ST3 Re-visited

[SNAKBITN]

There is no way you will get that many people to agree to combine that many classes.AI is going in a positive direction now.Don't mess with it.

 

Robert

[kbrew8991]

aero is just one of the things that is expensive when converting from PT to ST - but - could be pretty easy to enforce and the precedent is somewhat already set in the rules with those factors for certain semi-production type cars. Stuff like Penskes, re-engineering suspension, etc not quite so much

[obzezzed350]

I have only skimmed most of the thread, but I would prefer a ST3 over PTA. While both would be crappy counts in our region from a director stand point, I would like that format as a PTA racer. I have no issues with the Vette dominance, having met most of them in the past, they are truly dedicated to their racecraft and the results show. My Z is a case where my points bump me up, yet my weight/hp is only 10.25. Cutting some weight and some tuning would get me to a ST3 limit.

[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.

 

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.

 

I was speaking of tire compound and brand not tire size.

 

I see your point on the aero, but having a different rule for ST3 that's not in either ST1 or ST2 just seems untidy as the rules should apply the same to all three. I'm also sure the top cars in ST2/TTS don't feel any obligation to give themselves an aero adjustment handicap any more than the top cars in PTA/TTA feel that they should add comp weight or change classing to attract competitors and it's those people you need to convince.

[drivinhardz06]

I'm also sure the top cars in ST2/TTS don't feel any obligation to give themselves an aero adjustment handicap any more than the top cars in PTA/TTA feel that they should add comp weight or change classing to attract competitors and it's those people you need to convince.

 

Everybody thinks we are whiners but I actually don't have an issue with a competition adjustment to the C5's, my (and many others) main "issue" is simply the logistics of stashing away a specific tire size(s) and wheel inventory on the current set-up. Since we don't have anything else to take OFF the car to get points back to stay in class, a weight adjustment and tire points adjustment and/or base classing adjustment means different tires. This means all new wheels since we really can't go skinnier on our current wheels. So it's a rather large investment. That's not a whining thing, I realize racing ain't cheap, but if I'm gonna have to spend $$ on the car at this point, I'd rather do it and start removing warts on the car and running unlimited. I'm not going to trash can my tire and wheel inventory when it would fit nicely in ST2/TTS.

 

And I have 3/4 of the aero pieces I need for the C5 to run strong in ST3/ST2/TTS, so I can go either way if there was a non-aero adjustment ever offered in ST. But I think if you REALLY want to attract the T1 guys into ST2, they are going to want a bone. For reference, probably the fastest ST2 C5 in the country has run 5 SECS/lap quicker at Road Atlanta than the T1 C5 lap record. You're talking about SU or ST1 to ST2 speed differences. No stock T1 car is gonna be tempted to run against that without some adjustment. (and yes, they can go spend the $$ on aero as well - racing ain't cheap).

 

I think the 6/8/10 PW rule makes pretty good sense. I don't think 8.7 and 9.5 is enough difference to start up another class.

[sperkins]

I see your point on the aero, but having a different rule for ST3 that's not in either ST1 or ST2 just seems untidy as the rules should apply the same to all three.

So call it SS3 or something else instead. It's a completely new class. There's no reason it should have to mirror the other ST classes.

 

I'm also sure the top cars in ST2/TTS don't feel any obligation to give themselves an aero adjustment handicap any more than the top cars in PTA/TTA feel that they should add comp weight or change classing to attract competitors and it's those people you need to convince.

 

I've never said anything about changing the current ST2 rules, but if aero ST2 guys want to detune to run in ST3, they won't get the adjustment so they'll have to run 9.5:1 or whatever the class spec is.

[clydesdale]

So call it SS3 or something else instead. It's a completely new class. There's no reason it should have to mirror the other ST classes.

That almost sounds like a new race series. Yes, they could do that, but in my opinion it makes far better sense from NASA's perspective to tie it into a current race series which is why my arguments revolve around doing just that.

 

How about just turning the "G" in GTS from "German" to "Grand" and just let everyone into that series? No reason to leave the Japanese out in the cold.

[obzezzed350]

So call it SS3 or something else instead. It's a completely new class. There's no reason it should have to mirror the other ST classes.

That almost sounds like a new race series. Yes, they could do that, but in my opinion it makes far better sense from NASA's perspective to tie it into a current race series which is why my arguments revolve around doing just that.

 

How about just turning the "G" in GTS from "German" to "Grand" and just let everyone into that series? No reason to leave the Japanese out in the cold.

