2012 rule change proposals NEW THREAD

[jcindric]

HOW ABOUT WE HAVE ONE THREAD THAT COLLECTS PROPOSALS WITHOUT COMMENTS IN THE NEXT WEEK, THEN PRIORITIZE AND FORWARD TO GREG AND REGIONAL DIRECTORS! POSSIBLY EVEN RECRUIT FEEDBACK FROM DRIVERS IN OUR OWN REGIONS

 

Jon M Cindric

TTB, Instructor

[Trevor57]

What's that? I can't hear you.

[Rob S.]

I'll start it off. (remember Ken.....no comments )

 

1. Add note, "Hoosier 255/35ZR18 (A6 & R6) to be treated as 275mm tire for points", to "TIRES" section

 

2. Add aftermarket ECU to free mod list (with OEM ECU re-flash)

 

3. "Power" used for compliance testing shall be defined as:

 

a) Power = whp (cars with higher horsepower than torque)

 

OR,

 

b) Power = (whp + wtorque) / 2 (cars with higher torque than horsepower)

Edited November 12, 2011 by Guest

[kbrew8991]

damn, no comments

 

But here's the gist of what I sent in:

1.) Reconsider tire points for street tires, +2 is a bit agressive I feel.

 

2.) Consider adding a modification line in the drivetrain section for these newer optional equipment “flappy-paddle” type transmissions when run in an as-delievered configuration (or separate the car listings between normal trans & fancy trans)

 

3.) Consider somehow allowing people to switch to beefier and/or adjustable endlinks or at least modify their existing OEM for extra strength without taking +2 under mod E7 (assuming they still attach to OEM swaybars of course).

 

4.) Consider an additional factor when doing a custom base reclassification for motorswap, aftermarket forced induction, etc. – the ability to shape the power curve and/or create a flat horsepower line with said modifications. This would be superior to automatically assessing peak torque which may or may not occur outside of the car's usable powerband on track. Might be a tough one, but possibly we could add one more item for people to send in and one item for us as directors to check in the field – the general type of engine (rotary, 4cyl, V8, etc – not necessarily the specific engine) and power adder (turbo, supercharger, both, or none) they plan to run with.

 

5.) insert whining about Miatas getting better reclasses than my car gets here.

 

6.) I am in support of striking the inverted strut points mod

 

7.) More of a general request than something specific - Is there a way we can get some lines added to the Aero Points Mod sections that we can use to charge less points for some of these OEM optional equipment bumpers, side skirts, and wing type stuff?

[dans2k]

ban mustangs

 

s2000's get -100lbs

 

corvette gets +200lbs

 

all german cars get +100lbs

 

all cars except s2000's get a *

[ILIKETODRIVE]

/\ None of those are biased at all!

 

Here's mine: Reconsider rewording F.4 (chassis stiffening/subframe brace/etc) so that a subframe brace that does not connect more than 2 points does not apply.

(not biased at all!)

[obzezzed350]

A 255 Hoosier as a 275? BAN AND GTFO

[Rob S.]

A 255 Hoosier as a 275? BAN AND GTFO

 

Just the 255/35ZR18.

 

You must use this size!

[Joshua]

I am in support of no points for adjustable anti-sway bar end links when used with base model OEM anti-sway bars.

[heavychevy]

-.2 for front tires 245 or smaller

-.4 for rear tires 275 or smaller (same)

[dans2k]

swaybar endlinks would be cool because OEM bars fight the corner balance

[nasa ser]

I disagree with ken

 

No change for street tires, who says we need it besides you?

 

Yes on flabby paddle

 

No on end links, look all cars have their warts, deal with what you got ..... My sentra takes +2 for brake calipers, nx2000 is same car except for better brakes and save +2, if Miata drivers don't like their end links take the points, I do for my brakes, if I didnt I would have to change pads and rotors every weekend

 

No on your Hp tq rule, frankly I could care less where their tq peak is, go with suggested rule if Hp >tq, add together and divide by two

 

quote="kbrew8991"]damn, no comments

 

But here's the gist of what I sent in:

1.) Reconsider tire points for street tires, +2 is a bit agressive I feel.

 

2.) Consider adding a modification line in the drivetrain section for these newer optional equipment “flappy-paddle” type transmissions when run in an as-delievered configuration (or separate the car listings between normal trans & fancy trans)

 

3.) Consider somehow allowing people to switch to beefier and/or adjustable endlinks or at least modify their existing OEM for extra strength without taking +2 under mod E7 (assuming they still attach to OEM swaybars of course).

 

4.) Consider an additional factor when doing a custom base reclassification for motorswap, aftermarket forced induction, etc. – the ability to shape the power curve and/or create a flat horsepower line with said modifications. This would be superior to automatically assessing peak torque which may or may not occur outside of the car's usable powerband on track. Might be a tough one, but possibly we could add one more item for people to send in and one item for us as directors to check in the field – the general type of engine (rotary, 4cyl, V8, etc – not necessarily the specific engine) and power adder (turbo, supercharger, both, or none) they plan to run with.

 

5.) insert whining about Miatas getting better reclasses than my car gets here.

 

6.) I am in support of striking the inverted strut points mod

 

7.) More of a general request than something specific - Is there a way we can get some lines added to the Aero Points Mod sections that we can use to charge less points for some of these OEM optional equipment bumpers, side skirts, and wing type stuff?

