Jump to content
Trackrocket

RULE PROPOSAL: Maximum Ballast

Should GTS adopt a maximum ballast rule?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Should GTS adopt a maximum ballast rule?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      24


Recommended Posts

Trackrocket

Alright, just in time with the conversation a group of us had at Summit Point last weekend and what was suggested in a few threads in the Dyno Compliance thread.

 

SHOULD THERE BE A MAXIMUM BALLAST RULE??

 

If so, HOW MUCH is maximum??

 

My suggestion would be 150lbs...this seems reasonable, taking into consideration the various platforms used in GTS and the potential weight variance of drivers.

 

IS it ridiculous to run 300-400lbs of ballast to run in a lower class?? ...is NOT the question.

 

The question was plainly stated in all caps/bold lettering and underlined above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSG1901

Jeff,

 

I think this is a very interesting question. Ignoring the safety aspects for a moment (more about that shortly), I can't see any way that ballasting a car up to drop it into a lower class could possibly be a performance advantage.

 

As I outlined in too much detail in another thread, the GTS power-to-weight ratio only equalizes acceleration. Two cars with similar gearing, similar aerodynamics, similar power-to-weight ratios but with a 500 lb difference in weight will accerlate similarly. That's just math.

 

However, those same two cars arriving at the end of the same straight at the same speed will not stop the same as one another. The lighter car will have a significant advantage under braking and a similar advantage through the turns.

 

Therefore, as a general statement, it is a disadvantage to have more power and more weight than to have less power and less weight if both cars are built to the same power-to-weight ratio.

 

So, from a strictly performance perspective, there is no reason to limit the amount of ballast one can put in a car, as far as I can see.

 

But I do wonder about safety.

 

The question is, how do you keep that weight from tearing loose in a particularly violent accident? While 500lbs of ballast (to continue with my unreasonable example) would be a huge performance disadvantage, I also don't see how you could possibly attach it to anything that could keep it from tearing out. Certainly the floor is not strong enough.

 

So, if 500 lbs is too much, what is NOT too much? Even 150lbs is a lot to have held on by bolts through sheetmetal and that would be an awful lot to get hit by if it tore loose in the middle of a roll-over.

 

I think the question that needs to be addressed if we are going to limit the amount of ballast is not "how much constitutes a performance advantage?," but rather "How much weight can be safely secured inside the passenger compartment of a racing car?"

 

I'm sure there's a reasonable answer, and a reasonable limit, but I don't know what it is. Your 150lbs may be as good a guess as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trackrocket

Scott, I put ballast in my 964 for 3 years to fit into GTS2 class due to the fact that I had somewhat of a sub-par motor, performance wise and all my insulation, carpet, you name it...I basically had a street car with a cage/Motons and safety equipment...so, considering the 70-90lbs of ballast I would run and the 200lbs of carpeting, insulation, interior panels, two seats, etc. that my car had, I think I did pretty good for my run in GTS2.

 

The question is really pointed towards an "obvious" classing for certain cars. Yes, your average 964 will fit into GTS3, but just barely...now add a chip and weight-reduction, it works out quite well for GTS3.

 

There are 996s that fit well into GTS3, just barely, they would either have to keep a pretty much stock power plant or add ballast as the HP went up, still competitive.

 

NOW, this rule proposal would tend to target the car that is lightened up to the extreme due to it's original intention (pro race series), then ballasted down to a lower class, still works...very competitive, someone just proved it in our region. They have a good 300+ lbs of ballast...it works.

 

People thought I had a ton of ballast - not so, but because I hadn't prepared my car to the extent of it's potential, I chose to run a little bit of ballast and go with GTS2. Because I couldn't beat YOU or Jim, I gave up and threw $$$$$$$ at the car and went GTS3!

 

Some may argue I had a GTS3 car all along, some may argue a current example of someone who ballasts their car quite a bit belongs in GTS4...doesn't matter, the question at hand is whether we should devise a simple rule that puts a reasonable limit on how much ballast a car should run to stay in class.

