2009 ST Rules

[Greg G.]

The 2009 ST Rules will be posted today. There are no major changes for 2009 at this time. We have increased the size of the non-DOT tire allowance under the + 0.8 modification factor listing from 9.5" to 9.6" (to fix an inequity between a few different commonly used tires).

[pit boss]

SCCA has just allowed dry sump systems for the C6 corvettes in T1 and allowed removal of the interior so will our T1 cars still be able to run ST2?

 

Thanks

[kbrew8991]

Steps to determine legality for a power modification in ST classes:

1.) does it keep you above the adjusted hp:weight limit? If yes = legal, if no = not legal

 

(yes, there really is only 1 step - make power however you want - well, except nitrous due to safety...)

 

Steps to determine legality for a weight reduction mod in ST classes:

1.) does it keep you above the adjusted hp:weight limit? If yes = legal, if no = not legal

 

(again, only 1 step here too - pull that interior out, leave it in, add ballast, remove it - whatever you want)

[Greg G.]

Here is the basic list of do's and dont's for ST, but pull up the rules and take a few minutes to go through everything yourself. The short answer is yes, dry sumps are not a problem. I just noticed that the '09 ST Rules are not posted. This is from them:

 

 

7.2 NASA CCR Section 15 and 18 Exceptions

All of the rules listed in the NASA CCR Sections 15 and 18 will apply, except, the following

rules will supercede those in the CCR:

CCR 15.6—Roll cages may be built to provide an unlimited amount of chassis stiffening.

Any number of cage mounting points may be used above the six (6) minimum

requirement, and, any number of additional tubes may be used above the minimum with

additional attachment points to the body, including tubes that penetrate the firewall.

CCR 15.8—An electrical master cut-off switch is required.

CCR 15.9—Steering wheel lock removal is recommended, but not required.

CCR 15.16—An approved suitable racing seat is required.

CCR 18.6—Engine modifications are unlimited.

Front driver and passenger side fixed/Lexan windows are specifically not permitted

unless they are factory installed during the manufacturing of the vehicle. Both front side

windows must otherwise be in the down position while on track.

 

7.3 Vehicle Modification Restrictions/Limitations

Unless listed below or in Section 7.2, any other performance enhancing modifications are

permitted, provided that the vehicle complies at all times with the minimum “adjusted”

weight/power ratio (7.4) for its class.

1) Every vehicle must retain its OEM frame rails (or unibody), strut towers, floorpan,

and subframe. Tube-frame chassis conversion (partial or complete) is not permitted

without a waiver from the National ST Director. Floorpan modifications to include

items such as subframe connectors, roll cage bracing, and fuel cell placement may be

approved on a case-by-case basis by the National ST Director. Such modifications

will be subject to approval and possible modification factor assessments.

2) Aerodynamic modifications are unrestricted, except that a rear wing (or rear spoiler

for wagon-style bodies), may not exceed a height of eight ( inches above the

roofline (or OEM windshield height for convertibles).

3) Nitrous Oxide use is prohibited. Pre-existing tanks must be removed.

4) Sequential, Tiptronic-like, paddle shift/semi-automatic, and dog-ring/straight-cut

gears (i.e. non-synchromesh) transmissions are permitted, but will be assessed via the

“adjusted” weight/power ratio formula regardless of whether they are OEM or not.

5) Tire and wheel size are unlimited, but non-DOT approved tires will be assessed via

the “adjusted” weight/power ratio.

6) Up to two hundred and fifty (250) lbs. of added ballast is permitted—All ballast must

be of solid material (no fluids or shot pellets) and safely secured in any location on

the vehicle approved by NASA safety technical inspectors. The preferred method is

to use at least one (1) 3/8-inch grade-5 bolt, two (2) “fender” washers and a locking

nut system for every fifteen (15) pounds of weight.

7) From the start of qualifying through the end of post-race inspection, vehicles may not

have any adjustments or modifications made to systems that could alter chassis

dynamometer readings by changing horsepower levels (without the direct approval of

the Race Director.)

[MJM]

Is ST for street cars?

 

The reason I ask is that I see that tube frame racecars are allowed in the this class.

 

Thanks.

[Greg G.]

There are some tube frame cars that have been approved, but it is primarily a production car class. We have some new classes coming soon for tube frame cars that otherwise did not qualify for ST (GT type cars, Stock cars, etc).

[MJM]

There are some tube frame cars that have been approved, but it is primarily a production car class. We have some new classes coming soon for tube frame cars that otherwise did not qualify for ST (GT type cars, Stock cars, etc).

 

Will you be moving the tube frame purpose built race cars OUT of ST?

 

That is one of the things keeping me from jumping in, the thought of having to compete against a purpose built race car in something that starts as a street car.

[kbrew8991]

I'd rather have a, say, Noble/Rossion based car, or Viper Comp Coupe, or 911 RSR, or... than the Panozes or very rare other exceptions that are made. Its not like you're up against a Stohr or Radical type car...

[Bart Carter]

You find a Panoz is competitive with a Viper Comp Coup?

