't more than 5 points is that unless you do some mechanical mods to improve the airflow thru the engine, The real world results tends to be less than what most advertise. Turbos tend to need major changes to do a 50 hp increase. Normally aspirated engines only adjust timing and air fuel mixtures with a new chip and unless you increase air flow thru the engine you can only gain small improvements with a Porsche system .. They are designed pretty good
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Grant K
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:54 pm
Location: Bonny Doon, CA
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by Grant K » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:51 pm

I agree that normally aspirated motors dont benefit much. However turbos can benefit signficnatly by just addition of a chip. I have had several turbo cars tha gain huge amounts of torque and HP with just with a chip.
Grant
Ugly looking 1999 Boxster #915
AX0?

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:34 pm

psmith wrote:from item 45b: Engine management chip is not stock

The engine has a non-stock engine management chip for that engine type. The engine has an aftermarket replacement chip The engine management chip has been re-written with non-stock parameters. The engine management system has been augmented with an additional control unit used in conjunction with the stock engine management system.

This would cover an actual replacement chip (as in the older cars), or a new program on the stock control unit (as with the newer cars). For either AX or TT it's a 5 point item.
Saying the engine mangement chip has ben re-written is not enough. The flash programs writes to
the memory chips and leaves the engine managemnt chips alone. You cannot write the engine
management chip. You can override it with new insturctions in the memory chips. The
fast guys have been doing this for almost ten years. I think the rule
should say that if you flash your car thru the OBD-II conenctor, you add so many
points. I do agree that the AX points should not be much, but the TT points
should be more then 5.
Paul

User avatar
psmith
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:31 pm

Re: Performance Software

Post by psmith » Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:09 am

I was just pointing out that they exisiting rules do cover this already... as to how this relates to replacing the chip?

At the heart of the matter, a new DME chip with new fuel maps is the exact same thing as flashing new fuel maps to the exisiting system. In each case, the stock maps are replaced with new ones aimed to maximize performance in exchange of some other item (like using 87 octane on the older cars) that Porsche may have considered important at the time they did the original programming. The only difference is the replacement of a part and reprogramming the existing part. I don't think someone could make a successful argument against the existing rules that rewriting the flashable memory portion of the control unit is somehow not rewriting with control unit with non-stock parameters (then again, I am sure someone has at least thought about skipping that 5 points on those grounds).

But if the issue is that flashing is somehow something different or more effective?

The first difference with reflashing would be the ability to have more programs which could be easily changed... while there are likely instances where this could be an advantage, I am not sure it would be such an advantage as to constitute more points?

The next issue would be that the newer cars have a management systems that include much more data, with more fuel maps for more situations. This can make the reflashing more effective, but this has to do with the basic management system, not the reprogramming itself. This is something, in my view, that should be reflected in the car's base points since it's part of what is already installed on the car (once you start adding additional sensors or management items to cars that did not come with them originally, you incur the points). And this is likely a similar case with the Turbos... forced induction allows for many routes to find more power that can create a huge gap with the normally asperated crowd.

And, as Larry points out, the potential gains from new engine management parameters alone are generally small without other changes that incur points. I would be somewhat suprised to see 40hp gains on most current models from a change like this... experience tells me 2-6% gains are more realistic for something like this. Though I could be way off and would be interested in seeing data that supported such gains (at least on models other than the Turbo or GT2, which could approach this kind of territory).

Otherwise, the issue would be that changes like this will gain more if there was more to begin with, and the question is then if the points for such a change should be figured into the base points (which is what should happen now), or if the points for the mod should be tied to the engine (ie, a software change in a 964 3.6 being less points than a software change in a 997 3.6). From my point of view, while the former route potentially penalizes people that do not make such upgrades, it does reflect the performance potential of the base car, and, from a rules perspective avoids the pitfalls of trying to figure out how to apply such a rule as the later.

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:37 pm

Nice write up psmith.
I agree with everything you say expect for the amount of gain. I think
the gain could be big if you take a look at the long straight at
Thunderhill. I fell the 3.2, 3.4, and the 3.6 motors
have the most to gain.
Paul

User avatar
Tom Weber
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay

Re: Performance Software

Post by Tom Weber » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:19 pm

Paul: Your concern is well founded but the reality is that gains of 40 hp in a normally aspirated car are not usually achievable no matter what the folk selling it claim. I spent thousands looking for 20 hp in my 964 via chip changes - it just isn't there without other changes to the air intake and exhaust. All those changes add points too. You do correctly point out that the wording of the rules is not as precise as might be desired "non-standard chip" should be "non-standard chip or programming" to cover changing the maps of the stock chip, but I think most folk recognize the intent and classify their cars accordingly.

I know you think it can/will make a big difference on the track, but in the years I've been doing this I've not seen a simple chip re-map make profound changes. I've tried it and have the dyno data to show almost no gain (and in one case a loss in power).

From my experience, weight reduction makes a much bigger difference in the car's performance than a chip flash.
Tom Weber
964 GTL/GT3 (Tom's Turtle, #54)

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:43 pm

Tom,
You make a good point. Isn't it 1 secound for every 100 pounds lost. I
still think the biggest thing you can do when you flash the memory
is change the red-line limit. Just imagine the performance gain
by adding 500 rpm to the red-line limit.
We all know that Porsche builds their cars with a very
major safety factor. How many times have you hit
the rev limiter. Wouldn't it be nice to have a few more
Rpm's?
Paul

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: Performance Software

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:52 am

I know of two models that shouldnt be chipped to increase the rev limit.. Stock rod bolt cars with 3.2 and with 3.6 liter air cooled engines have very little safety margin with the rev limit. The mechanics love this since it leads to more engine rebuilds. There is lots of misconceptions about Chips.
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: Performance Software

Post by PAUL LARSON » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:16 pm

Larry,
It is the air cooled cars that do not have the same safety factor
as the water cooled cars. The water cooled cars can
lean out the mixture and raise the rev limiter.
Paul

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest