I'm proposing a new Super Touring/TT Class, Thoughts?

[Z06RACER]

I plan on doing so at Road Atlanta next month.

 

Hey David..............that's great. See you down here next month

[TexaST-1]

Hello David, Sorry to hear about your wife. I hope all is well or gets better.

 

You can also count a Time Trial towards your finish count, I believe. Double check or I am sure someone will post.

 

You wont regret the NASA Championship. It is the best racing all year!

[claykos]

I have mixed feelings about this. In a way, you are right, there's a lot of cars running around (vettes especially) in the ~7:1 lbs/hp.

 

On the other hand, I think it's good that there's a big jump between the classes. We don't want to turn this into the SCCA with a different class for each .5 seconds of lap time. Less classes always means more cars in your class to race with and get contingency. Yes, not everyone will be competitive, but hey, that's how it goes.

 

In my region (AZ) we usually have 3-5 ST1 cars and 3-5 ST2 cars. If the classing was changed there would be 1-2 ST1 cars and 1-2 ST1.5 cars. That's no fun and no one would get contingency...

[David M. Pintaric]

This may be a good time to revisit this issue.

 

As some of you know, the "other" race sanctioning body has reduced the minimum weight of the C5 Z06 to 3180 lbs (w/driver). The removal on interior is also allowed.

 

Maybe the solution (to a problem that may not exist!) is to reduce the "base" ratio of ST2 from 8.7:1 to a lower number. 3180/380 RWHP = 8.36. So maybe the base factor could now be in this range. PTA would still stand at thr 8.7 ratio.

 

Just a thought.

[TexaST-1]

Good thought. I haven't kept up with the SCCA in few years. This may also help with some of the TCC cars that are also close.

[Greg G.]

This may be a good time to revisit this issue.

 

As some of you know, the "other" race sanctioning body has reduced the minimum weight of the C5 Z06 to 3180 lbs (w/driver). The removal on interior is also allowed.

 

Maybe the solution (to a problem that may not exist!) is to reduce the "base" ratio of ST2 from 8.7:1 to a lower number. 3180/380 RWHP = 8.36. So maybe the base factor could now be in this range. PTA would still stand at thr 8.7 ratio.

 

Just a thought.

Dave, I think that a lot of our drivers are running at the 3160 to 3180 lb range already, but with 360-365 rwhp. I think there are others that are running the higher hp and higher weight, though. Are most of the T1 Vettes putting out 380 rwhp on a Dynojet in T1 trim? It would not be a huge problem to have the ST2 minimum a little less than PTA (TTS less than TTA for Time Trial). However, this would certainly not be anything to consider for 2009. We can start considering it for 2010, though.

[David M. Pintaric]

Greg,

 

In 2006, the best T1 LS6s were pushing 378-380 RWHP, most were in the low 370s though.

 

When the catalytic converters were removed per rules in 2007, the rest of the field reached that number or close to it. I have heard thru the grapevine some are legally hitting 390 and one has been allegedly measured at 399 RWHP (but has also been disputed by the owner and former owner).

 

My gut for a good guess is 380.

[David M. Pintaric]

Greg,

 

Two things that came to my mind after my last comment:

 

#1. Thanks for considering this and not taking the "We don't care what other people are doing" approach. Your openness is valuable and greatly appreciated.

 

#2. Maybe 370 RWHP should be the target, so lesser powered LS6s can be "right there" on the the HP/weight ratio.

 

One thing I always thought was cool about NASA's program was that if an engine lost some HP due to wear (ala LS6 crate motors after six races), the driver could just take weight out of the car to compensate for the loss and still keep the ratio the same. Making the factor so close to the upper limits of a stock engine's HP range AND the weight so close to the absolute minimum the car can get to without expensive mods seems contrary to the "class philosophy."

 

So maybe a 370 HP and 3200 weight target ratio would be a better idea. But that doesn't make too much of a difference, doesn it? 3200/370 is 8.64:1...not significantly different than the 8.7:1 base.

[Greg G.]

Yep, add another 20 lbs ballast, and you are at 8.7:1. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. We were pretty thoughtful when we originally choose the 8.7:1 for ST2. Since it was a new class, there was no reason not to make it as simple as possible to move over from another class.

[L98Terror]

I would be nice to see a little HP/Lb difference beteen PTA/TTA & ST2/TTS the cars, but I could live with the 8.7, 8.0 would be nice.

