Keep Sending Those Rule Change Proposals for 2005!

[Greg G.]

Hi Kerry,

Good to see you on the forum. The problem that I see with the idea of adding or subtracting points based on power to weight ratios is that we would have problems with measuring a car's power level (due to variability between dyno's, conditions that dyno testing was done under, and modifications that could be done after an initial dyno test that would increase the car's hp subsequently--especially for turbo's with boost controllers.) If we are talking about stock power to weight ratios, then that factor is already taken into account with the base classification level. Theoretically, it sounds good, but I think that on a practical basis, it would be very difficult to keep things on a level playing field. For example, I have dyno graphs of my car that range from 229hp to 264hp max. Unless all of the cars were tested on the same dyno, same time, and then randomly tested, there would be a lot of room for "creative modifications" or detuning for the dyno. I could see this type of idea working for a spec race class where immediately after a race, the top 5 cars were weighed and dyno'd on the same dyno, but I don't see this working any better than our current classification system.

[email protected]

[Ricardo]

Ok my question is that if something is not mentioned or is left out of the rules will it be allowed? This might allow us to get creative and so on. An example is flat bottoming a car if it isnt mentioned in the rules could we do it and not get any points..

[Ricardo]

Hi Kerry,

Good to see you on the forum. The problem that I see with the idea of adding or subtracting points based on power to weight ratios is that we would have problems with measuring a car's power level (due to variability between dyno's, conditions that dyno testing was done under, and modifications that could be done after an initial dyno test that would increase the car's hp subsequently--especially for turbo's with boost controllers.) If we are talking about stock power to weight ratios, then that factor is already taken into account with the base classification level. Theoretically, it sounds good, but I think that on a practical basis, it would be very difficult to keep things on a level playing field. For example, I have dyno graphs of my car that range from 229hp to 264hp max. Unless all of the cars were tested on the same dyno, same time, and then randomly tested, there would be a lot of room for "creative modifications" or detuning for the dyno. I could see this type of idea working for a spec race class where immediately after a race, the top 5 cars were weighed and dyno'd on the same dyno, but I don't see this working any better than our current classification system.

[email protected]

 

Greg what if you get a Southern California Dyno station to sponsor the series, and all SoCal TT cars would have to get their cars dynoed at that dyno shop. And the dyno shop would have to be honest and strict about mentioning hp gains on all cars. Just an idea..

[zuperdave]

Then would you want or need to adpot the same policy for NorCal and everywhere else TT runs?

[FocusTed]

 

Greg what if you get a Southern California Dyno station to sponsor the series, and all SoCal TT cars would have to get their cars dynoed at that dyno shop. And the dyno shop would have to be honest and strict about mentioning hp gains on all cars. Just an idea..

 

 

I hope the Dyno goes high enough to measure my car

[Greg G.]

 

Greg what if you get a Southern California Dyno station to sponsor the series, and all SoCal TT cars would have to get their cars dynoed at that dyno shop. And the dyno shop would have to be honest and strict about mentioning hp gains on all cars. Just an idea..

 

Ricky,

First, Dave is correct about TT rules being a national issue that should be handled at that level, as opposed to each region doing something differently. Second, your idea just wouldn't work on a practical basis. We have over 45 cars that currently run TT in SoCal, and I hope to double that number this year. We have drivers that will be competing in our region from as far as Las Vegas, Arizona, and NorCal. We also have drivers that decide at the track to switch from HPDE 4 to TT. It would be unreasonable and a deterant to ask drivers to take their car to a specific shop to get dyno'd, and to go back every time they made an engine modification of any kind. And, even if they did, it still wouldn't change the fact that a car can get dyno'd one day, and then on the same dyno get much higher numbers another day (due to ambient temp, humidity, a driver de-tuning the car for the first dyno, or a driver adding mods for the second dyno). It's hard to cheat on a dyno when having a "competition" to see who can make the most hp (although by no means impossible). But, it's very easy to do things to a car to make it have lower hp numbers that wouldn't be obvious unless the engine was thoroughly inspected (air restriction being the easiest--anywhere from the filter to the throttle body, fouled plugs, boost controllers or adjusting wastegates on turbo cars, retarding timing on older cars or piggybacked cars, putting stock parts back on for the dyno day(injectors, etc.). Again, I can make my car show 230 hp on the dyno, then turn around and do a 260 hp run on the same dyno, same time with minimal adjustments. So, if the reason for doing the dyno's is to prevent "cheating", it won't work. And, if the reason for doing the dyno's is because we want to try to make sure a driver really knows how much power the car has, then it's unnecessary for 90% of the cars. Trying to keep up with frequently changing car weights and dyno numbers just seems like a big cluster.... at this level of competition, as well as so burdensome that it may discourage drivers from coming into TT. Guys, may I remind you that we aren't competing for money. I've said this before, but here goes once more. We need these rules to be as simple as possible from both a driver's standpoint and an administrative standpoint, while providing an exciting competition.

