Jump to content

Non-OEM Aero Rule Solicitation--time to speak up!


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

  • National Staff
Is this new class set in stone? Seriously... just ax PTA/TTA and do ST2/TT2 @ 8.7:1 with a 0.7 mod factor for no aero so those ex T1 cars can come in at 8.0 flat. Right now things are incredibly confusing with all of us trying to figure out which class to build for.

 

The more I think about it, why should non aero cars get any mod advantage?

 

Anyone can spend the money on aero, it's not like it made of unobtainiam. There are many guys don't want to spend money buttloads of money on new A6's, should we give those used tire guys a mod factor? We all know new A6's are good for at least a second, so there's a built in advantage.

 

And BB kits? We know those are better in a long race. And quadruple adjustable shocks. Many can't afford those, should those get a guys get a mod factor?

 

I guess I don't see how these items, all damned expensive, are any different than a wing and splitter.

Jody, we agree with you at the ST2 level. So, at this time, there is still no plan to add a Mod Factor for Aero for ST2. There are cars out there w/o Aero running 8:1 right now that either need to change their power levels, or find a new venue where they can somehow continue to run their cars as is. If we added an Aero Mod Factor to ST2, most of the cars would then be running at 8.5:1. We think that the sweet spot for these cars that allows for both older and newer models to compete together is 8.0:1 (with Aero). If we dropped the limit to 7.5:1 and had a -0.5 Mod Factor for Aero in ST2, it would put us back to 8.0:1 for most of the cars, but the wanderers outside without Aero currently would not be able to get to 7.5:1, so it would be a waste anyway. We have PTD, PTC, and PTB competitors spending thousands on Aero for their cars. It seems ironic that someone that spends $1200 or more on a set of new tires for a weekend, and hundreds on brake rotors, some with $60,000 cars, would not be willing to spend $3000 on a good wing and splitter and have the most awesome ride in the car that they have ever had. Racing at the ST level is not cheap (and it wasn't at the PTA level for those of you about to chime in here). However, there are many factors at the ST3 level that make it a reasonable option to have the Non-OEM Aero Mod Factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cobra4B

    28

  • Greg G.

    27

  • kbrew8991

    27

  • robbodleimages

    18

The more I think about it, why should non aero cars get any mod advantage?

 

I think it was pretty much a bone to throw to the PTA corvette's, that lost their class, to give them another option in ST3 without having to build a world challenge looking C5

 

I like the techy side of this hobby and it will offer some pretty fun comparisons/testing

As above, there was the cage issue as well. Yes, some bones were thrown, but a few of the dogs are just trying to bite our hands now, even though they voiced a different opinion before these changes were made.

 

hey I'm game, I'm in with a smile on my face (I may not like it all, but I said I'd smile). my only request was whatever it becomes, just don't change it next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
if this is the first step of a couple of years plan to move to ST1-7 or whatever, can we just rip the bandaid off now and get it over with?

Ken, there is no talk about that (well, at least by anyone that could make it happen). NASA agrees with your thoughts about keeping our lower power level classes with the points limitations that allow the competitor to pick their level of prep (and cost). Those classes seem to be working well on a regional basis throughout the country (with the exception or your favorite, TTF/PTF). There was a lot of talk about deleting it, but I knew that I would have to resuscitate you (or sedate you ), and we left it there for another year. Will it get deleted next year? I don't know. It will depend on the participation levels. If a class can't make it after 8 years, then it certainly should be considered for the slaughterhouse. "Making it" means (to me) that there are decent regional participation levels throughout the season in most NASA regions, and there are enough cars to make at least a five car field at the Championships (and that five car field should be a 10 car field, but that will have to wait until the country is in a real economic recovery with at least 4% annual GDP growth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

hey I'm game, I'm in with a smile on my face (I may not like it all, but I said I'd smile). my only request was whatever it becomes, just don't change it next year.

Amen, Brother!

 

But, what if we find that there is a problem with the -0.5 Mod Factor? Or, the wording turns out wrong? Should we just leave it alone for X years even if it may be harmful to the class over the long run? It would be a dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey I'm game, I'm in with a smile on my face (I may not like it all, but I said I'd smile). my only request was whatever it becomes, just don't change it next year.

Amen, Brother!

 

But, what if we find that there is a problem with the -0.5 Mod Factor? Or, the wording turns out wrong? Should we just leave it alone for X years even if it may be harmful to the class over the long run? It would be a dilemma.

 

Tweaking is one thing. deleting classes, new classes, changing power/weight by 60 hp, etc is another. Ie, ST3 going away or turning into something else yet again, or major power/weight changes, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Agreed. (Damn, I actually put that in writing. I hope it doesn't come back to bite me in a few years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

change is a constant. its just a fact of life. ive seen classes that refused to change and you end up with scca american sedan.

