2009 PT/TT Rule Updates and Changes--12-19-08

[Greg G.]

 

One other question: If a car gets re-baseclassed on dyno/scales numbers do other points affecting engine performance (HP) still get applied?

No, there are no points for power mods in that case.

[ff2skip]

so why the huge points add to the s2000's. Cuz they wont be able to compete in TTB/PTB @ a national Level.

Technically, there were no points added if one is using an ECU reflash. The car was moved up from ** to the next class (6 points, but increased base tire size by 10mm which is equal to either 1 or 3 points depending on the tire size used). ECU's that were 5 points are now free. So, for S2K's with ECU reflashes, they are either equal to last year, or two points better than last year. So, with the S2000's being a dominant force in TTB at the National level in the past, there is no reason that they won't be in the future.

 

We realized early into 2008 that Honda Challenge had appropriately recognized the benefits of the 2.2L later model S2000's, and gave them a 100lb higher minimum weight than the 2.0's. We did not give them a heavy enough assessment in PT/TT. We considered bumping them up at that time, but decided that the season had started, and we really do not like bumping car classes mid-season. So, they were slated for the bump since early in 2008. The excellent job that you did at the Championships in TTC w/o an ECU reflash, combined with the new rules that has bumped out some of the major competitors that were in TTC (or they have to add weight or detune, etc), just reaffirms our previous decision. As well, the new rules would have permitted the same car to run with a reflashed ECU--again reaffirming our original decision.

The way things are written now, there is only a difference of two points between an AP1 & an AP2. Last year the difference was +3 based on weight differential. For some reason, you all have dropped the AP2 weight from 2855lbs to 2850lbs while increasing the AP1 from 2810lbs to 2850lbs. That's a +3 pt difference from the previous year(comparing AP1 - AP2). This seems odd considering you just stated that the previous weight diff wasn't significant enough. Additionally, the only AP2's that can reflash their oem ecu's are the '07's & up. The AP2's do get a point back for tire size(not sure where you came up with +3).

 

If you throw in the free reflash, then the late AP2 is a point better off than an AP1. :thumbup:

[AlpineFD]

Looks like NASA figured out how to race turbo and na engined cars together competitively. SCCA should take some notes here =) Eventhough the new rules puts my turbo engined mazdaspeed3 at some what of a disadvantage, but i'm all for fair racing !

[sperkins]

I use split sizes 275f and 305r. Does this mean I would get back 2 points for not running 295's in the front and give up 1 point for the 305 rear leaving me with +1 point left over? Not that it matters since I'm not TT anyway.

 

PTA: 295 mm, PTB: 265mm, PTC: 255mm, PTD: 245mm, PTE: 235mm. Drivers choosing to use tires narrower than the size listed for their base class may get credited back points by reversing the assessments listed above using the smaller decrease of front or rear for cars using split sizes (i.e. -1 for 10mm smaller, -4 for 20mm smaller, -7 for 30mm smaller, etc.)

[TurboShortBus]

I use split sizes 275f and 305r. Does this mean I would get back 2 points for not running 295's in the front and give up 1 point for the 305 rear leaving me with +1 point left over? Not that it matters since I'm not TT anyway.

I'd like a sensible explanation for this as well. A NASA-FL TT driver apparently lost his 2008 regional championship because he thought he got points back for narrower front tires (while running wider in the rear), and the error wasn't caught until the last event of the season. Instead of being maxed out in his class, it bumped him up to the next class as a low-end points car. They explained it to me in a fairly convoluted way, but I was left standing there with a look on my face like I had just seen the "Chewbacca defense."

 

I agree that it's not clear if you run 1 size smaller and 1 size bigger, but sometimes I'm not too smart, either.

 

Mark

[kbrew8991]

I've been lobbying for "average tire width" since ~2007 to no avail (partly because it is admittedly a self-serving endeavor as a person who typically runs 205s & 225s). The argument given is FWD guys will just run narrow tires on the back to save points - which may work for an understeering pig of an SRT4, but not for most FWD cars I've been around.

