Jump to content
J.R. Smith

Suggested 2014 changes to ST classes

Recommended Posts

J.R. Smith

Combine STR and ST into one group.

This eliminates 2 classes and increases car count for group (ST1, ST2, ST3).

Slight modification for tube framed cars. 0.2 ?

 

Forget the argument that someone will build a special tube framed car for class.

It hasn't been done yet.

 

It will increase participation, especially from lower HP trucks and NASCAR cars (those with crate engines)

and hopefully some of the higher HP (CUP engined cars) will also participate. Get the Mazdas back?.

These are somewhat cost effective vehicles, as much as a race car is cost effective, that are prevented from racing (i.e. STR2 cars - no such class).

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nascarracer288

JR,

I totally agree. Car counts both regionally and at the Nationals are low and something needs to be done to address this.

 

At the Nationals this past month, there were three cars in the ST1 finals, and three cars in STR1 in our finals. That is hardly worth the effort to compete. Had the classes been combined, there would have been at least six cars, maybe more if the incentive was there for others to sign up.

 

Plus, how many STR2 cars were sitting on the sidelines this year who could have competed had they been allowed to run in ST2 not only at the regional level but at the National level as well?

 

I have heard that the argument is that a tube-framed car could "Potentially" be built better than a production-based car. When someone builds that type of car, then assess a point penalty on something that NASA feels is an advantage over what is currently the dominant cars in the ST classes; the Corvettes and the Vipers.

 

Currently, I run an STR1 ex-Nascar with a solid axle rear suspension and 70's-era front suspension geometry. If someone can tell me how that style of car is an advantage over a ST1 Corvette or a Viper with more a modern suspension geometry and drivetrain, I'd like to hear it.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

+1, maybe.

 

In the scenario that you are suggesting, would frame and floor mods be unlimited for ST2 cars (i.e., would the current ST2 rules now use the STR2 rules)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J.R. Smith

By Bnjmn

+1, maybe.

 

In the scenario that you are suggesting, would frame and floor mods be unlimited for ST2 cars (i.e., would the current ST2 rules now use the STR2 rules)?

 

I think the specifics need to be worked out, whether a mod factor, depending on modification, or a general easy factor to all tube framed, independent rear cars or framed with certain modifications. The simpler, the better. There is not going to be a rule that pleases everyone but I think the goal should be to try to be inclusive and increase car count.

With the elimination of STR2 we lost a lot of cars (Panoz, Mazda's, others?) and also some ST1 and ST2 framed cars with minor frame holes for brake cooling, increased radiator cooling, and yes, exhaust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

I think it could work if there was a slight mod factor for true STR2 or frame/floor modded ST cars - something like .25-.5. Maybe a sliding scale - .25 for a mod'd frame rail/floor car (that would otherwise be an STR2 car) and .4 - .5 for a tube car.

If both classes were overflowing it would be one thing, but I this it is hard, at this point, to justify separate classes for such similar cars (at least in terms of performance capability).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nascarracer288

I think the bottom line for combining the two classes is to get the car count up. You will never be able to equalize all the various types of cars with all the mods that are allowable to a basic production car, so let's simply start off by getting the classes combined and go from there. If one car or mod is clearly dominant, then we'll address that problem at that point, but let's get the cars out on the track first and foremost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
americanmusl

J.R.

Don't know if you remember me but I was in the Red wht truck at 2010 NASA Nats and Chuckwalla when I met you.

Great thing about NASA is the Flexibility with HP/wht formula. I have tried the other venue SCCA and just to persnickety for amateur hobby.

 

I concur with JR wholeheartedly. To keep the masses coming, reachable contingencies and good wheel to wheel competition we need car counts. Fold STR into ST, keep the rules or delete to form a baseline. Then, if it is felt after test period their are certain advantages as result, we can adapt the rules as needed but lets get the car counts first. Its great fun to run with a variety of makes....one exception those LM wannabees's like the ELAN, NORMA, Radical ect. Forget the 3000 lbs of downforce closed or open wheel, just too dangerous with vision and weight difference(O.K. side rant done!)...technology and innovative production. I personally look it as a challenge to see how I can attempt to outbrake an ABS corvette or 997 Porsche or how my mechanical grip compares to their Aero. As of yet, tube frame cars show no apparent advantage over unibody type vehicles in race group. TT's another story. So lets keep the formula simple and get the car counts up before we knoose the sh#t out of this class with great potential!

