Jump to content

Changed format for GTS1?


JSG1901

Recommended Posts

This has been a great conversation. I'm not trying to put an end to it by any means, but I'd wanted to test the water. As Eric Kuhns said, we'd had a conversation along these lines at the championships and I thought it was worth having some discussion around. What I'm hearing so far is there's not a lot of push to make any changes at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, the guys that run GTS like the rules. Changing our rules so the odd guy can easily cross over and be "competitive" has kind of a slippery slope but I respect the though process a great deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Eclipse9916

Just some food for thought but...

 

Why do we have 6 GTS classes?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U

 

I feel like 1,2,3, U would help make the class sizes larger, ie, basically combining gts1/2 (very similiar builds and cars), GTS3/4 together (very similiar builds and cars), GTS4/5 cars in another class, and then U for the odd man that wants a bajillion horsepower/low weight.

 

Is there a reason we did 6 classes and picked those particlular hp/weights? (any crossovers?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that thought process.....a little. When you have E46 BMW's in GTS3 & GTS4 clearly they could combine some of those clases. I do believ though that many of the class breaks are well thoughtout, especially at the upper end where you have factory cars dropping in.

 

Now back to the original thoughts. Is GTS1 "too" open to attract a lot of new cars? Around the East Coast we had a lame GTS1 class, and a competing 944 Cup series. As the 944 Cup series was identified as an "independent" and subject to it's own rules, events etc. many jumped over to GTS1 to stay with NASA. Competition was good, and then those involved realized there was a lot more room in the rules and started to push the development side. The cars quickly became more developed with aero, short gearing, hi-end shocks etc. It made for some great escalating battles, but made it difficult for someone to just jump in and be competitive. A couple years go by, cars and sold, drivers move on etc. and the class shrunk again.

 

So take that GTS1 development story and weave in 944 Spec and Spec E30. 944 Spec is very big west, and SE30 is very big east. These are two classes that can clearly fit into the GTS model, but given the open rules set force them to invest or be underdeveloped. Limiting the GTS1 development will make that jump much easier and would be a first step in consolidating classes. Not saying that should happen today or should ever happen, but bringing them closer together certainly opens the possibility.........

 

And as a side note, many believe the 944 Spec and SE30 "spec" classes are designed for cheap entry and that GTS is extremely expensive. Both 44 & SE30 are facing the SM challenge, highly developed engines, chassis, etc. designed to the max of the "spec" rules. That means spending $10k+ on motors for your cheap spec class. The GTS side certainly affords the investment in shocks and aero you wouldn't have in the spec classes, but doesn't necessarily require the "spec" motor investment. Many a GTS car runs a stock or restricted stock motor to reach their desired Wt/HP.

 

My $.02

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been toying with the idea of racing GTS for a while - I'm currently on hiatus from racing as I complete my MBA (April 2013). I have a car that would be eligible for GTS 1 in its current state, so this discussion has my attention.

 

The open rules are the biggest draw for me, but also the biggest cause of apprehension. I love the idea of being able to out think my competitors to build a better race car. I know I will be out spent, I accepted that a long time ago. I could be wrong, but my thoughts are that the best way to improve the speed of a GTS 1 car would be through a reduction in drag - these aren't exactly rocketships. Specifically, streamlining the bottom of the car. With the current rule set, I wouldn't expect to be competitive until I'd developed a full aero package (i.e. splitter/undertray/diffuser/wing(?)) for my car, assuming the rest of the car was in order. I've spent some time researching various designs, and have even built some prototype pieces to test. This is part of the fun for me.

 

That said, if I had a car that was eligible to double dip in a spec class and GTS 1 (which I don't), the time required to change the car over from spec to GTS form (installing the aero package) would keep me away. I don't have a crew to help make the changeover, and if the run groups are close (less than two groups in-between), even a crew wouldn't be able to get the car ready. I'd also be concerned with driver fatigue at that point, but that's another can of worms.

 

If you were to change the rules, I would simply define what an aero package for GTS 1 is - remove the unknown if you will. I would allow open aero before the front axle and after the rear axle. That would allow splitters, wings, and diffusers all of which could be quickly installed or removed, in most cases without jacking up the car.

 

This may not affect any of the current GTS 1 competitors, though I suspect it will. More importantly though, it would "frame" the aero aspect of GTS 1 for perspective competitors. This might entice NASA PT or SCCA IT racers (with German cars) to explore NASA GTS.