 

Now Kerry's original idea about incorporating power/weight ratios is ok, and that's why the base classifications use hp/wt. as a factor. But, hp/wt. is less than half the equation, because total weight/braking ability, and suspension and handling are just as important. We saw many times that high hp cars were beaten by cars with 100-200 hp less this past year. I think that the current rules are pretty good, and our SoCal 2004 season showed that they worked fairly well. Given that there are only really 6 functional classes (A-F), and hundreds of different possible vehicles, with many hundreds of possible combinations of modifications, the cars in each class are not going to be completely equal in power, weight, braking, suspension, or handling. TT is not "spec" time trialing. It is possible to improve your chances of winning by improving your car within the rules. That's just the way it is, and the way it will stay when there are only 6 classes. Having more classes won't be helpful until we have huge numbers of drivers that want to compete. So, let's continue to try to work with the rules that we've got, and adjust the points as necessary to try to make things as fair as possible.

 

Here's one, what about the 7 points for an engine swap (but go to the donor car's base classification if it is higher)? We had a older car that had an engine swap this year, but apparently, the swapped engine was an option that year for the car. The rules only provided for 7 points for this swap because all of the cars of this type for a 19 year period were given the same base class. The swap seemed to provide much more than 7 points of value in this case. Does anyone think that an engine swap should be an automatic 15 points? What about using the manufacturer's hp rating of the donor engine in some way for cars that fall into this situation?

Edited November 24, 2004 by Guest

[Ricardo]

Ok my question is that if something is not mentioned or is left out of the rules will it be allowed? This might allow us to get creative and so on. An example is flat bottoming a car if it isnt mentioned in the rules could we do it and not get any points..

 

Greg how about this question? ^...

[Neon2dmaX]

Here's one, what about the 7 points for an engine swap (but go to the donor car's base classification if it is higher)? We had a older car that had an engine swap this year, but apparently, the swapped engine was an option that year for the car. The rules only provided for 7 points for this swap because all of the cars of this type for a 19 year period were given the same base class.

 

The swap seemed to provide much more than 7 points of value in this case. Does anyone think that an engine swap should be an automatic 15 points? What about using the manufacturer's hp rating of the donor engine in some way for cars that fall into this situation?

 

Does anyone think that an engine swap should be an automatic 15 points?

 

No. IMHO there is a better argument for limiting the rule to 7 points. Conisder the following scenario. A participant running a base Focus (TTG) decides that he just can't keep up with the other cars in his class. So he swaps in the twin cam ZX3 engine. Now he is even with the other ZX3 cars. However, if 15 points were added, he would automatically be in TTF, one class higher than any other Focus. At least adding the seven points keeps him in the same class. It could get worse.

 

If I were to take a SOHC Neon (1st Gen) and convert it to a DOHC I would still have an essentially stock Neon DOHC with approx. 150 HP and 132 lbs. torque. However, I would have to compete in TTE. In contrast, that Focus with the 2.3 liter engine (about same weight and hp, but more torque) would remain in TTG. If the objective is to level the playing field, neither scenario makes sense.

 

This is why different models of certain cars must be separately classed.

 

Under the current system, I could take an early Mazda RX7 with the 12A engine (TTF) and add the 13B engine... (Unless it is the 85 GSL-SE model which came with the 13B) Engine swap = 7 points... perhaps a close approximation of the improved performance. If I were to swap in a small block Ford (using an available kit), I would move to the Ford's class. If all swaps were assessed 15 points, the 13B swap push that car one class ahead of similar competitors and into direct competition with the small block Ford.

 

While using manufacturers hp ratings as a starting point has some merit, such numbers are not necessarily accurate.

 

 

Edit... oops! the 12A and 13B are in different classes. Thus, not the best analogy. Greg: Which car were you referring to?