 

The widest tire is what gives you points, even if your other 3 are small - thats the current ruling. If you also ran 1 Hoosier R and 3 RA1s you'd take 10 points for compound. For an even more screwed up combo if you had 1-315 RA1, 2-195 RA1s, and 1-195 Hoosier R you'd take +10 for the Hoosier and +_ for the 315 width, not +5 for RA1s and +/- _ for 195s or some combination of the averages. That is an extreme example of course, but illustrates the point.

 

direct letters to: [email protected] write to get the R888 dropped to +5 while you're at it, especially after hearing of the SpecE30 guys throwing paper (protesting) for people not obeying the RA1/R888 change over because the RA1 is faster for them.

 

That ruling has been around since we switched from "+/- widths from your stock size to determine points" to the "current" tire rules. I don't know how anyone could have missed that to be honest??

Edited December 29, 2008 by Guest

[vpnwiz]

I'd like a sensible explanation for this as well. A NASA-FL TT driver apparently lost his 2008 regional championship because he thought he got points back for narrower front tires (while running wider in the rear), and the error wasn't caught until the last event of the season.

From the TT rules:

Drivers choosing to use tires narrower than the size listed for their base class may get credited back points by reversing the assessments listed above using the smaller decrease of front or rear for cars using split sizes

Split size tires always take the smallest decrease. The larger tire always gives you a smaller decrease in point credit, right? So the widest tire is what you take points (or take credit) for. I used to take a hit for this when I ran 225's on the back and 205's on the front. I agree with it as a rule though. I now run 225's all the way around... if I'm gonna take the points (or give up the point credit) I am gonna use them all the way around.

 

The bigger problem is - there should be no reason for someone to lose a regional championship over this... it's pretty basic stuff! Makes me wonder where the oversight for the Florida TT region was this year. Sounds like Florida has had some issues reading the TT rules or having someone help their competitors be legal to the TT rules. I hope that changes soon.

 

Patrick

[TurboShortBus]

Patrick-

 

While it may sound simple if both of your tire sizes are above the base class width (say, a car starts in TTE (235mm) and runs 245mm front and 275mm rear, then the 275mm rear size determines the points), what happens if the fronts are narrower than the base class width while the rears are wider? This is the case of the NASA-FL driver that I mentioned. For example, a TTE base car (235mm) running 225mm up front and 245mm out back; he paid the points for wider rear tires, but credited himself points for narrower front tires, and that was apparently not the case per the convoluted explanation that was given to me, although one could certainly interpret the rules that way. I would think that running -10mm up front and +10mm out back would be a wash by reading the rules, but apparently, the larger size determines the points, no matter what the smaller size might be.

 

Mark

[TurboShortBus]

Sounds like Florida has had some issues reading the TT rules or having someone help their competitors be legal to the TT rules. I hope that changes soon.

Patrick

Well, it's not like we're using a different set of rules down here. I'm sure that the confusion exists elsewhere, too. Come on now...

 

Mark

[jason]

the larger size determines the points, no matter what the smaller size might be.

That's how I read it.

[ff2skip]

Wow. Of all the things to miss, that seems like it would be the last one- right there under everyone's noses. While I could see a couple of entrants getting it wrong, I can't fathom the entire chapter was under the wrong impression.

[vpnwiz]

Sounds like Florida has had some issues reading the TT rules or having someone help their competitors be legal to the TT rules. I hope that changes soon.

Patrick

Well, it's not like we're using a different set of rules down here. I'm sure that the confusion exists elsewhere, too. Come on now...

 

Mark

Umm - your 'B' National Champion had an illegal part on his car at regional events and Nationals. Now you say one of your regional champions was DQ'd for tire size "confusion"? If he was the "champion" it means he competed all year like that. The tire size is cut and dry, black and white and there should be no question about that at all. I didn't mean to sound condescending, if I did I'm sorry, I just never thought someone would misunderstand split tire size points when the rules mention it specifically. I don't know who explained it to you so convoluted, but if you read the rules yourself it doesn't leave any question about what you need to do to stay legal.

 

So yeah, I think your region has some TT issues you need to deal with! Something like that should have been caught. If I was competing in your region I would be having a pre-season get-together with as many TT competitors as possible to read the rules, go over cars, ask questions, read the rules, and drink beer (in that order). And I would do the same thing at the first comp day, too.

