Jump to content

PT Enduro mapping


Grumpy

Recommended Posts

Let me help on the PTA va. E0 since we've got a fair amount of info on endurance racing with the FFR cars which have traditionally been in E0. In the shorter races, the FFR cars have been able to get class wins and have gotten the class pole once at Thunderhill. (Ahem. Some of the FFR Thunderhill cars were closer to ST-2 than spec FFR.) The FFR cars are useful for comparison because they have been holding Nationals races across the country for some number of years and it is a spec class with the cars being more similar than other race groups. In PTA it is a little more complicated since there are actually two FFR configurations that fit into PTA - but the enduro rules change the tires so that takes away the difference. In PTA, the 'west coast' tube-frame RX-7s are the car to beat since nothing else comes close in terms of weight/HP and aero configs. On tight tracks like Thunderhill an FFR car on Kumho can get a slight advantage over a 'west coast RX-7' on Toyos. On a longer track like MidOhio, Road Atlanta, or VIR the higher HP and better aero gives a pretty clear advantage to the RX-7. Since the enduro rules allow you to switch to Hoosier, I am assuming that both would be forced to run Hoosier and presumably the advantage would be even greater for the RX-7. Since those two cars are basically the fastest in PTA - and aren't remotely competitive in ST-2 or ES, it would seem that E0 fits comfortably there for those cars. (Grand-Am Cup cars prior to 2004 go into E0 and they would presumably be 996 Porsches that would be the top cars, but there aren't a lot of them and most seem to usually take the slicks and run ES. But if they ran Hoosier or even Kumho DOT they would blow away everything in E0).

 

Greg, your post about what goes into ES reinforces my point. A FFR car moved to ST-2 will get about 65-70 HP more. Except for really tight tracks like BeaveRun, Summit Shenandoah, or similar there is no way that the aero difference can be overcome. We've modeled the FFR laptimes for Mid Ohio and think the cars can be relatively competitive (my educated guess is that a lightly tuned Vette Z04 is the car to beat in ST-2) There is no way that a ST-2 FFR is going to beat a well driven AIX, GT1, Grand-Am Cup, VVC, etc car. One thing that is a little distoring is that the FFR crowd has had several former pfofessional drivers in the ranks and a 9-time world champion. Our top guy (historically) also win or do very well when they run other classes, but that hasn't worked in reverse.

 

The problem is that ES is so wide in range and encompasses so many cars. Obviously some are slow and some are fast, but there is a big range to choose from - and it gets further complicated by the fact that ES can run slicks and have fueling rigs and air jacks.

 

E0, by comparison, is a largely narrow class. It would be just fine if the class included streetable cars on DOT tires. No slicks. No fueling rigs. No air jacks. Just something you can technically drive to the hotel. That moves the bottom of the full ES classes to the top of the lightly subscribed E0 class. More racing opportunities for more people and a better balance. So yes, I think *part* of ES could be reclassified in order to make E0 a more useful class and sort of have a clear line between 'street cars' and purpose-built race cars designed for ES. Another way to look at it is that the current range for ES is probably the widest of all the classes while E0 (which includes FFR, SCCA AS, Boxsters, P0, T2, and USTCC) are all in a much more narrow performance range.

 

One question I do have is what happens with the ITE (now ITR) cars on DOT tires that are in E0? An ITE car that has run E0 stays there, but certain ITE cars that go to ST-2 and get a dyno sheet end up being put into ES even though the car didn't change. I'm not sure what you do in that situation. Same car, but the dyno sheet forces you to change classes.

 

Everyone with a race car has certain pros and cons that affect where they race, but right now NASA is putting a lot of energy into building ST-1 and ST-2. Particularly in the case of ST-2, the rules mean that you may as well skip the enduros because you have no hope. That sort of seems counter-productive to NASA's goals.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Help me help on the PTA va. E0 since we've got a fair amount of info on endurance racing with the FFR cars which have traditionally been in E0. SNIP!

 

 

So your saying PTA should be in E1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
And, the real question mark is whether PTD should be E1. I think that ultimately, it will be.

 

Thanks.

 

Greg,

Ideally, shouldn't PTD cars be about as fast as a front running H4 car? A fully prepped H4 car last season was PTC, and now with the free allowances (have not looked at them yet to see what they are), hopefully most of the H4 cars will be in PTD.

 

Because it's an enduro, the PTD (H4-ish) cars have a chance in E1, but it seems that they belong in E2 no?

Just curious what chassis or idea is making you believe they should be in E1.

 

Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
And, the real question mark is whether PTD should be E1. I think that ultimately, it will be.

 

Thanks.

 

Greg,

Ideally, shouldn't PTD cars be about as fast as a front running H4 car? A fully prepped H4 car last season was PTC, and now with the free allowances (have not looked at them yet to see what they are), hopefully most of the H4 cars will be in PTD.

 

Because it's an enduro, the PTD (H4-ish) cars have a chance in E1, but it seems that they belong in E2 no?

Just curious what chassis or idea is making you believe they should be in E1.

 

Thanks...

 

I was thinking about the RX-7's in ITS trim as one of them (Former PS1 cars). But, also, I think that there could be a lot of PTD cars that would be faster than H4 cars if purposely built to the limits of PT (probably including Hondas). I think that NASA will try to be very conservative the first year, especially with the '07 rule changes in PT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me help on the PTA vs. E0 since we've got a fair amount of info on endurance racing with the FFR cars which have traditionally been in E0. SNIP!

 

 

So your saying PTA should be in E1?

 

No, that would further decimate E0 which is already a narrow range of cars, especially for endurance racing. The FFR cars go into PTA, but they generally match up towards the top of E0. Moving the top E0 cars of today would clobber the E1 cars. I am saying that PTA should be E0 - and that E0 should be expanded to basically be streetable cars on DOT tires. Leave the 'race' cars to ES. You'll still have different cars end up having an advantage at certain tracks, but that has always been true. At least the gaps will be much smaller than you get in ES and it expands the small E0 class where potentially a bunch of cars could play.

 

What I definitely saying is to not put PTA or ST-2 into ES. That is hopeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...