[NASA Jim]

Everyone, keep in mind that the TT rules are intended to be easily administered.

[Neon2dmaX]

Everyone, keep in mind that the TT rules are intended to be easily administered.

 

However, there should be some fairness as well as logic.

 

In another post, a question was posed about the validity of the classes assigned to a couple of different makes; to wit:

 

"Looked at some of the classifications again. I notice that the Ford Focus ZTS/ZX3* is classed in TT-G (albeit with 5 extra points to the ZX3). In looking at the published data for the ZX3, I find that there are (were) multiple versions, a couple of which were equipped with a 2.0 engine and one of which is equipped with a 2.3 liter engine. The 2.3 is virtually identical in HP to the [1st gen] Neon DOHC and has about 10% more torque. It appears that the 2.0 ZX3 should be in G (perhaps with 5 point penalty as compared to non ZX3 Focus) while the 2.3 equiped ZX3 should be moved to F (without a 5 point penalty). If parity (or near parity) is th objective, the Neon (at least the Neon SOHC) should be moved to G with a 5 point penalty added to the ACR; Neon with DOHC = +5; DOHC ACR +10.

 

Alternatively, as you look at revising the classifications, consider a +5/+10 point rule to allow for some of the special editions that are being produced For example, a regular Focus is in F; add +5 for ZX3 or +10 for ZX3 equipped with the 2.3. "

 

 

Prior to the time I added this post, Greg wrote:

 

"One of the problems with this system is that you just have to stop somewhere, or these rules could get so complicated that nobody would be able to figure out what class a car belongs in. And, it would be even more difficult to determine if someone has sandbagged. This is not, and will never be a professional series, although our SoCal sponsors (Hotchkis Tuning, Porterfield Brakes, and Dave Turner Motorsports) have donated some prizes for our series winners. We go on the honor system for the most part, although I have no problem checking out someone's car if it seems that they are running unusual times for a given class. With a few exceptions, this system seems to work pretty well. Our classes have been very competitive this year. There have been days when the top five finishers in a class were all within 1 second of each other. The cars that run better at high hp tracks like Willow Springs often get beat at Buttonwillow by lower hp lighter cars that can turn better."

 

In response, I wrote:

"Frankly, I see no reason to allow a clearly superior car such as the ZX3 equipped with the 2.3 engine to run in the same class as the base ZX3. Other cars that are offered in different configurations transcend the class lines: e.g. Mustang Cobra r = B; Saleen Mustang = C; and Mustang V8 (all others?) = D. If the regular ZX3 deserves a +5 points, then the ZX3 equipped with the 2.3 deserves at least another +5 (for increased displacement). Hardly an unjust penalty for a car which in base configuration is virtually identical to the 1st gen Neon which in all forms is classed one class higher (G for Focus & F for Neon)."

 

 

I have yet to hear a good reason why I should try to compete in TTF with a near stock (1st Gen) Neon to which I would be able to add 14 points in order to stay in class when a similar weight Focus with a more powerful engine is allowed to add 29 points and still complete in TTF. Have I missed something? In looking at the cars classifications again, there are several makes that have individual models that are bumped up to another class as a result of more potent engines. But more importantly, given that the regular ZX3 (2.0) and the Neon SOHC are almost the same weight and power, why are they in different classes? For that matter, why are all (non turbo) Neons including the 1st Gen and the heavier 2nd Gen cars lumped together? I suppose that we could argue that simplicity dictates these rules. But, is it really that difficult to adjust these cars to reflect special editions?

 

Second issue I have raised is the lack of penalty for use of light weight wheels. The response is that genrally, it is just too difficult to calculate. I disagree. There are generally two types of light weight wheels, Kosei, Team Dynamics, and similar brands generally offer wheels that are 3-4 pounds lighter per wheel. Volk and SSR (as well as several custom manufacturers) offer wheels that are 6-8 lbs. lighter per wheel. Not real difficult to spot any of these wheels. Yet, wheels are wide open.

 

As I see it, there are two types of modifications that add penalties to a car (1) those that reduce the weight, and (2) those that enhance the performance. Lightweight wheels, like lightened flywheels are one of the few items that accomplish both purposes. Hard to argue the logic when a penalty point is assessed for airbag removal or A/C removal. [Of course, that raises the point of why penalties for these items when certain earlier models may have been sold without airbags or A/C..., thus, no point reduction].

