Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think what Ben is getting at is the "performance benefit" part. Going to an all CF body will give one a performance benefit due to weight reduction. Weight reduction is generally covered under the weight reduction assessment, with the exception of engine parts, and the other parts listed that are to remain BTW, like frame rails, etc. The older rules used to have points assignments for removal/lightening of various parts (including all of those mentioned). We got rid of that system, and went to weighing everyone, and they became open be default (as many had CF hoods, roofs, etc). I suppose we might want to add them back in the No-Points section in the future for clarification. Thanks for clarifying that too, Greg. I had asked my local TT director early last year about CF body panels and he pretty much said as long as they are the same shape and design as OEM. I am wanting to get a CF hood that has vents on both sides to help dissipate heat from the engine. It obviously is not the exact shape of OEM because of that, but I though CF hoods were free as long as they aren't adding some type of aero benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think what Ben is getting at is the "performance benefit" part. Going to an all CF body will give one a performance benefit due to weight reduction. Weight reduction is generally covered under the weight reduction assessment, with the exception of engine parts, and the other parts listed that are to remain BTW, like frame rails, etc. The older rules used to have points assignments for removal/lightening of various parts (including all of those mentioned). We got rid of that system, and went to weighing everyone, and they became open be default (as many had CF hoods, roofs, etc). I suppose we might want to add them back in the No-Points section in the future for clarification. Thanks for clarifying that too, Greg. I had asked my local TT director early last year about CF body panels and he pretty much said as long as they are the same shape and design as OEM. I am wanting to get a CF hood that has vents on both sides to help dissipate heat from the engine. It obviously is not the exact shape of OEM because of that, but I though CF hoods were free as long as they aren't adding some type of aero benefit. If you take the intake points hood vents are included Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The hood vents are in now way connected to the intake though. I know there are hoods out there that provide some type of ram air function, but this is not one of them. The vents are too far back from the intake. Or does that not matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 doesn't matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obzezzed350 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The hood vents are in now way connected to the intake though. I know there are hoods out there that provide some type of ram air function, but this is not one of them. The vents are too far back from the intake. Or does that not matter? The hood is points. Though the factory hood is very light, not sure its worth swapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The hood vents are in now way connected to the intake though. I know there are hoods out there that provide some type of ram air function, but this is not one of them. The vents are too far back from the intake. Or does that not matter? The hood is points. Though the factory hood is very light, not sure its worth swapping. Yea, I was thinking that too. It's pretty thin and light. CF hatch with lexan is a huge weight savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obzezzed350 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The hood vents are in now way connected to the intake though. I know there are hoods out there that provide some type of ram air function, but this is not one of them. The vents are too far back from the intake. Or does that not matter? The hood is points. Though the factory hood is very light, not sure its worth swapping. Yea, I was thinking that too. It's pretty thin and light. CF hatch with lexan is a huge weight savings. Yea thats upwards of 50-60lbs there. I just got my rear lexan in from racingshields.com, ill update my build thread on my350 when I put it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think you've missed the point of what Jeff said. If you read the intake point wording you'll see that if you take the +1 for an air intake you can vent your hood and fenders for no additional points; it's all grouped together. If you were running a stock intake, but put the vented hood on it'd be +1, but then you could add an intake for nothing additional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I got ya. I am taking points for this one: 7) Non-BTM, modified/ported, or deleted intake manifold: 4 cyl. +1, 6cyl. +2, 8 cyl. +3, 12A &13B rotary +2, all other rotary +3 Not this one: 4) Modification of the BTM air intake/box, air filter location, air piping to the turbo/ supercharger/intercooler/throttle body/carburetor, or hood/fascia/fender air inlet(s), outlets, or vents +1 (air filter upgrade alone—0 pts.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Cool Edited February 3, 2012 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 3, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted February 3, 2012 It cracks me up that nobody complains about the no points seam welding, but will about bolt on composite body pieces. It takes way more time and effort to seam weld a car, especially if you are using a daily driver. It would seem someone would be far more likely to bolt on composite body parts than seam weld. But i digress back on topic I think for PT the advantages are minimized between a 10 or 13 pt tire (pending length of race/ weight of car/ ambient temp etc). In TT there are definite advantages to the 13pt tire. Should those tires take a hit because it is the optimal tire in TT? I don't know, if someone wants to be competitive on 10pt tires there is nothing stopping them from moving to PT. If they want to stay in TT then suck it up and use the 13pt tires like everyone else. I think the bigger problem is with tire credits for running smaller than max base class width. The cars that can get away with smaller tires are typically lighter/less hp and can get away with it. A heavier car with more HP has to use the bigger tire to stay equal on available grip, but now has less modification points to use to help it thru the corner. Marks (turboshortbus) Mustang is a good example. He has a TTE/PTE base class, but has to run a 255 to keep