Jump to content
JSG1901

Changed format for GTS1?

Recommended Posts

JSG1901

I've opened this topic to begin a discussion. I have no particular agenda in mind but would love to hear constructive feedback from anyone willing to share theirs.

 

At this year's championships I had several conversations with people about GTS1. The general theme of all these conversations were along the lines of, "Gee, it's too bad it isn't easier for folks from classes like 944 Spec, Spec E30, and others, to find a place to race with us, too." For those classes and others like them, GTS1 is the place they would normally fit but today's rules, which allow wings and such in all GTS classes, pretty much guarantee that when push comes to shove those cars won't be competitive with aero-enhanced GTS1 cars.

 

Which begs the question, should we consider disallowing aero in GTS1?

 

I can argue this either way. On the one hand, one of the great things about GTS is that you can do what you want to your car, which means you can add aero if you want to. On the other hand, at least around our region, very few GTS1 cars actually do have aero and car counts are typically pretty low. If removing the aero option brought a bunch more cars into the class, I'd guess that would make the drivers in GTS1 happier because they would have better races against more other drivers (and more contingencies).

 

What do YOU think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dweymer

I don't race in 1; but can definately see how it may attract more cars and or double class cars. One could race E30, and gts-1; or switch classes to up the count for contingencies..

 

However, one of the main draws to GTS is the simple HP/weight rule.

 

Hopefully some actual other gts-1 racers will post. What about a cross thread into the other potential class specific forums?

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE

I'm not a GTS racer but: If you run a non-DOT full slick, you take a PTW hit, correct? What if the opposite were true for people that chose to not run aero? (obviously not an equal/opposite bump of full slicks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brant giere

I'd be in favor of trying to work out a solution that would increase the car count. I would add though that the Spec 944 that also ran in GTS 1 for the Champ race was very competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric W.

Does aero really make a huge difference on GTS1 cars? Might just be a tradeoff on drag vs. downforce?

 

Im in favor of boosting car counts, but at the same time, this starts a slippery slope situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxxfish

Keep the open ruleset, and let the E30 and 944 drivers buy a spare trunk and front bumper (cheap for these cars) to swap aero in/out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brant giere

My car benefits from the aero package, no doubt about that. I have never really optimized the suspension setup though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Waite

Wt. to HP. Nuf said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

A lot of SE30 guys already have a splitter (although I believe they are getting banned for next year). I think a different trunk lid suggestion is pretty good and with their splitter they would be ready for GTS1.

 

You can always add a modification factor for non-aero cars and see how that works out - that would keep currently built cars safe and give a little equality to the non-aero cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Graber

I think it can work if NASA kills SE30 and 944Spec and forms a uniform rules set for all of those cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmwjoon

Scott, is aero really the only thing keeping SE30 and 944 out of GTS?

 

Personally I don't think getting rid of aero is going to boost the number up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSG1901
Scott, is aero really the only thing keeping SE30 and 944 out of GTS?

 

Personally I don't think getting rid of aero is going to boost the number up.

Honestly? I don't know. Tires, certainly, are different but tires are easy to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Scott, is aero really the only thing keeping SE30 and 944 out of GTS?

 

Personally I don't think getting rid of aero is going to boost the number up.

Honestly? I don't know. Tires, certainly, are different but tires are easy to change.

 

...buuut a lot of drivers there are attracted to the lower budget requirements and the cost of an extra set of wheels and tires might be prohibitive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JimG005

I think the issue is broader than just GTS1. I don't know about Spec944, but a well set up Spec e30 would have the wt/hp to be in GTS2. I like the idea of more GTS racers, but if we try to achieve that by altering our rules (e.g. to accomodate for aero...or disallow aero), then I think most, if not all, GTS classes will be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
racrdave52

I Race in GTS-1 in the Mid-Atlantic in of all things a 944. Previously we had a strong 944 Cup Group which vacated and the few of us left migrated to GTS-1. I have added some aero (splitter) and recently bought a rear wing so I can race "flat out" LOL. Anyway I believe some spec 944 cars without aero have been very competitive in the nationals and in the regions as well. Certainly the SE30 guys can be competitive as well with or without aero. My vote is leave the rules alone (since I just bought a wing!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmwjoon

I think Scott is onto something here but I actually think it's more the tires than the aero. It's really a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Scott and I talked about this at Nationals, but I wanted to let this develop a bit before I chimed in.