[Greg G.]

Dave,

 

Your points about the 2.0 vs. 2.3 l Focus engines is exactly the type of info that I was asking for when I first began soliciting for possible rule changes, and I noted your suggestions for the final recommendations when you first made them. There are just too many makes, models, special editions, optional engines for any one person (that I know) to be able to know them all, or take the time to research them all.

 

Also, I agree with your point about airbag removal. They just don't weigh that much (mine was about 9 pounds for the passenger side and 4 pounds for the driver's side), and it becomes a safety issue once someone puts on a helmet (see other thread regarding airbags), and runs on a track. The airbag removal penalty was one of the "revised" rules that we did not use this year in SoCal. I will be recommending that this be removed from the final TT rules.

 

I stand by my previous thoughts about wheels and the long discussion that I presented.

 

And the car that became an issue with the engine swap is a 1972 Corvette.

 

 

Ok my question is that if something is not mentioned or is left out of the rules will it be allowed? This might allow us to get creative and so on. An example is flat bottoming a car if it isnt mentioned in the rules could we do it and not get any points..

 

Ricky, the example that you give has already been addressed in the revised rules that state that aerodynamic aides, whether active or passive, will be penalized at the discretion of the regional TT director. However, your general point is exactly one of the reasons that I started this whole discussion to begin with. You and I both thought of mods that weren't listed (like strut bars, bushings, etc.) Everyone reading should help us brainstorm the missed possibilities now so they can be evaluated. Not every suggestion will be used (because we need to keep things simple), but at least they will all be on the table now before the next season starts.

[email protected]

[Neon2dmaX]

Dave,

 

Your points about the 2.0 vs. 2.3 l Focus engines is exactly the type of info that I was asking for when I first began soliciting for possible rule changes, and I noted your suggestions for the final recommendations when you first made them. There are just too many makes, models, special editions, optional engines for any one person (that I know) to be able to know them all, or take the time to research them all. [Emphasis added.]

 

Also, I agree with your point about airbag removal. They just don't weigh that much (mine was about 9 pounds for the passenger side and 4 pounds for the driver's side), and it becomes a safety issue once someone puts on a helmet (see other thread regarding airbags), and runs on a track. The airbag removal penalty was one of the "revised" rules that we did not use this year in SoCal. I will be recommending that this be removed from the final TT rules.

 

I stand by my previous thoughts about wheels and the long discussion that I presented.

 

[email protected]

 

 

Special models are distinguished throughout the classes. Look at Acura, Honda, Nissan, Porsche, VW, and yes, even Ford. While the Ford ZX2 is classed in G, the ZX2 S/R is classed in F. You ask, "What's the difference?" The ZX2 S/R The ZX2 has the DOHC Zetec engine [sedans have the SOHC SPI engine]. The ZX2 [DOHC] has 130 HP, the sedan [sOHC] has 110 HP. The SR [also DOHC] has a reprogramed ECU and has 140-143 HP [up from 130], but the same displacement [2.0].

 

By comparison, the 2.3 Focus ZX3 has a greater increase in HP. I can't comment on the ECU, but it would not surprise me to learn that it is reprogramed (if for nothing else, to account for the added displacement).

 

Some of the classes also recognize the changes that have occurred from one model year to the next (e.g. MR2, various VW Golf and Rabbit models, etc.]

 

I would agree that no one person is likely to be aware of all the special models, but obtaining the information is relatively easy via the internet. [Took me about 3 minutes to figure out the difference between the ZX2 and the ZX2 S/R.] If there is any question about a special edition, I'm sure the forum members would be helpful.

 

I think the proposed rules are real simple. First, on the classification sheet, ask for engine displacement and/or whether the specific entry is an upgrade model within the line or otherwise difffers in any material respects from the standard car. I don't know if the information on each individual car is "public" in that the competitors have the ability to review each other's entries, but since no one person can distinguish all the models, a little help wouldn't hurt, and thus, the information should be public.

 

Second, a general advisory should be included within the rules advising potential competitors that if they have a "special edition" not listed, they should verify the classification prior to submitting their entry.

