Jump to content

ST3 Re-visited


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cobra4B

    41

  • kbrew8991

    33

  • Greg G.

    22

  • sperkins

    22

  • National Staff
oh so will this change only be on the WTW side and not affect TT?

 

just trying to get a sense of scope

No it will affect TT also

ahh I think I see what you're saying

 

TT will still mirror PT and ST classing and you've already gotten input from people on the PTA to ST3 type split, so you are now currently feeling out ST2 and other people to see if they'd want to see the aero mod factor applied to their class as well - right?

No, just checking on how changing the ST2/TTS ratio to 8.0:1 would effect current competitors---getting broader input than just the forums, e-mails, and those we have spoken to at the track and at the Championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea what the base tire size for ST3 would be? I.e. would there be any modification factors for 275s?

 

9.0 - 0.5 - 0.4 = 8.1 which would be right up my alley running no aero and 275s. I could lighten up the car even more and make around 370 rwhp. 3000 min comp weight / 370 = 8.11

Nope. You did the calculation wrong. A -0.5 Mod Factor means that you subtract if from your Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio if you have the Aero. So, no Aero = 9.0:1, and with Aero = 9.5:1.

1. Any idea if there would still be a +0.4 mod factor for 275s?

 

2. Any ideas what the definition of "aero" will be? Will the body panels have to be 100% OEM stock?

 

I'm curious because I was planning on laying my radiator forward and venting the hood. Something I can currently do in PTA/TTA by taking the +1 point for an air intake.

 

I have the same questions as Brian. I have a basement of 275s and I already laid my radiator forward, just haven't cut the hole in the hood yet. My car is a C4 with all stock body, accept the hood has a scoop on it and possibly a vent if it becomes allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
We are still working on the definition of "aero". I think that the vented hoods and other rules regarding venting fenders that we put into place this year in ST will still be fine. The rule will likely end up allowing any OEM (vs BTM?) aerodynamic aides such as wings, fascias, splitters, side skirts, without a Modification Factor. The question is what to do with a car like the Honda S2000CR and other car models built for the track that come with pretty nice OEM Aero, or just to allow them w/o a mod factor (ie. choose your weapon).

 

There is no discussion of changing the tire size mod factors at this time. Once we handled the outliers, that aspect of the rules still seems to be working well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, I still think any rule change that means an increased perception of instability is bad and any rule change that requires current competitors to spend more money to remain competitive is a bad idea .

 

ote="Greg G."]

We are still working on the definition of "aero". I think that the vented hoods and other rules regarding venting fenders that we put into place this year in ST will still be fine. The rule will likely end up allowing any OEM (vs BTM?) aerodynamic aides such as wings, fascias, splitters, side skirts, without a Modification Factor. The question is what to do with a car like the Honda S2000CR and other car models built for the track that come with pretty nice OEM Aero, or just to allow them w/o a mod factor (ie. choose your weapon).

 

There is no discussion of changing the tire size mod factors at this time. Once we handled the outliers, that aspect of the rules still seems to be working well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

Where can I run my C5Z06 if I do not want to spend $5k on shocks or coilovers, $4k on brakes, and $6k on the engine in order to be competitive in ST3? And this is taking the non-aero approach and not even thinking about rear-ends and transmissions. My car is extremely competitive in PTA/TTA as it sits.

 

By eliminating PTA, you are forcing me to spend $15k to be competitive in a class I do not want. How is this fair for those of of us who own C5Z06s but race on a budget? I bought this car specifically for PTA because the ruleset put a cap on costs. Where is my Performance Touring option in the new rules? How is it fair that a C5 can still have the option of PTB but a C5Z06 does not? And don't say, "You picked your frog, you live with the warts." I HAD a class when I bought this car. You are uncapping the spending war on an entire group of racers that did not want to race in an unlimited class.

 

If you go by the Nationals car counts, PTA had just as many car as GTS1, SpecZ, and STR1. And we had MORE cars than the following: Spec986, PTB, PTC, PTF, AIX, and ST1. If we look at drivers that supersized in the race classes, I am willing to bet we had more than STR2 and a couple of more classes. In order to boost car counts, are you also going to do away with their classes and force them into a more expensive class?

 

I look forward to seeing the final rules so I can thoroughly read them, calculate my forced costs to compete, and then figure out WHERE I want to race in 2013 and beyond. If people thought a C5Z06 in PTA/TTA trim was unbeatable, just wait until you see a bolt-on 9.0:1 LS6 with torque, coilovers, carbon fiber body panels, big brakes, built rear diff, changed transmission ratios, and lots of lead 4" off the ground. And if you thought that setup is fast, wait until you see a 9.5:1 aero car with the same goodies.

