'08 TT Rules part 2

[ooldguy]

As the original thread appears to be wandering how about getting back to the topic ?

 

1. a negative points assement for weight over the official published weight, with driver of course. just a reverse of what's already there.

 

2. loose the tire width spec for each class and just have a points add for larger than OEM size ( ex. - I'd say a 16 point penalty for the OEM tire size is overkill as I'd guess the car was classed considering the OEM tire size relating to performance so why " ding " it twice ? )

 

Robert Dudek

NASA Midwest Instructor

[slink]

1). update backdate for for oem tire size. (based on the widest of tires for us stagered tired cars)

2). tweak the rules to were there can't be any judgement calls. (read black & white. no gray area ) some of the current rules have a little to much gray. which could lead to misunderstandings

[kbrew8991]

I wouldn't call it off topic yet....

[mrc24x]

I guess I'll jump on the campaign trail.

 

1) Whatever class you end up running should be the base tire size. (not your base class tire size)

 

It's tough taking 23 points to run the same size tire as the C5Z's that are only hit w/ 10 pts. (ex . 295 V710/HooHoos)

 

Why yes, I would like some cheese w/ that whine.....

[GooRoo]

As the original thread appears to be wandering how about getting back to the topic ?

 

1. a negative points assement for weight over the official published weight, with driver of course. just a reverse of what's already there.

 

2. loose the tire width spec for each class and just have a points add for larger than OEM size ( ex. - I'd say a 16 point penalty for the OEM tire size is overkill as I'd guess the car was classed considering the OEM tire size relating to performance so why " ding " it twice ? )

 

Robert Dudek

NASA Midwest Instructor

 

I agree with #1, but you realize they have said that they did #2 to simplify rules compliance right?

 

Functionally whether they class you as TTB with OEM size tires, or TTC* with class specific sizes the functional difference is pretty small. This is especially true if they went from *'s to actual point values.

 

The benefit to tire sizes being based on the class is the ease of tech inspection, since there isn't a book needed to look up specific OEM sizes for thousands of cars it takes about 5 seconds to class any cars tire size. Let alone the fact that some cars have different sized tires even within the model etc etc.

 

Now, I can see having an issue with the base class for a car. Sounds like that would be a better argument to make with Greg since I think they value that ease of inspection pretty high. (and I agree with them)

[GooRoo]

I guess I'll jump on the campaign trail.

 

1) Whatever class you end up running should be the base tire size. (not your base class tire size)

 

It's tough taking 23 points to run the same size tire as the C5Z's that are only hit w/ 10 pts. (ex . 295 V710/HooHoos)

 

Why yes, I would like some cheese w/ that whine.....

 

I don't think that works...

 

Imagine a car where you end up in TTC + 18 points, and you run 275 tires. Since the tire size is 255, and you are now 20 over, that would be +4, but that puts you to TTB, where you are 10 over, for +1.... which puts you back to TTC, etc etc.

[mrc24x]

I guess I'll jump on the campaign trail.

 

1) Whatever class you end up running should be the base tire size. (not your base class tire size)

 

It's tough taking 23 points to run the same size tire as the C5Z's that are only hit w/ 10 pts. (ex . 295 V710/HooHoos)

 

Why yes, I would like some cheese w/ that whine.....

 

I don't think that works...

 

Imagine a car where you end up in TTC + 18 points, and you run 275 tires. Since the tire size is 255, and you are now 20 over, that would be +4, but that puts you to TTB, where you are 10 over, for +1.... which puts you back to TTC, etc etc.

 

In that scenario, if you want to run C then you need to remove 4 points worth of mods. To me it's the maximum mod points an each class. If you decide to run in B then those tire rules apply....

 

I see your point though.....hmmm. Never an easy answer.

[IGZOSTD]

I for one , not in favor of any rule change other than maybe some car class changes.

I have a heavey car and a big tire penalty .

