ST3 Re-visited

[brkntrxn]

Leave clutches open, there is no way to police them at the track and there are probably more of us with non-oem than oem clutches already.

[clydesdale]

and I wouldn't need to complain about being classed 100hp short for PTA. Which brings me to my last point-- an ST3 class would take the base class and reclass out of the equation. Everyone has opinions on those one way or the other but they would become non issues-- and I would much prefer that.

base classes allow for platforms to be put on similar footing. Without those you're either fighting a money spending contest as you completely re-engineer your car or you're still at a deficit if the rules don't allow you to fix your particular platforms weak areas.

 

the more posts I see like this, the more I feel the easiest and best solution is to re-evaluate some base classes, weights, etc for common TTA/PTA cars

 

That would be an exercise that Greg is unlikely to undertake and rightly so. There is no outcome or choice he could make that doesn't subject him to complaints. Also, given what it already costs to field a car (whether competitive or not) I think using cost as an argument against the creation of an ST3 is a bit overblown. It would seem that Greg's primary purpose in considering this change is to attempt to increase participation and competition. If any of you won't participate or can't afford to participate in such a class, just say so and I'm sure he'll take that into consideration.

[zigspeed10]

If PTA is deleted and we have to pick between ST2 and ST3, I would go to which ever class had more cars. Or sell my car and buy a car to run a class I can afford to compete in. It will cost about the same to run in either ST2 or ST3, maybe a little more in ST2 if I wanted a torque motor.

 

To Greg's statement about adjusting the C5 competition weight for 2013. I know there are alot of C5's that are caged with .095 wall tubing and that means for me, the most my car can weigh on track is 3250 lbs. I get that from 150 lbs driver and about 100 lbs of fuel. That's if I use a full tank of fuel for ballast. So the highest comp weight we can run is about 3200 lbs. assuming we burn about 50 lbs of fuel during a race. For the guys who use more lead and less fuel for ballast, its even lower.

 

If the goal is to have more cars in a given class then reduce the number of classes. Creating a class that is expensive to compete in will not bring in new people. Why not get rid of American Iron and make those guys choose between PTA or ST2, why not combine GTS and ST the rules are about the same. Why do the Germans have to be segregated, are they too afraid to race against vettes too?

[Cobra4B]

As much as I like the idea of a "SpecVette" class I'm not sure it's the answer to car counts... at least not in Mid-A.

[Cobra4B]

If the goal is to have more cars in a given class then reduce the number of classes. Creating a class that is expensive to compete in will not bring in new people. Why not get rid of American Iron and make those guys choose between PTA or ST2, why not combine GTS and ST the rules are about the same. Why do the Germans have to be segregated, are they too afraid to race against vettes too?

This Combining the faster GTS classes and AI all around 9:1 or 8.5:1 would do the trick.

 

I also agree with something posted earlier in that aero isn't the huge expense. I got a nice wing from a fellow racer for $300 and can get a knock-off ACI chin spoiler and convert it into a splitter.

[Greg G.]

Guys, this is just DISCUSSION. You guys are always saying how you don't have any say in what happens, so I'm just looking for your opinions. As expected, if you put 20 racers in a room, you will get 20 opinions in twenty different directions. Scott, we had the Vette-Viper series in the past--It failed eventually due to lack of participation. We don't need the Vette-Vette series. There were too many guys wanting to do different things to their cars, and ultimately, they ramped up to three different classes of them, and that still wouldn't satisfy the drivers---resulting in all of them leaving with falling car counts.