 

I think that was proposed a year or two ago, and the GTS guys shot it down overwhelmingly.

[yooper]

Interesting read, subscribed.

[wlfpkrcn1]

I don't have a dog in this fight being PTD.

 

GTS is very much German only with the 13/13 rule

 

Not all AI cars are ST legal. Any AI car with a 3 link passing into the drivers compartment is STR.

 

Personally the TT/PT rules confuse alot of people. Some take liberties they don't know they are taking. Some regions are not policed. Life would be easier for all regions across the board with ST type rules. Maybe strong consideration with a big break for non aero cars. If Aero is a must we/ my team can come up with a cost effective solution if it went ST1-5/6.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Guest

[Spectator Racing]

Ok, how about this?

 

Change the base classing for the PTx / TTx to power to weight as opposed to make and model. Then add modification points as it is today.

 

That eliminates one HUGE headache for both drivers and officials, as it's near impossible to pop open a motor and check if a camshaft is stock and worth 6 points.

 

This solves the aero problem as well, aero will be assessed points as in the current ruleset.

 

The question is whether or not it will completely over/underdog some cars. And more importantly, would those cars have been competitive, anyway, if they moved up to a specific class from a lower base class? I need to look at some popular cars and do a comparison.

[yakisoba]

I've waited to reply to the threadnought because I don't know if I have a suggestion for a solution yet, so I'll have a try at what the feel of TTA is, and why lots of us are there. Perhaps we can then come up with a set of rules to maintain that.

 

I'm in Time Trial A because no one can outspend me there. The combination of the points scheme and power to weight mean that, as a Corvette driver, I just can't mod that much and still be legal. Thus, I'm left with creative choices, and that's huge fun. In fact, the restrictions inspire me to find cool ways to cut weight, increase stability without aero and even diet (hey, cutting weight...).

 

So the feel of TTA is, about being economical, creative and being able to compete as a driver against other drivers. Should I venture into TTS, all of a sudden, the pocketbook matters. How well I understand aero matters. Now, I'm dealing with mechanical grip and a tight budget, and that's how I like it.

 

How might we maintain that, while making allowance for the new cars coming down (which are in an escalating power war; mustangs and camaros and corvettes alike)? That's the issue, at least as I see it.

 

Most days, the competition is pretty fierce. The Evos are within half a second of me most of the time, often closer. The other corvette guys are often tighter margins. There's one insane BMW who doesn't seem to know he's in TTB and is faster than most of the TTA cars in the region. It's a great field, most seasons that I've been in it. We're a little down in A this year, as some of the usual suspects have moved to S (at least for now).

 

I wish I had more to offer, and I'll think on it some more. Thanks to Greg for asking the question.

[erioshi]

Interesting thread, although at present the whole discussion is moot to me; I'm taking a break from NASA.

 

Over the last three years I've started two different builds for NASA ST class cars, and have ended up deciding to abandon both of them. The rules changes over the last few years involving ST & STR have marginalized building lighter weight cars (with lower operating costs) pushing away any real potential for being competitive. I've ended up wasting thousands of dollars while chasing a moving rules package.

 

Before that, I had competed in TT while sorting out where I wanted to race within NASA's various classes. The cars I had on hand were already classed in the TT/PT system, but even during my time in TT, the TT/PT rules seemed unstable enough that I was unwilling to invest in building a purpose built car for them. Hence I sold my MR2s and Evo and decided to pursue an ST build. At the time ST was stable, and represented the safe (if somewhat more expensive) alternative to the PT/TT merry-go-round. I've already covered how that effort worked out for me.

 

On top of my experience, here are some secondary effects to consider. How many times do you think I've relayed this story to other friends who've asked me about participating in NASA's racing programs? How many times do you think I've tried to help friends sort through all the PT/TT classing, rules and points systems only to have them decide that there are better ways for them to enjoy their car on a race track without being steamrollered by hair splitting complexity? How many other drivers are there like me who are waiting for NASA to "figure things out" enough to be willing to spend money building a race car to compete in NASA events?

 

At least the Chump / LeMons car is coming along nicely. That build budget is peanuts compared to what I've spent chasing NASA's ever-changing rules. While that car will not be as fast or provide quite the same thrills as an ST or fast PT car, it will be cheap to run, require few changes to keep up with the rules, and I can enjoy racing on a track full of direct, in-class competitors.

