National Staff Greg G. Posted January 20, 2012 National Staff Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'd like to try something new this season, and see if we can get some of these 20-100 page threads wrapped up before the rule change occurs. So, here is the first one, and we are getting an 11 month jump on things. During the 2012 rules revisions, we tabled a proposal to add another tire point category between the +13 and the +30 (non-DOT), or to just bump the +13 category to anywhere from +16 to +20 points. You have the next 100 pages of this thread to play with the reasons for doing this or not, and how many points would be appropriate (if any). At this point, if we were to do this, I would think that we would keep the +13 category after the BFG's got added due to their "special properties" regarding size (Yes, gentlemen and ladies, size does matter at times). But, hey, you have at least 99 page to throw that one around too. PT guys, sorry, but the TT guys are just way more intense on the Forums than you guys, so you will have to hang with the non-racers here on this one. I'll post a shadow-type thread linking here for the PT guys. Have Fun (and please be respectful of each other...as usual ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I seriously don't care, I will play in whatever sandbox the rules outline for us since it's the same for everybody, but these "moving target" rules where we build a car around a tire really suck when they are changing all the time, especially when investing in brakes/wheels/tires around a given size (yeah tires dictate wheel, wheels are part of the brakes equation, dia and caliper clearance, etc). Change 1 and everything can get jacked. The competition in PT and TT is so tight, that you pretty much are maxing your points to be on the pointy end, and tires eat up most of them. If that changes, your whole car build goes flying out. So if you decide to do it, just don't touch it in the future. Change it and leave it be. Changing rules formula with points involved is not going to help PT or TT points classes grow. If you want to make adjustments to cars to keep things even, change comp weights, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'd prefer to see other tires get bumped down in points, and possibly negative points for "lesser" categories of tires if needed to get the desired spread in points between all the tire options. It is also my opinion that the tire points aren't broken in this manner right now (Rs at 10 and As at 13 seems fine) and don't need fixed this way. Ditto on the moving target sentiments, especially as someone who spends all of his 12 availible points on tires, but if we can be shown or it becomes obvious that something is off in the tire points or any other area I can get behind the required change to keep the ruleset working as best as it possibly can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomn29 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I seriously don't care, I will play in whatever sandbox the rules outline for us since it's the same for everybody, but these "moving target" rules where we build a car around a tire really suck when they are changing all the time, especially when investing in brakes/wheels/tires around a given size (yeah tires dictate wheel, wheels are part of the brakes equation, dia and caliper clearance, etc). Change 1 and everything can get jacked. The competition in PT and TT is so tight, that you pretty much are maxing your points to be on the pointy end, and tires eat up most of them. If that changes, your whole car build goes flying out. So if you decide to do it, just don't touch it in the future. Change it and leave it be. Changing rules formula with points involved is not going to help PT or TT points classes grow. If you want to make adjustments to cars to keep things even, change comp weights, etc. +1. It's fun to pick and choose your mods, but it gets old doing it year after year - especially when the rules take longer and longer to come out. If the pts for tires are going to continually change, I - like a lot of others in TTB/A that are maxed or close to maxed out yearly - will probably shift into TTS/U/R land and just build the car the way we want it. I doubt that's what the goal of this specific proposal but that could very well be the fallout. But I am curious; besides A6's and C91's - what would be at or above a +13 anyways that's still a DOT? Or would it be those specifically getting bumped? If so, do you think that'd limit or exasterbate the 'spending wars' that we've seen where people break out 2-3 sets of stickered A6's in an event day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Sounds like a good way to bump all cars up one class essentially elimating the existing TTA/PTA field. Also I think it would be a detriment to the Hoosier contingency as some folks would run to a 100 tread wear tire. I can't understand why we would want to mess with that program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obzezzed350 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Sounds like a good way to bump all cars up one class essentially elimating the existing TTA/PTA field. Also I think it would be a detriment to the Hoosier contingency as some folks would run to a 100 tread wear tire. I can't understand why we would want to mess with that program. