Suggested 2014 changes to ST classes

[mhoward1]

So what does everything think about Torque?

Today it is free. A wise and well funded racer will build a torque monster. I've seen this in only about 25% of the cars where they have Torque far outpacing HP.

 

For reference, GTS averages Tq and HP if Tq is higher. Does that fix it? Not really, as it now focuses on tuning.

 

Now imagine a 320HP ST2 car.

320HP 310Tq peak

320HP 470Tq peak

320HP 320Tq flat

 

Hmmmm

 

 

We have played with that in cars as well, and what you loose is RPM range. If you can fit a close ration 6 to 8 speed in there, then you can play with the loss of RPM (under 5000 RPM).

[kbrew8991]

GTS can keep that philosophy. Not interested in it, not in a series where you can put in any engine just about (firewall and frame rail restrictions).

 

And you GTS guys say the ST rules are too complicated...??!!? Lets add to it! (/sarcasm)

[Grintch]

Given that HP ~ Torque X RPM, I have never seem the value of controlling Torque in addition to HP.

 

If my car makes 400 hp at 10,000 and yours makes 400 hp at 5000 rpm, yours will have a lot more torque. But I will be running much shorter gears, with more torque multiplication, so the torque I put down to the track should be similar.

 

Has anyone ever addressed why the target power to weight for ST2/STR2 is much closer to ST3/STR3 than ST1/STR1? I would like to see it moved to half way between them.

ST3 (9:1) - ST2 (8:1) - - - ST1 (5.5:1)

[mhoward1]

Throwing out an idea:

 

For the December Fun run race at Road Atlanta, have an ST only race. Any NASA Qualified car can run in the correct suggested 2014/2015 ST class. There would not be any STR classes, only ST. See how the race goes. It’s a for fun race only, so no points gained or loss.

 

Jim P?

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Has anyone ever addressed why the target power to weight for ST2/STR2 is much closer to ST3/STR3 than ST1/STR1? I would like to see it moved to half way between them.

ST3 (9:1) - ST2 (8:1) - - - ST1 (5.5:1)

IMO: In the long run most ST3 cars will be aero-equipped aka 9.5:1. If ST2 moved to 7.5:1 that would put it squarely in the middle of ST1 and ST3.

 

IMO (emphasis on OPINION) NASA could do away with one of the limited classes and have (new) ST2 at 9.5:1 w/aero and 9:1 w/o aero, then have ST1 at 6.5:1, then SU.

[Bnjmn]

Most ST2 cars are in the 8 - ~8.5 range. Moving reliably to ~6.5 is a huge step.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Most ST2 cars are in the 8 - ~8.5 range. Moving reliably to ~6.5 is a huge step.

Touché, salesman.

[Grintch]

Not nearly as huge as moving to 5.5. I was actually thinking 7.5 as the proper value for St2. If I had a 8.5 car I would be looking hard at using smallers tires and or ballast to run is ST3.

[cdbmathews]

IMO;

 

ST1 = 6.0 (change to better suite OEM V8 Performance crate motors, lowering costs)

ST2 = 8.0 (no change! well suited to stock OEM V8 power levels, LS2, LS3, LS6)

ST3 = 9.0 (no change!)

 

This kind of debate should be done mid-season and be well decided and communicated by now! Whatever is done, decide now so we have time to prepare. Not only on any new rules, but also on the National Championship race(s).

[Greg G.]

IMO;

 

ST1 = 6.0 (change to better suite OEM V8 Performance crate motors, lowering costs)

ST2 = 8.0 (no change! well suited to stock OEM V8 power levels, LS2, LS3, LS6)

ST3 = 9.0 (no change!)

 

This kind of debate should be done mid-season and be well decided and communicated by now! Whatever is done, decide now so we have time to prepare. Not only on any new rules, but also on the National Championship race(s).

Chuck,

 

I believe that the National Championship announcement will be out soon (within a week). There will be no change in ST2 or ST3 ratios. ST1 at 6.0 is under debate still.

[cdbmathews]

Chuck,

 

I believe that the National Championship announcement will be out soon (within a week). There will be no change in ST2 or ST3 ratios. ST1 at 6.0 is under debate still.

 

Thanks Greg!

[Nascarracer288]

ST1 at 6.0 is under debate still.

 

Wow, that would be great at 6.0! My wallet gives you its vote too!

[Bnjmn]

Also consider 6.25 and whatever ST0/GT2 typically yields.

5.5 is unique, which isn't great for increasing participation.

[hakeem]

Also consider 6.25 and whatever ST0/GT2 typically yields.

5.5 is unique, which isn't great for increasing participation.

 

This is a good call, as there are a lot of GT3 Cup cars running around that are classed at about 6.5:1 in SCCA GT2.

 

Of course, just need to fold GTS in as well.

[Nascarracer288]

Also consider 6.25 and whatever ST0/GT2 typically yields.

5.5 is unique, which isn't great for increasing participation.

 

This is a good call, as there are a lot of GT3 Cup cars running around that are classed at about 6.5:1 in SCCA GT2.

 

Of course, just need to fold GTS in as well.

 

6.25-6.5 would be spot on for me!

 

I would be willing to bet that there are a number of STR2 cars that could be competitive in an STR1 class at 6.25-6.5 and that would bring them out of storage.

 

Also, simply adjust the class to allow the Porsche guys to have the choice between GTS and ST, and let them decide which class to run in, but don't eliminate GTS.

[cdbmathews]

Also consider 6.25 and whatever ST0/GT2 typically yields.

