ST3 Re-visited

[Greg G.]

I'm interested in hearing feedback on the idea of doing all four of the below at the same time:

1) bumping the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of ST2 to around 8.4 or 8.5:1

2) deleting PTA

3) starting the ST3 class, with an Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of around 9.5 to 9.75:1

4) converting TTA to the same classing rules as ST3

 

 

What if the C5 Corvette base classing and re-classes get a competition weight adjustment in 2013?

Still feel the same way about the above?

 

Do you think that it will help to increase the number of ST2 competitors?

Do you think that ST3/new TTA would show an increase over the number or PTA/TTA competitors by bringing in new cars, or will the Vettes in PTA/TTA just move to ST2/TTS?

 

Thanks for your opinion!

[Kubs]

I am currently building my car for TTA/PTA. I have too much time and money invested to change anything now. If the rules changes I will just be an underdog in ST2. That could just be my loss if everyone else favors the change, but my opinion would be to keep TTA/PTA the way it is.

[drivinhardz06]

Just curious, what's the goal? not to have two 8.7:1 classes? to grow TTS/ST2?

 

If you keep B and do ST3, won't that still give you 2 classes around the same power/weight (one unlimited, one pts based?)

 

8.4:1 and 9.5:1 doesn't seem like that much of a spread to start up a new class. That's a tweak tune and a ballast adjustment away from being able to run in either (maybe that's a goal?)

[Cobra4B]

I'd just go be an underdog in TTS/ST2. With a bone stock LS6 my car will make 355ish rwhp. To get to 9.5:1 I'd have to get my car around 3400lbs which would mean adding around 300. No thanks.

 

If you want TTS/ST2 to grow leave the power/weight alone since it corresponds nicely to NARRA's TT-3/GT-3 class. Also, remove the restrictions on tube frame vehicles. I know a host of Panoz cars that would be perfect TTS/ST2 cars, but you're forcing them into TTU/STR2.

 

My $0.02.

[kbrew8991]

with TTS and TTA being the two largest classes in my region's TT field (PT is really only popular for PTF, PTD, PTC and then a big skip to ST2) with that simple fact alone I feel strongly that there are no changes that should be or need to be done to the classes.

 

Yes, they're both at the same hp/weight cap but the openness / "mad scientist" / just meet the hp-weight formula aspects of TTS/ST2 as compared to the "mind your points" / "don't mod much" / "just drive fast" aspects of TTA/PTA separate the two classes in speed, apperance, mindsets, and drivers that enjoy competing in each. Changing TTA/PTA to an ST-like class with a different ratio and also rasing the ratio for TTS/ST2 would upset the large number of current competitors and I don't see the the benifit in doing that nor do I know of an untapped market those changes would serve.

 

In short - it's not broken so don't fix it.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Guest

[Greg G.]

Just curious, what's the goal? not to have two 8.7:1 classes? to grow TTS/ST2?

 

If you keep B and do ST3, won't that still give you 2 classes around the same power/weight (one unlimited, one pts based?)

 

8.4:1 and 9.5:1 doesn't seem like that much of a spread to start up a new class. That's a tweak tune and a ballast adjustment away from being able to run in either (maybe that's a goal?)

 

The goal would be to grow ST2 and to increase the numbers (as ST3) from what we currently see in PTA/TTA. We have been getting requests to lower the Adjusted Wt/Hp ratio in ST2 for a few years. We have also been getting requests to make PTA/TTA competitive for more than just Corvettes. And, we have had requests for a more open class without points restrictions, but with a higher Adjusted Wt/Hp ratio than 8.7:1. However, we obviously don't want to lose our loyal Vette competitors. As you stated, keeping those numbers close, would open up the possibility of running in both classes with an engine tune, ballast, and/or smaller tires. Because of the points system, it is pretty rare that PTB cars are running at the 10.25:1 limit of Adjusted Wt/Hp ratio. Those would generally be FWD cars with poor BTM handling characteristics, or older stick axle RWD cars, again with poor BTM handling. We could always back PTB up to 10.5:1 also if necessary--giving a spread of 1.0 between the classes until you start getting down to PTC and lower. But, I think we would wait on that.

[Greg G.]

I'd just go be an underdog in TTS/ST2. With a bone stock LS6 my car will make 355ish rwhp. To get to 9.5:1 I'd have to get my car around 3400lbs which would mean adding around 300. No thanks.

 

If you want TTS/ST2 to grow leave the power/weight alone since it corresponds nicely to NARRA's TT-3/GT-3 class. Also, remove the restrictions on tube frame vehicles. I know a host of Panoz cars that would be perfect TTS/ST2 cars, but you're forcing them into TTU/STR2.