[kbrew8991]

its supposed to be - they're both at the same -0.20 correction factor, but I don't think a tube frame Mustang with a couple tweaks (call it what it is) is on par with Dodge's best - ymmv, I'm no car builder (yet).

[claykos]

I heard rumors of ST3?

 

Are the rules actually out yet?

[philstireservice]

ST3?

 

Hmmm? I'm interested in hearing about that.

[Greg G.]

Yes, the '09 Rules have been out--looks like they need to change the listing they have on the Rules page stating they are 2008. But, the rules say 2009 on them. http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf

 

ST3 is not happening in 2009. If we want to start some rumors: If you have a tube-frame car that has not been eligible for anything except Super Unlimited in the past, but you don't have 600+ hp or weigh 1250 lbs, we do have something in the pipeline for you.

 

The 2009 ST Rules are out. We do not plan on "revoking" any of the currently approved tube-frame "spec" cars in the 2009 season. Also, despite the outcome of the ST1 Championship race, it sure showed that our classing system can make for some great racing between our tube-frame "spec" cars and our great production cars (Z06 vs Panoz)....

[kbrew8991]

do I smell the reemergence of SUO and SUU?

[RAFTRACER]

Yes, the '09 Rules have been out--looks like they need to change the listing they have on the Rules page stating they are 2008. But, the rules say 2009 on them. http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

ST3 is not happening in 2009. If we want to start some rumors: If you have a tube-frame car that has not been eligible for anything except Super Unlimited in the past, but you don't have 600+ hp or weigh 1250 lbs, we do have something in the pipeline for you.

 

The 2009 ST Rules are out. We do not plan on "revoking" any of the currently approved tube-frame "spec" cars in the 2009 season. Also, despite the outcome of the ST1 Championship race, it sure showed that our classing system can make for some great racing between our tube-frame "spec" cars and our great production cars (Z06 vs Panoz)....

 

You and I ought to talk about the outcome of the ST1 Championship race sometime soon now that several months have passed and heads are alot more cooled off.....

 

I think that you are going to find some ST1 and ST2 cars going faster than they should this year......Not taking into account tq in the hp/wt ratio is a huge mistake and obviously people were taking advantage of this last year (Panoz and others).......Panoz engine is only 40 cubes larger than mine and has to run nearly 1 whole point pwr/wt ratio lower..... FYI, my engine was never built specifically for ST classes as ST was not formatted at that time. My engine makes over 100 rwtq less than HP. Guess what ...I think that the engine is going to gain 150-200 rwtq and keep the same HP.....and we'll see how fast things go. The other pwr/wt monitored classes take this into account...why not ST. I think that the issues and hard feelings last year (07) in ST2/TTS were fueled by not taking tq into account.Makes policing things by GPS or dyno a little difficult I must add. Additionally the great battle that you spoke of in the Championship race was synthesized by a serious issue that had developed in my car the last 5-6 laps. Probably why I slowed down 3 seconds a lap in the race or 5 seconds a lap than I can actually go......Additionally somehow I managed to keep my car on track all week long ---except once when helped--even in the rain and others were off track repeatedly causing flag situations and car to car contact and going unpenalized. What place was the highest finshing Panoz in the championship race? .....Wonder what would happen if everyone conducted themselves like that, especailly going un-penalized....

 

I like the idea of rules stability.....but pandora's box is about to be opened without monitoring tq in ST and TT.....

[JoshC]

I like the idea of rules stability.....but pandora's box is about to be opened without monitoring tq in ST and TT.....

This is a debate I'd like to see play out. The rules completely discount torque, which is a shame. It either needs to be included as a mod factor or be added into the HP to weight ratio.

[David M. Pintaric]

As I guy who drives a car with a "unbalanced" torque to HP ratio (more torque), I guess I have a biased opinion. But...here goes.

 

I get grief because of all the torque a Viper motor makes, but that hi-torque engine also has characteristics that hurt it as a race engine, most notably a low max RPM. Generally I shift at 5500 RPM. My point is that torque helps in some areas, like out of the corners, but that same motor then hurts you at the other end of the straight.

 

Yes, I can, and do, shift up. But that brings me to my point. The ST rules do allow gear ration changes. Other sanctioning bodies rules for classes similar to ST do not. These allowances can make up for much of the differences in torque betweem engines.

 

Case in point: the Ferrari in T1 makes very little torque, but HP is pretty healthy (I dont have figures right now). But because the car has transaxle ratios that allow 5 or 6 gears to be used, the lack of torque is not noticed. With the Viper and the C5/C6s, generally only 2 or 3 are used in a race.

 

One thing no one has ever answered when I have asked: if torque is a part of the HP calculation (torque X RPM)/5252 I think is the equation), then why would it be calculated seperately when classing a race car? I would think it is factored in with the HP number.

 

Would you replace an LS6 in your Corvette with a Duramax Diesel? I don't think I would.

[mikahb]

...Would you replace an LS6 in your Corvette with a Duramax Diesel? I don't think I would.

 

I've considered swapping the Cummins in my tow rig with the LS6 in my racecar, but I don't think the LS6 would tow that well, so I'll keep them how they are.

