Jump to content

ST3 Re-visited


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

But then you come back to making an "adjustment" for every part that YOU don't want to build buy???!!

 

Sounds like you'd be fine with me buying a $30,000 Carbon body, $8000 Motons, $8000 drop spindles, and a $20,000 detuned LS7 as long as I don't run a wing and splitter?????

 

I never liked PT, so I realize many of you are coming from a Points/Modifiction mentality, but ST isn't about that. It's open to allow any driver, on any budget, to build the car THEY want to race. No guarantee you will ever WIN any race, but you have a class you can RUN any car.

 

Aero doesn't have to be expensive. However, I'm fine with ST3 being the exception regarding aero (since it would be a new class). However, leave ST1/ST2 alone, as it was designed from the start to welcome old Pro World Challenge cars etc, in addition to bringing guys up that want to stray from the stock classes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree, ST always allowed aero, and always should.

 

He isn't saying to not allow aero, he is just saying there needs to be another adjustment factor for cars who don't have aero.

 

I have been keeping my eye on this discussion and things are looking good. Hopefully things get sorted out before I have to class my car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cobra4B

    41

  • kbrew8991

    33

  • Greg G.

    22

  • sperkins

    22

Actually I think the current idea is to make an attractive home for T1 cars that don't want to de-tune for the new T1 class or spend a bunch on aero and other mods to keep up in ST2. There are two issues being discussed:

 

1. Making ST-2 more attractive for disenfranchised T1 Corvettes.

 

2. Replacing PTA/TTA with a new ST-3 class and how to properly spread the power/weight across ST1/2/3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF an ST3 class is developed to replace PTA/TTA, then I think the only change to ST2/TTS should be to lower the hp:wt amount in order to provide some distance between ST2, ST3, and PTB. Otherwise, you are going to end up with three classes all on top of each other.

 

ST1 - 5.5

ST2 - 7.5 and no other changes... it is still run what you brung

ST3 - 9.0 (I can go either way with aero vs non-aero options on this one)

 

 

I still have an issue with ST3. It is going to force the PTA guys to spend money on their cars -- coilovers, tunes, potentially aero, wheels, tires, etc.

 

There is also the concern about rollbars. A lot of us built our PTA/TTA cars with the smaller bars because the car is less than 3,000lbs without fuel and driver. Most races take upwards of 3/4 of a tank of fuel which only leave 1/4 tank or 16-20lbs of fuel onboard at the most in the C5 cars. Depending on how high of a hp:wt ratio is determined for ST3, we may be forced to run ST2 just for the safety aspect. Imagine that, I am forced to run in a faster class in order to be safer. Doesn't make sense....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I don't agree with you but that's the exact reason I chose to use 1.75 x 0.120 vs. saving 30 pounds and going with 0.095. I figured if I were to ever sell my car to someone far lighter than me, they might have to ballast up over 3000lbs to make min comp weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3150-3299 being the unadjusted weight range for ST, I would be in favor of raising the allowed cage brake to 3100 or less for a 0.095 cage. 3299-200lbs driver is roughly 3100 lbs

 

I thing you can tune around it, but I could see certain cars choosing to run more weight than expected for st3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this, except I would not make the progression from ST3 to ST2 to ST 1 linear. So, something like ST1 at 5.5, ST2 at 8.0, and ST3 at 9.0.

 

IF an ST3 class is developed to replace PTA/TTA, then I think the only change to ST2/TTS should be to lower the hp:wt amount in order to provide some distance between ST2, ST3, and PTB. Otherwise, you are going to end up with three classes all on top of each other.

 

ST1 - 5.5

ST2 - 7.5 and no other changes... it is still run what you brung

ST3 - 9.0 (I can go either way with aero vs non-aero options on this one)

 

 

I still have an issue with ST3. It is going to force the PTA guys to spend money on their cars -- coilovers, tunes, potentially aero, wheels, tires, etc.