 

I think running over 200lbs of ballast should not be allowed...I think we should come up with a reasonable # that evokes the spirit of the series, and not a competitor that needs to use the rules to their advantage. It is quite obvious where your average German "race-prepared" car belongs, you pretty much listed it out for GTS1 and GTS2...GTS3 tends to have the E36 and lower powered E46 chassis and the 964/993 and some stock-classed (with reference to PCA rules) 996s...GTS4 generally has the nicely prepared E46s, the crazy-stripped, highly-modified E36 platforms and generally prepared 996s and above in the P-Car category.

 

Timmy, I'll just put it out there: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU EITHER, although I did use your car as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak
Jeff,

 

I think this is a very interesting question. Ignoring the safety aspects for a moment (more about that shortly), I can't see any way that ballasting a car up to drop it into a lower class could possibly be a performance advantage.

 

As I outlined in too much detail in another thread, the GTS power-to-weight ratio only equalizes acceleration. Two cars with similar gearing, similar aerodynamics, similar power-to-weight ratios but with a 500 lb difference in weight will accerlate similarly. That's just math.

 

However, those same two cars arriving at the end of the same straight at the same speed will not stop the same as one another. The lighter car will have a significant advantage under braking and a similar advantage through the turns.

 

Therefore, as a general statement, it is a disadvantage to have more power and more weight than to have less power and less weight if both cars are built to the same power-to-weight ratio.

 

So, from a strictly performance perspective, there is no reason to limit the amount of ballast one can put in a car, as far as I can see.

 

But I do wonder about safety.

 

The question is, how do you keep that weight from tearing loose in a particularly violent accident? While 500lbs of ballast (to continue with my unreasonable example) would be a huge performance disadvantage, I also don't see how you could possibly attach it to anything that could keep it from tearing out. Certainly the floor is not strong enough.

 

So, if 500 lbs is too much, what is NOT too much? Even 150lbs is a lot to have held on by bolts through sheetmetal and that would be an awful lot to get hit by if it tore loose in the middle of a roll-over.

 

I think the question that needs to be addressed if we are going to limit the amount of ballast is not "how much constitutes a performance advantage?," but rather "How much weight can be safely secured inside the passenger compartment of a racing car?"

 

I'm sure there's a reasonable answer, and a reasonable limit, but I don't know what it is. Your 150lbs may be as good a guess as any.

 

In theory, as stated in another thread, you are correct. In real life, ballast equalizes nothing. Cars that came out of the factory with gobs of hp are newer and more advanced in every way. You rely on the same car qualities with one being heavier. Real life has those cars with high hp being newer with anti lock brakes, better transmissions and much better suspensions. Like my example from the weekend, a much newer BMW with more hp and anti-lock brakes that is a GTS3 car ballasted to GTS2 vs a 25 year old 911 with no antilock brakes and the target for the GTS2 class.

 

I don't care how much weight you put in the BMW. By lap two those two were 1/4 mile ahead of everyone else. That's not a theory, it practical physics.

 

there should be a ballast limit. If not then things start to get complicated because then if you want to make your 2002 BMW M3 a GTS2 car how are you going to level the playing field with respect to the advantages of the BMW vs other cars more appropriate to the class without antilock brakes, stability control, etc? that's when the simplicity of GTS gets lost.

 

If your car is supposed to be in GTS3 then leave it there. It's pretty simple.

 

There will always be better drivers out there than me for sure but they all shouldn't be in heavily ballasted BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSirota
there should be a ballast limit. If not then things start to get complicated because then if you want to make your 2002 BMW M3 a GTS2 car how are you going to level the playing field with respect to the advantages of the BMW vs other cars more appropriate to the class without antilock brakes, stability control, etc? that's when the simplicity of GTS gets lost.

