Jump to content
911.racer

New Proposed Rule Change - weight pentalty for traction aids

Recommended Posts

911.racer

Ok,

 

So that everyone knows. This rule proposal is coming from me. I have no idea where the other rule proposals have come from, but I am raising my hand on this one.

 

I have been thinking about this for a while, but really had not said anything. I did say it as a half joke in one of the posts and now I am asking for it out loud.

 

Traction aids such as traction control and antilock brakes are a clear advantage for those cars that have them. There should be a weight penalty for the cars that use them.

 

I understand that

 

1. anyone who can drive well can match the performance of a traction aided car, but I would say this would not be during the entire race.

 

2. I could say the same thing about different shocks, a wing, of tire width. But, you can not really compare apples to apples on that. I can add tire width, shocks, a huge wing, but I can not reasonably add traction control or antilock brakes to a car that did not originally come with them.

 

We have a step up for cars that run non-DOT tires, it could work the same way.

 

Take a look at nationals. Look down the stats to find the first car without antilock brakes and you start to understand what I am saying.

 

Anyway, that is it. Figured I would float it out there. And, yes, I have neither, so this request is a little selfish, but I would hope that even when I move to a vehicle that has one or both I would feel the same way.

 

Ed Baus

Porsche 911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosm3os

Noob here, so take it for what it's worth. With regard to the traction control, I don't see how it is such an advantage in the lower-powered cars. I don't make enough power to need it in the dry, and, although I don't use it in the wet, I don't think that the advantage warrants such a penalty. So then what you are requesting is a rule that only impacts some of the classes.

 

As for ABS, I think you already acknowledge you have a tough row to hoe.

 

Now that we are discussing all these rules changes, I am seeing that the simplicity of the rules is the beauty of this series. It's a slipery slope to the SCCA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemming

 

Now that we are discussing all these rules changes, I am seeing that the simplicity of the rules is the beauty of this series. It's a slipery slope to the SCCA!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Waite

Ed,

 

Thanks for identifying yourself with this proposal as it makes the discussion much easier. I for one, strongly disagree with your proposal. I think traction control including ABS are car setup choices very similar to suspension setup, tires, weight decisions(light vs heavy with more power) etc, . These are all decisions we make in setting up a car. This is not a spec. series and we should not try to identify every single difference that one may have in a car. It's all weight/HP, that's the beauty of it and let's keep it that way.

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakermc

I do not have ABS, traction control, power steering, etc. Yes, I am probably at a disadvantage. But those were choices I made and I accept them. Sure, I could drive a newer BMW but everyone knows all the cool people drive Porsches and are fascinated by torsion bar technology.

 

As others have said, the beauty of this series is the simplicity. I'd prefer we keep things as simple as possible. It's what differentiates what we do from SCCA, PCA, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911

Man I'm going to have to think on this one.

 

I've got no ABS, no Traction control, no power brakes, no power steering, no fuel injection.... so as a competetive person I'm in favor of this. ABS in particular is a big advantage especially in the cold/rain. However as some have said, simplicity is key and that carries a lot of weight too..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer

Brad,

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

But, it would relate back to car choice. Most any car made previous to 85 does not have antilock brakes. Something like anti lock brakes can not be added to an early car. So, for a person with an early car, anti lock brakes are not an option. My only option, then, is to sell my car and start building a 993 911 race car.

 

If we are looking to encourage as many people as possible to the group, then we need to consider this.

 

If all modifications are fair, then why do we have a rule about DOT vs non-DOT tires. Why not have any and all tires be equal. We just had a post saying that we would not included the grand am take offs because there may be a slight advantage to someone running clapped out (really about the same as the clapped out DOT Hoosiers. I have driven them both) take offs from actual race cars. Why not have all tires be of equal power weight rules. That would simplify the rules even more.

 

Ed Baus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosm3os

Why can't you P-car guys just admit that you bought cars that are poorly engineered (for whatever decade they were built) and wholly inadequate for track duty? The only thing going for them is that sweet engine note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tfro
But, it would relate back to car choice. Most any car made previous to 85 does not have antilock brakes. Something like anti lock brakes can not be added to an early car. So, for a person with an early car, anti lock brakes are not an option. My only option, then, is to sell my car and start building a 993 911 race car.

 

I don't see why you couldn't add a motorsport ABS system, or an ABS system from a different car. It's an option, although not cheap. A similarly expensive modification to an E36 BMW is a widebody kit that lets you run much more tire width. Add the cost of the kit, bodyshop work and a few sets of new wide wheels and it's fairly close in cost. It's a huge potential performance increas (look at the tire widths of the 3 winning BMWs, you couldn't get that in a stock bodied E36).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Waite

Ed,

 

ABS can be added. I know this because it was an option I was considering if I bought a car to build without it. So although it may be expensive, it's still a racer's choice. Should I also be penalized for having Moton Club Sports over the stock suspension?

