Keep Sending Those Rule Change Proposals for 2005!

[Greg G.]

Once we finish out our season in November, I'm going to have more time to work on getting a compilation of TT rule change proposals together to submit for the 2005 season. I've gotten some input from Dave and others, but I'm sure there are more of you out there that have suggestions. Keep in mind that we don't want these rules to become too complex. But, at the same time, the rules were developed for NASA-X, not road race time trialing. So, just by the nature of the differences between high speed driving on a track, and lower speed precision turning on a NASA-X course, one would expect that there may need to be rules adjustments. What's amazing to me is how good the present system worked this year in SoCal (with a few exceptions). There's always room to make improvements to a system, though. So, post suggestions here, or send them to me at: [email protected]

[NASA Jim]

Some points for roll bars and cages! Maybe a point per cage point up to 8 and then 10 or 12 for an "unlimited" cage?

[FocusTed]

Some points for roll bars and cages! Maybe a point per cage point up to 8 and then 10 or 12 for an "unlimited" cage?

 

I personally don't think we should add points for roll bars and cages. I know it will help the handling, but I don't think we should add them because it's for safety, and safety items should be free.

 

I don't think it's a good idea if someone puts in a Turbo or add race tires insteada of a roll cage, because it will keep him in a lower class.

 

I would keep the roll bar and cages free.

[Greg G.]

Jim and Ted,

It's kinda funny that you suggested this, because I already had another driver suggest that we give "negative" points for a roll bar or cage because of the added weight factor. Looks like this one will be a little controversial since we now have three valid opinions, with differing conclusions. I agree that my roll cage definitely had the side effect of improving the car's handling, but it did add about 100 pounds of weight (3% increase) that can also be felt on the power side. As well, the added safety factor does allow me to push the car a little harder. Ted's point about safety is probably the trump card, though. And, it may give even more creedance to the "negative" points theory. The last thing that we want to do is discourage someone from putting in a roll bar or cage by penalizing them with points. While at the same time, we have a great safety record and safety program, and we don't seem to have the need to start requiring this additional safety equipment that would probably result in us losing some of our drivers. So, we will take this issue under advisement. But, at this point, I would suggest that we take the neutral position and let the roll bars and cages be freebies. We may want to add a point for strut tower bars, though.

[NASA Jim]

Perhaps only give points for roll cages that are built more than the CCR standard?

 

If you do end up giving points for strut tower bars and not roll cages, then getting a roll cage would be a loop hole to avoid getting strut tower bar points (as many cages incorporate at least a rear strut tower brace).

 

Maybe like a 6 point cage is free, then points for cages more built than that.

 

A roll cage's stiffening far outweighs the weight it adds, especially on some cars (Mustang for example). But I do see how making them big point items would discourage safety items. However, since TT was intended to be a street car event, I'm not sure how I'd feel with all the TT cars having roll cages. If they do that then why aren't they racing?

[Greg G.]

That's a good consideration Jim. For example, the Spec SRT rules don't allow someone to build a roll cage with an incorporated welded rear strut tower bar. So, your idea of giving points for additional bracing not required under the CCR's is something to consider.

 

We recently had a fairly big discussion on whether TT cars should have roll bars or cages in the NorthEast forum. There was at least one experienced racer that felt that it was not safe to run TT the way we do without the additional protection. I disagreed that it should be mandatory, but at the same time, I personally wanted the additional protection for myself.

However, since TT was intended to be a street car event, I'm not sure how I'd feel with all the TT cars having roll cages. If they do that then why aren't they racing?