 

For convenience, the following has been copied from the TT site:

 

CLASS D:

Audi A6 2.&T, S4*, TT (225 hp); BMW M3* (E36), M Coupe/Roadster 3.2*, Z3 6-cyl, Z4, 540, M5 (E34), M5 (E28), M6; Chevrolet Camaro V8, SS*, Corvette* (C4); Ferrari 308, 326; Ford Mustang V8, F150 Lightning; Honda S2000; Infiniti G35; Jaguar XKE, S-Type, Vanden Plas; Lexus GS400, SC430; Mazda RX-7 Turbo II, RX-8; Mercerdes CLK430; Mitsubishi 3000 VR-4; Nissan 350Z, 350Z Track Model*, 300ZX TT; Pontiac Formula, Trans Am, WS6/Firehawk*; Porsche Boxster, 911S (70-73), 911 Carrera (73-77), 911 (78-83), 911 (84-89), 914-6, 928, 944S, 944 Turbo, 944 Turbo S*, 968, 964 Carrera 2, 964 Carrera 4*; Toyota Supra TT, MR2 Turbo

 

CLASS E:

Acura Integra Type-R*, RSX-S, TL-S, CL-S, CL-S 6 spd*; Audi A6 4.2, A8, TT (180 hp), S8; BMW 3 series 6-cylinder (not otherwise classed), 330*, Z3 4-cyl, E30 M3*, Mini Cooper S; Chevrolet Impala SS, 63-82 Corvette, Camaro 3.8L; Dodge Neon SRT-4; Ford Mustang V6, SVO*, Taurus SHO, Contour SVT, 2002 Thunderbird, Focus SVT; Honda 03 Accord V6, Prelude VTEC; Infiniti I35, Q45; Jaguar XJ8, X-Type; Lexus IS300, GS300, SC400; Lincoln LS V8; Mazda Mazdaspeed Protege, 6 V6, Miata 1.8L (all); Mercedes SLK, C280 Coupe, C320; Mitsubishi/Eagle/Dodge Eclipse/Talon Turbos, Eclipse V6, Stealth/3000GT NA; Nissan Altima 3.5L, Sentra Spec V, Maxima 3.5L, 300ZX NA (Z32), 300ZX all (Z31); Pontiac Firebird 3.8, V6T, Grand Prix GTP; Porsche 914-4, 924 Turbo, 924S, 944, 911 (63-69)*, 911 (70-73), 911 (73-77); Plymouth Prowler; Saab 9-3 Viggen, 9-5 Aero; Subaru WRX*; Toyota Celica GTS, Celica AllTrac (90-93), MR2 SC, MR2 (90+ NA), MR Spyder, Supra NA (2nd Gen); Volvo S60 T5, C70; VW Corrado, 1.8T (+170 hp)/VR6 (all)

 

CLASS F:

Acura Integra (non-VTEC), Integra GS-R*, CL V6, TL, RSX*; Audi A4 1.8T (150 hp), 1.8T (170 hp)*, 2.8*; BMW 318, 5 series 6-cyl; Mini Cooper; Cadillac Catera; Chevrolet Camaro 3.4L, Cavalier Z24, Monte Carlo SS, S10 Extreme; Dodge Neon (all), Stratus RT; Fiat X1/9; Ford Escort ZX2 S/R, Mustang I4T/I6/V6, Thunderbird, Probe GT, Probe Turbo*; Honda CRX, Civic SOHC-VTEC, Civic DOHC-VTEC*, Accord V6, Prelude non-VTEC; Hyundai Tiburon; Infiniti I30; Mercedes C230*; Mercury Cougar; Mazda 6 4-cyl, Miata 1.6*, MP3*, MX6 GT, Protege 2.0, RX-7 13B, 626; Mitsubishi Eclipse 4-cyl, Galant V6, Galant VR4*, Starion ES; Nissan Sentra SE-R, NX2000, 240Z, 260Z, 280Z; Pontiac Grand Am/Prix GT/SE, V6 Fiero, Firebird 3.4 V6; Porsche 924; Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS*, SVX*; Toyota MR2 (1st Gen NA), Celica GT, AllTrac(88-89)*, Solara V6, Matrix XRS, Camry V6; Volvo S60; VW 16V, 1.8T (150 hp), Corrado

 

CLASS G:

Acura Integra 1.6*, 2.2 CL; Austin Mini Cooper S; Chevrolet Cavalier; Chrysler PT Cruiser; Dodge/Plymouth Cirrus/Stratus 4-cyl; Ford Focus; Focus ZTS/ZX3*, Escort GT/ZX2, Mustang I4; Geo Storm GSI/Prizm; Honda Civic Non-Vtec*, Accord 4-cyl; Hyundai Elantra; Mazda Protege 1.6L, 1.8L, Protege5, RX-7 12A; Mitsubishi Galant 4-cyl, Lancer, Starion; Nissan 200sx, 240sx, G20, Altima 4-cyl, NX1600, Sentra Pontiac Fiero 4-cyl, Vibe; Porsche 912; Saturn S-Series SOHC, DOHC*; Subaru XT, Impreza 2.0-2.2, Legacy; Toyota Matrix, Camry, Corolla; Volvo S40; VW 1.8L 8-valve (all)

 

CLASS H:

Austin Mini (older), Chevrolet/Geo Metro, Storm; Ford Festiva, Escort LX*, Taurus GL; Honda Civic 88-91, CRX HF, Civic 92-95; Hyundai Accent; Kia Rio, Spectra, Sephia; Mitsubishi Mirage; Toyota Paseo; VW 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 TDI (all)

[Neon2dmaX]

Dave,

 

 

Ok my question is that if something is not mentioned or is left out of the rules will it be allowed? This might allow us to get creative and so on. An example is flat bottoming a car if it isnt mentioned in the rules could we do it and not get any points..

 

Ricky, the example that you give has already been addressed in the revised rules that state that aerodynamic aides, whether active or passive, will be penalized at the discretion of the regional TT director.

[Edited and empahsis added.]

[email protected]

 

Now, there is a rule that is sure to lead to a "national" standard. And talk about a can of worms. It seems to me if it is too difficult to establish some workable rule [penalty] for lightweight wheels, how would you propose to tackle this one. It also raises several other problems. Taking the early Neon as an example, many had a rear spoiler when delivered, but at least as many came without a spoiler. Are all spoilers penalized? Or, will only replacement spoilers have points added. Given the complexities of aerodynamics, what standards could be applied? I thought the intent was to make the rules "simple".

[Greg G.]

 

Special models are distinguished throughout the classes....

Some of the classes also recognize the changes that have occurred from one model year to the next....

I would agree that no one person is likely to be aware of all the special models, but obtaining the information is relatively easy via the internet....

I think the proposed rules are real simple. First, on the classification sheet, ask for engine displacement and/or whether the specific entry is an upgrade model within the line or otherwise differs in any material respects from the standard car....

Second, a general advisory should be included within the rules advising potential competitors that if they have a "special edition" not listed, they should verify the classification prior to submitting their entry.

Dave, I think that both of your suggestions are reasonable and can be practical in implementation. Thanks for the input. Now, perhaps you missed my original point, though. I would prefer if we could address as many of the special edition, optional engines, etc. as possible now, and change their base classifications (or 5pt *.....or perhaps 10 pt ** as you mentioned earlier) before the 2005 TT rules are finalized, just like the many that have already been addressed in the 2004 rules. This would keep things more uniform on a national basis, and avoid the appearance of conflict of interest when a regional director is also a competitor trying to make "new rules" in the middle of the season. My point to Ricky about the aerodynamics mods. was just that someone did think about them in the revised 2004 rules. I never said that I thought that the rule was the best way to handle those mods, though. I agree that the discretionary nature of the rule is not optimal, and won't be helpful if we want to expand TT to a National level. However, as far as your example with the Neon is concerned, this is how I would handle it if we don't change the rule at all. Since some Neons came with rear spoilers, I would allow a rear spoiler on all Neons as long as it was a stock replacement spoiler or something very close. Anything "extraordinary" may be penalized a point or two. Also, I don't think that it would be that difficult for us to come up with a point scheme for aerodynamic mods. It might be a little difficult to come up with a good, fair, points penalty rule, but it would be very clear cut in terms of administration/enforcement of the rule (which is the way I like it). And, in the interest of avoiding problems during the season, I think we should take this one head-on now.

 

So, again, I ask everyone to look through the base classifications, and if you see any potential problems like I found with the SRT4 or Dave found with the Focus and Neon, speak up now. The guys who wrote these rules did a pretty good job of identifying changes in models over the years and special editions, but I know that there are more out there that we haven't addressed yet. It's much easier to make rules/rulings during the off-season than during the season.