[richard migliori]

If tube frames are allowed in ST1 then does that allow kit cars with the same construction in ST1? They are a productin type vehicle that you build at home. That would mean that I could move from SU to ST1? Someone mentioned that above.

 

Thanks, Richard

"kit car enthusiast"

[philstireservice]

 

ST3 is not happening in 2009. If we want to start some rumors: If you have a tube-frame car that has not been eligible for anything except Super Unlimited in the past, but you don't have 600+ hp or weigh 1250 lbs, we do have something in the pipeline for you.

 

 

 

Something along the lines of GT-3 or GTL ??

[JoshC]

I did quite a bit of reading on this last night and I'll back off of my statement... It doesn't matter as much as I thought it did.

 

David, you're right, HP=TQ*RPM/5252. The reason torque matters, though, is if you're able to flatten out the power curve. (This is one of those "area under the curve" calculus problems)

 

Say you have a mythical car that produces 215 HP from 1000 RPM to 9000 RPM; using engine management, forced induction, and a bit of magic. With fixed HP you'd find torque using TQ=HP*5252/RPM. The HP curve would be flat with maximum area under the curve. Torque would look something like this: 1129@1k, 565@2k, 376@3k, 282@4k, 226@5k, 188@6k, 161@7k, 141@8k, 125@9k. In this ideal scenario, the car wouldn't have to shift very much at all and would have an obvious advantage.

 

That's not realistic but it's certainly possible to maximize the area under the curve in a more realistic rpm range.

 

 

Here are some references that I found last night:

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html

http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153996

[mrc24x]

"...My engine makes over 100 rwtq less than HP. Guess what ...I think that the engine is going to gain 150-200 rwtq and keep the same HP.....and we'll see how fast things go. The other pwr/wt monitored classes take this into account...why not ST...." Raftracer

 

 

Are you going to do this to give everybody a chance?? I'm guessing that your car has NEVER seen anything below 5252rpm on the track. If you are limited to ~600 rwhp by the current rules and you want to have 750 ft/lbs of torque for next year then you had better plan on some new gears. 600rwhp and 750rwtq @4201rpm. This should be fun to watch.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Guest

[Greg G.]

I did quite a bit of reading on this last night and I'll back off of my statement... It doesn't matter as much as I thought it did.

 

David, you're right, HP=TQ*RPM/5252. The reason torque matters, though, is if you're able to flatten out the power curve. (This is one of those "area under the curve" calculus problems)

 

Say you have a mythical car that produces 215 HP from 1000 RPM to 9000 RPM; using engine management, forced induction, and a bit of magic. With fixed HP you'd find torque using TQ=HP*5252/RPM. The HP curve would be flat with maximum area under the curve. Torque would look something like this: 1129@1k, 565@2k, 376@3k, 282@4k, 226@5k, 188@6k, 161@7k, 141@8k, 125@9k. In this ideal scenario, the car wouldn't have to shift very much at all and would have an obvious advantage.

 

That's not realistic but it's certainly possible to maximize the area under the curve in a more realistic rpm range.

 

 

Here are some references that I found last night:

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153996" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

Exactly. I have been getting tired of re-writing the arguments against the typical weight divided by hp+tq/2 equation (done multiple times on the NASA Forums) What matters is the area under the hp curve, not maximum torque. It would be too difficult to have rules that used "area under the dyno hp curve" to class cars, so the much easier calculation of max HP is used. I have even considered using a more complex formula, that would use Max HP, and then two other hp levels (picked fairly randomly--like 1000 rpm below the max and 2500 rpm below the max), but as you can imagine, it would end up being a nightmare. So, gearing is open, which allows those with lower torque to take advantage of their high revving, high hp/low tq motors. Ultimately, the only way to TRY and ensure that cars are equal, would be to keep a garage full of identical cars with a single mechanic working on them using identical specifications (including alignment, tire pressure, etc) to set them up. Even then, as all of you that play with public indoor karts know, unless the cars were rebuilt every weekend, eventually there are slightly better and slightly worse vehicles. So, we write rules that help to level the playing field. The rest of the job is up to the competitors.

[David M. Pintaric]

One thing that came to mind relating to this topic: We all can build engines to the specs we want. If you want a high torque LSX motor, build it that way. The gear you car to the engine. Same for Hi RPM/low torque.

 

The challenges in a "showroom stock"-type class the rules prohibit changes in engines that would improve an engine's relative weakness. In ST those restrictions are not present.

[RAFTRACER]

I'll leave it be.........we'll just see how it plays out. Not like anything is going to change in '09 anyways.......

 

Why do other classes monitor torque in relation to pwr/wt ????? Could be because it makes a BIG difference. Too big to not be monitored. Kid yourselves all you want. If you tell yourself something enough times, you'll even start believing it.....

 

Getting "good" transmission gearing to keep little motors happy is not easy with out taking + modifiers for dog-ring or sequential transmissions.....There is alot more to it than final drive ratios

 

Glad I dont drive any "really" small displacement ST cars...... Probably why you dont see many either.....