Suggested 2014 changes to ST classes

[Bnjmn]

cue the customary frogs and warts line.

 

Wasn't a BMW 3 series the TT3 champ this year, ahead of one of those other cars, on a pretty fast track?

And for pete's sake, a Honda Civic almost won TTS the year before.

[hakeem]

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.

 

I understand the logic here, but where does it end? Do we need equalizers for torque? My engine makes about half the torque of a V8 at the same power level, should I have a points advantage ala GTS?

[kbrew8991]

GTS restricts what sorts of engine(s) you can swap to.

ST does not.

 

If you want torque, drop the Wankel and put in an LS. Done. Or run the rotary and enjoy the credit you ALREADY HAVE in the hp/weight math.

[hakeem]

GTS restricts what sorts of engine(s) you can swap to.

ST does not.

 

If you want torque, drop the Wankel and put in an LS. Done. Or run the rotary and enjoy the credit you ALREADY HAVE in the hp/weight math.

 

Only 2 rotor engines get the credit I am not looking for any additional benefit, just playing devils advocate on the potential for additional complexity to the rules.

[Vettedoctor]

Body mods are free if you want to put a different front end on the Mustang you are free to do so.

Something like the Caddy's do in World Challenge should do the trick.

We can't have mod factors for everything, you picked the car and you picked the class (frog - warts) - cars are going to continue to be developed and you just have to build it better than the next guy. Dean seemed to do pretty well in ST in his Mustang.

ST isn't perfect but it sure isn't that bad - I've seen Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs, Lotus (or would it be Loti?), Aston Martins, P-cars, Evo's and STi's that have all run pretty well within the ST rule set.

[UKRBMW]

This is kind of a funny conversation.

 

"We need more participants - racing against 1 or 2 people is no fun"

 

"Ok - let's open up the rule set so we can attract more people"

 

"Oh, hold on there. We don't want something crazy to be built. Let's do as little as possible and see what changes"

 

Everybody needs to make a decision - either you want to open the rules and let people get creative and have more competition or keep everything the same and continue to race with 2-3 cars in class. A big part of success in GTS is the open rule set - every year rules are proposed and GTS national stands firm and keeps everything mostly the same.

 

Combine ST and STR, get rid of exhaust, roof line, fire wall, whatever modifiers. Keep the weight, tire, etc. And let it run for a couple of seasons. Otherwise, I'm sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[erioshi]

Personally, I think what needs to happen is a long hard review of all existing race results and car data with an eye towards statistical analysis. I keep seeing arguments for changes and non-changes based on very little hard information, and quite a bit of supposition. Also, over the last few years ST seems to have started to creeping more towards the PT penalty points system. Honestly the whole mess has me off to where I'm *not* currently building an ST car, and goofing off with events like chump-car. So my existing ST build .. sorry partially built project race-car .. sits in the garage awaiting its ultimate fate. At this point I may restore it and return it to street use; it makes more sense than trying to build an ST car out of it under the current rules. So sure; frog, warts, etc., but probably not mine. At least not any time soon.

 

I am some who really wants to race in ST, but finds the current rule set hostile to my participation. That said, I do feel compelled to add my perspective. I'm going to ignore specific rules ideas, and instead talk about what I think may be some of the underlying problems that have taken the rules to where they are now. Since this thread is full of suppositions, here are mine:

 

From the outside, unfortunately the STR, ST1, ST2 and ST3 classes seem to fall into perfect storm of NASA conflict-of-interests. The first problem is car count issues, the second problem is a conflict over what to do with high powered, high performance OEM cars that seem to break the PT rule set, the third problem seems to be a struggle over how to slice and dice the limits of innovation and modification in the ST & STR classes, and the fourth problem seems to be unfriendliness of the ST & STR rule sets to low weight and low displacement cars. This convergence becomes a real mess when all four of those groups each have two factions pushing their opposing views on every aspect of this mix, and pulling on any available argument to support their point of view. It gets even more confusing when you consider that not everyone falls into each of the same sub-groups across these four divisions. In that light, the whole situation seems to be full of contradictions and people looking to carve the rules to fit exactly their tiny faction. And unless the whole mess is carefully unwrapped and sorted, I suspect there may well be more even conflict building for the future.

