2011 GTS Rules Now Available

[rlipner]

So I see that even though the vote has been overwhelmingly NO, a rule penalizing sequential transmissions was added (Section 4.1), also for factory prepped competition vehicles.

 

 

So, I gather the rules are not set?

 

While this rule change probably doesn't affect me, I'm finding the process of rule setting at a minimum a big mystery and lacks transparency. Speaking just for myself as one who races in GTS for the sheer joy of competing and the simplicity of the rules, I'm finding the rule making process (or lack of) somewhat disconcerting.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Guest

[RSCoupe]

...I'm finding the process of rule setting at a minimum a big mystery and also not transparent. Speaking just for myself as one who races in GTS for the sheer joy of competing and the simplicity of the rules, I'm finding the rule making process (or lack of) somewhat disconcerting.

 

I'll second that!

When I first joined GTS, the rules were one, maybe two, pages, now they're up to four. This concerns me. Rules creep is already happening...

[AJ Hartman]

Whats up guys? I race in American Iron but was interested in whats going on in other classes. As with you guys we are governed by a hp/wt ratio but our rule book is a lot longer than yours. I really like the openness of your rule book but that leaves a lot of room for the person with deeper pockets to run at the front. One thing we have in our rule set is a determined "box" to work in. ex: a front splitter can not extend more than X inches infront of body line of the bumper and cant be more than X inches wide, etc. So theres still wiggle room in the rules, but it helps contain costs by limiting the over the top set ups.

[JSG1901]

Whats up guys? I race in American Iron but was interested in whats going on in other classes. As with you guys we are governed by a hp/wt ratio but our rule book is a lot longer than yours. I really like the openness of your rule book but that leaves a lot of room for the person with deeper pockets to run at the front. One thing we have in our rule set is a determined "box" to work in. ex: a front splitter can not extend more than X inches infront of body line of the bumper and cant be more than X inches wide, etc. So theres still wiggle room in the rules, but it helps contain costs by limiting the over the top set ups.

AJ,

 

I'm not saying there isn't value to that idea, but that's really not how GTS has been up until, apparently, now. Our rules let you do whatever, which is a part of what we've all enjoyed about it. You can do what you want and not run afoul of the rules...or could.

 

Scott

[scottbm3]

Why do we even have these discussions and polls ? It appears that whoever is making and changing the rules is going to do what ever they want anyway. Is it just to make it look like we're involved ? Quit making changes that benefit, or penalize just a very few racers and not the masses that support the series. They're really starting to head away from the ruleset we started with after the switch and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

 

-Scott B.

[ianacole]

The rules as currently published are the final draft and I don't expect any further changes. However, the National Office always has the right to implement any changes at any time they see necessary to facilitate a safe and enjoyable environment. Bear in mind that the Rule Change Process is designated as "semi-formal" in deference to this fact.

 

Ian

[Brad Waite]

Well I voiced my opinion and cast my vote but elected to stay off the forums during the rules change discussion process, guided by my mistaken belief that the overwhelming majority opinion to retain the purity of the GTS rule set would prevail. Apparantly NASA leadership has decided that despite what the majority of GTS racers want, they know what's best for us and have implemented changes that bastardize our rule set anyway.

 

When the ridiculous battle was being waged a couple of years ago between the former GTS Director and NASA leadership, I was a strong supporter of NASA. I understood they were a profit driven business, needed to operate like one and knew it would be in their best interests to keep the racers happy. I guess my mistake was in not anticipating that any business would intentionally alienate a majority of a customer segment, in order to satisfy just a few.

 

Dare I be the first one to ask if perhaps Mark Barr was right, even though his tactics were certainly out of line? For the record, I feel that my loyalty to NASA was misguided.

[scottbm3]

So I see that even though the vote has been overwhelmingly NO, a rule penalizing sequential transmissions was added (Section 4.1), also for factory prepped competition vehicles.

 

 

I think I'm going to start referring to this as the how do we(out west) compete with Chad in GTS5 rule...... And let me make it clear my comment is not at all about Chad ! Just seems a bit odd as both his Championship winning cars('09 &'10) fit into this category. I'm sure I'm just overthinking the whole tranny/motorsports chassis rule change thing along with the adjustments in wt./hp numbers that mostly effect GTS5...

 

 

-Scott B.