 

Nothing is illegal about adding fancy ABS, stability control, etc, to any GTS car. The ballasted-up E46 M3 has no advantage over an older, less-technology-laden car as far as the GTS rules are concerned. It only has an advantage as long as no one wants to spend a ton of money.

 

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Make no mistake, GTS is a VERY EXPENSIVE CLASS once the level of competition gets high. And adding a ballast-limiting rule will do nothing to change that. In fact, no rules can really change that. Once you have two guys who are willing to spend money to beat each other, costs will escalate, no matter what the ruleset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good hands
I think we should come up with a reasonable # that evokes the spirit of the series, and not a competitor that needs to use the rules to their advantage.

 

Very well said.

 

JMHO but when you have to put an inordinate amount of artificial weight in a car to make a class

it seems to me that it means that car was not made for that class.

I could add 300lbs and run GT1 but that is not where my car belongs.

 

Form a safety note I ask the question how safe is it with 400lbs bolted to

the sheet metal of your car in a rollover ? I know my mechanic said he would

feel very uncomfortable with 200lbs in my car.

 

And where does it end ? Put 700lbs in a Porsche GT3 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSirota

Form a safety note I ask the question how safe is it with 400lbs bolted to

the sheet metal of your car in a rollover ? I know my mechanic said he would

feel very uncomfortable with 200lbs in my car.

 

The rules should allow bolting it in an appropriate fashion to the passenger seat mounting area. Those four locations are reinforced enough to hold 300+ easily, maybe more (a stock seat plus a 250-lb passenger.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSG1901
From a safety note I ask the question how safe is it with 400lbs bolted to the sheet metal of your car in a rollover ? I know my mechanic said he would

feel very uncomfortable with 200lbs in my car.

I think this is the question we should be considering. We can argue all day long about how a highly-ballasted car will do compared to others--clearly there are disagreements about this--but there is a legitimate safety question I suspect we can all agree about. The more weight, the better the chance of it coming loose at the wrong time (and killing somebody).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trackrocket

OK, let's make a couple more "rules" for this post, just MY request:

 

Using the "quote" feature is on the verge of being abused!

...you get my drift. If there's a sentence, even a paragraph that's worthy of being quoted, so be it...but NO requirement here to quote an ENTIRE past post to comment on. Just lightening the mood with respect to that, but geez!

 

Alright, I know it's difficult, but let's not try and "air" our personal opinions with regards to a fellow competitor.

 

FACT: BMW M3s and Porsche 964s have competed in GTS2 on several occasions, within compliance. If you don't do anything to boost HP on either platform, in stock form, trust me...they can fit into GTS2.

 

I ran GTS2 for 3 years with no more than 90lbs ballast...I had a completely stock motor...so I was within the rules. There are people that have boosted their HP then restricted the output with restrictor plates under the throttle body so their torque is high and HP within class limits when compared to the weight they achieve.

 

Yes, I understand there is an M3 or two doing this and there is NOTHING in the rules the prevents it. There is a fellow competitor in GTS3 that does it as well and it has proven to be a successful way of competing.

 

Is it "unfair" ...well, no, not really, as it falls within the rules. Is it within the spirit of the series, I dunno...I kind of question that. I think the only solution, whether you want to claim it'll "level the playing field" or if you want to use it as a safety issue (valid issue, of course) I'd like to get opinions on making such a rule...a rule to create a reasonable limit on adding ballast to a car.

 

Do I want to word this post/proposal like it's ridiculous for people to use an excessive amount of ballast - NO, not at all.

 

Please, let's not make this proposal personal, if you have an older 911 or BMW that isn't working out in GTS2, GTS3, whatever...there's only a couple of options...either lighten it up or pump it up! I have, for many years kept my car within PCA Club Racing standards for G-prepared (formally D-prepared with prior ruleset) and this was very doable with keeping the car within NASA GTS2 specs. This was fairly easy to maintain but when I changed my motors I wound up with a bit more HP and it prompted the jump to GTS3, which allowed me to go on a MAJOR weight-reduction "diet" and also allows me to fit the car within PCA H class.