 

Giddy-Yup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B

I agree 10,000%.... been preaching this since they started shoving cars like the Panoz off into STR. I've always said they're planning for a problem that doesn't exist (class killer tube framed car) while exacerbating one that is very real (low car counts). Racing classes need momentum (pardon the pun). People don't want to work or spend money when there's no competition. Get the car counts back up and fence sitters will get off the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

Why stop with STR, fold all GTS and AI-related classes into ST as well. Five ST classes for everyone. It would make for GREAT racing.

 

 

Wait for it.... Wait for it.......

 

The Mustang, BMW, and Porsche racers will be in here..... Now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B

Lets win the battle for combining STR/ST and then start the fight to combine AI and GTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

If you start combining rule sets then it gets messy, especially if you have a test period. Opening up frame and floor mods would result in costly mods that would be tough to unwind if you don't like the mod factors (if any) that result from a test period.

I'm all for combining classes, but would really like to keep the rules stable, so I'm in favor maintaining the existing rule sets, combining the ST and STR classes and using a mod factor (as Brian has mentioned in the past).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nascarracer288

You will NEVER be able to have a level playing field no matter how many restrictions and points reductions you impose because there are too many other variables that cannot be controlled by NASA even if the cars were perfectly even. Just set the HP/WT ratio at 5.5 with a couple of simple mod deductions and be done with it.

 

Just put all the classes together and let's go race! I would rather place 6th in a 10-car ST field than place 2nd in a 3-car STR field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jason
Combine STR and ST into one group.

This eliminates 2 classes and increases car count for group (ST1, ST2, ST3).

Slight modification for tube framed cars. 0.2 ?

 

Forget the argument that someone will build a special tube framed car for class.

It hasn't been done yet.

 

It will increase participation, especially from lower HP trucks and NASCAR cars (those with crate engines)

and hopefully some of the higher HP (CUP engined cars) will also participate. Get the Mazdas back?.

These are somewhat cost effective vehicles, as much as a race car is cost effective, that are prevented from racing (i.e. STR2 cars - no such class).

 

Thoughts?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maynor

I'm in for bigger car counts. It's pretty much been two or three (rare) ST1 cars this entire year. The power/weight spread will be rather large combining STR and ST1 but I want the competition more than anything.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Please - let's all post our support for this. Unfortunately history points to the fact that nothing will change, but at least people will know where the actual racers and participants stand on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE

As a PT racer who loves watching ST/GTS4/GTS5 (aka fast cars) races I really hope NASA does away with STR. It makes ZERO sense.

 

Locally, we have a few STR racers that don't even bother showing up anymore and race with another org. Reason? They're tired of only racing each other with NASA when with the other org they race each other and about 5-8 other cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balroks

I'm down for car counts, but I can't ignore the other big pictures. I'm restating the obvious but here goes. From the GTS/AI perspective those guys are mostly people who don't like SCCA either but want to race against their own, well because they're like that. NASA from the get go was a "run what you brung" where any car technically has a class. BASED on that philosophy they are doing things right, so whats the point to change what got them started, so there's that. For the "touring" classes i'd even suggest 3 base classes, Performance, Grand, then Super touring but there's no way to do that in 1 year's rule changes. For today I'd even go as far as suggesting there's no reason for 4 ST classes, and certainly no use for STR as suggested. Make it 2 ST classes closer to that of PT aka ST3 and 2's PTWR but call them 2 and 1, then U for everything else.

 

However the real problem with our class is the scrutinize-ability. Basing things on PTW is easy, but checking the power part is and will always be too cumbersome and expensive for an org like ours, especially at the regional level. If they haven't got a GPS rule in place after 3 years it isn't happening because it doesn't work well enough to say "proven your a cheater." Yes you can get technical and prove it works, but really, look at your directors. They volunteer their time, spend their money most of the time just to get there and stay, work their ass off doing what they're doing and putting up with us, they'll cry wolf because they all want to do LESS not more, not think but see and just react. Spec Miata is as successful as it is because it has such little room for error and everything is verifiable without the org spending money to verify.

 

If you DO combine everyone, there will be a class killer, if you look back to the beginning there always was but we tend to forget. Not a "tube frame killer" mind you, but someone who literally outspent everyone else by a significant margin, and people cry wolf.

 

1. Get rid of STR

2. Git rid of ST1 (history shows slowing things down makes things more competitive as a DRIVER). All of those move into U.

3. Get in really well with a particular tire vendor and make a spec tire choice. Not on specific size but on size range and on brand and compound. Everyone knows the wider you go the slower you go in the straights so it'll balance. This way we don't spend a zillion dollars testing different compounds that come out every year and a zillion wasted sessions figuring out what someone else knows. Walla - tire contingency cleared up, which leaves room for all the others that keeping getting shadowed by tires.

