Jump to content

TT Classing?


Golin
 Share

Recommended Posts

IMHO, wording like SCCA regarding IT to Solo classing might be a good thing.

ITS and ITR run street prepared.

So something like SE30 = E, and S3 = D; half-prepped cars need not apply.

 

We are specifically excluded from doing quite a few of the free mods, and take very little advantage of specific points taken (control arms being one).

 

Most of us use TT as a test n tune, but I could see many up and comers TTing in a prepped car before comp school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • getfast

    8

  • dbgeek

    13

  • VaTechM3

    11

  • Scany

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

I have prepared generic PT/TT classification forms for all 3 generations of Spec Miatas (since we have so many of them down here), based on cars fully prepped to the limit of the current SM rules (this came in handy at the Championships in September, where many SM drivers wanted to super-size into PT or TT during the event, but did not know anything about classification forms). They end up pretty far into PTD/TTD, where they won't likely be competitive. In this case, it really is in the best interest of the SM drivers to fill out their own PT/TT classification forms if there are a few modifications that they haven't performed.

 

We only have a couple of Spec E30s down here; one fit into TTE by points, while the other fit into TTE by doing a dyno reclass (otherwise, it would have been a low-points TTD car).

 

While many drivers use TT for additional seat time or preparation for going to W2W, other drivers dip into TT in order to win (or poach) Hoosier tire contingency. Since SM in SCCA is going to Hoosiers next year, this has become a big deal and a bit of an issue lately.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. I guess I'm a little naive about the tire poaching issue.

 

I'd have to go through the points to see if the dyno reclass really would help. I have aspirations of running some TT occasionally, but TTC (at VIR) is running a good 5 seconds a lap faster than Spec3 - right DJ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. I guess I'm a little naive about the tire poaching issue.

 

I'd have to go through the points to see if the dyno reclass really would help. I have aspirations of running some TT occasionally, but TTC (at VIR) is running a good 5 seconds a lap faster than Spec3 - right DJ?

 

 

At SP its a 1:22.2, VIR a 2:11.1 (yeah I know im slow at VIR, im working on it. VIR has been bad luck).

 

Spec3 cant keep up in C, no way, I have wayyy more horsepower, and aero. D, maybe if you pulled it out of your butt, its an overdog for E. Its kinda inbetween D and E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to check out the official ruling on this one, but you might have to consider the ball joints on the M3 arms as a +2 as well. I've got a question in to clarify on the Meyle hd OE replacement control arms being a 0 or +2 based on the more robust design of the ball joint not meeting the OEM rule, improved life span of the part. The 96+ M3 arms have different geometry with the caster gain being in the arm, and not using an offset bushing, but the balljoint is also supposed to be improved over the non-M ball joints. That is where the real improvement in the life of the control arm assembly comes from, and it probably the real reason that this is the part mandated in the spec3 rules. Lots of documented cases of balljoint failures in e36 cars on track.

 

There is a post about ball joints on a corvette in the TT forum that I'm basing my initial conclusion on. I would consider the lemforder or meyle hd ball joints to be similar enough to the items displayed in that thread that the same ruling applies to these bmw specific parts.

 

meyle hd non-m arms are probably a +2 on a non-m e36, and 96+ m3 arms could be +6!!

 

My only other question is for the control arm +4 rule it says "or RWD/AWD rear trailing arms (may have

spherical/metallic joint for the connection to the spindle/knuckle)."

 

I read that to mean that the metallic joint connection only applies for rwd/awd rear arms, and is not including a full metal balljoint on a front arm. Otherwise, it would specifically say ball joint, and it would have some kind of punctuation after trailing arm if it is meant to be applied to the entire rule. So there is no reason to not take balljoint points just because you are also taking control points, but have to clarify this is correct.

 

Doing a suspension refresh, mostly wear items, on my non-spec3 E36 TTE car so a lot of these threads has been pretty helpful to get other peoples opinion on this stuff and make sure i don't inadvertently pickup points for what should just be OEM replacement items. I'm sure i'm not the only one that has probably incorrectly considered a lot of OE replacement parts to be zero points because they are just a replacement part, but if there is any improvement in the design, or could possibly be an improvement that can't easily be ruled out, you should take the points for it if not a freepoint mod. Although this does seem really hard to enforce, and where does the burden of proof lie if somebody does protest it? Measuring an arm is one thing, but how would you verify the construction of a ball joint? Protest fees pay for an OEM one and the one on your car and some hacksaw blades? heheh..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spec3 cant keep up in C, no way, I have wayyy more horsepower, and aero. D, maybe if you pulled it out of your butt, its an overdog for E. Its kinda inbetween D and E.

 

I beg to differ - depending on the track, we are right in the hunt for PTE. Granted, as we sort our cars, we are getting faster, but so are they. It looks like we win at VIR, but they are slightly faster at Summit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spec3 cant keep up in C, no way, I have wayyy more horsepower, and aero. D, maybe if you pulled it out of your butt, its an overdog for E. Its kinda inbetween D and E.

 

I beg to differ - depending on the track, we are right in the hunt for PTE. Granted, as we sort our cars, we are getting faster, but so are they. It looks like we win at VIR, but they are slightly faster at Summit.

From what I have seen of Matt's Spec3 car's classification forms for TTD (+56 points, and possibly +58 points if the ball joint situation applies), how are you able to fit yours into PTE? You would need to spend 17 fewer points than Matt did (maybe 19 fewer), likely making it a very mildly-prepared Spec3 car. If this is the case, then it's an example of why Spec3 can't accurately be assigned a PT/TT class without being unfair to the lesser-prepared Spec3 cars.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have seen of Matt's Spec3 car's classification forms for TTD (+56 points, and possibly +58 points if the ball joint situation applies), how are you able to fit yours into PTE? You would need to spend 17 fewer points than Matt did (maybe 19 fewer), likely making it a very mildly-prepared Spec3 car. If this is the case, then it's an example of why Spec3 can't accurately be assigned a PT/TT class without being unfair to the lesser-prepared Spec3 cars.

 

Mark

 

Sorry mark, I was merely comparing lap times of Spec3 vs PTE. The car is fully prepped and classes out at the very top of D, and I have to run some extra weight to account for my 'wing'. I would imagine an e36 prepped specifically for TT or PT could compete in E, and be very effective if fully prepped for D.

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...