 

First, TT was not necessarily intended to be a street car event (just like NASA-X is not necessarily a street car event). Many people have trailered their "race" cars to HPDE 3 and 4, and autocrosses, long before we started running TT. Second, there are many drivers that enjoy the competition, but just don't want the much higher stress levels associated with wheel to wheel racing. Some of them are former racers, and some of them have no desire to ever race. At the same time, about 15-20% of my TT drivers are on a pathway to become racers, but are using TT to gain more experience first. Also, just because someone has a cage or a roll bar, doesn't mean that the car is not still a street car. We have many examples of street legal cars with roll protection in TT. I wouldn't mind it if every TT car had more protection. However, I don't think that it should be required, leading to the exclusion of many participants that don't feel that they need it. If we didn't have such a pro-active safety program and close oversight of our events, then I might have a different opinion on that.

[zuperdave]

I think I'm with Greg on this. My car and I will be seeking as much track time as we can get before we race. We will both be ready to time trial for a while, while we build up our skill and confidence level (and the car). Although fender-to-fender competition is the ultimate goal at this point in our NASA career, we might decide that racing against the clock is the way to go, not racing...

 

How about assessing points as a fraction of the number of cage mounting points (ratio to be decided)? Or how about like you treat suspension upgrades -- certain # of points for a cage if used in conjunction with other parts (say, strut braces)?

 

My $.02

[jp99gt]

Greg,

 

I'd like to echo agreement on some of these points. Basically, I think safety should be free (no points) unless it also adds some significant competitive advantage.

 

Along those lines, here's a starting point I'd propose:

 

- Roll bars with appropriate seats and harnesses that do not tie rear strut towers together, 0 points

 

- Above with rear strut tower tie, 1 point (maybe 2??)

 

- Full cage with ties to front structure of car, X points

 

I'm not sure how to pick how many points to add, as I'd have to understand how much it translates into faster lap times. If a full cage could take a second or so off a lap, then add 3 to 5 points.

 

But the principle of encouraging people to add roll bars and related safety gear without points penalty should be considered.

 

Your thoughts?

[Greg G.]

I want to encourage people to put more safety equipment in their cars than is "required". Whether it's a roll bar, roll cage, 5/6 pt. harnesses, or a racing seat, they will all help give an extra margin of protection to our drivers that can only help to maintain our excellent safety record. As well, they all help to improve car control which helps with safety, but also has the beneficial effect of improving lap times. Currently, we only "penalize" one of them, the racing (replacement) seat with a single point, while the other ones are "free". I really don't have a problem with any of this.

 

If there is some competitive advantage for someone to get these safety mods, maybe that's the incentive that's necessary? Everyone has the same opportunity to get them. I (and many others) have proven that you can have roll protection in your daily driver. And, there are bolt-in roll bars that can easily be installed or removed within an hour (after the initial installation, drilling, etc), for those that want "removable" protection. The added weight associated with a roll bar or cage can be significant to lower hp cars. Also, the advantage from chasis stiffening will vary significantly depending on multiple other factors, such as the model of the car, whether the car already has other mods that stiffen the car like strut tower bars, aftermarket control arms, traction control devices, polyurethane bushings, heim joints, aftermarket sway bars, etc. So, it would be very difficult to determine how much benefit there would be by adding a cage (from the rules standpoint), without looking at the individual car and it's other mods, or better yet, a comparison of track times before and after. Of the five mods that I just listed above, we only give points for the sway bars. It seems to me that those mods have a lot more to do with performance improvement than safety, and I'd support adding some points for those mods, before adding points for safety related mods.

 

So, with all that being said, I would propose the following:

 

1) Leave the racing seat point as is--It's only one point, and it's more of a performance modification than a safety mod. (in my opinion).

2) Allow any car to have a roll bar or cage, as described in the NASA CCR's, without any points added. The NASA CCR's do not allow for cages to go through the front firewall, or to incorporate strut tower bars that will only serve to stiffen the chasis.

3) Allow any car to have 5/6 pt harnesses, and a harness bar if necessary with no additional points added.

4) Add one point for a front strut tower bar.

5) Add one point for a rear strut tower bar.

6) Add one point for using replacement polyurethane bushings.