 

 

 

-Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

Where can I run my C5Z06 if I do not want to spend $5k on shocks or coilovers, $4k on brakes, and $6k on the engine in order to be competitive in ST3? And this is taking the non-aero approach and not even thinking about rear-ends and transmissions. My car is extremely competitive in PTA/TTA as it sits.

 

By eliminating PTA, you are forcing me to spend $15k to be competitive in a class I do not want. How is this fair for those of of us who own C5Z06s but race on a budget? I bought this car specifically for PTA because the ruleset put a cap on costs. Where is my Performance Touring option in the new rules? How is it fair that a C5 can still have the option of PTB but a C5Z06 does not? And don't say, "You picked your frog, you live with the warts." I HAD a class when I bought this car. You are uncapping the spending war on an entire group of racers that did not want to race in an unlimited class.

 

If you go by the Nationals car counts, PTA had just as many car as GTS1, SpecZ, and STR1. And we had MORE cars than the following: Spec986, PTB, PTC, PTF, AIX, and ST1. If we look at drivers that supersized in the race classes, I am willing to bet we had more than STR2 and a couple of more classes. In order to boost car counts, are you also going to do away with their classes and force them into a more expensive class?

 

I look forward to seeing the final rules so I can thoroughly read them, calculate my forced costs to compete, and then figure out WHERE I want to race in 2013 and beyond. If people thought a C5Z06 in PTA/TTA trim was unbeatable, just wait until you see a bolt-on 9.0:1 LS6 with torque, coilovers, carbon fiber body panels, big brakes, built rear diff, changed transmission ratios, and lots of lead 4" off the ground. And if you thought that setup is fast, wait until you see a 9.5:1 aero car with the same goodies.

 

 

 

-Kevin

 

Good points. I would imagine that you could de-mod the car with LS1 engine parts, MN6 trans (actually a benefit), FE1 base suspension parts, add some weight and get a waiver to run TTB/PTB. Especially since the FRC body is less aerodynamic than the base C5.

I'd bet you could do all of that for less than $500. The only bad part is having to swap wheels/tires.

 

 

BTW - Why do you think I have two LS6's sitting on my shop floor ready to drop in and there's still a 150k mile LS1 still in the car?

 

-sperkins-

One of only 2 remaining TTB base class C5's in the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As part of the AZ PTA group let me just say we are only hearing about it now, and need time to catch up in the discussion. Being 8/10's through a motor swap specifically for PTA after going through the base classing with you (Greg) in the last couple of months I am concerned that our efforts and the PTA class of 5-6 regulars in AZ is at risk. I agree with earlier posters that frequent rule changes may only harm the fields. This discussion means more to us West coasters now with next year's nationals scheduled back at MMP.

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the stock body/aftermarket (or OEM) aero device mod factor is a cool idea. It gives the car builders choices and that's always fun, (same for the old tire size adjustments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still working on the definition of "aero". I think that the vented hoods and other rules regarding venting fenders that we put into place this year in ST will still be fine. The rule will likely end up allowing any OEM (vs BTM?) aerodynamic aides such as wings, fascias, splitters, side skirts, without a Modification Factor. The question is what to do with a car like the Honda S2000CR and other car models built for the track that come with pretty nice OEM Aero, or just to allow them w/o a mod factor (ie. choose your weapon).

 

There is no discussion of changing the tire size mod factors at this time. Once we handled the outliers, that aspect of the rules still seems to be working well.

 

Yes I saw that. I just wanted to point out that I am another looking at the same mod. Not a push to speed up the decision making, just supporting Brian's good point about the hood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

Where can I run my C5Z06 if I do not want to spend $5k on shocks or coilovers, $4k on brakes, and $6k on the engine in order to be competitive in ST3? And this is taking the non-aero approach and not even thinking about rear-ends and transmissions. My car is extremely competitive in PTA/TTA as it sits.

 

By eliminating PTA, you are forcing me to spend $15k to be competitive in a class I do not want. How is this fair for those of of us who own C5Z06s but race on a budget? I bought this car specifically for PTA because the ruleset put a cap on costs. Where is my Performance Touring option in the new rules? How is it fair that a C5 can still have the option of PTB but a C5Z06 does not? And don't say, "You picked your frog, you live with the warts." I HAD a class when I bought this car. You are uncapping the spending war on an entire group of racers that did not want to race in an unlimited class.

 

If you go by the Nationals car counts, PTA had just as many car as GTS1, SpecZ, and STR1. And we had MORE cars than the following: Spec986, PTB, PTC, PTF, AIX, and ST1. If we look at drivers that supersized in the race classes, I am willing to bet we had more than STR2 and a couple of more classes. In order to boost car counts, are you also going to do away with their classes and force them into a more expensive class?