 

Others have mentioned that there are more organizations than ever chasing the same money and racers you are, and many of them offer attractive alternatives to your current classing and points structures. Others just offer a better value when it comes to bang for the buck racing. By forming a Chump/LeMons team I'm thinning your potential customer base by another six drivers. Six drivers isn't a big hit individually, but how many Chump car and LeMons teams have formed nationally? How many of your own racers are running some Chump Car or LeMons events instead of a full season of NASA events? And it's not just Chump Car and LeMons; the SCCA is starting to do some interesting things and vintage racing has always been an attractive alternative, especially when the cars tend to hold their value - it makes the eventual exit from racing far less painful.

 

My thoughts on current NASA classing:

 

Complexity is one of the factors hurting your classing system. Personally, I think that you're slicing your population into slices so thin that it's impossible for each class to receive the scrutiny, attention, promotion and support needed to build an effective business case. Some classes are thriving almost by accident; if I'm remembering correctly, TTA/PTA existed before the C5 appeared as an almost perfect pre-built PTA/TTA car. Some of your classes are thriving because of good communities, well thought out stable rules and clearly focused goals for the classes. Some of your classes are thriving because they follow a successful formula borrowed from some other sanctioning body. But a number of your classes seem to be staggering on not because they excel at meeting customer needs, but because there's really just not a better alternative for those racers yet.

 

Others have also touched on the escalating power of new cars, and how that has put pressure the original PT/TT and ST classes. It is a real problem, and in my opinion, the best solution would be to scale the current PT/TT rules up to meet the newer high HP needs. Perhaps add PT/TT 1 and 2 to the TT/PT class list. I would also strongly consider collapsing the current PT/TT classes from A through F to A, C and E. It would cut the PT/TT class count, and it would drive more entrants into each class. Long term, I think it would also reduce the amount of arguing involved in classing and encourage more innovation in preparing cars for these classes, as long as the car is not classed right against a class ceiling to begin with. This will probably never happen, but I do think it's an idea NASA should seriously consider. I'm not sure what would need to happen with PT/TT R/S/U classes in this system, I'm not familiar enough with the rules packages for them to have meaningful input.

 

I think that there should also be comparable ST classes for the top three or four "normal" PT/TT classes. This would allow racers who build cars to those rules to grow into a faster and more developed car if they wanted. It would also provide "catch-all" buckets for cars that have been accidentally over-developed under the PT rules. I also think the ST power to weight adjustment grid needs work. When talking about cars running aero, drag becomes a far more important consideration at speed far more quickly than weight. Penalizing low weight cars and giving bonuses to heavy cars just drives competitors towards running as much weight and power as needed to make the largest effective tire they can find work. And it also favors big V8 cars over smaller, forced induction 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder builds.

 

I also think STR should be cut. Those cars should be re-combined with ST and additional classing added at the top and/or bottom of ST as needed to accommodate them. Bring the ST classing (with regard to pre-built and purpose built tube frame cars) more in line with PT classing by tossing specific chassis types in a specific classes and then let them build to the allowable adjusted power to weight. Add mod factors as needed based on individual chassis type performance.

 

The last problem (at least for me) is that when last I looked, all of the PT/TT/ST classes are based on wheel horsepower to weight, and ignore torque. That metric inherently works against some engines and favors other engines. Electric engines are favored since they effectively have 100% torque available from 0 rpm. Diesel engines are also favored, as they tend to be designed to deliver a very large amount of torque at low RPMs. Naturally aspirated V8s and V10s also frequently deliver significantly more torque than HP. The engines being hurt by this measure tend to be higher reving gasoline 4 cylinders in both NA and forced induction configurations. Frequently they lack the displacement needed to develop the kind of torque required to be competitive in ST. I did seriously consider building a highly focused turbo-diesel ST car as a "rule bender", but was too afraid the ban-hammer would be leveled specifically against diesels to actually invest in the idea. Such a rule would fix one symptom, but ignore the actual disease.

 

So essentially I'm saying that until both HP and torque are used in classing cars in ST/PT/TT, I'm very unlikely to build a car to compete in any of those classes. No more NASA frogs means no more NASA warts. The existing HP but not torque issue is something I see as a critical failure in the current rule set. Especially when both HP and torque are being used to place cars in other NASA classes. If nothing else, change this for the sake of consistency within the various NASA rule sets.