The curent rules are very good as is . changing rules every year will result in people dropping out of TT. I for one will not chase rules every year . We need stable rules to grow

[trackaddict]

I also think that changing the rules much will discourage participation. The really serious TT-ers will want to get the hot car in the class they like. The rest of us will do the best with what we have.

 

Figuring OEM tire sizes for every car would make it even harder for the TT directors to try to keep everyone honest. As it is, there seem to be people who feign ignorance and just hope to not get caught in misclassing themselves.

 

As for staggared tire sizes, I think the rules are good as they are. No one has shown why the rules are unfair. From what I have seen, the rules do keep the cars and most of the mods fairly close.

 

I could argue that I am at a disadvantage in TTD with an RX8 since it is a low torque car and whp is significantly lower than claimed hp. Additionally it is very hard to gain extra power out of the car with the usual intake/exhaust/computer reflash type mods where an E36 M3, 944 Turbo or S2000 are more friendly to making more power. Yet, it is what it is and if I want the ultimate class killer, I would probably go with an M3 or something else. But I don't, so I won't (for now).

[kbrew8991]

its easy for you same-size guys all around to say staggered sizes are treated fairly, you guys put down more rubber for less points....

[Tom A]

Honestly, I don't care what the changes are, just that they be publicized in a timely manner. Some of us are already trying to build for next year.

[IGZOSTD]

Ken I have to disagree with that statment , If I run 245's on all 4 and you have 225's and 245's , say the same base class I might have more rubber but the points are the same if we run the same tire . The reason we run a sq set up on tires is the car needs it . I'm all for adding more points to the guys with staggered tires. JUST KIDDING . We have to remember as a hole the system works good .We can't build rules for every situation. I could run the same size tire the Vetts have , My car car would still handle like an over wt. pig and would now have a push and become a Pushy Pig .

In the Nor Cal area the classing seams to work very good . the cars that are pointed out are the fastest , and the ones that have some room to mod up are close behind .

[Red Tornado]

I go back to easy rule compliance results in power to weight for all classes and just like ST2, etc.. some bump in power to weight for slicks, etc..

 

These rules otherwise are getting way to complex.

[trackaddict]

If all classes go with a power to weight ratio as a basis for classification, then the earlier suggestion of taking torque into account gets my vote.

[kbrew8991]

Ken I have to disagree with that statment , If I run 245's on all 4 and you have 225's and 245's , say the same base class I might have more rubber but the points are the same if we run the same tire . The reason we run a sq set up on tires is the car needs it .

 

which is taken care of in base classing, and we're getting double-whammied

[Greg G.]

As the original thread appears to be wandering how about getting back to the topic ?

 

1. a negative points assement for weight over the official published weight, with driver of course. just a reverse of what's already there.

 

2. loose the tire width spec for each class and just have a points add for larger than OEM size ( ex. - I'd say a 16 point penalty for the OEM tire size is overkill as I'd guess the car was classed considering the OEM tire size relating to performance so why " ding " it twice ? )

 

Robert Dudek

NASA Midwest Instructor

 

I've got a few minutes, so I'll make a few comments on these posts up until now.

 

#1 above seems reasonable on the surface, but as with all changes, there are issues. There are some that are lobbying for increased ballast limits, which may also be reasonable. Hypothetically, the use of extra weight could be worth more than it "weight in points" by significantly improving the balance of the vehicle. 200-250 lbs of well placed ballast in a 2500 lb vehicle can make a huge difference in that vehicle's overall balance, and at the same time, decrease the competition class because of the major points savings. Both ideas will be considered.

 

#2 above is essentially off the table as far as I'm concerned. It would require a re-classing of all the cars again, and it is a real PITA to verify, and just opens up more gray areas. Try finding the OEM tire size of a Shelby Lancer, or a '66 Mustang (base trim model), or a 1965 Alfa Romeo, etc. In fact, often finding tire size in vehicles prior to '90 are difficult, even when they are very popular models.

[Greg G.]