 

There are a lot of issues at play here: money, philosophical differences, racing environment differences.

 

Central to GTS philosophy is freedom. This is both liberating, and terrifying at the same time. No pesky rules, but overwhelming possibilities. GTS is as much about the car, as it is about the driver. Not more, but certainly both. All of this makes GTS-1 something of a problem child, and a revolving door. If open rules appeals to you, why stop at a measly 18:1 HP/Wt. ratio? As the class grows, the budget guys get priced out by the fast guys and revert to Spec. The fast guys in turn get bored with spending all the money and not going faster, and move up the GTS ladder. Dealing with that problem is part of Scott's job, which is why he's bringing this up here.

 

Central to Spec philosophy, is removing the car from the equation to the greatest extent possible, and making it all about the driver. This means lots of pesky rules, but some security in knowing you're not being outspent, or out engineered by the next guy. Many guys are satisfied with that, but a percentage yearn to tinker more (or race other types of cars). These guys either become Spec cheaters, or move on to a more open class.

 

Putting aside class nationalism for a moment, it is interesting to speculate about some middle ground. Huge fields of SE30's, and 944 Spec cars, with the odd 318ti thrown in, certainly has its appeal. The new Toyo RR tire brings this one step closer, as it appears to be competitive with top-tier R compound tires. To further bridge the chiasm, GTS-1 guys would have to trade some freedom, for affordability, and security, while the Spec classes would have to do the opposite. Then there is the issue of having to duck and cover in the cockpit as the GTS 4,5, & U classed cars shoot by like so many missiles. Of course, with such large fields, GTS/Spec would have it own run group!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gpeluso

Please no one throw anything at me........ I like the idea of the non aero.... Let me explain. Crossover...not from other NASA groups but other organizations. I know everyone thinks that there is an open rule set but not really...... Look at what Scott did with his big wings on the 944...He mastered the recipe..So last year I saw copy cat cars...... how many GTS3 cars are so close....front big brake kit....big wing... and a splitter...and a s52 motor ....... The recipes are already there. It looks sorta spec. Other organizations that allow aero like SCCA in a few classes limit size and hieght... Look at Grand Am cars even....GTS would be a great place for ex or current Grand Am cars to play but they can't even stand a chance. (I know this is not necessarily applying to GTS1)

My idea would be to higher the HP to Weight in GTS1 and disallow aero.... gotta watch a spec tire due to sizes... I really think the GTS leaders are running the class very professionally and should be proud of how they are open to change... Stable rules are important but is there anyone currently building a GTS1 car? Whatever is done all should be proud.

 

BTW thanks for letting me play with you guys...

 

Greg Peluso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmwjoon

If I had an SE30 and wanted to run GTS I definitely DON'T want to change anything on my car and be competitive. That means no aero, making sure the rules accomodate my tires, and making sure my suspension is equal to the rest of the "non-crossover" cars.

 

If you really wanted to make GTS1 cross over friendly you could ban things like:

 

remote canister shocks (probably noone runs them anyway) or coil overs,

no wings,

Spec Toyo RR tire, no slicks (probably noone running these anyway),

no big brakes (probably noone these anyway).

 

If your focus is to beckon the SE30 and 944 guys adjust the power to weight so both can easily accomodate with little or no ballast. This could be a winning formula and I don't think it would effect too many of the current GTS1 guys.