 

Wow, this turned into a far larger post than I had ever intended. Hopefully all of my rambling here will somehow help. I've spent years and thousands of dollars trying to race NASA, only to be repeatedly turned away. I guess it fair to say I'm frustrated. I'm also starting to suspect that as a business, NASA is loosing its way, and is loosing touch with the real needs of its customers. Basically, I believe NASA needs to tighten up its classing, do some pruning and focus on building a strong group of core racers and supporting community; build upon, support and engage the drivers who have been supporting NASA; don't keep chasing them away. I believe that would serve NASA far better than constantly "tweaking" things to chase potential new customers who have yet to spend time at a NASA event.

[Cobra4B]

I also think STR should be cut. Those cars should be re-combined with ST and additional classing added at the top and/or bottom of ST as needed to accommodate them. Bring the ST classing (with regard to pre-built and purpose built tube frame cars) more in line with PT classing by tossing specific chassis types in a specific classes and then let them build to the allowable adjusted power to weight. Add mod factors as needed based on individual chassis type performance.

Been saying this for a long time. STR just solves a problem that doesn't exist (class killers) while exacerbating a very serious one that exists right now (falling car counts).

[yakisoba]

I've thought some more. Here's what I'd do:

 

1) Increase wt/hp ratio in TTS/ST2 to 6.5:1.

2) Make TTS a points and wt/hp class like TTA.

 

Why?

-- To accommodate the new cars. The new folks buying mustangs and corvettes have nowhere to compete where they can be competitive without massive mods.

-- It preserves the current TTA and PTA class, which is appealing to many drivers, for reasons explored above.

-- It allows closer cross classing with NARRA, one of the best time trial series in the country right now.

-- If you're going to go racing and pop for a cage and all the rest, going a little deeper into the engine isn't so bad for the ST-2 guys.

-- It still allows 1.0 margin of ratio between ST-1/ST-2 and TTS/TTU.

-- Keeps TTS accessible.

 

Interesting enough for constructive comment?

[kbrew8991]

Been saying this for a long time. STR just solves a problem that doesn't exist (class killers) while exacerbating a very serious one that exists right now (falling car counts).

while I've read and understand what Greg has posted about the ST/STR split, I agree with ya Brian. Esp due to the whole Panoz and similar other similar semi-production cars basically disappearing from NASA events around here factor.

[TWI]

while I've read and understand what Greg has posted about the ST/STR split, I agree with ya Brian. Esp due to the whole Panoz and similar other similar semi-production cars basically disappearing from NASA events around here factor.

 

I've got one in the garage with a hurt motor. Not much motivation to get it back out and running to run around in a class of one.

 

I think NASA needs to look closely in the mirror and repeat the phrase 'making a class for everyone ultimately makes a class for no one'.

 

I think you need fewer classes, not more classes. And a 5 year lockdown on rules. Spend 5 years planning the rules changes rather than 5 years adjusting them to get them right.

 

Three paragraphs that start with "I" makes it sound like me, me me but those are just my .02

[kbrew8991]

I won't go in and quote everything on Erioshi's post above, but I did want to respond and add some counter-points

 

To have a "simple" class you're basically going to have to open up the class and make it pretty wild as to what modifications are allowed ($$$$$), OR be very draconian alla SCCA type classing where you list out a couple things everyone is allowed to modify and hopefully you pick the right platform that works with that package and then hope it isn't given too much of a lead trophy when it proves dominant. Barf.

 

I feel that TTA-F/PT classing is only as complex as you make it. Pick your car, pick your mods, add up the points from each and see where you land on the scale. Class explained in one sentence Done. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that when introducing someone to the class. And a good regional director for TT or PT can get dialed in on working through the exact classing with someone pretty rapidly as well and get them in the right spot and out there pdq.

 

I also haven't seen LeChump really eat into entry counts very much if ast all. Sure I do run into alot of NASA drivers there as I've done quite a few myself but most (I'd say 95-99%) are there to have fun and relax between NASA-TX events, and thus far the organizers of those series haven't been brave enough to try scheduling one of their events in this region on the same weekends....

 

I did like your quote at the end though:

Basically, I believe NASA needs to tighten up its classing, do some pruning and focus on building a strong group of core racers and supporting community; build upon, support and engage the drivers who have been supporting NASA; don't keep chasing them away. I believe that would serve NASA far better than constantly "tweaking" things to chase potential new customers who have yet to spend time at a NASA event.

 

I'm not sure that just PT and just regular ST by itself has too many classes, but I do see with NASA as a whole starting to head towards too many classes and it would be great to see some folded in and combined in a way that made sense to all involved.