 

I still think we need to visit the torque #, other classes are doing it AI,CMC, or maybe HP over a set range.

[kbrew8991]

they're still limited by both hp:weight and points... where you guys are pretty open outside of the hp:weight

[Varkwso]

This seems to be of interest again.

 

The ST-1.5 (and TT equivalent) class is a splitter class but may get some more crossovers instead of fewer cars. I know in TT and AI cars "runup" to get enough cars for contingency in a higher class.

[Greg G.]

It will still dilute the number of current ST1 (and maybe ST2) cars.

[kbrew8991]

moreso than STR1 & STR2?

[Cobra4B]

Leave ST2 alone... I just got done building the Panoz around it!

[Varkwso]

Leave ST2 alone... I just got done building the Panoz around it!

 

 

Most, including me, do not want to touch TTS/ST2. It is my target TT/race group when the planets align.

 

Greg it may dilute ST1/TTU but it may bring more racers over to our grids.

[TexaST-1]

I am with you on ST-2.

 

I think ST-1 needs to be changed to 6.5 or 7.0. Something with in the range of a factory engine with hot rod parts. 3200lbs with 450-500 RWHP.

[L98Terror]

Seems weird that PTA/TTA=TTS/ST2 @8.7

[Bueller]

Hello everyone. Im a ST2 rookie. I competed in TTA for 2 years. This year i started racing in ST2. Ill be at Nationals, so if any of you are going id be interested in discussing this matter in person. Its too early for me to say anything, but for now im definitely more than happy with the the w/p ratio of ST2. I say that more than anything because i want to minimize my expenses. Beyond that, it would totally suck if i lose competitors. Some cars are already maximized for ST2, so if the w/p is lowered, im afraid that ill lose some of my local competitors.

[Trevor57]

There are plenty of classes already.

[kbrew8991]

Seems weird that PTA/TTA=TTS/ST2 @8.7

 

(beating a dead horse) because PTA/TTA is constrained by points and ST2/TTS is not (/beating a dead horse).

 

I've yet to see what I would consider a "fully prepared" ST2/TTS car - one that truly exploits the fairly wide open boundaries of the class

 

again - I feel like ST1 is fine, the current ST2 is fine, I'd just like to see an ST1.5 slide in between the two

[Varkwso]

Here in NASA-SE we have had 12 TTU and 13 TTS participants in 2009. The most at any one event in TTS was 7 (Barber) and TTU was 5 (CMP). Since they are, for the most part, highly modified cars (read as high cost and high maintenance) there have been events were only one (Lowes) took the grid on both classes combined.

 

TTE has had 24 participants in 2009 with 8 taking the grid once (CMP) and as few as 3 (Road Atlanta). Even there incidents and maintenance issues have sidelined several cars for several events.

 

An ST1.5 or TTS+ or TTU- intent is to add a few new cars (currently sitting out since they are not even close to competitive) but looking at our TTU entries more then likely 3-4 would fall into TTS+ or TTU- (depending on where the line is drawn). Interestingly there are no C6Zs running in TTU this year - they would more then likely be the poster child for a TTS+ or TTU- and there are quite a few showing up in HPDE.

[mrc24x]

I think we have enough classes. If anything lower ST1 to the 6ish range and be done with it. The few ST1 cars that are close to the 5.5 limit usually beat the the Unlimited cars anyway....

[TexaST-1]

Seems weird that PTA/TTA=TTS/ST2 @8.7

 

(beating a dead horse) because PTA/TTA is constrained by points and ST2/TTS is not (/beating a dead horse).

 

I've yet to see what I would consider a "fully prepared" ST2/TTS car - one that truly exploits the fairly wide open boundaries of the class

 

again - I feel like ST1 is fine, the current ST2 is fine, I'd just like to see an ST1.5 slide in between the two

 

Brewer, I don't think you realize my car is actually ST-2 disguised as ST-1. So lets talk about the "Fully Prepared" line again. All I had left to do was tune out about 25 RWHP. Easy enough. It didn't appear anyone could run with my program except the 997 Cup car.

 

ST-1 at a 6.5 limit is a do-able number with factory based power plants. I think the car counts would increase for ST-1. I AM NOT PROPOSING ANOTHER CLASS, just a repositioning.

[kbrew8991]

I've seen your car Mixon - there is more aero, etc on the table - its one of the top ones though