 

Also, any ideas on a point scheme for aerodynamic aides that are not stock? How about we breakdown the potential aero mods into it's own section and assign point values to each mod......front splitter (? with size component), rear wing (? with size or height components), altered body panels, canards, flat bottoming (partial, full), rear diffuser, rear vertical panels (I forgot what they are called), etc?

[email protected]

[Neon2dmaX]

Returning to the proposed rule changes:

 

For base classifications, I would recommend the following re: the Neon and Focus:

 

Neon SOHC (both 1st and 2nd Gen) in the same base class as the Focus; probably G . Neon SOHC ACR is bumped up 5 points if stock ACR, or points added as would be to any SOHC if other than stock ACR parts are used.. Neon DOHC would be bumped up 5 points. Neon DOHC ACR is bumped up 10 points if stock DOHC ACR, or points added as would be to any DOHC if other than stock ACR parts are used.. Leave Focus as is except that 2.3 liter ZX3 is givein added 10 points (instead of the 5 points that are given to the 2.0 ZX3). BTW, the Ford ZX2 S/R should probably be moved to G with a 10 point penaly (rather than start in F).

 

As for rules in general:

 

Scrap the added points for air bag removal. Older cars never had them, and the added weight is negligible. Moreover, they can be disabled while competing, if safety is a concern. (Actually, if safety is such a concern, the rules should mandate removal.)

 

Scrap the added points for a/c removal. Again, a lot of cars (both older as well as some newer cars) came without it. While the added weight might be more significant, it too can be disabled during competition or deleted altogether.

 

Scrap the battery rule. While it is true that lightweight battery replacements are readily available, the actual amount of weight reduction varies according to the OEM battery weight, and in some cases may be negligible. Relocation by itself does nothing other than alter the balance of the vehicle which may add marginally to the overall performance (much less so IMO than lightweight wheels), and thus does not conform to one of the fundamental criteria for adding points: a reasonably significant weight reduction.

 

Deduct 1-2 points for bolt in roll bars (4 point) and cages (6 point0 such as those offered by Autopower and Kirk Racing which are intended primarily for rollover protection, and which are not designed to add additional stiffness beyond the roll protection. Essentially, such a deduction would compensate for about ½ of the points added for “gutting” the rear/front; a reasonable trade off given the added safety. Add points, as deemed appropriate for more extensive roll protection.

 

As for wheels: O.K., leave them wide open, but at least give everyone a discount coupon for those ultra light wheels (e.g. SSR Type C or Volk TE-37).

[Kerry]

Roush Mustangs need to be added to Class 'C'or 'B' depending on what level of mods.

[Greg G.]

It seems like there are so many possible options with the Roush Mustangs that we probably need to leave them in their base class, and get points by our usual method to determine their final class. I looked at the website, and most of those Mustangs would end up in TTB (or even TTA), but some of the lower grade packages (without the extra options) might be TTC level.

[Kerry]

Same goes for the Saleen. The older Fox body models were really only body kits and a few bolt on parts to the engine, a few with s/c's. Sn95's were avalible with the stock 302 ci or 351ci and even s/c 351 engines. Luckily most of the owners of thse are only concerned with show and shines at the local In 'n' Out , rather than track events.

[Greg G.]

I like the rule that neon2dmax proposed regarding special edition cars (above), and I think that rule would take us a long way in keeping the Roush/Saleen/Bondurant Mustangs in the correct class. As well, I've been looking into the Corvette issue, and talk about a wide range of options over the years. The current rule that all '63 to '82 Corvettes go into base class TTE is just messed up. There are cars during those years that came "stock" (factory options) with engines anywhere from 200hp to over 425hp. I'm working on coming up with some wording that would address this issue. And, once again, the idea to ask for engine displacement and base model engine displacement on the classification sheet is a good one. I think we might take it one step further and ask for factory rated hp of the car's engine and the base model's engine for those cars with factory option engines. Again, I'm trying to work on some wording to simplify this, and make it into a rule that can be used consistantly on a national basis.

[V8cobra99]

Greg / Guys - Consider classing the cars by weight to HP ratio's. (either the know MFG engine HP, or require guys to get a Dyno for RWHP, which most guys do anyway at this point). Then add modification points from there. It is not that difficult. Except for a few totally gutted cars, most TT drivers have near stock type cars, then apply modifications. The TT drivers with totally gutted cars may need to be weighed once a season at the track or at a shop, or weight station (usually for free).