7) Add two points for using replacement Heim/spherical joints or metallic traction control devices in place of the stock bushings (an exception will be made if the Heim joint is part of an adjustable rear sway bar that is already being assessed points).

7) Add one point for aftermarket control arms.

 

Greg G.

NASA SoCal TT Director

NASA Spec SRT Series Director

[email protected]

[NASA Jim]

4) Add one point for a front strut tower bar.

5) Add one point for a rear strut tower bar.

6) Add one point for using replacement polyurethane bushings.

7) Add two points for using replacement Heim/spherical joints or metallic traction control devices in place of the stock bushings (an exception will be made if the Heim joint is part of an adjustable rear sway bar that is already being assessed points).

7) Add one point for aftermarket control arms.

 

I like the safety rules. I agree seat should stay just one- it is often a big weight reduction after all. 30 lbs in my car.

 

But I think strut tower bars are overrated... 1 point should allow you to add front and a rear.

 

I think the first #7 needs to have a much higher points value. Basically what these are doing is somewhere between camber/castor plates (2 points) and relocated suspension points (8 points). That's the whole point of spherical/metallic/offset bushings- to correct geometry when the car is lowered, etc. I'd say make it cost 4 or 5 points.

 

For after market control arms, well, I guess that's already in the rules as "Relocated suspension mount points" and should be 8 points as well. Changing out the control arms can turn a dog into a real performer and must be penalized as such.

[jp99gt]

I agree with adding a point for a seat addition if the seat change is made by itself, but I have a different view if you add a roll bar or cage. I don't think keeping an OEM seat is a good idea with the bar/cage, even if you add the required seat back brace. If you add the weight of the bar/cage, then changing the seat with that should not cost you the point. Not to mention the extra safety of the seat over the OEM seat in a car with bar/cage...

 

I haven't thought through all the points for the bushings/heim joints/etc, but I am concerned about adding all these extra points. Reason is, many cars will have to upclass based on these and won't be competitive in the new classes anymore. Unless you are seeing a lack of competitiveness within your classes now based on these suspension changes not being accounted for, I'd vote to leave that part alone. I wouldn't want to see a compression of the classes in the B/C/D groupings by adding a signficant number of points.

[jp99gt]

One of the fellow TT'ers in my region had trouble posting to this forum, so he asked me to post this for him:

 

From FastSaleen:

 

I agree with most of these point additions for the various upgrades

that have been mentioned. I would have to agree with not adding a

point for a seat change if the change is in addition to adding a

cage. The cage would be a huge weight addition to the car, and

points are already being added for other weight reductions.

 

Regarding adding a point for front or rear tower braces, I think this

needs to be looked at a little closer. What do we do in the case of

a car that was originally sold with a huge tower brace, such as is

the case with my 1988 Saleen. Yes, I won the TTB championship with

my car, but I also have 23 upclass points against it without adding

any points for a tower brace. My car was sold new with this brace.

While looking at that, you must also remember that my Saleen starts

out as a TTC car with other 'stock' Mustang Cobra's and Mach I's.

Some of the parts that Saleen added to the car are not found on any

'stock' Mustang - the tower brace is a good example of this as is the

underside frame brace that runs across right under the bell housing.

These are not factory items from Ford - they are Saleen factory

items.

 

Brian Flint

TTB - 1988 Saleen #381

Columbus, Ohio

[Neon2dmaX]

When I initially presented the issue of roll bars / cages, I suggested that one point be deducted for a roll bar (4 point attachment), and 2 points be deducted for a cage (6 point). By my reasoning, (1) the roll bar would most likely add more weight than "gutting" the rear of the car, and the cage would likely be about the same weight as the gutted front/rear; and (2) the additional safety deserved some reward. Others have expressed a view that some cage designs add significant stiffness which would justify adding one or more points.

 

Perhaps the distinction lies in a bolted in six-point cage (or 4 point roll bar) vs. a welded system with significant cross bracing. Since it appears that this type of system has some added benefits beyond roll protection, adding one or more points for a welded in system would seem appropriate.