 

There's no reason for someone to lose their winnings over tire size points. That just sucks. But it sucks more to compete and lose against someone who was illegally running in your class. Don't forget you are allowed to pull other competitor's forms and inspect their car at the track. You can't tear an engine down or anything but you can look around, in, and under it.

 

Patrick

[sperkins]

Patrick - Your clarification is spot on, but I think there are circumstances where an average tire width should be considered. Some cars in stock form cannot run a square set up. If the driver chooses not to use the available points to run as wide a tire as possible on the front, then he's only hurting himself (and not fully utilizing those points). IMO that driver should not be docked the full point deduction.

 

What say you?

[vpnwiz]

Patrick - Your clarification is spot on, but I think there are circumstances where an average tire width should be considered. Some cars in stock form cannot run a square set up. If the driver chooses not to use the available points to run as wide a tire as possible on the front, then he's only hurting himself (and not fully utilizing those points). IMO that driver should not be docked the full point deduction.

 

What say you?

I agree with you. I can see that creating some real confusion with the tire sizes and point credits/deductions though.

 

This impacted me too, since my car was set up to run 205's in the front and 225's in the back. After taking the points for the 225's I decided to try them on the front, too. They rub just a bit, but do fit. I may go back to the 205's at some point but for now it is nice to be able to rotate the tires as I need to. And make full use of all the points I take

 

Patrick

[ff2skip]

Some cars in stock form cannot run a square set up.

The S2000 is the same way- factory staggered front to rear. I still don't think an "average" would be good though(S2000 owner here in case you couldn't tell ).

[kbrew8991]

I really haven't come across any (besides Greg himself) that were against the "average" tire width determining points

 

I'd be happy to take a stab at writing that part if it had a prayer of being used...

[TurboShortBus]

I'll admit that I scored higher on the math portion of my SATs than I did on the reading comprehension section, but I think I can find my way around a rulebook! While others do not think that a discrepancy could exist, I cannot see how one would think that the rule is "cut and dry" or "black and white." Here's what I'm reading in the 2008 rules:

 

"Increased tire width beyond that listed above (using the largest increase of front or rear if using split sizes) will be assessed as follows:..."

 

and

 

"Drivers choosing to use tires narrower than the size listed for their base class may get credited back points by reversing the assessments listed above using the smaller decrease of front or rear for cars using split sizes..."

 

Let's take a BMW 335i for example, which starts in TTD (245mm base class tire size) but comes with 235mm front and 255mm rear tires from the factory (my friend's 335i did, anyway). The first quote above says that the 255mm (+10mm) rear tires mean that the car gets +1 point; that's a no-brainer. The first quote also inaccurately assumes that all 4 tires are being increased ("...using the largest increase...")in relation to the base class tire size; in this 335i example, the basis for a decrease argument could exist regarding the front tires. However, it could also be argued (or misunderstood) that, based on the second quote above, the 235mm (-10mm) front tires mean that the car could get 1 point back, so the total tire points based on width would be +0. If both conditions do not apply in this case, then there should be a line in the rules that specifically prevents both conditions from being applied simultaneously.

 

Here are my suggestions to prevent further misunderstandings:

 

1. Specifically state that the widest tire size on the car, regardless of the size of any other tire above or below the base class tire size, determines the tire width points assessment for the car, or

2. Assess points for the size increase or decrease for each different tire size on the car, and see where it ends up with the current points system, or

3. Average all tire widths on the car and assess points values for the average overall width (will probably have similar results to #2 above).

 

None of this applies to my particular situation, since I run 4 identical tires and they are all +20mm. However, I definitely feel that the wording can (and should) be improved to prevent any future misunderstandings. I'm confident that this has been misunderstood by more than just 2 of us who happen to live in Florida.

 

Mark

[ff2skip]

"Drivers choosing to use tires narrower than the size listed for their base class may get credited back points by reversing the assessments listed above using the smaller decrease of front or rear for cars using split sizes..."

Mark

The smaller decrease would be an increase in the case you alluded to, thereby nullifying any reduction of points.

 

Could it be worded better? Sure.

 

That said, I am not in favor of averaging tire sizes.

[TurboShortBus]

I really don't care if anybody decides to average the tire sizes or not; just reword the damn thing. Like I said, this doesn't affect my current setup, so it won't affect my points; I'm just pointing out that the need for clarification exists.