 

My $0.02.

Yes, but you would be at 3235 lbs on cheaper 275's. And, you would be able to make suspension and aero changes to get more grip on the 275's.

[kbrew8991]

TTA at least in my region seems to be a pretty good fight between the Evo camp and Corvette camp. If the Evos in your area are whining about not being competitive I've know a shop in the DFW area they need to go visit

[drivinhardz06]

Understood, lots of facets, have to digest it all.

 

My initial impression is I don't see ST2 growing if there's a class you can bump down to with a few tweaks. ST3 might do better than PTA, but with ST3 not far away from ST2, I guess I'm not seeing how that helps ST2 car counts.

 

What's tough on these decisions is the rules sharing between TT and PT. Ie, you may have 10 or 12 cars in TTA at a regional event, and 0 in PTA at the same event. Same for TTS and ST2, etc. Not sure a lot of TT guys in street cars at 8.7:1 in a pts class want to show up and have to run against unlimited $60k TTS cars all the time, TTA gives them a pretty good place to play.

[Greg G.]

TTA participation looks pretty weak in most of the other regions. Texas looks like the exception--where TTA is doing well.

[kbrew8991]

so maybe we should ask why there was a decline in TTA elsewhere (economy maybe? TX is doing great...) and see if a small new tweak or reversal of a prior change might be routes to consider to build the classes versus a complete apple-cart upset? Thinking out loud

[Greg G.]

It could be the economy. Or, it could be that "Spec Z06" made it difficult to compete and a waste of time/money. Or, it could be that it is just too close to TTS for most, and one might as well do all of the mods they want and run in TTS.

 

This is just a thread to hear if there is still interest in ST3, and who/how many would be adversely effected.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think that most of your current TTA drivers have cars that would actually be legal under a 9.5:1 ST3 format? Or, are they max'd out at 8.7:1 for the most part?

[nasa ser]

Greg, i think dramatic rule changes/rec-lassing at this point just hurts car counts.

 

People have built cars for the class they are in, or are building cars for the class they are in, effectively changing their rule set is a bad idea..........

 

I'm interested in hearing feedback on the idea of doing all four of the below at the same time:

1) bumping the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of ST2 to around 8.4 or 8.5:1

2) deleting PTA

3) starting the ST3 class, with an Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of around 9.5 to 9.75:1

4) converting TTA to the same classing rules as ST3

 

 

What if the C5 Corvette base classing and re-classes get a competition weight adjustment in 2013?

Still feel the same way about the above?

 

Do you think that it will help to increase the number of ST2 competitors?

Do you think that ST3/new TTA would show an increase over the number or PTA/TTA competitors by bringing in new cars, or will the Vettes in PTA/TTA just move to ST2/TTS?

 

Thanks for your opinion!

[Cobra4B]

I'd just go be an underdog in TTS/ST2. With a bone stock LS6 my car will make 355ish rwhp. To get to 9.5:1 I'd have to get my car around 3400lbs which would mean adding around 300. No thanks.

 

If you want TTS/ST2 to grow leave the power/weight alone since it corresponds nicely to NARRA's TT-3/GT-3 class. Also, remove the restrictions on tube frame vehicles. I know a host of Panoz cars that would be perfect TTS/ST2 cars, but you're forcing them into TTU/STR2.

 

My $0.02.

Yes, but you would be at 3235 lbs on cheaper 275's. And, you would be able to make suspension and aero changes to get more grip on the 275's.

My car is already built around running 275s in ST. I run 245s in TTA/PTA. I'm already at max power/weight in ST2 so ST3 would mean adding a couple hundred pounds and spending all the money on suspension/aero to keep up. Shericals, coil-overs, front splitter, wing etc. etc. That'd make ST-3 more work and expense.

 

TTA participation looks pretty weak in most of the other regions. Texas looks like the exception--where TTA is doing well.

TTA is huge in Mid-A. The only TT class as big or bigger is TTU.

 

It could be the economy. Or, it could be that "Spec Z06" made it difficult to compete and a waste of time/money. Or, it could be that it is just too close to TTS for most, and one might as well do all of the mods they want and run in TTS.

 

This is just a thread to hear if there is still interest in ST3, and who/how many would be adversely effected.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think that most of your current TTA drivers have cars that would actually be legal under a 9.5:1 ST3 format? Or, are they max'd out at 8.7:1 for the most part?