it on the track. A Miata gets 3 credit points because they can run a 205. Not only is Mark in a big heavy car, but it pushes like a pig because he didn't have the points to spend on suspension mods. He is at a 5 point disadvantage to the Miatas he is running against compared to 2 points if they didn't get a credit. Now that Miata adds a turbo and gets a TTD/PTD reclass and now gains another point on tires. Mark moves up to TTD/PTD adds some suspension but keeps his weight/hp. He his now 6 points behind that Miata just on tire points and that is assuming they are running the same point tire and the Miata has a better wt/hp ratio. I think we all agree Mustangs should be banned and this is a prime example, but that is a different thread One thing that everyone always leaves out of this discussion is that the base class of lighter weight cars starts higher than that of heavier cars. The tire size credits are given to help equalize their classing if the lighter car goes back to the "appropriate" sized tire for their vehicle. When we went to assigning a base tire size to each base class many years ago, we tried to make sure that the individual model group base classes were set appropriately with tire size credit in mind. The same goes for re-classes--the lighter the overall weight of the car, the higher the base re-class the driver gets sent. Just as with everything else in this system that attempts to allow thousands of car models to compete, it doesn't come out even every time for every circumstance---ie. the Frogs and Warts discussions---or in this case, the Pamela Anderson (young version) discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Greg, If you can actually have a published decision on this by July, I applaud you for your efforts. -Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I simply like the idea of keeping the A6 as a +13pt tire and reducing the points associated with all lesser tires. Drop the R6 to an +8 or so and make 100 treadwear R-comps at 2 points and sticky 140 treadwear street tires at 0 points. All other street tires would be -2pts or so. This method gives more points back to those not running A6s, which would allow for more modifications on an R6 or lesser tire and therefore help to even the playing field (somewhat). It also allows an * (7pt) car to go down a size in width and still run an A6 in class. -Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Greg, If you can actually have a published decision on this by July, I applaud you for your efforts. -Kevin How can I "like" this comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 It also allows an * (7pt) car to go down a size in width and still run an A6 in class. -Kevin This. Plus I can go down three sizes and still stay in class even with 13 points in mods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 3, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted February 3, 2012 I doubt we will do any more negative points (credits). It messes with the base classing two much, and we can end up with some real overdogs (even on street tires). But, if the new baseline is the assumption that everyone will at least have "sticky" street tires, then they can go back to zero points. I think that as long as the system "floats" as a whole, and we try to minimize the whole "Spec X" car required to compete in TTx class, then everyone will be satisfied with the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted February 3, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted February 3, 2012 Greg, If you can actually have a published decision on this by July, I applaud you for your efforts. -Kevin That's the plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 we try to minimize the whole "Spec X" car required to compete in TTx class, then everyone will be satisfied with the system. Can you give me an example of which "Spec X" cars are required to compete in said TTx classes under the existing rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I know I use the term "SpecC5" when talking about TTA/PTA - but thats very often in jest. The current mix of cars I see end up close and often on the same tenth of a second here in TX at every event in TTA proves that there is a pretty decent amount of parity amoung many different TTA platforms imho. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I know I use the term "SpecC5" when talking about TTA/PTA - but thats very often in jest. The current mix of cars I see end up close and often on the same tenth of a second here in TX at every event in TTA proves that there is a pretty decent amount of parity amoung many different TTA platforms imho. YMMV. So why change anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Damn near all of them are on A6s. Take of that what you will. If the spreads between the tire points aren't as correct as we can make them, then we need to make that correction is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckearns Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 My $.02 would be to leave the the A6 line at 13, reduce the R6 line to 8 or 9 (proper spread for time gained), the RA-1/NT01 line to 4 or 5 (again, whatever the proper spread for time gained) and scrap the 2 point tire line. Set the width give back to 2 points per 10mm across the board and the max give back on width to match the compound points. The tire points section shouldn't be able to net a negative number and tire size alone shouldn't be used to step down in competition class from the assigned base class (which is a hole in the rules IMO). I guess the question I would have is whether tires should have that much impact on final classification or if tire points should be reduced across the board in order to let the rest of the car prep stand out. Right now it seems the formula is A6's at the expense of all other stuff because the A6's really are that good and bridging the gap to R6's or trackday tires takes more than 3 or 6 points worth of development. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 stepping down a class has only been done once at Nationals as far as I know of (I competed against the car - and I felt it ended up fair and a driver's contest as it should be). Doesn't happen often regionally as far as I can tell either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Did anyone else's entry fees for a three day weekend go up about $250? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Did anyone else's entry fees for a three day weekend go up about $250? I wish I could do a 3 day weekend. NASA SE rates have gone up at certain tracks. 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.