 

From my limited exposure thus far, most of the participants are running street cars. A few (e.g. Greg's) have a custom installed roll gage. Although I have not carefully examined his roll cage, if it is a bolted in system, he should be able to deduct one or two points (although as I recall, Greg also has a full interior). If it goes beyond simple roll protection, points should be added.

[Neon2dmaX]

First, as a point of interest, I have noted some discrepencies in the offical classification form when compared to the rules and the calculator.

 

The calculator does not provide for +1 point for the plus or minus size tires?

See: http://www.nasa-tt.com/rules.php

 

The official classification form does not indicate any points for power steering removal or lightened flywheel.

 

See: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/2003_tt_class.pdf

 

Also, it might help to have some additional definition for some of the categories; e.g. What constitutes "performance" brake pads; What constitutes a "gutted interior" Is removal of the carpeting alone considered gutting?

 

Also, it isn't entirely clear to me whether I should add 4 points if I gut the interior and add a racing seat, or 5 points; 4 for the interior and 1 for the seat.

 

Thanks for any clarification.

[Neon2dmaX]

It seems that if a point is going to be added for a lighter hood, lighter fenders, and/or an aluminum flywheel, at least one point should be added for light wheels (e.g. Kosei K1; Team Dynamics Pro Race 1; Rota Slipstream, SSR Integral; etc.) and maybe two points for those very light wheels (e.g. Volk TE-37; SSR Competition, etc.). I seem to recall a rule of thumb that states that removing 1 lb. of unsprung weight is the equivalent of removing 4 lbs. of sprung weight. Thus, for example, using the very light wheels on a Neon SRT-4 would probable reduce the weight by at least 5 lbs each or 20 lbs overall... almost like losing 80 lbs. of sprung weight. By comparison, the aluminum flywheel would cause a weight reduction of approximately 8-9 lbs. of sprung weight.

 

Of course, reducing the weight of either the flywheel and/or wheels offers additional advantages (re: rotational mass) which it seems would clearly outweigh a similar weight reduction for fenders and/or hood.

 

In light of the rather clear advantage of the lightweight wheels, it seems that one or more points should be added for these wheels. Comments?

[Greg G.]

Dave,

The calculator is based on the revised rules that were published mid-year: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/nasa-x_tt_classes_update.pdf

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/nasa-x.pdf

 

In the SoCal region, we will not be adopting these rules until the 2005 season. One of the changes in the revised rules is the removal of the extra point for plus or minus sizing tires. I looked over the calculator, and it looks like there are some things missing on the Weight Reduction section (AC removal +1, Airbags removed +1, Lightweight or relocated battery +1, removal of convertible top and/or frame +1), and on the Engine/Drivetrain section (removal of emissions +1, Lightweight flywheel or clutch +1). I'll let Jim know so he can add them (if he doesn't see it here first ).

 

Also, it might help to have some additional definition for some of the categories; e.g. What constitutes "performance" brake pads; What constitutes a "gutted interior" Is removal of the carpeting alone considered gutting?

 

I consider any upgrade from the stock brake pads to be performance brake pads. Since gutting means removal of just about all unnecessary trim, panels, seats, seatbelts, carpet, and insulation, I would not consider removal of carpeting alone to be "gutting". In our region, when there are questions, I take them on a case by case basis, and determine the number of points to be assessed. In your example, I would probably assess just one point if only carpeting was removed (carpet in a Neon only weighs 22.5 pounds, while the rest of weight from "gutting" can be as much as another 120+ pounds).

 

Also, it isn't entirely clear to me whether I should add 4 points if I gut the interior and add a racing seat, or 5 points; 4 for the interior and 1 for the seat.