 

There is also the concern about rollbars. A lot of us built our PTA/TTA cars with the smaller bars because the car is less than 3,000lbs without fuel and driver. Most races take upwards of 3/4 of a tank of fuel which only leave 1/4 tank or 16-20lbs of fuel onboard at the most in the C5 cars. Depending on how high of a hp:wt ratio is determined for ST3, we may be forced to run ST2 just for the safety aspect. Imagine that, I am forced to run in a faster class in order to be safer. Doesn't make sense....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ST3 is going to be similar to ST1 and ST2 but with a higher wt/hp ratio, then it needs to be at 11:1 or higher if ST2 remains at 8.7. If ST2 bumps down to 8.0 lbs/hp then I can see ST3 at 10:1. Either way, I would leave ST1 alone. No real need to raise it up to 6.0. If ST3 is not going to be similar to ST1 and ST2 (ie. no aero or points class), then don't call it ST3. That wouldn't make any sense IMHO. If it's going to be a points class like PTA but for higher hp or ex-T1 type cars, then call it PTS or something. Then they could bump the PTA vettes into PTS if they feel that is necessary and allow them to run larger tires and some extra points for springs/shocks/brakes or whatever. Just another opinion to pile onto the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another opinion to pile onto the rest.

That really makes no sense. The purpose of ST3 is to attract cars from above and below the current +/- 8.7:1 ratio that has spread to so many different classes and similar pw/wt cars from other organizations into one easy to understand class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

I think the one thing that has been clearly established is that this is a very complicated topic, and regardless of the ultimate decisions made (whether to make any changes or not), not everyone will be happy (as usual).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the one thing that has been clearly established is that this is a very complicated topic, and regardless of the ultimate decisions made (whether to make any changes or not), not everyone will be happy (as usual).

 

I am game with whatever, seriously.

 

But can we make a deal, if everybody promises to take the rules and run with them and go have fun, and have no negative comments, will NASA agree to leave them alone for at least a few years so next year, and the year after, it's not a moving target/same discussion again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the one thing that has been clearly established is that this is a very complicated topic, and regardless of the ultimate decisions made (whether to make any changes or not), not everyone will be happy (as usual).

The sooner you make a decision and then make it FINAL the better. I think most of us will be good but we're looking for stability. We're tired of having to re-invent our cars every season. Yes, I understand rules change over time, but I've had to re-do my set-up 3 times in 2 years. Now I'm faced with a major change (aero and suspension). I also just had my engine lose 2 lifters and put a bunch of metal through it so I have to rebuild. Knowing the class structure will affect what I choose to do for my rebuild as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the one thing that has been clearly established is that this is a very complicated topic, and regardless of the ultimate decisions made (whether to make any changes or not), not everyone will be happy (as usual).

 

I am game with whatever, seriously.

 

But can we make a deal, if everybody promises to take the rules and run with them and go have fun, and have no negative comments, will NASA agree to leave them alone for at least a few years so next year, and the year after, it's not a moving target/same discussion again?

Yeah... what he said... just like what I said above. I've got 1/2 my aero bits stashed away already, but I'm tired of re-building. I'll gladly build my car up the rest of this year in prep for the '13 season, but then I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In choosing a hp/wt ratio for a theoretical ST3 class, there is only one factor that needs to be considered. Do you want to include the C5 Z06 or not? Figure out what the "off the lot" performance numbers are and then decide from there. My estimate would be around 9.4 adjusted. Anything above that would most likely exclude the vette at the standard comp weight. I don't ever see NASA doing anything to upset the current attendance demographic so perhaps we can safely say that this class will never pan out without either a change to the ST2 ratio to provide a lower ST3 ratio such as 9.0 or the willingness of PTA vette drivers to run ST2. Neither of those seem terribly likely so maybe this is a moot discussion.