 

I do feel lucky that my 964 platform allows for this, I can see how this may not benefit the 911SC and 911Carrera, but look who won the 1st NASA Nationals?? ...Mark Weining in his 3.2 Carrera.

 

It is what it is, I think the classes could use a formula adjustment to move more cars to GTS1, but I'll leave that to you GTS1 and 2 guys to discuss.

 

SO, is it feasible that we could keep this post somewhat to the point and state whether you are FOR or AGAINST a limit on amount of ballast, if you are FOR it, state your reason(s) and keep them reasonably brief...and please state a # you might have in mind.

 

If you are AGAINST the proposal, please log off from this post.

 

Just kidding, please state the reason(s) you are against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Dayton

Hey Jeff - I think ballast should be considered for the safety issues. I don't know what's reasonable but I think BMW CCA allows 50lbs at front and rear passenger areas and spare tire area for a total of 150lbs.

 

The beauty (or lack thereof depending on your perspective) of GTS is the simplicity of the rules (Dyno, weigh and go racing.) and racing against other german cars. Now, being competitive is a different story.

 

Hunt - with all due respect, the BMW 325 I was racing is far from sorted and had zero ballast. Motor has 200K + miles with no work and dyno reads less than 200 whp. Also, TPharm's front straight spin early in the race assisted in the large gap. Based on a conversation with Ted after the race, he is carrying some ballast...how much I don't know...I never looked in his car to see if it's stripped or whatever.

 

My first year of racing (2007) I campaigned a 95 M3 in GTS2 and carried zero ballast but there was no motor mods and BMW CCA required the interior for "I Stock" so my car was not stripped. And, I could NOT beat Jeff or his "cheater" p-car!!! (j/k)

 

So, If anything I think safety should be the ONLY reason to make a ballast min/max...rule changes are a slippery slope. I personally think NASA/GTS has a great thing going and would hate to see the fields shrink, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

I dunno about this one Jeff... as long as people are not fudging

dyno sheets, I dont see why you cant add as much ballast as you want

to run a certain class (aside from safety issues). That's part of

taking advantage of the ruleset to be competitive. Aside from the

safety aspect, if this type of rule is implemented, we start going

down the slippery slope of restricting having different ECU mappings

for certain classes, restrictor plates, ABS, traction control, etc

etc.

 

I know for a time last year, I had contemplated running both GTS2 and

GTS3 before I put my cams in. It was as simple as tossing in a

restrictor plate for GTS2 and adding some ballast and removing both

for GTS3. Likewise, you could de-tune a GTS5 car using software to

flatten the HP curve and run in GTS4.

 

The point of all this is compliance. Without the proper tools and

enforcement, the weight/power classing lends itself to be abused. We

all knew this when GTS was started. GTS got popular and now we have

lots of people running in it, which is a good thing. That is why at

Nationals last year, you had to declare ports, switches, etc. At the

nationals level, there was fairly strict enforcement of that as well

as dyno. That doesnt happen at the regional level very often, and

that is understandable.

 

That is why I brought up the whole VIPER dyno thread for VIR. When

people get beat or run certain laptimes, it is in the competitive

nature of us to want to know everyone got beat fairly. I know last

year I was put on the dyno MANY times, and I had no qualms about it.

Ive even been DQd once b/c I was off. I was not angry or upset, it

was my own fault for assuming my dynojet operator was accurate.

Turned out the dynojet used at MidOhio read 10rwhp more! Of course

THEN you run into the issue of not dyno-ing EVERY GTS competitor. If

a dyno at a particular event reads high and only a handful of guys get

dyno'd, that handful would probably have to be running more weight

than those who did not get dyno'd.