 

My goal is always to keep the racing fun. Racing is not fun if you are racing against nobody. It is not fun if you are racing against one car in your class that can beat you every time by 3-5 seconds a lap. It is fun once or twice when you have a few guys racing you, if it is fairly close, but that gets boring also after a few events. Racing is always fun when there are 10 cars in your class, because there will be cars that you can race with, even if they are not the top three guys that spent $20K more than you did on the car. I would have deleted PTA and TTA in favor of an ST3 style class (even with some limitations) a few years ago, but TTA and PTA were growing, and a bunch of you were doing so much work to develop your cars, that I just couldn't think about it. But, if these classes are headed for low/no car counts, then there is no reason to keep them, and a more open class may bring in some production cars, H1 cars, turbo cars etc. So, this isn't about getting rid of PTA or TTA because they are "Vette classes". Vette classes (mostly Vettes) with full fields are/were fine. There are a few regions where there are still cars, but as I said, there are multiple regions with zero PTA cars.

 

So, keep if friendly, and keep the ideas coming. It sounds like there are a lot of folks that still like PTA just the way it is. We used to have a fair amount of T1 cross-overs in ST2, but when they were allowed more Wt/power (too much for ST2), and then don't have aero, it made it too much of a hassle to cross-over. I drove a T1 car in TTS for a season, and we did fine, but we would have been beaten in the more developed ST2 fields that year. It would be nice to have those guys come back and race with our ST2 and TTS cars again.

 

No, nobody likes rules changes, and it definitely makes it cheaper for the competitor if we don't touch the rules, and the car is built in year XXXX, and no changes are made on the car for the next 10 years. But, if you take a look at just about every successful race series in existence, there are changes to keep things going/growing. These changes tend to occur when participation and interest in the Series starts to drop off. Why does NASCAR keep changing their rules? So, if PTA/TTA need help with numbers, and we want to keep them, what is needed? Should we start giving other Marques better Dyno re-classes? Should we try a hybrid class for the first time, where we let everyone get to the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio max, but still have points for the other Mod sections? Or, should we just wait and see if PTA/TTA will revive without help, but since there are primarily only C5's there anyway, throw a bit of weight at them in the meantime. Since they are the predominant vehicle, it shouldn't hurt anything--all getting the same bump?

 

So, keep the ideas coming. Thanks.

[Greg G.]

To Greg's statement about adjusting the C5 competition weight for 2013. I know there are alot of C5's that are caged with .095 wall tubing and that means for me, the most my car can weigh on track is 3250 lbs. I get that from 150 lbs driver and about 100 lbs of fuel. That's if I use a full tank of fuel for ballast. So the highest comp weight we can run is about 3200 lbs. assuming we burn about 50 lbs of fuel during a race. For the guys who use more lead and less fuel for ballast, its even lower.

 

posted while I was writing the above. Wow, you guys use the 2501-3000 lbs standard for your cages? I would have thought that most of you would use the 3000-4000 lbs standards. Well, obviously you guys need to get a bit fatter like me (230#), then you could have your 3000 lbs car, plus 230 lbs, plus 50 lbs for gas--->3280 lbs min comp wt.

[drivinhardz06]

To Greg's statement about adjusting the C5 competition weight for 2013. I know there are alot of C5's that are caged with .095 wall tubing and that means for me, the most my car can weigh on track is 3250 lbs. I get that from 150 lbs driver and about 100 lbs of fuel. That's if I use a full tank of fuel for ballast. So the highest comp weight we can run is about 3200 lbs. assuming we burn about 50 lbs of fuel during a race. For the guys who use more lead and less fuel for ballast, its even lower.

 

posted while I was writing the above. Wow, you guys use the 2501-3000 lbs standard for your cages? I would have thought that most of you would use the 3000-4000 lbs standards. Well, obviously you guys need to get a bit fatter like me (230#), then you could have your 3000 lbs car, plus 230 lbs, plus 50 lbs for gas--->3280 lbs min comp wt.

 

cage thickness rule, and ballast rule. My car is at the 250 lb limit @ 3118, and I'm a fat driver like greg.

 

and my wife just put me on a diet

[drivinhardz06]

Guys, this is just DISCUSSION. Racing is not fun if you are racing against nobody. It is not fun if you are racing against one car in your class that can beat you every time by 3-5 seconds a lap.