 

it can be done well or screwed up and often its painful to an extent either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, I think most racers and time trialers can adjust to the new classes and rules for each. For some, they will have the means to get their car prepped right away close the max for that given class. For others, it might take 2-3 years for them to catch up to the rest for whatever reasons (money, time, etc.). I would fall into the latter of those two and having a class that doesn't have yearly rule changes (aside from a few minor tweaks) would allow someone like to me mod the car and not have to backtrack on what I'm working on. I'm with Mark on that, a few minor changes would be ok since this is a major overhaul if things need to be slightly adjusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is sneak peak at our discussion 6, 8 and 12 months from now:

 

"The aero mod factor is not big enough, other than at a roval. Even if Fernando Alonso were driving and TRG prepared my non-aero car, it could never win under these rules. Change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

 

Vs.

 

"I built my car per the rules and now you want to appease the slow drivers with this huge massive enormous scary adjustment to the mod factor. I beat Fernando Alonso while we were racing karts as teenagers and spent large amounts of time and money refining my setup to max out the rules. Don't change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is sneak peak at our discussion 6, 8 and 12 months from now:

 

"The aero mod factor is not big enough, other than at a roval. Even if Fernando Alonso were driving and TRG prepared my non-aero car, it could never win under these rules. Change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

 

Vs.

 

"I built my car per the rules and now you want to appease the slow drivers with this huge massive enormous scary adjustment to the mod factor. I beat Fernando Alonso while we were racing karts as teenagers and spent large amounts of time and money refining my setup to max out the rules. Don't change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

 

PS I want to run in AI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

You know, if we just added a rule that anyone named Ben must run in TTU, it would solve a lot of the problems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if we just added a rule that anyone named Ben must run in TTU, it would solve a lot of the problems!

 

 

If you will add Mark, Scott, and Brian to that list it will solve ALL of my problems!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Making it" means (to me) that there are decent regional participation levels throughout the season in most NASA regions, and there are enough cars to make at least a five car field at the Championships (and that five car field should be a 10 car field, but that will have to wait until the country is in a real economic recovery with at least 4% annual GDP growth).

define "most regions"...?

 

and put Nationals in Austin or NOLA and you'll have your 10 cars right then & there Texas sent you one this year, but Mid-O and/or Miller is a tough sell due to it being a relatively expensive trip for someone who fields a $2-5k car...

 

(feel free to break this out into another thread if you wish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is sneak peak at our discussion 6, 8 and 12 months from now:

 

"The aero mod factor is not big enough, other than at a roval. Even if Fernando Alonso were driving and TRG prepared my non-aero car, it could never win under these rules. Change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

 

Vs.

 

"I built my car per the rules and now you want to appease the slow drivers with this huge massive enormous scary adjustment to the mod factor. I beat Fernando Alonso while we were racing karts as teenagers and spent large amounts of time and money refining my setup to max out the rules. Don't change it or else I quit. And you are all a bunch of jerks."

 

That's some funny chit right there, Ben!

 

From other posts it appears some think that every mod made to a car, be it wing, splitter, or shocks comes right out of the box sorted, and perfectly balanced. Just because someone installs a wing doesn't make it faster. Same with adjustable shocks.

 

Every mod requires time in the car on track, and it might the first part of the race season to get everything sorted out and ready. Not only that, but every track will require different setups of those items.

 

The point being, wind tunnel time and test track time (quoted as additional cost) isn't necessary (unless you're Scott Tucker) since most of us get that testing on track during a race weekend. Fine tuning these mods is evolutionary from weekend to weekend and from info gained in the paddock from competitors running like setups.

 

BTW Greg, thanks for not mod'ing ST2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Making it" means (to me) that there are decent regional participation levels throughout the season in most NASA regions, and there are enough cars to make at least a five car field at the Championships (and that five car field should be a 10 car field, but that will have to wait until the country is in a real economic recovery with at least 4% annual GDP growth).

define "most regions"...?

 

and put Nationals in Austin or NOLA and you'll have your 10 cars right then & there Texas sent you one this year, but Mid-O and/or Miller is a tough sell due to it being a relatively expensive trip for someone who fields a $2-5k car...

 

(feel free to break this out into another thread if you wish)

 

 

We should only run National Championships where the cheap race cars compete! Those guys with ST3 cars can afford to travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record for those of you questioning the "non-aero" ruling for ST3, my conversations with Greg while at Nationals may have opened us up to this. I am one of the C5Z06 guys that built their cage to the lighter weight ruleset of .095 tubing at 3000lbs and under. Why? Because ST2 was the stepping stone for PTA at the time.

 

I personally asked Greg to give that consideration when making the ST3 rules. The ST3 limit at 9.5:1 would either force me to detune to 335rwhp (not easy) and STILL run a competition weight of 3185lbs (3000lb car, 170lb me, and 15lbs of starving gas). That is a LOT of power to restrict from a bone stock engine that is already detuned to 367hp. Yes, I realize there are other mod factors for tires and such, but just go with the easy math for now.