I think SpecZ was a bad idea. I think more and more classes only serves to dilute the existing ones. Most TTA drivers could run 9.5:1 or 8.7:1, but it's the open modding that ratchets up the cost $10k that keeps some people out of the ST classes. My car is built to the limit of PTA/TTA so it's all up to my driving at this point. For ST you open up custom gearboxes, suspension, aero, stroker motors etc. etc. To have a fully developed ST-2 car I'd need to spend another $20k. I can make a home brew ST-2 car for about $3k buying used stuff and fabbing stuff, but if a fully built Forbis or Popp car comes to play I'm screwed.

[Greg G.]

I meant "Spec Z06", not the new Spec Z series. I was taking about the name that some gave the PTA/TTA series because only C5 Z's were competitive.

[nasa ser]

Well as the Sentra drivers were told in PTE, people need to develop their cars........PTA is spec z06 because people haven't maxed out the other cars ..........seam welding, final drive, etc. etc. etc

 

 

nasa has too many overlapping series, as a Nissan guy, i think its great that NIssan is supporting a Spec Z series, but really, those cars should all be in PTA or PTB or st2, whereever they fit....

 

we need St3 like we need another hole in our head.

 

 

if we people want to spend money and build there car to the extreme, we have plenty of classses, nasa needs to focus on helping keep car counts up in the classes with more limited mods that are cheaper to run in, 12 cars in one class pays a lot better contingency than 3 cars in 4 different classes

 

spec miata and spec e30 are successful,

 

spec 3, maybe but really all of those cars and the GTS1 cars should just be in PTD.....as is, we have a few cars in PTD, a few in GTs1 and not enough spec3 to field a class at nationals.

[kbrew8991]

Out of curiosity, do you think that most of your current TTA drivers have cars that would actually be legal under a 9.5:1 ST3 format? Or, are they max'd out at 8.7:1 for the most part?

if you want a firm numbers for each I can sit down with the classing binder and work something up, but off the top of my head out of 16 cars that have run just this year I'd say maybe 6-7 tops would be legal under TTA changing to the 9.50 number. And don't forget to take into account the class changing from limited mods to wide-open mods as that imho is probably a bigger deal.

 

I'd say alot of the TTS people (75%+ of 17 people) are there instead of TTA because they like the wide-open mods aspect and took a car that would otherwise fit TTA or below and did tons more mods (remaining 25% being cars that don't fit TTA or below). The other TTA people could go there as they're legal by the same 8.70 number but they decided to stay limited on their mods and focus on driving, competition, and/or having a stock-ish reliable car so they can instruct AND drive at the same event.

 

It's not an easy decision, lots of factors to consider. Just offering viewpoints that I know about

[jason]

Personally I've never understood the appeal of an open class. Unless you just come in with a car that is already built and it would cost more to de-mod, then I guess the catch-all classes make sense. But for those of us on a budget, the tighter the rules, and the less they change year to year, the more racing I can afford to do, competitively. Maybe some people just like working on their cars more than I do, or paying other people to work on their cars. Maybe I'm just a Spec racer at heart and shouldn't worry about PT/ST and constantly moving targets anymore.

[brkntrxn]

Car counts have gone down EVERYWHERE. Not just with NASA ST/PT/TT racers. With EVERY track organization. We need to stop changing rules to chase customers that do not exist. What do I mean by that? Hear me out.

 

In a specific population, there is only a certain percentage of people that are pre-disposed to the desire to run a car on track. There is an even SMALLER percentage that are so enthused about the hobby that they are wilingl to commit the time and money to race. With the economy in its current state, the groups of people with disposable income shrink to levels not seen in the past. Add that fact to this other one: There are more organizations from which to choose to get out on track with than ever before. Therefore, your pool of potential customers is even smaller.

 

Couple what I stated above with the rules changes that seem to happen every year with NASA and I am afraid you are driving away customers. Not attracting them. All track organizations right now are scrambling to attract new customers that simply do not exist.

 

I can guarantee you that as a racer in the Southeast that lives in the middle of the single largest concentration of gear heads in our nation, making the changes you listed above is not going to attract anyone NEW to NASA. I am sorry to say it. Not a single one. No one is going to say, "Hmmm, I think I will go spend $20-40k to enter these new classes at NASA." The people that will come to those classes are people that were either already in a class that disappeared or were already pre-disposed to racing their car with one of the existing classes.

 

For me, my C5Z06 is very close to be maxed in PTA/TTA trim. I would not add weight to it to run ST3 because I don't see that as growing into any decent size class at all. And I hate being forced to throw money at the car to be competitive in ST2. That will drive me away. Money spent on modifications is money I will NOT have to spend on entry fees with NASA. Full aero, carbon fiber goodies, and big brakes for my Z06 buys me a heckuva competitive Chump Car. Racing is racing, especially when we are doing it for coffee cups.