5.5 is unique, which isn't great for increasing participation.

 

This is a good call, as there are a lot of GT3 Cup cars running around that are classed at about 6.5:1 in SCCA GT2.

 

Of course, just need to fold GTS in as well.

 

6.25-6.5 would be spot on for me!

 

I would be willing to bet that there are a number of STR2 cars that could be competitive in an STR1 class at 6.25-6.5 and that would bring them out of storage.

 

Also, simply adjust the class to allow the Porsche guys to have the choice between GTS and ST, and let them decide which class to run in, but don't eliminate GTS.

 

According to my calculations, SCCA GT2 is 6:1 , SCCA T1 is 7:1 and by the rules USTCC is 5.7:1 and V8 Stock car series 6:1.

 

As an example, the Viper in SCCA GT2 trim runs 560 RWHP @ #3400 (ie 6:1), with a 60mm restrictor, so it will also cross over nicely.

[J.R. Smith]

I agree with Chuck.

 

A 6.0 lb/RWHP number seems to be pretty close to a lot of other classes and will

help to keep costs down in that a 3200 lb car can have 533 RWHP or 475 RWHP if running slicks.

Also a lightweight car (RX7, Panoz, BMW, Porsche etc.) with slicks can run around 400-425 RWHP.

 

Hopefully this will help increase car count in upper ST class.

 

J.R.

[hakeem]

According to my calculations, SCCA GT2 is 6:1 , SCCA T1 is 7:1 and by the rules USTCC is 5.7:1 and V8 Stock car series 6:1.

 

As an example, the Viper in SCCA GT2 trim runs 560 RWHP @ #3400 (ie 6:1), with a 60mm restrictor, so it will also cross over nicely.

 

Perhaps it varies substantially by car? In SCCA GT2 the 997 GT3 Cup for example is classed at 2775lbs and from what I understand those engines make 370-390whp at most, which would put it closer to 7:1.

[kbrew8991]

you should probably compare ADJUSTED hp/weights, not raw

[Bnjmn]

On a tangent - are T1 and GT2 really that different? Quali times at runoffs were nearly identical, on a high hp track, but maybe I'm missing some specifics.

[jimtway]

On a tangent - are T1 and GT2 really that different? Quali times at runoffs were nearly identical, on a high hp track, but maybe I'm missing some specifics.

 

Yes, not greatly different. For the corvette line, GT2 runs about 150 lbs lighter and is allowed larger aero. Additionally, T1 has either weight or restrictor penalties if you run aero.

 

I suspect the Qual times at the runoffs were weather dependent.

[74mach]

With the fast ST2 cars almost as quick as the STR1/ST1 cars now, I feel that it would be a bad idea to bring them even closer by raising the power/weight to 6.0/1.

 

There should be a distinct gap between these classes.

 

I am also concerned about STR1 being dropped/combined with ST1, with the STR1 cars being restricted/penalized. Our Mustang is a 3400# unibody, non tube frame car that was forced into STR1 because our transmission tunnel is removable. The tunnel was not modified to allow the engine to be moved rearward, as the car was built as an American Iron car and the wiper bucket/firewall is the limiting factor.

 

We had a great time this season running with the Corvettes and Vipers, and with a little more work this winter (please decide soon if there is going to be any rule changes) we feel that we can be even more competitive.

[J.R. Smith]

Paul,

 

The reason that ST2 is almost as fast as ST1/STR1 is development time. I have worked for 5 years slowly trying to make the C5 chassis go faster. Bill, Chuck, Oli etc moved from some highly developed T1 cars to ST2.

 

I am hoping that NASA looks at their rules re: minor modifications that make no performance advantage (yours and others - exhaust etc.) so that STR1/ST1 can be combined and developed over time. 6.0 lbs to 8.0 lbs is a big spread - 533 HP vs 400 HP in a 3200 lb car.

An ST1car next season will be faster than the ST2 cars, I think.

 

J.R.

[74mach]

If the hope is to have larger fields of competitive cars then something needs to be done to help other cars be competitive with the Corvettes and Vipers, which have generally dominated the ST classes.

Although we do not mind a challenge, our 2014 Mustang has approximately 20% more frontal area than either the Corvette or Viper, which in a power to weight class is a huge dissadvantage. A mod factor based on frontal area would likely encourage other makes to compete and help grow the ST series.

A simple height times width calculation is all that would be needed.

[masitr]

If the hope is to have larger fields of competitive cars then something needs to be done to help other cars be competitive with the Corvettes and Vipers, which have generally dominated the ST classes.

Although we do not mind a challenge, our 2014 Mustang has approximately 20% more frontal area than either the Corvette or Viper, which in a power to weight class is a huge disadvantage. A mod factor based on frontal area would likely encourage other makes to compete and help grow the ST series.

A simple height times width calculation is all that would be needed.

 

I agree 100%. I have been arguing this point for years. The current rule set favors higher end sports cars, that are highly developed from the factory. Platforms that have to play catch up in aerodynamics, geometry and materials are not allowed to do so with out an additional penalty.

 

In 2012 I petitioned to change the profile of my roof line in an attempt to reduce drag. My reasoning being my platform from the factory has a .36 CD and 21.4 FA vs a C5 @ .29 CD and 20.7 FA. In the end my petition was denied and a .4 penalty was added to the rules for a roof line change and some also windshield placement verbiage was added. This seems counter intuitive to promote competition. Sub frame modulations have been given a penalty also allowing aluminum sub frame cars to have and advantage.