 

If someone wants to run 400#s of ballast, so be it. But like others

have said, it will be apparent in the way the car handles. I know I

ran with Chip Stabler once when he had Adam Hafford's E46 M3. He

ballasted that sucker with 300#s. I didnt have any problems with it,

nor would I have issue with someone else running 1000#s of ballast if

they wanted so long as there was a way to make sure there is rules

compliance.

 

NOTE: With all that said above, I DO know that other NASA classes do have ballast rules. I know for sure that CMC, Honda Challenge, and AI have a 150# rule in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trackrocket

ERIC!! ...you suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak
there should be a ballast limit. If not then things start to get complicated because then if you want to make your 2002 BMW M3 a GTS2 car how are you going to level the playing field with respect to the advantages of the BMW vs other cars more appropriate to the class without antilock brakes, stability control, etc? that's when the simplicity of GTS gets lost.

 

Nothing is illegal about adding fancy ABS, stability control, etc, to any GTS car. The ballasted-up E46 M3 has no advantage over an older, less-technology-laden car as far as the GTS rules are concerned. It only has an advantage as long as no one wants to spend a ton of money.

 

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Make no mistake, GTS is a VERY EXPENSIVE CLASS once the level of competition gets high. And adding a ballast-limiting rule will do nothing to change that. In fact, no rules can really change that. Once you have two guys who are willing to spend money to beat each other, costs will escalate, no matter what the ruleset.

 

I understand that there is nothing illegal about a car with abs etc in GTS. I never said there was. What I'm saying is much like what Jeff is saying: the spirit of the rules. Should I be able to take a 2006 997 GT3 RSR, add a cage and enough weight to run GTS2? I don't think I should. The power to weight can be viewed as an evolution of the cars. Back in the 80's 200+ hp was huge. in the 90's 300 was a big number. After 2000 350+ can be had in your average family sedan. This is the crux of my point. If 200 hp cars are meant, in the spirit of GTS, to compete together then why should a 300 hp car be allowed to run in their class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak
OK, let's make a couple more "rules" for this post, just MY request:

 

Using the "quote" feature is on the verge of being abused!

...you get my drift. If there's a sentence, even a paragraph that's worthy of being quoted, so be it...but NO requirement here to quote an ENTIRE past post to comment on. Just lightening the mood with respect to that, but geez!

 

Alright, I know it's difficult, but let's not try and "air" our personal opinions with regards to a fellow competitor.

 

FACT: BMW M3s and Porsche 964s have competed in GTS2 on several occasions, within compliance. If you don't do anything to boost HP on either platform, in stock form, trust me...they can fit into GTS2.

 

I ran GTS2 for 3 years with no more than 90lbs ballast...I had a completely stock motor...so I was within the rules. There are people that have boosted their HP then restricted the output with restrictor plates under the throttle body so their torque is high and HP within class limits when compared to the weight they achieve.

 

Yes, I understand there is an M3 or two doing this and there is NOTHING in the rules the prevents it. There is a fellow competitor in GTS3 that does it as well and it has proven to be a successful way of competing.

 

Is it "unfair" ...well, no, not really, as it falls within the rules. Is it within the spirit of the series, I dunno...I kind of question that. I think the only solution, whether you want to claim it'll "level the playing field" or if you want to use it as a safety issue (valid issue, of course) I'd like to get opinions on making such a rule...a rule to create a reasonable limit on adding ballast to a car.

 

Do I want to word this post/proposal like it's ridiculous for people to use an excessive amount of ballast - NO, not at all.

 

Please, let's not make this proposal personal, if you have an older 911 or BMW that isn't working out in GTS2, GTS3, whatever...there's only a couple of options...either lighten it up or pump it up! I have, for many years kept my car within PCA Club Racing standards for G-prepared (formally D-prepared with prior ruleset) and this was very doable with keeping the car within NASA GTS2 specs. This was fairly easy to maintain but when I changed my motors I wound up with a bit more HP and it prompted the jump to GTS3, which allowed me to go on a MAJOR weight-reduction "diet" and also allows me to fit the car within PCA H class.

