jimbow Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well I've been trying to find time so I can get my engine back in the C4 corvette. Like Kubbs I'm shooting for maxing out to TTA. I have no interest in wheel to wheel. Now if my 383 makes more power this time it may be moot because I'll wind up in TTS and can finaly make those suspension tweaks to keep up with the C5's out there. Its been a rough year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 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). You have it backwards. Running 275s allows you to deduct 0.4. You could be at 8.0:1 on 275s (ignoring any other mod factor for weight). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I called this a year ago. 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. Exactly. 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. Exactly again. To back up that point, my non-ZO6 TTA C5 has been running around for 3 years at over 9.0:1 on skinny tires and I've been fortunate enough to do pretty well so it's not that the Corvette does well because of horsepower. Here's the deal. If you give us a rulebook and we are stupid enough to spend the time and money to exploit every potential advantage within those rules (because the competition forces us to), you shouldn't allow the ones who choose not to take every available advantage to make suggestions on how to change the rules. They don't know what they're doing in the first place. Folks have to understand that the days of showing up and being competitive with a street car on DOT tires are long gone. Maybe that was never the intention? What is being suggested is so typical of what's going on everywhere these days - that we should lower the bar so everyone has "more opportunity" with less sacrifice. I just don't understand that. My only guess is that it's a money thing. It is a business afterall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted August 31, 2012 Author National Staff Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well, like it or not, one of the reasons that TTA/PTA numbers are dropping off is that there is the perception that the only way to win is to have a C5 Corvette. So, your contingency numbers are dropping off, and those that are capable of building another model car at a high prep level are just moving to ST2 or GTS or AI, or TTS, etc. The perception, and possibly the reality, is that because your cars start off with a very good BTM suspension, and are max'd out at the Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio from the get-go, that there are not many cars that can match the combination of power and handling under the points system. The excellent development of these cars, and legal exploitation of the rules, has only made this perception worse. So, ultimately, it may come down to whether you want a growing class to race/TT in, or a shrinking one (assuming that downturns are not only due to the economy). Has anybody noticed that there may be a bunch of drivers with cars in the 8.0-8.4:1 range looking for a place to race next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L98Terror Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 As I mentioned years ago it should be 6.0, 8.0 & 10.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Has anybody noticed that there may be a bunch of drivers with cars in the 8.0-8.4:1 range looking for a place to race next year? Yes.. we've noticed. SCCA just screwed the pooch in T1. Pissed off all the C5 drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well, like it or not, one of the reasons that TTA/PTA numbers are dropping off is that there is the perception that the only way to win is to have a C5 Corvette. My take on that is, I'm not sure that's going to change much for ST3. We live with some pretty big warts on the car in PTA, they'll get pretty nasty in ST3 with the ability to get rid of those warts. If you're taking an informal poll to see what class would grow the most, I'd have to say I'd be more inclined to run my car in ST3 vs ST2. Especially if ST2 ends up at 8:1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'd have to say I'd be more inclined to run my car in ST3 vs ST2. Especially if ST2 ends up at 8:1. Why? 3050 min comp weight / 380 rwhp = 8.03. If you're going to run 275s (assuming the 0.4 break is still there) 3100/370 = 8.38. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 So basically, the C5 will not have a points based system to compete in and it's owners will be forced to spend thousands to be competitive in the unlimited classes. I for one am not interested. The cost savings of a points based class is/was a huge plus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 So basically, the C5 will not have a points based system to compete in and it's owners will be forced to spend thousands to be competitive in the unlimited classes. I for one am not interested. The cost savings of a points based class is/was a huge plus. and if you guys are "too dominant" with the warts you have now, how more dominant are these cars going to be without points-mod-style warts Would be cool to watch from the sidelines... but I wouldn't jump in there myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomn29 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 TTA participation looks pretty weak in most of the other regions. Texas looks like the exception--where TTA is doing well. Well, like it or not, one of the reasons that TTA/PTA numbers