 

The first problem is an economic one. The economy can be considered a contributing factor, but it probably shouldn't be looked at as an overriding condition. Basically, there is plenty of economic data showing much of the customer base that can afford to be racing was less affected than a typical household. The more likely issue is supply and demand which can also be viewed as problem with the perception of customer value. That could have roots in a number of areas, but it is likely that the costs of participation, lack of existing competition, and the perception of an unfavorable rule set are likely all barriers to the entry of new participants. Fix the economics and car counts will improve.

 

The second and third problems are closely related, but not exactly the same problem. The second problem is one that has been brewing within NASA for many years, and finally seems to have reached a breaking point. High powered, highly tuned OEM cars now have no good place to play within NASA unless the owner wants to turn them into an ST car. From a long-term point of view, I think rolling these cars into ST was short-sighted. There will always be owners who would like to race (or TT) their almost OEM supercar in a setting where the modifications are limited. Such classes have the potential to offer long term economics that are more favorable than a pure ST class. In that respect I think the PTA classing should have been maintained and also extended upwards with further PT classing as needed. The ST rules are already struggling with this issue .. points for aero in ST3 are a great example; an ST3 only points mod to balance OEM vs race car aero modifications. To me, separating the highly modified race cars from the near OEM ones seems to make sense; you get to race with cars that are closer in character to yours than "those other guys". And the Ferrari guy will never loose "in class" to a tube framed Miata.

 

The third problem seems to be an ideological clash between the idea of wanting to run lightly modified cars in ST and penalizing innovation and hard work (buy the right car to win - wait, isn't that PT?), running a more open set of rules that allows for "limited" modification (start with one of the right cars and then mod the heck out of it - that sounds like current NASA ST), and a really open set of rules that allows all kinds of modifications (like the "touring cars" everywhere else - crazy modifications and cubic dollars). This is essentially a problem of identity within the ST rules set. ST & STR are the most wide open class structure NASA has, but by continuously shrinking the innovation space, NASA eliminates the ability for a car owner to build past the warts on their frog. And currently, the rules changes seem to be backing even further away from giving car builders the ability fix their frog's own frogs. Yet right now, Super Touring is the only real space for "builders" within the NASA class structure. Limiting innovation here inherently shrinks the potential of these classes. While there does need to be some limitation and balancing, I'd argue that the current system is already too restrictive, and it's already chasing away potential customers. I know it has chased me off.

 

The fourth problem is both one of perception, and one of economics. Smaller, lighter cars are generally less expensive to race than a comparable heavier, more powerful car with the same levels of performance. Currently NASA ST and STR penalizes these cars through the weight points system, and then hits them a second time by not considering torque when factoring all of the available energy available to propel a car forward. We can argue gearing, final drives, etc. all day long, but at the heart of the matter is that small cars have small engines, and small engines typically typically have fewer cylinders and make much less torque (and have much lower total available power) than low-revving, large V8s. Turbos and superchargers can help, but in most cases fail to completely close the gap. I understand that NASA isn't particularity interested in having ST & STR taken over by sports races. That could be addressed separately as a sport-racer specific issue.

 

Please don't take this as a gloom & doom post, I like NASA and have had quite a bit fun at the events. I'm just trying to view the current ST/STR situation with an eye towards long-term problem-solving.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Guest

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Combine ST and STR, get rid of exhaust, roof line, fire wall, whatever modifiers. Keep the weight, tire, etc. And let it run for a couple of seasons. Otherwise, I'm sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.

This.

 

And fold in AI/GTS! *runs and hides*

[masitr]

cue the customary frogs and warts line.

 

Wasn't a BMW 3 series the TT3 champ this year, ahead of one of those other cars, on a pretty fast track?

And for pete's sake, a Honda Civic almost won TTS the year before.

 

For pete's sake it only took 5 years to develop a civic to compete with the corvettes only to be DQ'd by 1 hp thanks to inconsistent dyno operation, but that's a different problem all together. I'd like to think the oil and water temps added to the 2013 dyno cert form are due to that day. Having a civic that close to the top must have been a major problem as rule changes for 2013 wrote out the competitiveness of my build.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Guest

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Psst.....a Civic almost won TTS at Miller in 2009. Tage was leading after Saturday only to go from 1st to 3rd on Sunday.