 

With the current (and revised) rules, you would add the 5 points. At first it may seem like it doesn't make sense, but if you look at the weight of the front passenger seat vs. the weight of the rear bench seat (at least in small cars like the Neon), the front passenger seat actually weighs slightly more. I suppose in some of the larger vehicles, the rear seat(s) may weigh more than the front passenger seat, and it might not be as "fair". But, we come back to the fact that we can't start making specific rules for every different car. Switching out the driver's seat for a racing seat can save more than 25 pounds in some cases, and provide a significant advantage to the driver by holding him/her in place under high g loads. So, it does make sense for the replacement seat to be worth a point. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with Jim (jp99gt) or Brian (FastSaleen) that if you add a cage that you should get assessed for the racing seat, for the reasons that they stated above.

 

From my limited exposure thus far, most of the participants are running street cars. A few (e.g. Greg's) have a custom installed roll gage....If it goes beyond simple roll protection, points should be added.

 

I think that it's close to 50% of my drivers that have either a roll bar or cage. I agree with your second point about a cage going beyond simple roll protection...and so do the NASA CCR's (ref. 15.5.2--"Chasis stiffening is a side benefit of a good roll cage system, but it is not the intent of these rules. Parts of the cage deemed by the Chief Scrutineer, to serve no practical purpose other than chasis stiffening may be considered in violation of the intent of these rules (Note: Some class rules allow for chassis stiffening). At this point, my own suggestion for the roll cage rules will be to not assess any points for them unless 15.5.2 seems to be violated. The question then becomes, how do we assess points for violations of 15.5.2? Do we just let the Regional TT Director make an assessment, or do we try to come up with a more universal system? What about one point for: every bar that goes through the front firewall, every attachment point to the chassis above 6, every unnecessary additional bar (like a horizontal bar along the floor where the main hoop is or between the rear struts near the strut towers)?

 

In light of the rather clear advantage of the lightweight wheels, it seems that one or more points should be added for these wheels. Comments?

 

Wheels are tough for a number of reasons in my opinion. First, there is a huge variation in the types and weights of the stock wheels that come with different cars, often based on one model type versus another that is not differentiated in our baseline classifications, ie. factory or dealer options and sport models---"but it came stock this way". So, there it would be very difficult to determine what the "stock" wheel weight should be. Second, depending on what size wheels one is using, there can be a big difference in how much weight can be saved by going to more expensive aluminum forged wheels, ie. you can save a lot more weight potentially with 18"x9" wheels than 14"x6" wheels. Third, the weight differences between different models of aftermarket wheels varies greatly, and even the two or three different databases that I have for aftermarket wheel weights disagree with each other often. Fourth, some drivers have two different sets of tires/wheels that are not always the same types (so, would their mod points change every time they changed them?). Fifth, where do we make the cut-off for adding points? Certainly, we don't want to try to make a list of all of the potential light weight wheels and use that--it would change every few months, and would just be a PIA to keep track of. I already spoke of the difficulty in determining the weight of "stock" wheels on many models and trying to figure out how much weight someone's aftermarket wheels saved. And, if we could accurately figure out (and monitor?) wheel weights, would it be a savings of 2 pounds, 4 pounds, 5 pounds that would trigger a points assessment? It just seems to me like a huge can of worms that we shouldn't want to open up. Your point is valid that some wheels will help performance more than others, but I suggest that everyone can get whatever wheels they want, and the "worms" stay in the can.

 

Thanks for all the comments, guys. Everything is still open for suggestions. I'll compile all of the suggestions after the 2004 season is over and see if we can get a concensus at least a month (or two) before we start the 2005 season.

 

Greg G.