 

So for me, I am happy that NASA is considering giving a .5 bump for no-aero. At least now I only have to drop my power to 353hp to stay under the 3000lb cage rule. That might be doable. If not, then I will be restricted to running on 275s only and can pretty much leave my power level alone (via the .4 factor for tires). I'll just never have the ability to take advantage of the extra mechanical grip of wider rubber.

 

If NASA had not given us this provision, then several of us would have been forced to go to ST2 and spend even more on the car to get competitive in that class.

 

So stop whining about why aero and why not aero for ST3. Let's define what aero is and get on with writing the rules.

 

Which, by the way, is anything that is not offered for sale by an OEM manufacturer on your generation car. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, by the way, is anything that is not offered for sale by an OEM manufacturer on your generation car. LOL!

Back on topic... I see a few scenarios to be hashed out (which is what we're supposedly doing):

 

1. Simple - Anything offered on a street-legal version of the car is OK (not aero). I.e. a Boss 302 Laguan Seca would be fine in street legal form. If the owner installs the optional splitter and/or puts a new wing on it then it's aero. Or, a Viper ACR-X... OK as street legal, but "aero" if the splitter is installed etc. Swapping parts across models is OK i.e. putting a ZR1 lip spoiler on a base C6 != aero.

 

2. Moderate - Anything not offered on the BTM version of the car is considered aero. If your 5.0 mustang has a "just for looks" wing on the back but the V6 pony doesn't, then pull it off.

 

3. Complex - Refer to Ben's post about specific items being "OK" vs. other items being "aero". I like his synopsis, but I can see that being harder on enforcement and in direct violation of the KISS principle.

 

4. Hybrid - Use the #1 "simple" definition but have specific exclusions for factory aero cars like the S2000 race car thingy, Boss Laguna Seca, Viper ACR-x etc.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aero works, whether it comes from the mfg or not, so it should be counted.

Stuff that has always been free (at least fenders) should be free to further class participation, lest we return to the "but they can fit huge tires under their stock fenders and I can't" arguments.

If you want to nix vents and flat axle-forward undertrays (previously free or at least common), fine. Nobody with an fwd turbo or awd turbo is chiming in about vents, so maybe forget it. I like the idea of them, from a safety standpoint, to help prevent wandering cars at 140mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ST3 limit at 9.5:1 would either force me to detune to 335rwhp (not easy)

 

very easy actually, or at least not really any harder than what you have now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aero does offer a distinct advantage on any track, especially long tracks. Having the aero mod on 3 AND 2 I think will help both lap times and the "spending game" that everyone fears. If you leave it open these 100k invested flat bottom monsters that there's 1 or 2 of in the country will be left to dominate while everyone else is 2-3 seconds behind. I'd go on on other point modifiers such as "super soft" DOT's need a .3 mod factor to keep that spending game in check a little but that's not the thread title

 

It's been mentioned before, tire compound STILL offers a huge advantage over aero. So why .5 for aero and none for a6's, anyone would be crazy to run aero, common sense to me. However I can't afford fresh a6's every round thus those with the budgets will always own me, yea for rules .

 

Or people just fill up STR3 and everybody's happy, Thunder's, Panoz's, Vette's can run those crazy mods, and nobody takes aero points, everybody wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aero rules for TTA-TTF are already pretty well defined and are constantly evolving to keep with the spirit of "no aero mods for free"... why not just copy those over to TT/ST3? All of the directors are already familiar with that set of aero rules, so it will make enforcement relatively easy. ("Relatively easy" meaning easier than a whole new set of rules specific to ST/TT3. )

 

My wording:

 

ST3 Only: Any aero modifications will result in a -0.5 modification factor. "Aero modifications" will be defined as anything that costs points in Section G (Aerodynamics) of the PTA-PTF rulebook. Any modification allowed in Section I (No Points Modifications) of the PTA-PTF rulebook will also be allowed in ST3 with no modification factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah... I forgot the A-F rule for hood venting is in the engine mod section. That is the one exception I could see being allowed, since this is a class that anyone can come play in and some cars will be making significantly more power than they did from the factory. Allowing hood venting for cars that need extreme cooling system modifications makes sense. Why fender venting, though? That seems a purely aerodynamic modification.

 

I was thinking the issue with "OEM" was covered by "BTM" in the A-F rules, but after thinking about it some more, "BTM" doesn't really work without the base classification system used by A-F. An Evo would have to pull the wing to be legal, but would also have to swap to regular Lancer front and rear bumpers LOL. I still think some kind of usage of the A-F aero rules makes sense for ST3, but I guess it wouldn't be as easy as I thought.

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...