 

And the core group is very important for each region to build and maintain - no doubt about it

[Cobra4B]

while I've read and understand what Greg has posted about the ST/STR split, I agree with ya Brian. Esp due to the whole Panoz and similar other similar semi-production cars basically disappearing from NASA events around here factor.

 

I've got one in the garage with a hurt motor. Not much motivation to get it back out and running to run around in a class of one.

 

I think NASA needs to look closely in the mirror and repeat the phrase 'making a class for everyone ultimately makes a class for no one'.

 

I think you need fewer classes, not more classes. And a 5 year lockdown on rules. Spend 5 years planning the rules changes rather than 5 years adjusting them to get them right.

 

Three paragraphs that start with "I" makes it sound like me, me me but those are just my .02

I'm going to keep pounding the drum for the Panoz... don't worry. It needs to go back to how it was... ST-2/TTS with a +0.2 mod factor. Done.

[erioshi]

Hi Ken - I should be more careful when writing novels in the middle of the night, lol.

 

I don't have a problem with the PT/TT points system, I've used and worked my way through it. And it does seem to basically work. My point with TT/PT is that, at least in the regions I'm familiar with, car counts always seemed low, especially in the lower classes, even at well attended events. My thinking is that C, D, E, and F are probably sliced just a bit too thin when looking at participation from a car count point of view. If those classes were to be collapsed into two competition classes instead of four, then the car counts would improve. I'm less sure that TT/PT B would benefit from this, but I seem to recall that class having lower participation than TT/PT A.

 

I do think that making the buckets larger like this would also offer an opportunity, eventually, to look at simplifying the points system a bit. I have no specific suggestions, but I do know a number of potential NASA customers who have been turned off by the complexity of the points system, and the way some relatively minor mods pushed their street driven TT cars into classes where they felt they were uncompetitive. Larger buckets could allow drivers with "wasted points" to spend a few more points on things that they feel might help improve things. I also think with larger buckets, the scale and value of individual point assessments could be adjusted with a smaller probability of cars being pushed out of class due to of a lack of alternative build possibilities specifically within the limits of the current points system. A pure race car built for TT would always be faster than a casual TT car, but that situation exists today and will persist as long as people value a national or regional championship title, or just winning an event.

 

I'm also not advocating turning ST into unlimited style classes, but thinking that perhaps a better solution would to be create adjustment factors for mods that fall outside of the currently allowed ST mods that could more effectively equalize the perceived performance differences between ST and STR type cars. Naturally, over time, these adjustment factors would need to evolve as hard data becomes available. I believe ST will need to scale up because of ever-increasing car development and power, and down because I strongly suspect there is a market for well prepared imports (other than Honda Challenge and GTS cars) that might extend down TT/PT B or C levels of power.

 

I suspect that NASA is currently struggling with a number of unintended consequences that have come about as secondary effects to well intended rules development. One way to help mitigate those secondary effects is to increase the number of alternatives NASA racers have to cope with those changes. By increasing the number of "points" available within an active competition class, the number of alternatives available is automatically increased.

 

At a fundamental level, my thinking is about creating more choices and options for people to race within a chosen class, and at the same time working to reduce the number of classes and trying to drive up participation within each class. I think these changes would help NASA's customers feel more empowered, and I believe increasing class sizes would help to build a stronger sense of community within each class.

[kbrew8991]

no problem with differing opinions and view points - your stuff is well thought out - it did spark some things in my head that I wanted to add to my own viewpoints from earlier is all.

[erioshi]

Agreed, I just wanted to clarify my thinking since my original post rambled quite a bit.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Agreed on STR going bye-bye and 0.2 mod factor for TTS/ST-2.

 

My viewpoint: I think the PT system works really really well IF you're building your car from scratch (like I did and like any race car should be ).

[davidfarmer]

sounds like this IS going to happen. Personally I still think ST3 should allow aero, knowing that many won't run it since it is less effective on slower cars (high drag, low power).

 

I think the spreads should be even, or close, for power/weight also. So keep ST1 at 5.5, make ST2 7.7, and ST3 9.9

 

Just my opinion, ST rules consistent across the board, evenly spread power-to-weight groupings

[sperkins]

sounds like this IS going to happen. Personally I still think ST3 should allow aero, knowing that many won't run it since it is less effective on slower cars (high drag, low power).

 

I think the spreads should be even, or close, for power/weight also. So keep ST1 at 5.5, make ST2 7.7, and ST3 9.9

 

Just my opinion, ST rules consistent across the board, evenly spread power-to-weight groupings

Sounds good, but still needs a non-aero adj in ST2 and ST3.