are dropping off is that there is the perception that the only way to win is to have a C5 Corvette. So, your contingency numbers are dropping off, and those that are capable of building another model car at a high prep level are just moving to ST2 or GTS or AI, or TTS, etc. The perception, and possibly the reality, is that because your cars start off with a very good BTM suspension, and are max'd out at the Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio from the get-go, that there are not many cars that can match the combination of power and handling under the points system. Hey - only NON-Vette on the 2011 TTA Podium here... It's simple - like Greg said TTA is shrinking because the Vette's are a HUGE overdog. They fit into the top of TTA cheaply and only get faster with development. And with new reclasses they get even more goodies. PTA is no different. I can count the # of cars in our 2 regions that have ran PTA, PTB, PTC & PTD on 1 hand I think. ST2 is huge and has been for about 2 years, but damn does it get expensive given the front runners. Other cars that challenge the Vettes are building them up from TTB (Evo, some Mustangs, Caymans, STi) and that ain't cheap. If I weren't already knee deep in PTA/TTA, I would have cut my losses prior to 2012. And the only reason I was knee deep was because TTB emptied out so I modded upward. I hate to say it - but 1 nicely prepped car in 1 class in 1 region can empty it out. Once I left TTB, it filled up and there's sometimes 7-10 cars all running slower times that I previously ran (by 2-3 seconds) but all really close and having a ball doing it. Close competition keeps them coming back; with NO overdog. There was a rumor for ST3 a few years back and then it died. I was all for it as it'd be a great place for TTC-A, and PTC-A cars to go and play. What you get now is people build up their cars for TT and then have nowhere to go; and I'd say 75% of the people fall into this category. Sure there's plenty that start with a BMW and plan to goto GTS or start with a Miata and plan to goto SM - but a large majority hit a crossroads and have to sell/re-buy. I'm no different from that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philstireservice Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well well well - lol...ST3 who'da thunk.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 define overdog versus well prepared car please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Hey - only NON-Vette on the 2011 TTA Podium here... It's simple - like Greg said TTA is shrinking because the Vette's are a HUGE overdog. They fit into the top of TTA cheaply and only get faster with development. I seem to recall you beating me EVERY single time we are on track together. And beating a LOT of C5s at that. I'd say your car is on par with the normal TTA/PTA vehicle in terms of development and your driving is excellent. Why should we change the rules because people are not willing to build a car to the finite limit of the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 And then there's Justin Matthews STI... when it's not blowing up motors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomn29 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 And then there's Justin Matthews STI... when it's not blowing up motors. Which is ST2 with a built motor, aero and Stoptechs. Not an uncommon ST2 list of upgrades. There's no good/easy/safe way for an STi to make enough power to be competitive in PTA that I personally know of. Just my .02 (having previously owned an STi). And anything with a turbo can forget about a dyno reclass helping them out. That's why anything with FI just heads to ST2; in fact Greg openly suggests that. So potential PTB/PTA--> ST3 cars?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Greg / All, I ask you to point out how many of the PTA/TTA classed cars listed in the 2012 Rules are maxed out and developed to the limit of the rules. Besides the C5/C5Z06 contingent, I do not know of a single one that is built with all of the Points Mods and Free Mods and fanatically optimized like the podium C5 cars. Is anyone with a base classed PTA/TTA car complaining about the Vettes? Not in my circles. So the Vettes are targeted because the PTB/PTC guys that modify up to a PTA/TTA car cannot build their cars to compete with ours? I call BS on that. Sorry. Those cars are not even manufactured to compete with the class of car the Vettes fall into. If you can't build a competitive car with *31, 38, *50, or 57 points and the free mods provided, you are doing it wrong or your car was simply not manufactured to compete at that level. I would never assume that I could build a PTA competitive 55hp Austin Mini Cooper just because it started in PTG and I had 133 points to use plus free mods. That car is simply not constructed to compete with a Corvette, Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Until I hear of a car owner from the list of PTA cars below complaining, this discussion is hard to comprehend. Heck, I'll put money on a Nissan 370Z and a Mustang Boss 302 (maxed to the rules) against my C5Z06 any day. Those two cars are POTENT and neither of them have been developed like our C5s. Same goes for the Lotus Exige S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 That's why anything with FI just heads to ST2; in fact Greg openly suggests that. this right here could be the very reason you don't see the common Corvette alternatives in TTA/PTA