NASA SoCal TT Director

NASA Spec SRT Series Director

[email protected]

[Neon2dmaX]

Wheels are tough for a number of reasons in my opinion. First, there is a huge variation in the types and weights of the stock wheels that come with different cars, often based on one model type versus another that is not differentiated in our baseline classifications, ie. factory or dealer options and sport models---"but it came stock this way". So, there it would be very difficult to determine what the "stock" wheel weight should be. Second, depending on what size wheels one is using, there can be a big difference in how much weight can be saved by going to more expensive aluminum forged wheels, ie. you can save a lot more weight potentially with 18"x9" wheels than 14"x6" wheels. Third, the weight differences between different models of aftermarket wheels varies greatly, and even the two or three different databases that I have for aftermarket wheel weights disagree with each other often. Fourth, some drivers have two different sets of tires/wheels that are not always the same types (so, would their mod points change every time they changed them?). Fifth, where do we make the cut-off for adding points? Certainly, we don't want to try to make a list of all of the potential light weight wheels and use that--it would change every few months, and would just be a PIA to keep track of. I already spoke of the difficulty in determining the weight of "stock" wheels on many models and trying to figure out how much weight someone's aftermarket wheels saved. And, if we could accurately figure out (and monitor?) wheel weights, would it be a savings of 2 pounds, 4 pounds, 5 pounds that would trigger a points assessment? It just seems to me like a huge can of worms that we shouldn't want to open up. Your point is valid that some wheels will help performance more than others, but I suggest that everyone can get whatever wheels they want, and the "worms" stay in the can.

 

Greg G.

NASA SoCal TT Director

NASA Spec SRT Series Director

[email protected]

 

Obviously, I was not aware that there had been some changes which were going to be implemented in '05. "...and it looks like there are some things missing on the Weight Reduction section (AC removal +1, Airbags removed +1, Lightweight or relocated battery +1, removal of convertible top and/or frame +1), and on the Engine/Drivetrain section (removal of emissions +1, Lightweight flywheel or clutch +1)."

 

Talk about a can of worms. It seems to me that to the extent that one is capable of determining whether there is a lightweight clutch or battery, it should be relatively easy to determine whether there has been a reduction in wheel weight.

 

First, dealer option wheels are not stock wheels; they are aftermarket, albeit dealer installed.

 

Second, I don't quite agree that there is a huge difference between stock wheels on same models, except perhaps where one of the models in the line runs 15" wheels and another runs 17" wheels. In such cases, it is a relatively simple matter of comparing the lightweight wheel to the respective "stock" wheel. Thus, while it may be true that one might save much more with a larger wheel, the percentage reduction in weight is probably going to be very similar across any given line.

 

Third, while the weight reduction across the various lines does vary, there are two general types of wheel; moderately priced lightweight wheels such as Kosei K-1; Team Dynamics Pro Race 1 and Rota Slipstream; and expensive very light wheels such as Volk Racing TE-37, SSR Competition, and host of specially manufactured wheels; e.g. Forgeline, Keizer (sp?), etc. The distinction between these wheels is generally known by most competitors.

 

Fourth, as for drivers with two sets of wheels, I don't see a significant problem. In some cases the difference would not result in any additional points, while in other cases, the additional points would not impact the classing. In any event for those who are on the border between two classes, they would simply need to decide which class they wanted to run and stay with those wheels.

 

Fifth, where do we make the cut-off for adding points? Well, it seems to me that if points are to be added for a lightweight battery, clutch, etc., all of which seem trivial when compared to the overall advantages of saving 5-8 lbs per wheel, that question has already been answered. As for the list of wheels changing every few months, I doubt that will happen. In fact, I don't recall there being a significant change in available lightweight competition type wheels during the past 5 years. As for points, it could be measured in actual pounds or estimated percentage savings. For example the Shelby Lancer wheel (15x6.5) weighs approximately 17 lbs. compared to a Kosei K1 (15x7) which weighs about 13.5 lbs. or the SSR Type C which weighs approximately (in 15x6.5) and 10-11 lbs. (15x7). Similar reductions can be had by comparing these wheels to virtually any stock wheel.

 

The proposed rule is simple. If the competitor wants to run wheels classed as lightweight, add one point (for the set); if he wants to run wheels classed as "very light", add two points. If there is any dispute regarding the weight savings, it would be up to the competitor to support (or prove) his position.