 

Maybe a different approach would be to keep the PT rules generally the same except drop the engine mod and weight point system to just require hp/wt dyno and re-classing? I've brought this up before and it still seems like a good compromise to make the classing more explicit. It's not quite ST3 and it's not quite PT but it uses some good parts of both. It would be an easy transition too. And the more information Greg provided about reclassing parameters the better. I think what attracts me to ST open class is the fact that all cars are based on a public formula for competition. The fewer points we have to disagree about the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Randy, the reasons that PT works is that we do not start all cars as if they were the same. So, ultimately, a Dyno-based series with points assigned for various other mods will require an adjustment factor for every vehicle model. An old stick axle Mustang GT is not a Honda S2000 or Porsche 911. The publicly posted adjustment factors would just be another 1 million complaints or debates. It is not worth the trouble it will cause--at least not at this time. The reason that ST works is that mods and $$$ are minimally limited, allowing a good builder to make an old Mustang handle as good as a 911 (well, closer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another opinion to pile onto the rest.

That really makes no sense. The purpose of ST3 is to attract cars from above and below the current +/- 8.7:1 ratio that has spread to so many different classes and similar pw/wt cars from other organizations into one easy to understand class.

 

I guess my problem has to do with the name "ST3". If ST3 is going to be a super touring class with open mods like ST1 and ST2 then I think it needs to be at least 2.0 lbs/hp higher than ST2 to create enough spread to warrant another class. Why have ST2 at 8.7 and ST3 at 9.4 for example? If it's not an open mod, dyno based super touring class like ST1 and ST2, then I don't think it should be called "ST3". If you want a place to race T1 and PTA corvettes then ST3 seems like the wrong name for the class since logically people would assume it has the same rules as ST1 and ST2 but with a higher wt/hp limit. At least I would, maybe I'm crazy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy, the reasons that PT works is that we do not start all cars as if they were the same. So, ultimately, a Dyno-based series with points assigned for various other mods will require an adjustment factor for every vehicle model. An old stick axle Mustang GT is not a Honda S2000 or Porsche 911. The publicly posted adjustment factors would just be another 1 million complaints or debates. It is not worth the trouble it will cause--at least not at this time. The reason that ST works is that mods and $$$ are minimally limited, allowing a good builder to make an old Mustang handle as good as a 911 (well, closer).

Greg, I understand what you are saying and I had those exact concerns of yours in mind when I made the suggestion, though I had a smaller number than "1 million" in mind-- something more like between 5 and 20 since we're only talking about PTA and maybe PTB cars. Once again I'll reiterate that ST3 is attractive to me because of the explicit performance formula; I may find myself short on downforce but likely not short on hp/wt and tire size. After re-reading your original post and it's implications, I think the context of my post was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Greg - I hope you read my little novel here. Many of us spent time and money trying to build a car capable to compete with the Corvette only to find ourselves hit with modification factors that made the car slower. Corvette is a great car from the factory that has been around for years and has one of the largest, tested and proven, aftermarkets available. In order for us to compete we need a good bit of leeway to get our older and disadvantaged cars even in the same ballpark. Instead, the current rules are handicapping most cars. Here are some examples:

1. Older mustangs with their need to rework the rear suspension.

2. Mazda FD cars that require subframe modifications to fit LS engine

3. Most older cars end up modifying the firewall in some way to upgrade the powertrain to a newer motor

4. Mini-tubbing to allow for larger tires (Corvette will run 315s square all day, most other cars can't fit more than 275-285 without radical changes to the car)

End result is we have to run next class up (impossible to beet C6 with 50% more power) or STR that has 0 participation in my 2 regions - SE and MA.

 

I know the idea has always been to create a class that is fun for different cars and have great competition. However, somehow over the years it has become "run a new car class" since they are the only ones that can be built well and without being hit with all the mod factors. If you don't have a Vette, Viper, or a new Mustang - it's going to be tough. Even the factory built P cars can't keep up, let alone E46 M3s or anything else easily available for a racer to build on any kind of relatively decent budget. If you create ST3 with all the same rules in place all you are going to end up with are Corvettes that are detuned to 9:1 (or whatever the final is) and handful of STI/EVOs because they will be more reliable at that power level. Otherwise, people will continue to run AI, GTS, etc.