 

Mark

[vpnwiz]

The first quote also inaccurately assumes that all 4 tires are being increased ("...using the largest increase...")in relation to the base class tire size; in this 335i example, the basis for a decrease argument could exist regarding the front tires. However, it could also be argued (or misunderstood) that, based on the second quote above, the 235mm (-10mm) front tires mean that the car could get 1 point back, so the total tire points based on width would be +0. If both conditions do not apply in this case, then there should be a line in the rules that specifically prevents both conditions from being applied simultaneously.

Mark, the first quote doesn't "assume" anything - it states that if you are using split tire sizes you have to take the biggest hit. There is no room for argument with a statement. I agree, it could (and should) be worded better to say something about the widest tire size.

 

Here are my suggestions to prevent further misunderstandings: ...

Not to be a d!ck, but... ask on nasaforums.com? I know 5 or 6 people that would have responded within 2 hours. That's a heck of a lot easier than losing all your results for a season. I like your idea #1 though.

 

I'm confident that this has been misunderstood by more than just 2 of us who happen to live in Florida.

Well... ... maybe? This is the first I've heard of someone having a problem with it, actually. The first time I read it I knew I was getting a 6 point hit. My base tire size is 245, but I had 205's on the front and 225's on the back. With 205's alone I would get a 10 point credit. But I only get a 4 point credit because "Increased tire width beyond that listed above (using the largest increase of front or rear if using split sizes) will be assessed as follows:..." yeah yeah yeah

 

Anyway, about Florida TT: we are ALL competitors in TT. ALL OF US. And we should all be held to the same standards of bringing a legal car to compete. Anyone who shows up to TT in Florida should be paddocked next to each other, checking out each their cars to help out! Going over forms, looking at the car, etc. If there is a question about the legality of a car - ask everyone! Open it up. Losing one or two sessions from a weekend sucks a lot less than losing a whole season. That's all.

 

For the record I am against averaging tire sizes. I could run 3-225's and 1-205 (on the FR) at a track like Mid-Ohio, what do I do then?? That sounds like a math nightmare to me and I SUCK at math!

 

Patrick

[sperkins]

 

For the record I am against averaging tire sizes.

 

I think you've made that pretty clear. Besides the rule as you interpret it, what do you have against someone else saving points by running a split set up IF it were allowed? I think most would agree that tires are the first and best place to use your points. Therefore, smaller front tires would hinder the guy doing it - right?

[krisa9977]

I'm from Florida and I had 245/275 set up with 255 base tires running Nationals. Reading the rules, it was clear to me that you take biggest tire and add or credit you points. I had +4 pts for 20mm increase in my TT form. The reason I choose to run 245/275 setup vs. 275/275, because I think it was the best setup for my car.

[ff2skip]

 

For the record I am against averaging tire sizes.

 

I think you've made that pretty clear. Besides the rule as you interpret it, what do you have against someone else saving points by running a split set up IF it were allowed? I think most would agree that tires are the first and best place to use your points. Therefore, smaller front tires would hinder the guy doing it - right?

Besides adding one more thing for directors/inspectors to deal with, I'm guessing a FWD car could load up on front tire width while keeping the rear more "normal," thereby possibly eliminating understeer completely without having to stiffen the rear of the car through braces/dampers/springs/etc. Dunno... just throwing that out there. Mainly though, I think it's easier to enforce and one less thing to screw up.

[sperkins]

Besides adding one more thing for directors/inspectors to deal with, I'm guessing a FWD car could load up on front tire width while keeping the rear more "normal," thereby possibly eliminating understeer completely without having to stiffen the rear of the car through braces/dampers/springs/etc. Dunno... just throwing that out there. Mainly though, I think it's easier to enforce and one less thing to screw up.

 

Good point.

[TurboShortBus]

Well, like I said before, I run 4 identical tires, so none of this applies to me or my points count, and I know that I was safely in TTD in my two TT weekends (I actually discovered that I left 2 points on the table after using accurate scales, instead of the low-rent 40 year old balance beam local dragstrip scale I initially used).

 

I see what you're saying about the rule, and I get it, but I'm just saying that there is definitely room for improvement in this case.

 

Mark