[Greg G.]

Talk about a can of worms. It seems to me that to the extent that one is capable of determining whether there is a lightweight clutch or battery, it should be relatively easy to determine whether there has been a reduction in wheel weight.

We agree on the lightweight clutch/flywheel and even many of the engine mods, in terms of determining if someone is cheating. The battery would be easy, though. It looks to me like the folks that wrote these revisions are looking at one point equaling about 15-20 pounds of weight. I think the airbag assessment should be reconsidered, especially since it is a requirement for removal for NASA race cars as a safety issue. Plus, a single airbag only weighs about 7 pounds. I suppose I look at the wheel issue as a "slippery slope" since there is a gradual progression in possibilities. Whereas, you either have a lightweight flywheel or you don't. Same goes for a battery. You either changed out the stock one for a lighter one, or you have a stock battery. People obviously change wheels for more reasons than just to go lighter (size, looks, strength and quality, weight).

 

The proposed rule is simple. If the competitor wants to run wheels classed as lightweight, add one point (for the set); if he wants to run wheels classed as "very light", add two points. If there is any dispute regarding the weight savings, it would be up to the competitor to support (or prove) his position.

 

And again, who is going to make the list of "lightweight" and "very light weight" wheels. There will be gray areas. For example, for the SRT4, one can find 17x7 and 17x7.5 wheels in the range of 13 to 28+(bling) pounds. The stock 17x6 inch wheels weigh 21.5 pounds. There are over 90 wheels that I know will fit this car. Perhaps it would be easy to say what the 13 pound wheel should be, but what about an 18, 19, or 20 pound wheel? My point is, where would the cut-off be? When would a wheel for this car become "very light"...at 16, 15, 14 pounds? What about the Lancer Evo that comes stock with 15-16 pound wheels (or so I've been told)? Would it get a point for going to 14 pound wheels, or two points because they are now very light? We need these rules to be simple, and not have a different rule for each car, or each brand of wheel, etc. I suppose a more simple rule would be that ANY wheel that is lighter than the stock wheel would get a point for the set. I will put all of your suggestions in with the rest, though, when I submit them.

Greg

NASA SoCal TT Director

NASA Spec SRT Series Director

[email protected]

[jp99gt]

Thanks for all the comments, guys. Everything is still open for suggestions. I'll compile all of the suggestions after the 2004 season is over and see if we can get a concensus at least a month (or two) before we start the 2005 season.

 

Thanks Greg.

 

Earlier is better than later, as many TT'ers are making plans for off season upgrades, and knowing the points impact ahead of time will prevent a lot "weeping and gnashing of teeth"

 

Our goal in OH/IN is to keep the same rules as national does, although we do some adjusting on the case-by-case basis as you do.

[Greg G.]

Jim,

We are coming to a pretty wild ending to our season in SoCal. We still have the championship positions up for grabs in all 5 of our classes (although there are leaders with an advantage at this point). And, it's all coming down to 4 event days held at two tracks over a nine day period, with as much as 1200 miles of highway driving for some of us. We finish on Nov. 14th. That's when I will be able to get the NASA leadership to take a close look at our suggestions.

Greg

[jp99gt]

Dang you guys that live in fair weather states .... we quit the second weekend of Oct this year.

 

Sometime back around '95 the snowiest place near Cleveland - Chardon - got 6' of wet, heavy snow the second week of November. People were shoveling and snow blowing the roofs to avoid collapse, and the town had to be dug out with front end loaders and trucks from the National Guard That's extreme, but snow in Nov is normal up here.

 

It does give us a longer off season to plan, though

[jp99gt]

From FastSaleen:

 

Quote from Greg G:

And again, who is going to make the list of "lightweight"

and "very light weight" wheels. There will be gray areas. For example, for

the SRT4, one can find 17x7 and 17x7.5 wheels in the range of 13 to

28+(bling) pounds. The stock 17x6 inch wheels weigh 21.5 pounds.