 

I look forward to seeing the final rules so I can thoroughly read them, calculate my forced costs to compete, and then figure out WHERE I want to race in 2013 and beyond. If people thought a C5Z06 in PTA/TTA trim was unbeatable, just wait until you see a bolt-on 9.0:1 LS6 with torque, coilovers, carbon fiber body panels, big brakes, built rear diff, changed transmission ratios, and lots of lead 4" off the ground. And if you thought that setup is fast, wait until you see a 9.5:1 aero car with the same goodies.

 

 

 

-Kevin

Feeling a bit dramatic tonight are we?

 

Used Wilwood SL6Rs - $500

Used Coilovers - $1000

Hand me down rear wing - $350

ACI knock-off front splitter + alumalight - $250

MN6 trans - $800

 

Not sure why you think you need a trans or rear gear to compete. Especially why you think you'd need an engine either. A detuned 427 really won't have any advantage especially at 9.0 to 9.5:1. If your RPMs are low enough to take advantage of more low-end torque you're doing it wrong. I just don't see a choked back bigger cubes engine as a material advantage.

 

Again... there are exactly 0 PTA racers in Mid-A. I only like it because of TTA which has sufficient car counts to have tires on the line. I think ST-3 with a no-aero mod factor is a good compromise as it allows a some other cars to get into the fray. I.e. cars where it normally costs a bunch of money in added power or lightening to get below 9.0:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian,

 

I never said I needed a new engine. If you will re-read that, I said a bolt-on LS6.

 

Dramatic? Umm, no, not at all. You should know me better than that by now. I don't post something like this without giving it a lot of thought. Just like others have posted, yes, the used, cheap parts list you stated can be had and will put your car at a mid-pack car. Or even a dominate car in a small field. Of which you already have in PTA. However, if you really think about it, to take a TOP PTA car and make it into a TOP ST3 car, you are going to spend almost as much as building a TOP ST2 car. Think I am joking? Take a Forbis or Popp ST2 car and drop in a bolt-on crate LS6 detuned to 355rwhp and you have an ST3 car. Do you really want to race against that car? How much $$ would it take to build that car from a PTA car?

 

So you really think changes to ST2 and creation of an ST3 class are going to draw more people to those two classes in MA? Really? Like who? Who is waiting in the wings just itching for an open, 9.0:1 ruleset to jump into NASA?

 

 

-Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to like it. Specifically, the 0.5 aero mod. However, I wish that would apply to all of the power to weight classes. If that option existed (maybe it's not too late to consider?) I would surely stay in ST2 and take advantage of the no-aero bonus.

 

0.5 sounds good, but I wonder if it's enough. How about 0.6? My single data point is that an aero package put on a car that has traditionally run similar laptimes to me was good for almost 2 seconds a lap at Mid-Ohio. At my target weight (3120) a 0.5 bonus gives me about 18 HP, I don't think that's good for 2 seconds. Yes, I know, one track, one car, blah blah blah. That's the only data point I have, I'm thinking out loud here.

 

And I'm tired of the "someone's going to build a supercar" argument. It hasn't happened yet, it probably won't. The top ST2 cars have been developed over the past 5 years, and I expect the same will happen in ST3. Can this thoretical supercar show up? Of course. But making rules to count for an improbability is foolish. Maybe a few top ST2 cars will detune and switch, but that's the only immediate risk I see. People have been threatening to bring a monster torque/ low HP motor for years, and still it hasn't happened. It ain't gonna happen. Although I keep staring at the Cummins in my tow vehicle and wondering how it would fit into the 'vette...

 

And while I'm still not 100% behind the elimination of PTA, I can't argue with the car count numbers Greg has posted. So while all the C5Z PTA guys might be getting hurt, and that absolutely sucks, how much fun was it going to be next year or the year after when you're racing alone, anyway, because everyone thinks your car is an overdog?

 

Lastly, I still think something needs to happen for the higher power production cars on the market today. ST3 is starting to work for some of us existing guys, but there are still a bunch of potential customers out there who still don't have a place to race.

 

Did I mention putting the aero adjustment into ST1 and 2 as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I'm still not 100% behind the elimination of PTA, I can't argue with the car count numbers Greg has posted. So while all the C5Z PTA guys might be getting hurt, and that absolutely sucks, how much fun was it going to be next year or the year after when you're racing alone, anyway, because everyone thinks your car is an overdog?

dead horse beating mode - if the 'vette really is an overdog, let's re-evaluate some base classes and such. ST3 is just going to be another more expensive place for them to dominate, just like they do in ST2 and ST1. Base class adjustments fixes the "problem" (if it exists, which looking at my region I am slightly skeptical) with minimal if any downsides, classing shakeups, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets keep TTA Going the way it is. I also have been building my car for several years, plan to stay in TTA and going PTA in the next year or so. We have several drivers competing in Arizona. Not all of them do every event but it's a good showing. It's also a great split between the Big Bore and Small Bore groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets keep TTA Going the way it is. I also have been building my car for several years, plan to stay in TTA and going PTA in the next year or so. We have several drivers competing in Arizona. Not all of them do every event but it's a good showing. It's also a great split between the Big Bore and Small Bore groups.