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damon in STL

Ed,

 

I think you have a valid point. Although, I do not have traction control....I do have ABS. I guess I'd be willing to add 5lbs. - 10 lbs. for having a more simplistic car without the traction control. You guys got it made by not having all that complex stuff that can break.

 

Damon in STL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CARVAL Motorsports
Ed,

 

Should I also be penalized for having Moton Club Sports over the stock suspension?

 

Brad

 

 

YES

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
Ed,

 

ABS can be added. I know this because it was an option I was considering if I bought a car to build without it. So although it may be expensive, it's still a racer's choice. Should I also be penalized for having Moton Club Sports over the stock suspension?

 

Brad

 

 

Really. Through whom. Stienels?

 

No on the motons. of course. I have stated that.

 

Back to it then. Why have a weight penalty for the non-DOT tires then. It set a bad precedence.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Should I also be penalized for having Moton Club Sports over the stock suspension? Brad

 

You've swayed me over Brad. Once we open that door of "penalizing performance modifications" we may get flooded.

 

Ed, think on it this way... If we allow this we'll be left with trying to sort out the relative advantage of one thing (ABS) vs. another (MOTON) and trying to assign a penalty based on that subjective assessment. Yes we could JUST to ABS, untill someone makes the case for MOTON, or Secret-Squirrel Aero, etc... then we're in the soup. Is it 10 lbs for ABS, and 20# for MOTON, or 10# for MOTON and 20# for ABS? I feel that ABS would help my car more, but better struts might help others more so the assessment would never be fair.

 

Yes, this does then make the slicks vs. DOT a bit hypocritical, but many have built to the limit based on tire choice and changing an existing rule would have me/them priming the cannons and hoisting the Jolly Roger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dillehayd
Ed,

 

ABS can be added. I know this because it was an option I was considering if I bought a car to build without it. So although it may be expensive, it's still a racer's choice. Should I also be penalized for having Moton Club Sports over the stock suspension?

 

Brad

 

Exactly. I chose an engine package that puts me at a disadvantage because my torque number is a lower percentage of my rwhp than other competitors running the same marque. My choice which I can change if I want. We all choose our own cars and have no business penalizing people who made better choices (or could afford better equipment).

 

There are aftermarket solutions for ABS and traction control. They are expensive. Should I propose that all Porsche's get a weight penalty because most of them have better brakes than I can afford?

 

Lastly, I think we should all keep in mind that this is a monumentally bad time to be tinkering with the rules. We've got a large political disruption in the series right now which has the potential to give it a black eye in the minds of people who might race with us later on down the road. That is, of course, in addition to a (hopefully very small) number of people who just will not race with NASA because of hard feelings about things. There's a big picture that should be considered here.

 

PS, I have no traction control and my ABS is shot in a way I can't figure out how to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxxfish

I don't have ABS or traction control, but I wish I had ABS (for the money I've spent on flat-spotted tires, I could have installed it!).

 

But I don't think those items should incur a penalty, it will start us down a bad path. If you want to follow that type of ruleset, you can run in PT/ST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jvanhouten

I'm against adding any "performance modifiers" of any kind and I didn't have ABS, traction control or power steering this year--I'm seemed to do just fine in the rain

 

It is a very slippery slope and there are other more complicated/thorough rulesets (PT) available. I can understand the tire difference as that is much more likely to bring more people in if they don't have to change their setup/tires for our series. Making concessions for those with 20+ year old cars is not a big group of people compared to those with more modern cars that might be drawn in by the simple ruleset.

 

Lastly, given the politics surrounding GTS, I don't think we should make any substantive changes to the rules.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmwhite
Take a look at nationals. Look down the stats to find the first car without antilock brakes and you start to understand what I am saying.

 

yep, you'd have to look all the way down to...1st place overall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSG1901
Take a look at nationals. Look down the stats to find the first car without antilock brakes and you start to understand what I am saying.

 

yep, you'd have to look all the way down to...1st place overall

And 2nd place in GTS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CARVAL Motorsports
Take a look at nationals. Look down the stats to find the first car without antilock brakes and you start to understand what I am saying.

 

yep, you'd have to look all the way down to...1st place overall

And 2nd place in GTS2.

 

Took me all year to get comfortable with those brakes Scott, and they are still really, no match for ABS, and quite especially in the rain or damp and slick conditions. But, as everyone has already stated, and I am in agreement, you have to be very careful in adding regulations to slow down cars.