 

Regards,

 

Josh

Link to post
Share on other sites
cstreit911
Just some food for thought but...

 

Why do we have 6 GTS classes?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U

 

I feel like 1,2,3, U would help make the class sizes larger, ie, basically combining gts1/2 (very similiar builds and cars), GTS3/4 together (very similiar builds and cars), GTS4/5 cars in another class, and then U for the odd man that wants a bajillion horsepower/low weight.

 

Is there a reason we did 6 classes and picked those particlular hp/weights? (any crossovers?)

 

 

Perhaps... ...and if you are willing to write about 1500 large checks, the existing members might even convert their cars to take advantage of the new power-to-weight ratio's that this would entail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Eclipse9916
Just some food for thought but...

 

Why do we have 6 GTS classes?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U

 

I feel like 1,2,3, U would help make the class sizes larger, ie, basically combining gts1/2 (very similiar builds and cars), GTS3/4 together (very similiar builds and cars), GTS4/5 cars in another class, and then U for the odd man that wants a bajillion horsepower/low weight.

 

Is there a reason we did 6 classes and picked those particlular hp/weights? (any crossovers?)

 

 

Perhaps... ...and if you are willing to write about 1500 large checks, the existing members might even convert their cars to take advantage of the new power-to-weight ratio's that this would entail.

 

 

...any rules AT ALL requires members to convert to the new specs. I am not saying its ideal (and I would have to change my setup as well), but when do we start looking long-term instead of short-term?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I say keep it the way it is. last winter when the topic of how to attract more drivers to gts was brought up, my gut reaction was kill aero and gears for gts1 and possibly aero for gts2. but that was before my gts2 car was built. but just getting rid of the aero aspect of the class wont even the playing field. what will we consider as aero? just wings? splitters? comparing gts1 944 to a 944spec. would you make the gts one car switch from the turbo style nose to a spec style set up? if both cars were to the max of the rules and all you did was take the wing and front end off the gts car and threw Hoosiers on the spec car I don’t think that the spec car would have a shot. cant imagine that the 944 koni could handle the bigger/stickier tires allowed in gts. if the gts1 guys are worried about car counts they should buy 16V motors and step up to GTS2 or 944 supper spec as I like to call it.

 

doesn’t GTS1/2 usually run in the same group as the two spec classes? if so this would force nasa to run three groups(which they sometimes do) which will not give a lot of time between sessions to switch parts, wheels, ect.

 

to sum up, this is our side of the sand box so to speak and I feel you would be doing a disservice to the people who have their cars optimized for gts "de-mod" their cars so spec cars can run. if you want to run GTS fine, just put your big boy pants and big boy wings on and come play .....you'll like it here I promise

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

No one has said it yet, so I will.

 

44Spec rule set is a copy of a SCCA and PCA rule set. The cars can leave NASA and be equally competitive in PCA or SCCA for the class they run in.

 

Any changes that they make other than what is allowed in the 44spec rule book make them illegal for the other two groups, so making modifications, any modifications, would put them out.

 

not a lot of motivation there.

 

So, it is not just the Aero.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others said, the spec aspect of classing has its own pitfalls. Anybody who follows Spec911 on the west coast has probably seen the recent "what the hey" issue with certain engines dynoing well beyond other well built engines. This is not a true, direct comparo to 944 spec or SE30 since SP911 has three variants of engines and a variety of induction/injection. However what it does demonstrate, is how the cost escalation can occur. Those front running SP911 cars have some well-regarded builders building (and driving) those engines.

 

I like the weight:power limitations because it takes some of the engine spending out of it. You can only spend so much before you end up bumping yourself to another class and then you've made yourself somewhat start all over by having to optimize your weight:power again.

 

I guess don't have a good contribution here with my post. Just throwing stuff out there to agree with others. I will say that i've been impressed by the performance of the GTS1 cars. Given the right track, there have been some wicked fast 1 cars in the GL region. So point being is that I don't necessarily think there's something wrong with the GTS1 class. Maybe its a matter of people seeing what running a competitive GTS1 car entails, then noting that for a bit more money they can go faster? That's what this racing thing is all about for a lot of guys. Not only who can I beat, but how fast can I go doing it?

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...