Jump to content
ianacole

2011 GTS Rules Now Available

Should additional regulations be placed on GTS-1 and GTS-2?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Should additional regulations be placed on GTS-1 and GTS-2?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      37


Recommended Posts

ianacole

All,

The 2011 GTS rules are now available (found here: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/gts_rules.pdf). Please note that along the lines of the performance adjustment for slicks versus D.O.T race tires an additional sub-section has been added to the classification section that includes two performance modifications that will incur a class ratio penalty. This is being done in an effort to bring competitive parity between those who have large quantities of money to spend on performance modifications and those who do not – we do not want to create a situation where to be competitive a participant must engage in a “war of dollars.

 

There is a growing concern that the open rules of GTS can create an environment of cost escalation that will ultimately result in the disenfranchisement of the amateur competitors and competitors moving away from GTS to other classes where cost overrun is not the key to competitiveness.

 

We would like your feedback on this potential future issue. Please participate in our poll above (see question below), and provide your comments by responding to this thread, emailing me at ([email protected]), or calling me at 720.270.2147.

 

 

Thank you,

Ian A. Cole

 

Poll question: Should additional regulations be placed on GTS-1 and GTS-2 to limit the more extreme and cost intensive performance modifications (e.g. composite bodies and flat bottoms) to mitigate the potential for cost escalation in these lower GTS classes?

 

Do you favor disallowing the following modifications from GTS1 & 2 with something that would resemble this wording?

 

> Vehicles must retain OEM roof, along with factory A, B, and C pillars if so equipped (i.e composite replacement prohibited)

> No aerodynamic items are permitted between the axles (i.e. flat bottom, tunnel floor)

> Vehicles much use a transmission that change gears by means of synchomesh gear engagement (i.e. sequential, dog ring, etc prohibited)

 

Yes- these restrictions should be adopted

No- Let them build as they desire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I like the changes. The two penalty items do protect those of us in the lower (read poorer) classes from some extreme modifications. I like the concept so well I would vote to expand upon it, primarily for the lower classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Butler

This is good. I would also suggest a wheel/tire size limit for each class to limit the effect of the wide-bodies that seem to popping up or some vehicles that just permit a very wide tire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.
This is good. I would also suggest a wheel/tire size limit for each class to limit the effect of the wide-bodies that seem to popping up or some vehicles that just permit a very wide tire.

 

Once we get done w/ all these restrictions, how are we any different than PT/ST?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimax

GTS is power to weight, period. Let's not selectively implement restrictions based on "what we're seeing." First off, those are subjective restrictions and second, it muddies the rules. Keep it simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer

The rules already state:

 

"Additional roll cage bracing and construction is allowed and recommended. Tube frame cars will be classed according to the Non-D.O.T. table regardless of tire choice. Tube frame cars running Non-D.O.T. tires will be bumped into the next higher class. “Tube frame” is defined as any car that does not retain the manufacturer’s stock unit body or chassis. Modification of suspension and drivetrain mounting points alone does not constitute a tube frame."

 

So, if someone out there has a car that does not have the factory uni-body (any of the A, B, or C pillars) for some reason and less than 200 Hp we are looking to exclude him ?. Not bump him in class, but completely exclude him?

 

Is there really someone out there with about 100k to build a car thinking to himself "I am going to build a monster, killer race car and put a sub 200 hp motor in it to go cream those GTS1 guys"

 

I am not in favor of any rule that prohibits cars from competing with us. Maybe something that would add a penalty like the tube frame rule does. I am also not in favor of any rule that diverges from wording in the BMW club racing rule book or the PCA racing rule book so that we can encourage as many racers to cross over.

 

That said, I would embrace a rule saying only factory or factory style suspension, only OEM transmission (those that would be available in that marque of car) and maybe a couple other tweaks to keep the cars true to the manufacturer. (PCA rules already have these two rules) We say motors, but leave out the transmissions. Should just say drivetrains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brant giere

Ok by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

NO. Leave the rules as they are/were. It draws more people to GTS than away from it. Eventually the other classes will start to have the proposed limitations(rules creep) and the whole open ruleset concept of GTS is no longer.

 

 

 

-Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I should rephrase my comments. I am not for a bunch of Wt/HP adjustment factors. I am for listing a few crazy mods as "not allowed" in some of the lower classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rlipner

Small rule changes as proposed will probably be the first steps down a very slippery slope. The beauty of GTS is its simple and straight forward rule set - hp to weight. My vote is to leave the rules as is.

 

The only area that should be explored would be maybe a +1 class upgrade for tube frame cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemming

I voted no, GTS needs to remain a wt/hp series. If you want to run for cheap, go play in a spec class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrgordonsenior

Ian are you going to make GTSU a National class again that one can compete at the "Nationals" in? You're going to have a bunch of cars that can't run in GTS5 anymore so it makes sense to add GTSU to the National lineup don't you think?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel
> Vehicles must retain OEM roof, along with factory A, B, and C pillars if so equipped (i.e composite replacement prohibited)

> No aerodynamic items are permitted between the axles (i.e. flat bottom, tunnel floor)

> Vehicles much use a transmission that change gears by means of synchomesh gear engagement (i.e. sequential, dog ring, etc prohibited)

Since in most cars the roof and/or its pillars are structural items, I would wonder about the structural integrity of the remainder. Does NASA have a standard of safety that would apply in this case? (I took a quick look through the CCR and did not see such.)

 

I am opposed to a prohibition against making flat the bottom of one's car. Such does not necessarily need to be expensive. To prohibit this modification, just gives a boon to cars that come from the factory with less aerodynamic drag.