[kbrew8991]

you think Mustang people whine now? Just wait until you do the if TQ > HP you average them rule. Esp the ones that have peak torque at a useless RPM

 

I feel we need to lower the street tire points up until the point that someone fields a car that will run decent times with them. Until then why do we allow a mod line in the ruleset to be set at too high a value unfairly? Why is THAT one ok to be left at too high a value but others are not?

[nasa ser]

Tp use the same argument i have heard a thousand times on here, once someone build a car specifically for street tires and maxes out the rules (seam welding, final drive, yada yada yada) you haven't proven that the street tires points are "unfairly high"..........

 

who says they are unfairly high, you?

 

who has built a car max out street tires and can truly drive that car.......i would bet you put somone like Mike Skeen or Todd Reid in a well built street tire TT car and it would sure look more competitive.

 

 

As for the miata end links.........no offense to the miata guys but again you get no sympathy, take the points or remove the sway bars all together.......if you have to take point for the end links, make full use of the points, otherwise, move on to something else.

 

 

for the hp/tq..........so come up with another way to control it, but tq needs to be accounted for, without it, we should all go by ex wrc-rally cars and drop the motors into a miata, then dyno re-class into whatever class we can get away with and wrap up the metals..

 

if you are maximizing the current rules, the tq loophole is a giant loophole, which people are slowly starting to drive through.

 

Frankly the mustangs may simply be another example of a car that under the current rule set, cannot win the class it falls into, the tq rule just means they continue to be competitive.

 

you think Mustang people whine now? Just wait until you do the if TQ > HP you average them rule. Esp the ones that have peak torque at a useless RPM

 

I feel we need to lower the street tire points up until the point that someone fields a car that will run decent times with them. Until then why do we allow a mod line in the ruleset to be set at too high a value unfairly? Why is THAT one ok to be left at too high a value but others are not?

[UKRBMW]

I emailed Greg with the torque suggestion mid-season. Was afraid I'm the only one, but sounds like that is gaining steam. Current rules definitely favor the larger displacement cars in both TT and PT/ST - I think TQ being accounted for or being the same as HP would actually lower cost as well, which is never a bad thing.

[Bnjmn]

I drove a to-the-rules TTD car (ap1 s2k) with street tires (Direzzas) and was like 4 sec off the new TTD record at Mid-O.

[jcindric]

Thanks all! Can I ask for your help and email the top 5 in your region and have them post on this thread.

 

DYNO- should it be mandatory, or elective , but if a gps differs at least you would have a better baseline.

 

Jon M. Cindric

[nasa ser]

I'll give you the same response everyone gave scott williard (awdracer) last year, is your car maxed to the limit of the rules, have you taken advantage of every free mod, if a professional team took your car and developed it and put a professional driver in it, can you say without a doubt that the car wouldn't be 4 seconds faster?

 

(not trying to be obnoxious, just reciting what others have said before..

I drove a to-the-rules TTD car (ap1 s2k) with street tires (Direzzas) and was like 4 sec off the new TTD record at Mid-O.

[nasa ser]

I don't understand your question...........

 

a dyno mandatory or elective?

 

do you mean a pre-event dyno sheet in hand?

 

that is true for dyno re-class but not for a points car..........although either car can be illegal on a dyno based on class power to weight.

Thanks all! Can I ask for your help and email the top 5 in your region and have them post on this thread.

 

DYNO- should it be mandatory, or elective , but if a gps differs at least you would have a better baseline.

 

Jon M. Cindric

[jcindric]

Dyno, how many people would like everyone have one before the season starts? Simply put , why not

Jon

[Trevor57]

If you want to go faster, but are limited in grip (street tire) you need to make more power, and since making more power is also limited you are stuck making the same power as the guys on R6s. Before the hp/wt caps a street tire could have been competitive. Now it would be very difficult if impossible.

[heavychevy]

This is an adjusted weight/hp series, so they could give a -.75 benefit for street tires like the +.75 penalty for slicks, though I don't like that idea. But it's definitely possible.

 

Looking back at some of the time attack series, the street classes might be able to help some of the regions with little participation in Time Trials. Granted people could still opt to run on street tires anyways. Maybe there could be a provision for it and leave it up to the regional directors to allow it or not.

 

However, at Nationals, don't expect to be competitive with street tires on, unless the class is weak.

 

A slight help for street tires might be tolerable, but huge differences, as would be required to make them competitive in most classes would be basing the classing system of Time Trials on having street tires and would be a bad idea IMO.

[jcindric]

TIRE CONTINGENCY & DYNO If winning free tires, a dyno should be required! I think most tire winners already due, BUT, that leads us back to revising the power formula.

 

JMC

[speedengineer]

If you want to go faster, but are limited in grip (street tire) you need to make more power, and since making more power is also limited you are stuck making the same power as the guys on R6s. Before the hp/wt caps a street tire could have been competitive. Now it would be very difficult if impossible.

 

True, but there are other ways of going faster besides tire stickiness or hp. For example, the points someone gets back by running street tires could be used for an aero package, or altered suspension geometry, or higher-end dampers, or different sway bars, or they could run much wider tires, etc.

[jason]

How is this thread different than the other one?