[John Graber]

Wow, this is kind of crazy. Nasa has done a great job managing and growing GTS over the last few years. Yes there was some drama a few years ago, but that was very short lived and I personally felt we have been served well the last few years.

 

The GTS rules set has worked well, but it is not perfect and tweaking a few components to help grow the ranks and stabilize it for the long-term is acceptable from my perspective. Look at the most successful Pro or Amateur race classes. Hell, they change throughout the year.

 

So, looking at the changes:

GTS5 - Lowered Wt/Hp threshold - Assuming the tightening will ultimately make the GTS5 class more competitive. Knowing what it costs to add HP to a German car this probably makes sense.

I don't believe GTSU has done well and many of those cars have turned to SU where in many regions, like GL, there is a deep competitive group. Yes a few cars may get pushed to GTSU, but it it much easier to add weight or restrict HP than increase it.

 

Factory Competition Vehicles / Sequential Gearbox Penalty - I guess you draw the line somewhere. I have never seen a car like that running in GTS1, but as I think about it preventing a $250k car from entering GTS1, an entry level class in my view, is probably good. Also not sitting and dreaming about how to get a sequential gearbox in my 25 year Porsche will help my retirement account.

 

I think that's it. I don't see this as such a big deal. Most people are unaffected by the changes and if it helps to keep all the classes more competitive over the longrun it is a good idea.

 

Oh yeah, the poll means nothing too. Anyone registered with the Nasa Forums can vote, anyone. And anyone a little creative could register 10 times and vote. I'm not a fan of polls anyway. Talk to the troops, talk to those that have been around for a while, talk to those that could come into the family, and put together the best rules set possible.

 

Sorry, one more, clean up the GTS Forums! No wonder everyone is confused. There is stuff from 2008, 2009 and 15 threads on the 2011 rules that I can hardly make heads or tails out of....

[Brad Waite]

John,

 

I too think NASA has done a great job and that's why this latest move on the GTS rules is troubling and seems inconsistent with my experience. I just think we should have maintained the simplicity of the rule set. I guarantee you that there are like class cars out there which have been developed to outperform a factory built cup car, but with no penalty. When that car consistently wins, do we modify the rules again?

[delirium45]

as a new entrant to GTS this year i voted in accordance with what drew me to GTS to begin with, simple & stable rules that provide for a fun atmosphere; i voted 'no'.

[scottbm3]

You all can quit voting now. The "poll" is over and been decided.

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[delirium45]

You all can quit voting now. The "poll" is over and been decided.

 

and what was the decision ?

[Michael G.]

Not as polls voted for, but exactly opposite.

Michael.

[JSG1901]

The decision was to not make any changes.

[RSCoupe]

The decision was to not make any changes.

 

To the 2011 rules as currently written.

[scottbm3]

The decision was to not make any changes.

 

Even Bill O'Reilly would be proud of that Spin.....

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[JS154]

FWIW, the E30 M3 is a BMW Motorsport Chassis. Anyone who runs one of these in NASA GTS just got penalized.

 

The E36, E46 and E90/92 Chassis are regular BMW production line cars, unlike the E30 M3.

[JSG1901]

The decision was to not make any changes.

Even Bill O'Reilly would be proud of that Spin.....

 

-Scott B.

No, what I meant (but not what I said), was that after the open discussion there was the usual discussion among the GTS RDs. We agreed not to change it. The changes were made after we were done with our discussion and after we had approved the "final" rules draft. Above my pay grade, apparently.

[icemang17]

I am glad the rules stayed the same... I ended up with a german built and engined racecar with no place to race it...then I found NASA GTS and the car ends up being a great fit!!! Or so we shall see in the 2011 season!

[JSG1901]

I am glad the rules stayed the same... I ended up with a german built and engined racecar with no place to race it...then I found NASA GTS and the car ends up being a great fit!!! Or so we shall see in the 2011 season!

Just be sure to notice that although provision 4.1 was removed (the paragraph which added a penalty for factory race cars, sequential gearboxes, etc), the adjusted power-to-weight ratios for GTS5 are still in effect.

[Mike Mallais]

I'm not for changing rules at this point. I like wrenching my car and trying new stuff. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. My biggest fun is the "trying". Why change rules to stop the ideas from flowing. I like seeing what the other guys are doing as well. Mike Mallais.