A corvette ZO6 for example is approx 8.7 (3350lbs / 385RWHP).

 

Andy

[Greg G.]

Andy,

We discussed this on the top of page 3 and the bottom of page 2. It sounds like a great idea.........in theory. I think that the practical aspects of it just don't pan out, with the following exceptions. Power/Weight ratios are clearly used in helping to develop the base classifications already. And, I think that we need to address special edition and factory option engines that aren't accounted for in the base classifications using hp/wt as a major factor in determining the base class for those cars. I did a little research on the '63-'82 Corvettes that are ALL listed as base class TTE. What I found is that there were engines that came with 200 hp or less, and engines that came with 425hp or more--all factory "stock" (as engine options) from the dealership. Clearly, these cars will need to be dealt with this year in a different way. The "engine swap" rule just doesn't work for these cars (7 points because the "donor" car is the Corvette itself). And 425 hp in TTE....I don't think so. I'm coming up with some wording we can use in the new rules to address this issue (for Corvettes and any other car that isn't appropriately classed), and I think that the most fair starting point (before adding mod points) is going to be to use the manufactures stats for hp rating for those engines as they came stock. Then, add points like any other car for engine mods that occurred post factory.

[FocusTed]

I agree what was said above that the 2.3L ZX3 should be in TTF. I have driven both a 2.0 Focus and 2.3 Focus….and the 2.3 is much quicker.

 

We also need the add the Mazada3. The Mazada3 also has the same 2.3L Duratec motor that the Focus has, except that it has a few extra HP because it’s not the same head. So, I believe that too should be in TTF as well , maybe even adding an extra 5 points to it. There's also a 2.0L Mazada3 which maybe should be in the same class as the 2.0 ZX3

 

There’s also the Mazada6 which also has the same 2.3L Duratec motor, but it is heavier, so maybe not add the 5 points to it.

 

But then there’s the V6 Mazada6 which has 220hp, That should be in the TTE class.

 

The only other car I would look at is the 1999-2004 V6 Mustangs (TTE). I know it has 190hp..but it is a pretty heavy car. This is also I car I’ve driven on the track, and I believe my lap times were the same as in the 2.3L Focus. So, because of that I don’t think it should be in the TTE Class. I personal think it should also be in the TTF Class.

[AC]

Well I am no expert about all cars...but the suggestion that all cars should be initially categorized by "hp vs. weight ratio" makes a lot sense....A LOT SENSE.

 

Once this is established the current point system can be used to further determine what class a car should belong to.

 

The hp (I am talking about the engine hp) vs. weight ratio can be found for almost all cars out there so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

The production year of a car should NOT matter... Just take the WRC as an example....they have a minimum weight and max hp rating....this makes it so much fun since cars are very well match against each other.

 

It should be no problem to do this , also it very easy to control.

 

My 0.02$ comment.

Akin

[Greg G.]

The base classifications do use hp/wt ratios as a major factor, but there are obviously other factors to be taken into account...like how good the stock suspension is, overall weight, how good the stock brakes are, how stiff the stock chasis comes, and all wheel drive, etc. If hp/wt ratio was the only factor, then we might have $100,000+ new cars lumped in with $10,000 twenty year old cars. There is clearly a difference between a GT3 AWD Turbo and a similarly hp/wt ratio matched 1970 Corvette. Also, your point about WRC makes sense for them, because each team is willing to spend just about the maximum amount (every possible legal modification) that they can to be the fastest team. Even in World Speed Challenge they end up giving weight penalties to try to even things out....we are not about to start doing that.

 

Guys, please focus on what I've asked for (like the info that Ted gave above, or possible specific changes in the number of points for a given modification, or if a modification that should get points doesn't currently get points.) We aren't looking to come up with a new set of rules....just to improve on the ones that we currently use (that again, worked pretty well last year).

Thanks for your help.

[FocusTed]

One thing we might look at is how many points we add to each car at the start...........Right now...some of the cars we add only 5 points.... maybe some of the cars should start with 10 points.

 

This might help.

 

If you look at the 2004 Focus with the 2.3L Duratech and the 2004 Mazada3 with the 2.3L Duratech.

 

The Focus has about 145 hp...where the Mazada3 has about 155hp... The Mazada3 also has four wheel disc brakes.....where the Focus uses disc/drums.

So we also have to look at more then just HP.... we have to look at OEM brakes and suspensions.