1). update backdate for for oem tire size. (based on the widest of tires for us stagered tired cars)

2). tweak the rules to were there can't be any judgement calls. (read black & white. no gray area ) some of the current rules have a little to much gray. which could lead to misunderstandings

 

1. Forgetaboutit. See above on OEM tire sizes.

2. We will be looking at modification rules to see if we can improve definitions without turning the alread large TT Rules into a 100 pager. Of course, if we want to try our best to have "no gray area"--which is essentially impossible (look at all of the Pro race series where gray areas are found monthly), we could. But, it may require a paragraph for each of the 100+ modifications that get points, as well as the 40+ free mods. listed, instead of the fragments, and 1-2 liners that we currently use that seem to get us by until guys start trying to get too creative. As has always been the case, my e-mail box has been open to any NASA TT competitor that has a question about a possible modification assessment (before they make the mod to the car, and find out later that there is an issue that multiple drivers have already been instructed that they cannot do legally.)

[Greg G.]

I guess I'll jump on the campaign trail.

 

1) Whatever class you end up running should be the base tire size. (not your base class tire size)

 

It's tough taking 23 points to run the same size tire as the C5Z's that are only hit w/ 10 pts. (ex . 295 V710/HooHoos)

 

Why yes, I would like some cheese w/ that whine.....

 

I don't think that works...

 

Imagine a car where you end up in TTC + 18 points, and you run 275 tires. Since the tire size is 255, and you are now 20 over, that would be +4, but that puts you to TTB, where you are 10 over, for +1.... which puts you back to TTC, etc etc.

 

In that scenario, if you want to run C then you need to remove 4 points worth of mods. To me it's the maximum mod points an each class. If you decide to run in B then those tire rules apply....

 

I see your point though.....hmmm. Never an easy answer.

 

Andrew hit that one perfectly. My initial idea was to use competition class for tire size assessment, instead of base class. Then, I realized that one would need to do some algebra in many cases to get to the correct tire size when trying to figure out the build of the car. Matt is right that it would be more pure to use competition class, but the complexity of the system takes a quantum leap if we do, and unfortunately, there are already enough competitors/potential competitors/officials/mechanics that think the system is too complex already. The base class tire size allowance works much better than the OEM tire size allowance of the past years (maybe not better for some individuals, but better to keep the classes fair).

[Greg G.]

I for one , not in favor of any rule change other than maybe some car class changes.

I have a heavey car and a big tire penalty .

The curent rules are very good as is . changing rules every year will result in people dropping out of TT. I for one will not chase rules every year . We need stable rules to grow

 

I'm with you on this, Steve. No, guys, it's not just that I'm tired of spending 250+ hours in the off-season on TT Rules revisions. These rules are working well for the most part. I think we will see tight competition at Ohio. And, we are seeing good competition in the individual classes across the country in our regional championship series. There are a few cars that were given a break last year as a transition year for them (No, not the SRT4! ), and I will be looking to get them back in line. And, there are some definitions that I would like to expand. But, I would really like to avoid making any big changes. Guys spent alot of time and money prepping cars for these rules, and there are others that are prepping as we speak for '08 (of course, all they can go on are these rules). I think that the least we can do is give another year and finally some stability in this ruleset. Of course, rules that decrease points or increase free mods are usually not as difficult for competitors to deal with than rules that do the opposite, so we'll see.

[Greg G.]

I also think that changing the rules much will discourage participation. The really serious TT-ers will want to get the hot car in the class they like. The rest of us will do the best with what we have.

 

Figuring OEM tire sizes for every car would make it even harder for the TT directors to try to keep everyone honest. As it is, there seem to be people who feign ignorance and just hope to not get caught in misclassing themselves.

 

As for staggared tire sizes, I think the rules are good as they are. No one has shown why the rules are unfair. From what I have seen, the rules do keep the cars and most of the mods fairly close.