 

 

My .02. Leave the rules alone. All of them.

[kbrew8991]

another thought - and I've already put my nomex on because I know the 'vette guys will come for me for saying this but - if one particular car is considered to be too dominant, why not adjust something (like say weight) such that it's brought down to be on par with the rest of the cars in it's class? Isn't this what was done to the Miatae a couple seasons ago?

 

That would be a much smaller change than throwing current TTA/PTA out and creating ST3 / "new TTA" where the same "problem" may still exist (and looking at ST2 pretty it likely will imo.)

 

Note - my opinion is that the Corvette does well because it's a great factory design coupled with a wide knowledge base of modifications and setup such that it was able to be maximized to the rules more quickly and easily than other cars out there and most likely does not need much adjustment (+5-10lbs ish) if any.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Guest

[jason]

Would just making a rule that put all vettes in ST solve everyone's problems and stop the yearly rule changes?

[Cobra4B]

Why is it our fault that enthusiasts of other marques haven't taken the time to fully build a car? The Evo/STI can easily match a C5 when done right. I'm sure various BMWs and Mustangs can as well.

 

The reason you don't see them in PTA or ST2 much (BMWs and Mustangs) is because they have popular AI and GTS classes to run in. Most of us want a shot at tires so it's natural to gravitate to the class with the bigger potential car count.

 

When I started all of thus NASA Mid-A had 8-10+ in ST2 on the regular. Now you're lucky to get 3 or 4. Trying to find that balance for cheaper fast cars can be hard. People either go cheaper and go low HP spec racing. Or, they build a mega bucks/power car and run in a high class. Us "ballin' on a budget" C5 guys who will buy the cars but don't want to spend countless thousands more on them are sort of stuck in the middle.

[toomchpwr]

NE region here - we get between 5-7 TTA cars per event but only 3 were at Pocono (not a great track compared to other local tracks).

I wouldn't mind bumping to 8.4 lbs/hp. Would just mean a set of headers for my street c5 z06 (3200 lbs \ 380 hp = 8.421). I could also still do NARRA since if you run 275's, you get .4 added to the ratio (8.4 + .4 = above the 8.75 minimum).

 

I really don't want to spend more than that. I don't want to get into a pissing match on mega dollar shocks or brakes. I'm even fine with my stock springs. So of course I also don't want to add aero to my street car.

 

So if the rules change, I would be allowed to run headers but I would have to tack on 5 points to make it legal? or can i just get a dyno re-class so my headers and airbox are free? Because if not, the c5 z06's really have no points to add headers if we want to stay with the 275's anyway

Edited August 31, 2012 by Guest

[brkntrxn]

Lets face it, a rules change to move Corvette's up or down simply punishes a single car. Is it our fault that the Z06 fits very nicely into the top nitch of the PT/TT categories as well as ST2 and TTS? As Brian mentioned, there are quite a few Evos, Subies, BMWs, and Mustangs that can and do run with us and faster than us. However, each of those cars have multiple class options to choose from, ie GTS3, GTS4, AI, CMC, etc. Corvettes do not. So of course they are going to dominate the PTA/TTA/ST2/TTS classes. We have no where else to run, so we build them to those classes.

 

Heck, blame Ford, Dodge, Nissan, BMW, Toyota, etc. for not building a great sports car to compete with the Corvette in the dealerships to begin with.

[drivinhardz06]

another thought - and I've already put my nomex on because I know the 'vette guys will come for me for saying this but - if one particular car is considered to be too dominant, why not adjust something (like say weight) such that it's brought down to be on par with the rest of the cars in it's class? Isn't this what was done to the Miatae a couple seasons ago?

 

Maybe in reality not a bad idea, I suppose, however, realize there is a VERY large stable of VERY well prep'd corvettes, bordering on fanatical levels of detail. I'm not sure I've gone up against any other make of car sitting on grid that had the axle stubs shaved off, ran specific thinner wall rotors in TT to save weight, and had a LOT of lead sitting 4.5" above the track surface (this list could be 50 pages long, literally). There are many points based corvettes at this level. I have driven many, many other C5's and C6 corvettes from cars i work on, students, etc..., trust me, there is a MASSIVE difference in performance in an "average" car on grid, and a "fanatical" one.

 

I have built many types of cars, and there are many many other cars that are sitting in a nice zone of classing, that could be the next "ringer" if taken to fanatical levels.

 

That is all to say, while I don't have major issues with competition adjustments, make sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Ie, that that MAKE of car truly deserves it, and not that the OWNERS of particular cars are getting punished because, well, they just did a better job at prepping to the rule book.