 

Look, we have known that there is a problem in GTS/3 for 3-4 years now. What we do not like to see is one car (marque) domination, and that is what we have with the M3. It is very hard to build a better mouse trap than that. So, Ed's (he is brilliant by the way) frustration is warranted. We occasionally see a P-car run in the top GTS/3 positions, they occasionally can put in a lap close to the fastest M3's, key is occassionally, whilst the M3 can do it lap after lap after lap. We had discussed weight penalties in the past, based on points or wins, but for the same reasons then, as we are discussing now, once you start this mechanism, you can't shut it down. (Maybe we need to look at it backwards, deduct weight for the.... naw, no way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole

Just throwing this out for way future discussion, mostly thinking aloud, but doesn't the ALMS GT class use R.E.W.A.R.D.S (am I mixing series - I saw Randy Pobst discussing it in one of his articles?) to add weight penalties? I can see this working in a single national series (like USTCC), but something along these lines would be very hard to implement fairly across all regions and have it carry over to Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

 

Look, we have known that there is a problem in GTS/3 for 3-4 years now. What we do not like to see is one car (marque) domination, and that is what we have with the M3. It is very hard to build a better mouse trap than that. So, Ed's (he is brilliant by the way) frustration is warranted. We occasionally see a P-car run in the top GTS/3 positions, they occasionally can put in a lap close to the fastest M3's, key is occassionally, whilst the M3 can do it lap after lap after lap. We had discussed weight penalties in the past, based on points or wins, but for the same reasons then, as we are discussing now, once you start this mechanism, you can't shut it down. (Maybe we need to look at it backwards, deduct weight for the.... naw, no way.)

 

Yea, but you cant do a comparison like that. The cars are setup different with different drivers. Ive been told by many that once a 996/997 P-car shows up prepped to GTS3 max will dominate. It just hasnt happened yet. What do we do then? Add penalties to the 996/997 for having a rear engine setup?

 

Plus, not all cars have the same ABS or even the same ABS performance. The E36 M3 ABS is pretty sucky to begin with. What happens when someone shows up with a GTS3 E46 M3 w/ a motorsport ABS system? What about the E30 guys with "antiquated suspension"? Do we have to account for that too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pinnacle Racing
Why can't you P-car guys just admit that you bought cars that are poorly engineered (for whatever decade they were built) and wholly inadequate for track duty? The only thing going for them is that sweet engine note.

 

I realize I'm new to the forum but I can't reisist...

 

What Marque has more Endurance racing victories, ie: 24hours of LeMans victories, Rolex 24hours of Daytona victories, Sebring 12hours, Petit Lemans, etc.? What Marque beat the famous Audi R10 (LMP1) with a lessor (LMP2) car in the ALMS... Several times....?

 

 

 

I'll give you a hint...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The engine is behind the driver...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B.Watts
Take a look at nationals. Look down the stats to find the first car without antilock brakes and you start to understand what I am saying.

 

As has been said, the GTS5 winner and overall winner Andy Watts did not have ABS. We are considering adding it to the car if we can find a system that meets our budget...we'll probably upgrade to a newer system than the 3-channel that came installed on the car in 1995.

 

Barry Battle's car, with the 3rd overall fastest lap from the race, did not have ABS.

 

Something like anti lock brakes can not be added to an early car.

 

Why the heck not? Send me some money and your car...I'll send it back with ABS. From a stand alone stock system to a fully programmable and switchable on the fly Motorsport system.

 

Back to it then. Why have a weight penalty for the non-DOT tires then. It set a bad precedence.

 

Agreed...who did the testing to find out how much faster or slower slicks are than DOT tires anyway? I can buy slicks that are slower than the fastest DOT's and we now have DOT's that are nearly as fast as even the "fast" slicks (maybe AS fast...the slick advantage is from consistency, not overall speed IMO). The weight penalty for slicks was obviously pulled out of thin air just like any other weight penalty would be. Unless we're planning to run data/testing to see the actual benefits of various mods, we're dealing with the guess and bias of the person/people making the guess.

 

We attempted to prove a point about DOT's at Nationals this year but never really got enough setup time on the DOT's to prove said point due to the rain. If it's an "open" rule set, I think the tire penalty needs to go.

 

Look, we have known that there is a problem in GTS/3 for 3-4 years now. What we do not like to see is one car (marque) domination, and that is what we have with the M3. It is very hard to build a better mouse trap than that. So, Ed's (he is brilliant by the way) frustration is warranted. We occasionally see a P-car run in the top GTS/3 positions, they occasionally can put in a lap close to the fastest M3's, key is occassionally, whilst the M3 can do it lap after lap after lap. We had discussed weight penalties in the past, based on points or wins...

 

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. Better drivers in better setup cars, period. If the top GTS3 guys put the same effort/budget into building a Porsche, they would still be running at the front. GTS3 isn't even close to being "developed" either since the winning BMW's are pretty much crossover cars from a strict Prepared ruleset in BMW CCA. None of the GTS classes are even close to being fully developed. The sky is the limit in an open rule set. You could easily build a $400-500K GTS2 car if you wanted...buy a 997 RSR or a new BMW ALMS M3, detune the motor, add a little weight, throw on some $40K Ohlins, spend some time in the wind tunnel building underbody aero, chop the roof, etc, etc, etc... All within the "rules".

 

Weight penalties based on wins/points would do 1 thing and 1 thing only...it would encourage the people in the fast cars to run the bare minimum of races to qualify for Nationals and to sandbag when they did run those races. Hardly a money making idea.

Share this post


Link to post
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...