 

Why prohibit some fellow that wants to run an automatic transmission in GTS? Or prohibit innovation? Do not some some cars of recent manufacture come from the factory with transmissions that do not employ the patented 'syncromesh' idea? Why exclude those cars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel
I voted no, GTS needs to remain a wt/hp series. If you want to run for cheap, go play in a spec class.

Yeah! Let's get rid of WT/((HP+TQ)/2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel
NO. Leave the rules as they are/were. It draws more people to GTS than away from it. Eventually the other classes will start to have the proposed limitations(rules creep) and the whole open ruleset concept of GTS is no longer.

The first 'rules creep' that I am aware of in GTS, was the addition of WT/((HP+TQ)/2). Is it being proposed that this 'rules creep' be unwound?

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RSCoupe

I voted NO due to the "rules creep" that was discussed above. I don't think there should be much worry about someone spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to build the ultimate GTSx car. For that money they can go race with the pros. I think money spending in GTS is a self-leveling situation. Unless someone is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RSCoupe

And why should this rule only apply to GTS1 & 2? I'm sorry, but I don't consider any of the GTS classes a "poor man's" class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole
Ian are you going to make GTSU a National class again that one can compete at the "Nationals" in? You're going to have a bunch of cars that can't run in GTS5 anymore so it makes sense to add GTSU to the National lineup don't you think?.....

 

It's been "Nationals" eligible since reinstatement last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber
Quote:

> Vehicles must retain OEM roof, along with factory A, B, and C pillars if so equipped (i.e composite replacement prohibited)

> No aerodynamic items are permitted between the axles (i.e. flat bottom, tunnel floor)

> Vehicles much use a transmission that change gears by means of synchomesh gear engagement (i.e. sequential, dog ring, etc prohibited)

 

Where is this? There are quotes in this thread that I do not see in the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianacole
Quote:

> Vehicles must retain OEM roof, along with factory A, B, and C pillars if so equipped (i.e composite replacement prohibited)

> No aerodynamic items are permitted between the axles (i.e. flat bottom, tunnel floor)

> Vehicles much use a transmission that change gears by means of synchomesh gear engagement (i.e. sequential, dog ring, etc prohibited)

 

Where is this? There are quotes in this thread that I do not see in the rules?

 

It's not in the rules ... yet. This quote is from the poll question in the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. 16 944

I was attracted to GTS for the opportunity to run in a multiple make class with other German cars but am not interested in adding a big wing or other aero mods that completely change the look of the car. I also do not have the time or money to modify my car to the level of my competitors or pursue all of the advantages available under the current no holds barred rules system. That said I wouldn't exclude those that want to go down this road either. I would propose an extreme class for every GTS class (i.e. GTS 1x) where anything goes with a standard GTS class that is more restrictive in terms of preserving oem drivetrain and appearance.

To the comment that those interested in a more restrictive class should run in a spec class, despite it's popularity, the spec 944 class is overly restrictive in my book in that there is no place for the 2.7 944 and safety measures such as aftermarket a arms and Lexan rear hatches are not allowed. I also like the option of more readily adjustable shock and spring packages offered GTS over the spec packages.

 

I think a split class system will attract more competitors that don't fit into spec and allow those that want to optimize their cars to the extreme to play with other like minded racers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I think that split system is a very cool idea. If we could get 944Spec, SE30, Spec3, 986Spec, GTS....into two categories it would make for some nice race groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Just to clarify some things from a 944 Spec perspective, then back to your regularly scheduled debate -

 

No.16 - I understand your concerns, and these are issues we have kept an eye on over the years...

 

The safety glass hatches have not proved to be a safety issue in over 25 years of racing 944's. I can personally attest to this, as I "endo'd" my 944 Spec car over its nose onto it's roof last year. The hatch didn't even crack. I waked away without so much as a bruise or scratch, and raced the next day (in another car). Lexan here is costly, and a performance issue, not a safety one.

 

As far as the A-arms, running at approx 2,400lbs (dry), and on 225 Toyo's, we don't see the failures that 3,000 + lb Turbos running 285 Hoosiers see. The stock steel, and late aluminum offset A-arms have proved very safe. As a physician, and the 944 Spec National Director, safety is a huge issue, but due to the limits we have in place, we have been able to these issues without spending money, and have almost 10 years of experience doing that.

 

GTS is a great class and for you if need the extra elbow rom in the rules, but if this is all that's keeping you out of 944 Spec, lets talk!

 

Sorry for the interruption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juliancates

I dont see a bunch of SpecE30, Spec944, etc cars chomping at the bit to come race in a restricted GTS class. Part of the beauty of a spec class is you are presumably racing with a bunch of like cars, and if they can draw decent fields, why muck with that?

 

I see a split GTS as a bad idea. More classes just divide the fields out even further. Might as well just give everybody a trophy at registration.

 

The beauty of GTS is the simplicity of the rules. Start messing with that, and, well, it's the start of a slippery slope, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

So now we can have somewhere near 11 classes in GTS ??? That makes absolutely no sense. A lot of guys come to GTS because of the simplicity of the rule set, so why complicate it. Seems like that would make a lot of work for all the directors, tech guys and others trying to figure which little piece puts you in what class. Sounds like the same reason guys have left BMW and PCA to come to GTS, so that every little change they do to the car doesn't change their class.

 

In GTS it seems like the most that complain are the ones that are not running towards the front of their class and think all these changes will fix that. What happens when you get all these changes and you're still not competitive, what do you ask for next ?

 

 

-Scott B.

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...