 

I do feel lucky that my 964 platform allows for this, I can see how this may not benefit the 911SC and 911Carrera, but look who won the 1st NASA Nationals?? ...Mark Weining in his 3.2 Carrera.

 

It is what it is, I think the classes could use a formula adjustment to move more cars to GTS1, but I'll leave that to you GTS1 and 2 guys to discuss.

 

SO, is it feasible that we could keep this post somewhat to the point and state whether you are FOR or AGAINST a limit on amount of ballast, if you are FOR it, state your reason(s) and keep them reasonably brief...and please state a # you might have in mind.

 

If you are AGAINST the proposal, please log off from this post.

 

Just kidding, please state the reason(s) you are against it.

 

 

For 150#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak

 

Hunt - with all due respect, the BMW 325 I was racing is far from sorted and had zero ballast. Motor has 200K + miles with no work and dyno reads less than 200 whp. Also, TPharm's front straight spin early in the race assisted in the large gap. Based on a conversation with Ted after the race, he is carrying some ballast...how much I don't know...I never looked in his car to see if it's stripped or whatever.

.

 

First, not doubting that you wold beat me on any given day on any given track. Not doubting that.

 

Also, you guys were already in the brake zone for t1 before the spin.

 

A guy is running 300+ lbs and another guy is running 400 lbs.

 

If you need weight and restrictor plates you are in the wrong class.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak

Just so I'm clear:

 

I'm not calling anyone a cheater

 

I'm not saying that anyone is doing anything wrong with the rules as they stand

 

I am saying that the ballast and restrictor practices may not be the spirit of the GTS classing rules

 

I am saying that no matter what I will continue to be a backmarker for at least a few years

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trackrocket
I am saying that no matter what I will continue to be a backmarker for at least a few years

 

Now isn't that being a bit hard on yourself?

 

Once again, can I ask that we not specify any competitor? This is a general rule change proposal, not due to any single person's actions whatsoever.

 

I think GTS has evolved far and long enough to get to the place where we could use a simple rules "refinement" and I believe that a limit on adding ballast is a reasonable proposal. I don't believe, however, that this rule would lead to other "nitpicky" rules as it's nature is quite simple.

 

However you look at it, for safety reasons, for landing within the "spirit" of the GTS competition...or for nothing else, the "what's reasonable" factor.

 

I do, however, like the 997 GT3 RSR comparison...and that is a fact, if someone wanted to, according to the current ruleset, they could add enough weight to their 997 GT3 RSR Porsche to run in GTS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak
I am saying that no matter what I will continue to be a backmarker for at least a few years

 

Now isn't that being a bit hard on yourself?

 

 

Well I do have back to back HPDE Championships so maybe I'm a little hard on myself

 

Don't mean to call out specifics, I was responded too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good hands
I do, however, like the 997 GT3 RSR comparison...and that is a fact, if someone wanted to, according to the current ruleset, they could add enough weight to their 997 GT3 RSR Porsche to run in GTS2.

 

Jeff,

 

I'm leaving the Porsche dealer with my new GT2 and on my way to sports authority for some barbells. Can you do the math for me to get into GT2 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSG1901
I'm leaving the Porsche dealer with my new GT2 and on my way to sports authority for some barbells. Can you do the math for me to get into GT2 ?

350 hp at the flywheel is about 298 hp at the wheels. Times 14.5 lbs/hp = 4,321 lbs for GTS2. The stock GT2 is 3,175 lbs plus, say, 180 for you = 3,355, means you need to add 966 lbs.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good hands
I'm leaving the Porsche dealer with my new GT2 and on my way to sports authority for some barbells. Can you do the math for me to get into GT2 ?

350 hp at the flywheel is about 298 hp at the wheels. Times 14.5 lbs/hp = 4,321 lbs for GTS2. The stock GT2 is 3,175 lbs plus, say, 180 for you = 3,355, means you need to add 966 lbs.

 

Good luck with that.