 

Like I said before, you're onto something here. Sometimes guys share cars or maybe one field is too small for contingency or maybe guys just want to race more, who know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW
If I had an SE30 and wanted to run GTS I definitely DON'T want to change anything on my car and be competitive. That means no aero, making sure the rules accomodate my tires, and making sure my suspension is equal to the rest of the "non-crossover" cars.

 

If you really wanted to make GTS1 cross over friendly you could ban things like:

 

remote canister shocks (probably noone runs them anyway) or coil overs,

no wings,

Spec Toyo RR tire, no slicks (probably noone running these anyway),

no big brakes (probably noone these anyway).

 

If your focus is to beckon the SE30 and 944 guys adjust the power to weight so both can easily accomodate with little or no ballast. This could be a winning formula and I don't think it would effect too many of the current GTS1 guys.

 

Like I said before, you're onto something here. Sometimes guys share cars or maybe one field is too small for contingency or maybe guys just want to race more, who know?

 

What you are proposing is a fundamental change to the current format of GTS1. Small changes can be made to help equalize some cars to be more competitive, but banning shocks, brakes and instituting a spec tire essentially creates another spec class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cash7c3

Have the potential cross over drivers complained about not being competitive because of the rulesets or is that just an excuse to not drive in an empty class with a car that they are already driving in a different class/series that has competition?

 

(know a PCA racer locally and been trying to get him to run NASA even though there are currently zero other cars in the class . . . his car would be a horribly fast GTS1 car . . . and it has no aero/fancy suspension)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

^^^ Then he is a "horribly fast" driver - nothing to do with the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmwjoon

I don't run GTS 1, but IF we were going to change 1 to make it more accessible you have to make it in effect a spec class, albeit a very generic spec class so you're right.

 

I don't know if I like it either, it's a super slippery slope.

 

We could make another class ie. GTS-spec or whatever you may call it. But the point is Scott and the NASA guys are probably trying to address what is in effect the cheapest class but has the least amount of cars and I don't think we need another class.

 

We all know why 5 and U fields are low but 1 being low with SE30 and 944 fields so large makes no sense and they are right to a certain extent.

 

 

If I had an SE30 and wanted to run GTS I definitely DON'T want to change anything on my car and be competitive. That means no aero, making sure the rules accomodate my tires, and making sure my suspension is equal to the rest of the "non-crossover" cars.

 

If you really wanted to make GTS1 cross over friendly you could ban things like:

 

remote canister shocks (probably noone runs them anyway) or coil overs,

no wings,

Spec Toyo RR tire, no slicks (probably noone running these anyway),

no big brakes (probably noone these anyway).

 

If your focus is to beckon the SE30 and 944 guys adjust the power to weight so both can easily accomodate with little or no ballast. This could be a winning formula and I don't think it would effect too many of the current GTS1 guys.

 

Like I said before, you're onto something here. Sometimes guys share cars or maybe one field is too small for contingency or maybe guys just want to race more, who know?

 

What you are proposing is a fundamental change to the current format of GTS1. Small changes can be made to help equalize some cars to be more competitive, but banning shocks, brakes and instituting a spec tire essentially creates another spec class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
We all know why 5 and U fields are low but 1 being low with SE30 and 944 fields so large makes no sense and they are right to a certain extent.

My take on this one point: Some people don't like to "double-dip" (aka - supersize) and run two different classes and two different races in the same weekend (aka - focus on one qual/one race and be done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW
We all know why 5 and U fields are low but 1 being low with SE30 and 944 fields so large makes no sense and they are right to a certain extent.

My take on this one point: Some people don't like to "double-dip" (aka - supersize) and run two different classes and two different races in the same weekend (aka - focus on one qual/one race and be done).

 

+1 - I used to run Spec E30 and never even considered crossing over to GTS1. Mainly due to time and cost commitment. I'm sure its the same for others. Imagine running GTS1 for fun and popping your motor and miss the actual SE30 race. With contingency getting harder to get (Hoosier, GY) you really start to weigh if its worth it. For less money you can do a test and tune and get twice the track time.

Share this post


Link to post
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...