That ship has sailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets keep TTA Going the way it is. I also have been building my car for several years, plan to stay in TTA and going PTA in the next year or so. We have several drivers competing in Arizona. Not all of them do every event but it's a good showing. It's also a great split between the Big Bore and Small Bore groups.

That ship has sailed.

 

And it left quite a few of us on the pier.

 

I'm another of the 5-10 TTA guys that run in AZ. I agree with what others have posted about the spending wars. TTS was always there with a similar power/weight if we wanted an unlimited points class. We (well, at least me) picked A due to the points limitations, essentially capping the amount of money you could spend on the car.

 

Are there really that many cars out there that couldn't make the 8.7 for ST2 but could make a 9.0 ratio for the new ST3 that want to run unlimited mods to justify eliminating everyone in the PTA/TTA class that want to have a limit on mods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding TTA, how would this change in power to weight affect the cars if we still do points modifications? Do we just screw (ignore) any of the motor points and instead get a dyno re-class so we fit in to the 9 to 1 ratio (or 8.6 to 1 if we run 275's or less)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ship has sailed.

 

Really? Great way to get buy in then. At least we have choices for who we run with. If the AZ PTA contingent isn't valued maybe we'll find another group to run with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ship has sailed.

 

Really? Great way to get buy in then. At least we have choices for who we run with. If the AZ PTA contingent isn't valued maybe we'll find another group to run with.

That's kind of the point of this discussion. At a national level PTA isn't working. Yes we have pockets where it has a few participants, but overall it's dead. In Mid-A we have 0 PTA. Lots of TTA, but nobody racing PTA. Most PTA guys will be ST-2 underdogs to have people to race against. The SouthEast region has a decent size, but we're all Corvettes. At the Road Atlanta race in June we had 6 PTA cars make the grid, but that hadn't happened before.

 

The going issue is that most people who want to race a 8.7:1 car don't have much issue throwing a few more grand at it for aero and suspension. On the other side of the fence you have a bunch of cars that can't quite keep up with a well sorted 8.7:1 car so they don't bother trying due to perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like any series, it takes a few years to really get rolling. The first few years of racing in those classes there will be cars that are prepped all over the map. Some just start scratching the surface and other cars already have a good start to be prepped to the max rules for a given class. The first few years of ST2 you could take a decently prepped car and do well at nationals. Now, you have to really be on top of your game and prep your car to the best you can (or afford) and hope you brought enough. But that's just the natural progression of racing... someone steps their game up and you have to do the same or fall behind.

 

I do think putting in a aero modification factor is a good thing... it allows racers to have some creativity in what they want to do. Also allows new racers to jump into W2W in ST and not have to spend big money on aero parts and all the supporting mods that go along with it. I don't know if its being considered or not, but even having an aero mod factor for ST1 and ST2 I think would be a good thing. Just like someone said before, some of the newer cars are way under the proposed ST3 ratio and would have to get aero just to be competitive. If they can use the aero mod factor, then they can play right out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

0.5 sounds good, but I wonder if it's enough. How about 0.6? My single data point is that an aero package put on a car that has traditionally run similar laptimes to me was good for almost 2 seconds a lap at Mid-Ohio. At my target weight (3120) a 0.5 bonus gives me about 18 HP, I don't think that's good for 2 seconds. Yes, I know, one track, one car, blah blah blah. That's the only data point I have, I'm thinking out loud here.

....

People have been threatening to bring a monster torque/ low HP motor for years, and still it hasn't happened. It ain't gonna happen. Although I keep staring at the Cummins in my tow vehicle and wondering how it would fit into the 'vette...

 

2 things:

 

- why isn't a .75 aero factor being considered? That is what is already in the TTS rules for a couple cars.

 

- people already have high tq/low hp motors in ST2/TTS and I imagine that more are on the way, especially with a bump in hp on the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremy Croiset, the 350Z champ, declined to run his PTA car (by points) at Nationals since he did not have enough car. Yes there are lots of cars that can run PTA or ST2 but not all are built to the rules of the series or naturally competitive. Any racing series will see progression in talent and prep. Some people choose not to be pack filler.

 

TTA would know be classed, with different HP/Wt, like TTU/S. I am hoping it breathes new life into the class. Right now there are TTS cars that will fit the new TTA fine. I am hoping some other new cars will try it out.

 

TTA in the southeast became pretty much a match between a couple of drivers and most folks chased dreams elsewhere. It happens. PTA was pretty competitive.

 

Stability and simple to understand, and enforce, rules are always a plus.

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...