There are over 90 wheels that I know will fit this car. Perhaps it

would be easy to say what the 13 pound wheel should be, but what

about an 18, 19, or 20 pound wheel? My point is, where would the

cut-off be? When would a wheel for this car become "very

light"...at 16, 15, 14 pounds? What about the Lancer Evo that comes

stock with 15-16 pound wheels (or so I've been told)? Would it get

a point for going to 14 pound wheels, or two points because they are now very

light? We need these rules to be simple, and not have a different

rule for each car, or each brand of wheel, etc. I suppose a more

simple rule would be that ANY wheel that is lighter than the stock

wheel would get a point for the set.

 

Reply:

This is a very grey area. What happens in a case like mine? Would i

get a point or 2 credited back. Here is the example: My 'stock'

1988 Saleen rims are aluminum and are very light. The Steeda rims

that my race tires are on weigh 10+ pounds more than the stock rims.

My rain/street tires are mounted on the stock rims. So, with that

stated, would my 23 point car get 2 points back for extra weight when

running in the dry? Wheels are a 'hard to determine' issue. This is

a rules area that should possibly be left as is and not worry about

weight reduction (or addition) due to wheels.

 

FastSaleen381

Columbus, Ohio

[Neon2dmaX]

Quoting FastSaleen381:

"Reply:

This is a very grey area. What happens in a case like mine? Would i

get a point or 2 credited back. Here is the example: My 'stock'

1988 Saleen rims are aluminum and are very light. The Steeda rims

that my race tires are on weigh 10+ pounds more than the stock rims.

My rain/street tires are mounted on the stock rims. So, with that

stated, would my 23 point car get 2 points back for extra weight when

running in the dry? Wheels are a 'hard to determine' issue. This is

a rules area that should possibly be left as is and not worry about

weight reduction (or addition) due to wheels."

 

 

It seems to me that to the extent that the Saleen Mustang has been specifically classed, the addition of heavier wheels would be an option that would not offer you any particular advantage (other than perhaps that which you might gain by a larger diameter or wider wheel), and thus, there is no justification for adding points. My point is fairly simple... if weight reduction is to be penalized, why would we ignore lightweight wheels inasmuch as they are one of the most common and obvious areas of weight reduction. How can we compare weight to the stock wheels? I suppose that to the extent that we can compare the weight of the "stock" battery to some alternate battery, we should be able to compare wheel weights.

 

By the way, what does relocating the (stock) battery have to do with weight reduction? Nothing! Then, why is there a point penalty? If the answer is because relocating the battery will improve performance, then doesn't the same hold true for lightweight wheels? No question that many of them look better than the original wheels. However, is that the only reason for the replacement? I tend to doubt it. Strength? Without some evidence of failures, my answer is not likely.

 

I think the answer to the question is the same as the answer to what would happen if I put a heavier (than stock) battery in place (or a heavier replacement seat)? Nothing should happen. Quite simply, aside from engine/trans modifications, the concept of adding points as a penalty is to limit the extent to which a competitor can load up his car with lightweight goodies, or alternatively, can reduce the weight of the car by unloading the car with unnecessary parts (e.g. interior, a/c parts, bumpers, etc.).

[ShangTsung]

I agree with adding a point for a seat addition if the seat change is made by itself, but I have a different view if you add a roll bar or cage. I don't think keeping an OEM seat is a good idea with the bar/cage, even if you add the required seat back brace. If you add the weight of the bar/cage, then changing the seat with that should not cost you the point. Not to mention the extra safety of the seat over the OEM seat in a car with bar/cage...

 

This is a good point. You can't use a 5/6 point harness with stock seats, so it doesn't make sense to penalize for seats but not for harness. I feel safety items should be encouraged not discouraged, and even be required for TT. Those that complain about cages and "extra braces" have never rolled....

[Kerry]

How about adding or subracting points based on power to weight ratios.