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I don't get it. Stable rules brings cars in and keeps them racing, lets the also rans eventually catch up to the pioneers and makes for better racing all around. Makes track records meaningful year to year as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKBITN Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It's all because of thoses cheater corvette's and MR2's and possibly the BMW's as well.If they would just ban thoses cars it could all be normal again and everybody would be happy again. Robert (pot stirrer) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well, the idea is that we apparently have cars that are gaining as much as 2 seconds or more a lap by using a tire like the A6 over the R6. There are those out there that want us to equalize those gains with points. There are others that say the same thing about the +10 point tires compared with the +7 point tires. While I don't foresee us ever making another modification rule that gives points back, Ken's idea about backing down the points is and has been on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obzezzed350 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 So the idea on the table is bumping the A6 higher than +13, or lowering the R6 down from +10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well, the idea is that we apparently have cars that are gaining as much as 2 seconds or more a lap by using a tire like the A6 over the R6. The problem is it's hard to quantify, if you run an A6 against an R6 in Feb, the R6 gets slaughtered (your 2 secs is probably accurate). Run it when it's 105 degrees out in July, and the speed difference is much much closer, especially during a 40 min PT race where at the end of the race, it may be even stevens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well, the idea is that we apparently have cars that are gaining as much as 2 seconds or more a lap by using a tire like the A6 over the R6. The problem is it's hard to quantify, if you run an A6 against an R6 in Feb, the R6 gets slaughtered (your 2 secs is probably accurate). Run it when it's 105 degrees out in July, and the speed difference is much much closer, especially during a 40 min PT race where at the end of the race, it may be even stevens. Agreed. Not to mention the fact that the R6 lasts much longer than the A6. Advantage R6. I've seen a 2 second gain with a set of expensive coilovers (3 points) with no other changes to the car. Where does it stop? At what point do you change the rules to where something like lexan costs points because someone is too lazy or too cheap to do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well, the idea is that we apparently have cars that are gaining as much as 2 seconds or more a lap by using a tire like the A6 over the R6. The problem is it's hard to quantify, Which is why I think this could be the first 100 pager We have about 5-6 months to decide on any changes to the Tire mod section. There is nothing specific that is being considered, although many specific suggestions were made by you guys last year. My point about another negative points modification is that is has too many ripple effects on individual car model group classing, and it is unlikely that we will be going there again. The tire size credit still seems like a valid and needed rule. Weight addition or "overweight" can be handled with Dyno re-classing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 My point about another negative points modification is that is has too many ripple effects on individual car model group classing, and it is unlikely that we will be going there again. when you say "negative points modification" are you talking about taking current tires and reducing their pts assigned points? (making sure we understand you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) I believe he's saying that they don't want any -X (ie below 0) point mods. So lets look at what the spreads might be if +13s go to +16s and everything else stays constant +0 for harder street tires +2 for soft street tires - 2pts more +7 for treaded trackday tires (NT01, RA1, etc) - 5pts more +10 for pretty good DOT-Rs - 3pts more +16 for really good DOT-Rs (used to be +13) - 6pts more To keep the same spread/jump up between compounds but keep the really good DOT-Rs at just +13 as they are -3 (or 0) for harder street tires -1 (or 0) for soft street tires - still 2pts more (or 0pts more) +4 for treaded trackday tires - still 5pts more (or just 4pts more) +7 for pretty good DOT-Rs - still 3pts more +13 for really good DOT-Rs - still 6pts more If you can either live with all street tires being back at +0 or live with them being negative, you still maintain the desired/purposed spread just about between tiers without pushing the top tier tire points any higher than they are with the second option. Edited January 21, 2012 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 My point about another negative points modification is that is has too many ripple effects on individual car model group classing, and it is unlikely that we will be going there again. when you say "negative points modification" are you talking about taking current tires and reducing their pts assigned points? (making sure we understand you) No. I was talking about negative points (point credit) for using street tires as proposed by Ken on page 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Stop f'ing with the rules if you want people to take this seriously. A's are available to all. There are A's even those who cannot run 18" wheels. +13 is a huge wallop and A's require a bit of adjustment if you suddenly have huge grip and are stuck on floppy oem suspension. C91s have some pretty crappy sizing options (i.e. are not available to all), so feel free to bury those with a +30. The Sierra Sierra Evo chose to run those instead of slicks (faster, after testing), so that alone should support the +30. Why not make R6s a +7, A6s a +10 and slicks a +13? Why the punitive points for slicks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 No. I was talking about negative points (point credit) for using street tires as proposed by Ken on page 1. understood Just curious and