 

 

 

F the spirit of he rules

 

Can i run with a bugeye sprite welded to my ass ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikew968

I would only restrict ballast as a safety measure and for how much I have no idea. Is there evidence of excessive ballast being a safety issue?????? I know Karl from RE had some ballast come loose in an accident and was flying around. I was not a big fan of all cars needing ballast in PCA and I have been able to run my car without ballast in GTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.

We elected to allow up to 250 lbs of ballast in our 19 TT, PT, and ST competition classes. This amount of ballast can AND MUST be attached in such a manner as to make it safe.

 

Here is the wording from ST:

 

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.

 

This, of course, does not prevent a driver from adding back factory items such as passenger seats, or a larger fuel tank/cell, etc to get over 250 lbs of actual ballast, but it does put a limit in place.

 

One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that the 250 lbs of ballast can be used to re-balance a poorly balanced car from the factory (remove weight up high and put it down low, adjust closer to the 50:50 balance that many of the later model cars come from the factory with, etc). In a series like ST or GTS, where ultimately, regardless of the wt/hp ratio of the classes, the winning cars are going to have the most developed chassis/suspension/brakes (developed = $$$$), a reasonable allowance of ballast may help those that can't afford to spend $50,000 for an acid-dipped body-in-white with a huge cage that has been designed to get the car to a 50:50 balance and make it stiff as a board, etc.

 

As far as the spirit of GTS goes, we all fully expect that a top level GTS4, GTS5, ST1, or ST2 car is going to cost a lot of money. But, it seems to me (and has from the inception of GTS), that ultimately, if GTS grows large enough, that it will require a fully developed car (as in $50K-100K +) to be a top national contender even in GTS1. Maybe not during a recession, but eventually, someone with money to burn will decide to build a GTS1 "monster"--sequential transmission, $10-$15K shocks, etc.... If they can figure out how to build a $40,000 Dodge Neon chassis/roller for World Challenge Touring Car, imagine what they can spend on a German car. Unfortunately, the more successful the series gets, the more likely that the "normal" club racer in the lower level classes will be competitive nationally will decrease. But, these are the good times, so enjoy them while you can. This is what should be expected in a series that has very few rules. So, the idea that just because older cars tend to be lower horsepower, and fall into the lower level classes may be true currently, but it is just an artifact due to the series being young. Eventually, the newer model year car that "should" be in GTS3, has some great factory engineering, and has been ballasted for GTS2 will have to deal with the older car that has been completely stripped, re-engineered, and had tons of money dumped into it. The eventual loser either way is going to be the competitor with an older model car that doesn't have the money to completely rebuild the car and still wants to be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
streak

Here are some results that put a spot light on the class/ballast issue:

 

GTS2

-Ballasted BMW 1:25:441

-Superfast BMW driver 1:25:430

-Ballasted BMW 1:27:640

-911 1:28:388

-911 1:28:454

-911 1:28:858

-911 1:31:613

 

Is it coincidence that all the BMWs were that much faster? Is it coincidence that the 911's, the cars that are supposed to be in GTS2, are all around the same lap times?

 

In talking to one driver he lamented the "money race" in GTS3 as getting out of hand so he opted to ballast his car for GTS2. So what does that do? It brings the money race to GTS2 because in order to compete with a ballasted GTS3 car in GTS2 we have to start our own money race. So that driver brings the very same element to GTS2 that he was trying to escape in GTS3?

 

Again, the spirit of the rules . . .

 

For now I'll still have loads of fun and learn every time I get on track but eventually my time and effort will be wasted and frustration will win and I'll find another series . . . or take up golf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sstecker

cars in the dtm series have over 10% (200+lbs) of their weight in ballast that they can move to optimize the cars balance for each circuit.

 

my new motor is making 20-30 more hp than my previous motor - cant detune it anymore. means im putting in over 180-220lbs of ballast. or i have to come up with 50 more hp to goto gts4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...