 

at least at the nats level, PTA doesn't look dead. reasonable sized field compared to the rest of the other PT classes, and we could have easily had a handful of more if some of our personal schedules didn't allow

 

I'd have to look at the exact numbers but I'm not sure ST2 in the southeast has show very many more cars than PTA this year. Guys in ST2 were TRYING to pump down to PTA in June at Road Atlanta since ST2 had less than 5 and PTA was 5+

 

I realize in some regions it's totally dead

[sperkins]

I'd be game for ST3 if there was a substantial pw/wt adjustment for non-aero cars.

[PushinTheLimit]

To me, getting all the AI, AIX, and GTS cars to run in ST would solve all the car count problems. And its nothing against those cars in those classes, but vette's don't have their own series to run so we can race against them unless its in ST or PT anyways.

 

GTS4 and 5 could choose to run ST1 or ST2.

GTS2 and 3 could choose ST2 or ST3.

GTS1 could choose ST3 or PT*.

AIX could run ST1.

AI could choose to run ST2 or ST3.

 

Thoose classes could still be run at Nationals, but regionally combine them together and everyone runs against each other. You would have a much better chance at getting full contingencies and better car counts all around. They still would have the option to run their choosen ST or PT class at Nationals if this happened.

[mrc24x]

I'd be game for ST3 if there was a substantial pw/wt adjustment for non-aero cars.

 

 

Ding Ding Ding..... .2 hp/wt break for stock bodied cars?

[sperkins]

I'd be game for ST3 if there was a substantial pw/wt adjustment for non-aero cars.

 

 

Ding Ding Ding..... .2 hp/wt break for stock bodied cars?

If you can get a .4 adj for running a 275mm tire because it's perceived as a disadvantage, then it's only logical that should be able to get a similar break for putting a non-aero car up against a full aero one.

[drivinhardz06]

aside from the main discussion, I do like that non aero adjustment factor (stock bodied cars) for the ST classes

[Billy Bass]

I like the idea of combining GTS with ST, always wondered why they are separate classes. Also like the idea of a deduction for stock bodied cars (no aero). That would help the T1 cars cross over with or join ST2 without having to change ST2 rules for existing cars. The problem with ST2 is that the sky is the limit and most guys can't afford (time/effort/money) to build a national champion level car. I guess the same could be said for most classes though including T1.

[sperkins]

The non-aero adjustment factor already exists for some models.

 

Brunton Stalker (If aero mods, wing, or splitter, then -0.75 Modification Factor)

Brunton Stalker (If no aero mods, wing, or splitter, +0.75 Modification Factor)

Caterham & Lotus 7 (if aero mods, wing, or splitter, then -0.75 Modification Factor)

Caterham & Lotus 7 (if no aero mods, wing, or splitter, then +0.75 Modification Factor)

Edited September 3, 2012 by Guest

[Bnjmn]

I think I could run a session or two at ~8.0:1 lb/hp at nationals if we want a rough test of the viability of the .4 correction factor for non-aero.

(I "think" so because I don't have a tune at that power level, but I am pretty sure that my tuner has one. I would also need to temporarily strip 100lbs from the car, but I can do so if we are serious).

I have full datalogging which should make the test useful and I could easily strap in a Traqmate if it would be helpful to have that format as well.

I am currently at 8.9:1 lb/hp.

[drivinhardz06]

I think I could run a session or two at ~8.0:1 lb/hp at nationals if we want a rough test of the viability of the .4 correction factor for non-aero.

 

The issue with the idea (and I think it's a good idea) is coming up with the number. And that number ain't gonna be the same/fair number for every track. MO I don't consider an aero track (there are only 2 corners where you are going fast enough to generate any meaningful downforce). Not like VIR where from the entry to the esses to the entry of oak tree where downforce is a massive, massive advantage. T1 at Road Atlanta for example, we have seen data from a front running PTA/TTA C5 vs a front running ST2 C5 of exactly 10 mph different at the apex (min speed). THat's huge. But those 2 cars at a slower track (CMP, putnam, MO, etc) is just not going to show that kind of difference.