backing up a bit, and this is related to this, but is the assumption that A-F on your "typical" track is going to be a 2-3 sec spread between classes? (seems to be about the case)? if so, is that how you guys scale the pts mods (approx). Ie, 20 pts is = to 2-3 sec/lap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Isn't this spread already in place? What are you trying to achieve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 Stop f'ing with the rules if you want people to take this seriously.... Why not make R6s a +7, A6s a +10 and slicks a +13? Why the punitive points for slicks? Yep, didn't even take 2 pages for that respectfulness thing to go out the window. I suppose nobody takes NASCAR, Formula 1, IRL, World Challenge, or any of the other premier racing series "seriously" either, because the last time I checked, their rules are subject to revision every year, just like ours (and all of them have made major changes in the past 3 years). In fact, in a young series, especially one as complicated as PT, that essentially allows almost any car ever produced to partake, it would be foolish to expect the rules to fully stabilize in less than 10 years. And, when we have good competition, and then someone finds either a loophole or just a genius way of building a car that results in that car model or use of "that car part" being the only possible winner, or that the series is more developed and we find that our points assessments are too low for the development that has occurred, changes are required to save the Series. If we had not made changes in the rules since we started this series in late 2003 and early 2004 we would likely still have less than 20 drivers. The reason we have the "punitive points" for slicks is that they are worth 2-4 seconds a lap on many vehicles. The points are not punitive, they are realistic. I have TTB BMW's in both SoCal and Arizona that would break every regional and National record (including your's on the 255 A6's) if they were able to put on full slicks for +13 points. Keeping the slick points realistic helps to keep those high cost tires in the high cost classes (like TTS, TTU, TTR), because a competitor can stay on DOT tires and use the 17-20 points to keep up with the competitor on the slicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 No. I was talking about negative points (point credit) for using street tires as proposed by Ken on page 1. understood Just curious and backing up a bit, and this is related to this, but is the assumption that A-F on your "typical" track is going to be a 2-3 sec spread between classes? (seems to be about the case)? if so, is that how you guys scale the pts mods (approx). Ie, 20 pts is = to 2-3 sec/lap? That seems to be more a reality than an assumption (at least for the higher level classes, with an increased spread as you head down to TTE and TTF in general). But, that does not mean that 20 pt's is equal to 2-3 seconds a lap. For example, throw in all of the possible No-Points modifications. Then, toss in the "assumption" that most cars in competition will have aftermarket shocks, and that there is at least some form of assumption that race cars will be on some type of race tires. Cost is also an issue in this series, period. If it wasn't, then we would just get rid of the points system altogether, and go with ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6. The points system helps to keep costs down for those that cannot afford a high dollar ride, yet allows them to remain competitive. So, there are multiple variables that must be taken into account in this series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Just trying to instigate some frank debate and reasoning, don't take anything to heart here. Look at the sponsorship, prize and general $ involved the other orgs vs. grassroots racing and consider how the competitors at the top can deal with (what are generally not regular) rule changes; there is still general unrest whenever rule changes are proposed (from fuel injection in NASCAR, to turbo 4s in F1, performance waivers in ALMS, etc). If PT/TT is going to undergo an annual rebalancing, then I would consider something more stable. That being said - my feeling is that the current rules work - why change? Is there actually an inequality that needs to be addressed? I have no experience with slicks other than anecdotal info from ST2 drivers that waffle on whether slicks are worth it. Good to hear some other info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 That being said - my feeling is that the current rules work - why change? Is there actually an inequality that needs to be addressed? No offense, but why am I not surprised that the current TTB National Champion (first full year in TT), who set a track record thinks that the current rules work? I ran Hoosier slicks in the SoCal TTS Championship winning car (owned by Midnight Oil Motorsports) this past year, and they were worth the 25 rwhp we had to give up to have them (and yes, 2-4 seconds a lap over DOT's). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 21, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted January 21, 2012 why change? Is there actually an inequality that needs to be addressed? Possibly. I'm not convinced 100% either way. There is definitely a perception by many that one exists. Unfortunately, many of the voices of the thousands of TT, PT, and ST drivers never get heard here. Instead, they trumpet in my e-mail inbox, or speak with me at the track, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerkat Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) It would be nice if a stock C5 ZO6 could run stock size A6 with out having to move up to TTS. A6 10 pts. R6 7pts Edited January 21, 2012 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.