4. Make aero OTHER THEN the wing rules you have today, front air dam sticking out past x inches, and rear diffuser sticking out past x inches, and fenders ILLEGAL.

 

That'll give you what you're asking for, car counts and close racing, but will do damage to the creative types who don't like being restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Matt - I think you're a bit off the mark here. If you have an open class there will always be somebody outspending somebody. If you're against that - there are several Spec classes out there better suited, although one would argue spending there is just as intense. There is no need to add or delete classes, just combine ST and STR, plus get rid of some of the silly modifiers - roof line, side exhaust, etc. Let people get creative and see what happens.

 

As far as an overdog - there has always been one: Corvette. Not some magical tube frame car that nobody has seen or anything else, just the Vette. Look at most of the entries and tell me the ratio of Corvette to non-Corvette. How about National Champions from the past few years? Mainly I would say it's due to development - those guys keep trying new things and figure out how to go really fast. Most of them are also very good drivers. Starting with a great platform doesn't hurt either - under car aero, engine behind front wheels, very good weigh distribution, etc.

 

I will give NASA a high FIVE for ST3/TT3 as it brought new competition in.

 

So, yes, please. Combine the classes and get rid of the silly modifiers for an open class and let us have one year to see what happens. Maybe we are all wrong and not a single new car shows up. Or maybe, just maybe, NASA sees some more participation and makes more money. In the end - they are a business and should be looking for ways to make more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B

Baby steps...

 

1. Roll STR back into ST with a modifier like it used to be.

 

2. Ditch the modifiers for side exhaust and floor pans etc.

 

3. Announce 2014 Nationals at VIR or Road Atlanta

 

Watch the car counts go up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
Baby steps...

 

1. Roll STR back into ST with a modifier like it used to be.

 

2. Ditch the modifiers for side exhaust, floor pans, etc.

 

3. Announce 2014 Nationals at VIR or Road Atlanta

 

4. Watch the car counts go up!

 

5. ???

 

6. PROFIT.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Falcon
Baby steps...

 

1. Roll STR back into ST with a modifier like it used to be.

 

2. Ditch the modifiers for side exhaust and floor pans etc. ** and allow frame notches for radiator fill necks

 

3. Announce 2014 Nationals at VIR or Road Atlanta

 

Watch the car counts go up!

 

** Added!!!

 

I agree with Brian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balroks
Matt - I think you're a bit off the mark here. If you have an open class there will always be somebody outspending somebody. If you're against that - there are several Spec classes out there better suited, although one would argue spending there is just as intense. There is no need to add or delete classes, just combine ST and STR, plus get rid of some of the silly modifiers - roof line, side exhaust, etc. Let people get creative and see what happens.

 

As far as an overdog - there has always been one: Corvette. Not some magical tube frame car that nobody has seen or anything else, just the Vette. Look at most of the entries and tell me the ratio of Corvette to non-Corvette. How about National Champions from the past few years? Mainly I would say it's due to development - those guys keep trying new things and figure out how to go really fast. Most of them are also very good drivers. Starting with a great platform doesn't hurt either - under car aero, engine behind front wheels, very good weigh distribution, etc.

 

I will give NASA a high FIVE for ST3/TT3 as it brought new competition in.

 

So, yes, please. Combine the classes and get rid of the silly modifiers for an open class and let us have one year to see what happens. Maybe we are all wrong and not a single new car shows up. Or maybe, just maybe, NASA sees some more participation and makes more money. In the end - they are a business and should be looking for ways to make more money.

 

Not saying i'm against open classes, obviously I run one. But if what National is saying the complaint is that someone will build the "tube class killer" and all they want to do is avoid that then we need to come up with a creative way to prevent it before they agree with you is all. Simply stating it hasn't been done yet obviously isn't enough or they wouldn't have gone through the effort of separating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spruill242

Why not keep aero to a minimum on tube frame cars? As I see it with the true open classes STU, AIX etc. you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight. However if the power to weight formula is kept and you keep aero to a minimum for tube framed cars I don't see why that wouldn't work. An ex-Nationwide car would have a devil of a time keeping up with a full prepped vette in ST2 if the power is the same.... On paper at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B

Gets too complex to start limiting aero for certain cars. A fully prepped C5 Corvette can run with a tube chassis cup car all day long no issue. It's this mystical custom tube chassis car that they're planning against. Or maybe somebody buying a ex Rolex or ALMS vette and stuffing a stock LS6 in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
Or maybe somebody buying a ex Rolex or ALMS vette and stuffing a stock LS6 in it?

This. It's always about keeping the Corvette down.

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...