 

I do like the idea though, and in reality, the difference of that from track to track is no difference from the tire width adjustment either (there are tracks that lend itself for that to be an advantage, and some others where it's a disadvantage).

[sperkins]

Jody brought up a good point from another discussion board that I wanted to share along with my response.

 

What's a stock bodied car? Vented hood? Canards? Just a wing? Just a splitter? Just a spoiler? Wheel/fender well wickers? Would a spoiler and splitter be considered the same as a wing and a splitter?

 

Many various combinations.

 

Seems each aero component would be carry a penalty or less of a negative mod point.

 

While we're talking mod points, why not charge penalty points for aftermarket brakes, shocks, ZR1 xmission gearing?

 

I see your point and it's a valid one for ST2 since it's not a points based class. No need to mess with a goods thing there.

The idea was proposed for ST3 as a cost savings way to attract cars - especially from other classes that are struggling with class participation. ST3 will still be a spending spree, but shocks, brakes and gearing aren't going to get you 10mph at the apex of any corner and nearly 4 sec per lap at an aero dependant track like full aero will. A pw/wt modifier would be a simple equalizer for those fully aero prepped ST2/GTX cars that want to de-tune and run ST3.

[clydesdale]

While I can understand wanting to somehow mitigate the use of aero from an open class like ST3 for cost reasons I don't think it is reasonably possible. You could just as easily make the same complaint about tires and then refer to the 30 page thread about tire cost and then try to figure out a way to let everyone use street tires.

[sperkins]

While I can understand wanting to somehow mitigate the use of aero from an open class like ST3 for cost reasons I don't think it is reasonably possible. You could just as easily make the same complaint about tires and then refer to the 30 page thread about tire cost and then try to figure out a way to let everyone use street tires.

 

There's already an adjustment for tires, but it's not for cost savings reasons.

This is not about turning any ST class into a points based structure. It's about being able to attract cars from other classes by implementing an allowance that is extremely easy to enforce. There's no way to hide aero of any kind. You either have it or you don't.

 

A pw/wt modifier would be a simple equalizer for those fully aero prepped ST2/GTX/AIX etc. cars that want to de-tune and run ST3.

[rpoz27]

At the HP/WT ratio numbers of 9.0:1 and higher, Aero is a penalty. Sure you gain in the corners but it kills you on the straights. In AI, aero and non-aero cars run nearly similar lap times depending on the track type. No reason to pull aero in the ST2 and ST3 classes.

 

If possible, please figure this all out soon as I have my finger on the "buy it" button for $3k in heads to try and make up a missing 30hp for ST2....if I need to make up 60+ horsepower.....well, please start ST3 so I don't have to go spend $12k for an entirely new engine combo. If I have to do that, I am skipping ST2 and going ST1. Either way, it won't help the ST2 car count in TX which is just now gaining some momentum with a few new builds working in the wings.

[sperkins]

At the HP/WT ratio numbers of 9.0:1 and higher, Aero is a penalty.

Did you really just say that?

 

Sure you gain in the corners but it kills you on the straights.

Ya don't say.

 

No reason to pull aero in the ST2 and ST3 classes.

What are you talking about?

[z06tracker]

I don't think this is allowed. I believe you have to run the same tune (at least in the same class) the whole event. Better check. Don't want to see you have an issue.

 

I think I could run a session or two at ~8.0:1 lb/hp at nationals if we want a rough test of the viability of the .4 correction factor for non-aero.

(I "think" so because I don't have a tune at that power level, but I am pretty sure that my tuner has one. I would also need to temporarily strip 100lbs from the car, but I can do so if we are serious).

I have full datalogging which should make the test useful and I could easily strap in a Traqmate if it would be helpful to have that format as well.

I am currently at 8.9:1 lb/hp.

[Bnjmn]

Certainly someone at the top would have to bless this, since I wouldn't be close to my comp weight either.