 

I know that I have a personal agenda in this discussion (so do most people who have been participating), but there really should be some consideration towards simplifying the ST rules again. Allow more freedom and eliminate some of the mod factors to get more people running. As you said rules have to evolve as they do in any major racing series - simplify and bring cars back, if there is an overdog after some races look at that car specifically (that is what all the pro series do). Add weight or do what is necessary to dial it back.

 

I am absolutely certain that I speak for everyone that we would love to see a good bit of different cars all racing for the same thing. We all want to race with our friends and have fun. Instead we are all running in whatever class we can because ST is not an option. Give us ST back that is more inclusive and watch your car counts double if not triple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Greg - I hope you read my little novel here. Many of us spent time and money trying to build a car capable to compete with the Corvette only to find ourselves hit with modification factors that made the car slower. Corvette is a great car from the factory that has been around for years and has one of the largest, tested and proven, aftermarkets available. In order for us to compete we need a good bit of leeway to get our older and disadvantaged cars even in the same ballpark. Instead, the current rules are handicapping most cars. Here are some examples:

1. Older mustangs with their need to rework the rear suspension.

2. Mazda FD cars that require subframe modifications to fit LS engine

3. Most older cars end up modifying the firewall in some way to upgrade the powertrain to a newer motor

4. Mini-tubbing to allow for larger tires (Corvette will run 315s square all day, most other cars can't fit more than 275-285 without radical changes to the car)

End result is we have to run next class up (impossible to beet C6 with 50% more power) or STR that has 0 participation in my 2 regions - SE and MA.

 

I know the idea has always been to create a class that is fun for different cars and have great competition. However, somehow over the years it has become "run a new car class" since they are the only ones that can be built well and without being hit with all the mod factors. If you don't have a Vette, Viper, or a new Mustang - it's going to be tough. Even the factory built P cars can't keep up, let alone E46 M3s or anything else easily available for a racer to build on any kind of relatively decent budget. If you create ST3 with all the same rules in place all you are going to end up with are Corvettes that are detuned to 9:1 (or whatever the final is) and handful of STI/EVOs because they will be more reliable at that power level. Otherwise, people will continue to run AI, GTS, etc.

 

I know that I have a personal agenda in this discussion (so do most people who have been participating), but there really should be some consideration towards simplifying the ST rules again. Allow more freedom and eliminate some of the mod factors to get more people running. As you said rules have to evolve as they do in any major racing series - simplify and bring cars back, if there is an overdog after some races look at that car specifically (that is what all the pro series do). Add weight or do what is necessary to dial it back.

 

I am absolutely certain that I speak for everyone that we would love to see a good bit of different cars all racing for the same thing. We all want to race with our friends and have fun. Instead we are all running in whatever class we can because ST is not an option. Give us ST back that is more inclusive and watch your car counts double if not triple.

 

A detuned a little bit GT3 would also be very competititive, if pricey, option against the C5. In ST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - I ran well, but don't take that as a measure. Look at Nationals, the best GTS4 car in the country was almost a full 0.5 second slower than TTS winner. And Randy has his car fully done, probably more so than my old GT3.

 

Ken - it's not about GTS or not. I have a good bit of friends running ST2 and given the option I'd run with them. But since there is no option I run GTS. My point is to remove all the restrictions and make it a "free" class as it once was. All the modifications are available to all competitors and so it seems like it's really not much of a equalizer. Factory race cars should continue to get a factor, but outside of that let us have our way and do what we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - I'm not sure about that. I hear from several people around the paddock that a good PTA/TTA build can be over 30K. GIven todays market there have been very good ST2 and other cars in that price range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...