 

I could argue that I am at a disadvantage in TTD with an RX8 since it is a low torque car and whp is significantly lower than claimed hp. Additionally it is very hard to gain extra power out of the car with the usual intake/exhaust/computer reflash type mods where an E36 M3, 944 Turbo or S2000 are more friendly to making more power. Yet, it is what it is and if I want the ultimate class killer, I would probably go with an M3 or something else. But I don't, so I won't (for now).

 

You can always lobby for a decrease in base class for an individual model that has "issues" (Oh, wait, I think that the RX-8 has already been lobbied ). Seriously, feel free to send as much data as you would like regarding this car, because it is one of the cars that was undoubtedly overrated by the manufacturer. We can take another look at it. I'd be most interested in reproducible stock Dynojet HP numbers.

[Greg G.]

Honestly, I don't care what the changes are, just that they be publicized in a timely manner. Some of us are already trying to build for next year.

 

I hear you, Tom--We'll make our best effort. As well, the less changes we make, the faster we can publish.

[Greg G.]

Ken I have to disagree with that statment , If I run 245's on all 4 and you have 225's and 245's , say the same base class I might have more rubber but the points are the same if we run the same tire . The reason we run a sq set up on tires is the car needs it .

 

which is taken care of in base classing, and we're getting double-whammied

 

Ken, I'm still not seeing the problem that you claim there is once we get into competition. If your car runs slower and pushes when you run equal widths, it is to your advantage, not detriment, to have smaller tires up front. The same is true for my car. I've found that at certain tracks, my car is faster with 245's up front and 225's on the rears. The points I take for having the 245's up front (instead of 225's) are totally worth it. So, you definitely get "points" for you persistance, but I'm rating your request as a very very longshot

 

That's about all of the time I have now--back to prepping for the Championship event. I'll see you guys in a week and a half.

[kbrew8991]

with right-wheel-drive its a little different Greg... ah well

 

drop the Miatas an asterix across the board and bump the E30 BMW to TTE base while we're here

[Greg G.]

with right-wheel-drive its a little different Greg... ah well

 

drop the Miatas an asterix across the board and bump the E30 BMW to TTE base while we're here

 

Miatas are fine--Spec Miatas are TTE with room for mods. E30 BMW is a consideration, but not on the top ten list.

[Varkwso]

...... But, I would really like to avoid making any big changes. Guys spent alot of time and money prepping cars for these rules, and there are others that are prepping as we speak for '08 (of course, all they can go on are these rules). I think that the least we can do is give another year and finally some stability in this ruleset. Of course, rules that decrease points or increase free mods are usually not as difficult for competitors to deal with than rules that do the opposite, so we'll see.

 

 

I spent a lot of time and money converting/optimizing my cars for the current rules from last years rules. It was time consuming and expensive (at least in my budget space) and required setting up the cars for a different size tire. Bumping up another class is my biggest fear (TTS is pretty open - read pretty expensive to optimize).

 

The staggered tire penalty is significant in the Vette and Porsche world. I run "square" when I can - but sometimes it is not possible due to clearance issues in the wheelwells (I can show you rubbed fenders, busted inner fenders and scrubbed brake ducts).

 

For example - saying 295 is "average" in TTA is easy to enforce [assumes simple adding and division skills (275 front + 315 rear)/2 = 295]. It is no more difficult then the current 295 base classing.

 

It is a tire cost issue as much as a performance issue. I can get 275 and 315s all day pretty cheap - 295s are more expensive - but that is definitely a whine!

 

Also in the ease of rules enforcement I agree more free mods have to be considered. One area is OEM style springs and anti-sway bars. Converting the car to non-stock configuration (e.g., coilovers on a OEM leaf spring car or addition of a rear sway bar) should carry the points assessed and is easy for TT officials to confirm. If you think OEM tire sizes are difficult - what is the stock spring rates on a 1967 Z/28 Camaro or a 2001 V6 Mustang? Checking coil spring and leaf springs for compliance is near impossible. The same goes for the stock Anti-sway bar sizes - checking if it is 18mm or 19mm is not an eyeball check.