then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerkat Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 TT is the top rung of the HPDE ladder. It is governed by the basic HPDE rules in that any car may run TT if the driver is qualified. It was the place that you could go play without the passing rules of the lower HPDE groups and you could get a time if you spent the $400 for a transponder. You could use your DD all the way from HPDE1 to TT without any mods. Then came the contingencies where you could win a tire if you turned in the fastest lap. That was the game changer it brought out the competitor in people. That is when we went from a DD to a race car. Those with the ability or the money started to improve their cars so they could win that tire. So now if you want to run in TT regardless of the class you have to build a car because your DD will no longer be competitive. That right there will stop a lot of people from doing TT. The TT classes were set-up for stock or slightly modified street legal cars. The rules should be left alone I my opinion if you want to improve the car count for TT do away with contingencies. It will make running TT cheaper for everyone. Those that want to win tires can go to W2W and that will improve the race group numbers also. As others have said the economy is hurting most everyone just the cost of getting to and from the track stops some from doing events. So keeping the operating cost of the car down would help most of us. Yes having a roll cage in your car is safer than not having one but that is one the thing that separates the TT car from the W2W car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well said Kim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not like the C5 is some trick new car that the manufacturer released to stomp everyone (Boss & GTR). It's 15 freaking years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not like the C5 is some trick new car that the manufacturer released to stomp everyone (Boss & GTR). It's 15 freaking years old. With stupid pushrods, over-head valves, and leafsprings too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectator Racing Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I think the ST3 ratio is moving the wrong way. Most production performance cars are increasing HP and decreasing weight. Many of the very popular cars for grassroots racing such as Corvettes, Mustangs, Vipers, 911’s suddenly have nowhere to go within NASA. Using the example most familiar to me, the base model Corvette has been classed out of ST2 or TTS since 2008; the factory power to weight ratio of the car is not compatible, and Increasing the power to weight ratio to 9.75 only widens this gap. Even the last generations of many of these cars are struggling to stay in ST2, using restrictors, ballast, etc. to maintain an 8.7:1 ratio. That’s why the petition was brought up two years ago to make a class between ST1 and ST2. Current model vehicles don’t fit in ST2, yet ST1 horsepower levels are still high enough to force a significant investment to robustly make the requisite horsepower. The cars which would fit into a 9.75:1 ratio are cars that already have well populated classes such as GTS and AI. The appeal of the PTx classes is, of course, that modifications are limited. Not only does this incorporate strategy as competitors maximize the usage of their modification points, but it helps keep costs down in an already expensive activity. The PTA class has traditionally struggled, but the last few years have seen a steady rise in entries in the Atlantic, Midwest, and GL regions, and possibly other areas. Eliminating PTA in favor of another ST class just as PTA is gaining momentum could be a mistake. Conversely, the drawback to the PTA – PTF class is the complexity of the rules. My current situation with the "homeless" C4 has led me to think extensively about this situation. I wonder if there is a way to simplify the rules while still keeping the class from becoming another “unlimited” one. Perhaps removing engine modifications in favor or a power to weight format for a base class, and then keeping suspension and brake modifications to factory style parts (instead of allowing remote reservoir shocks, for example) could be a way to get there. Some of the costliest modifications are aerodynamic improvements, so keeping vehicles to factory aero would greatly control costs. I think you could quickly fill a class between ST1 and ST2. This is something NASA members have already been clamoring for. Of course the risk becomes a decline in ST2. Perhaps a realistic compromise is to make a ratio set such as this: ST1 – 5.5:1 ST2 – 7.5:1 ST3 – 9.5:1 ST1 would remain the same, many (most?) of your ST2 cars would lighten up or remove the restrictors and stay in ST2, while a whole new group of vehicles would enter ST3 such as German and Japanese marques too powerful for HC or GTS3 Edited September 6, 2012 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 With stupid pushrods, over-head valves, and leafsprings too Vietnamese leaf springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not like the C5 is some trick new car that the manufacturer released to stomp everyone (Boss & GTR). It's 15 freaking years old. With stupid pushrods, over-head valves, and leafsprings too but at least it's not a tarted up $10k car with a $20k technologically advanced drivetrain shoved in it! 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.