 

This was also the first year that TT had Sunday sessions...

[LJ32]

Combining STR won’t up car count in Central region tho it’s a GO from me… there is only 1 STR car in the central region. To get to contingency levels regionally it would take combining GTS and AI. The reason that won’t happen and the way it was explained to me was that, its not entirely nasa’s decision. (which is BS to me) but the GTS and AI cars get support from their manufactures. Stated that If we were to combine, manufacture support would drop out (then more racers would drop out) when I heard that I was a bit pissed. Letting sponsorship control the association type ordeal. Ill put it straight for the ppl that don’t want a merge for car counts and were brought up on “everyone is a winner,” NUT UP! This aint the little league….

 

The way I see it is the people that race cars and crazy enough to invest the cash are the type that will do whatever to win so bring on the competition because it will feel that much better when I wax you!

 

+1 for STR,ST,AI,GTS Merge!

Im tired of bringn home glasses and coffee mugs.. I WANT TIRES!!! lol

[HAL-9000]

The fourth problem is both one of perception, and one of economics. Smaller, lighter cars are generally less expensive to race than a comparable heavier, more powerful car with the same levels of performance. Currently NASA ST and STR penalizes these cars through the weight points system, and then hits them a second time by not considering torque when factoring all of the available energy available to propel a car forward.

 

I can recognize this problem from racing a light weight low torque Hayabusa powered STR class car. As rewarding as the handling was the fun factor was ruined by having no one else in class to compete with.

 

The outcome? There was no real point in racing it or developing it further, so I sold it.

 

Section 4 in the ST rule book says:

"...

NASA ST/SU provides a venue for spirited on-track competition in high performance racecars of all makes, models, and types. Several key factors are considered in classing vehicles, using an “Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio” as the ultimate equalizer between vehicles.

..."

 

What attracted me to NASA and ST/SU at first was that there was finally a place to race that appeared to embrace innovation and choice of car, and sure everyone are welcome - except those who:

- have a tube frame car (they get separated into isolation)

- have a light weight car (they get up to additional 0.9 subtracted from the so called "ultimate equalizer" principle)

- have a small engine with low torque numbers

 

Everyone wants to bring up numbers attending ST/SU, so given that light weight cars are more affordable to run all season - (my hoosier budget = one set/year and we are talking 8-9 race weekends/year) why are the current rules so hostile to car choices with tube frame, light weight and/or small engine size?

 

Any or all of those combinations could help bring more people into racing ST.

Right now the nice and simple Vintage Outlaw class is more appealing to me and I might just prepare my next car for that instead of ST.

 

But I will keep my hopes up so my vote is for:

- Merging ST/STR into one class with a common rule set

- Eliminate any modifications or special formulas to the competition weight (scale numbers and noting else)

- Move the focus of the "ultimate equalizer" principle purely towards the power side of the equation

 

I am sure there is a way to better factor in the relation between torque, HP and engine size in a way that could make ST more friendly to all types of cars (like intended).

 

My $0.02

[D_Eclipse9916]

Combining STR won’t up car count in Central region tho it’s a GO from me… there is only 1 STR car in the central region. To get to contingency levels regionally it would take combining GTS and AI. The reason that won’t happen and the way it was explained to me was that, its not entirely nasa’s decision. (which is BS to me) but the GTS and AI cars get support from their manufactures. Stated that If we were to combine, manufacture support would drop out (then more racers would drop out) when I heard that I was a bit pissed. Letting sponsorship control the association type ordeal. Ill put it straight for the ppl that don’t want a merge for car counts and were brought up on “everyone is a winner,” NUT UP! This aint the little league….

 

The way I see it is the people that race cars and crazy enough to invest the cash are the type that will do whatever to win so bring on the competition because it will feel that much better when I wax you!

 

+1 for STR,ST,AI,GTS Merge!

Im tired of bringn home glasses and coffee mugs.. I WANT TIRES!!! lol

 

GTS has no manufacturer support...unsure where you are getting your information from. AI has Ford Contingency, no GM contingency I am aware of.

 

It is the people in GTS and AI that do not want ST. You have to convince those people. Heck we (GTS) just had a vote and they all voted to continue the ban on non-german car manufacturer engines. Good luck getting them to include non-german cars themselves.

 

Let's see, ST/STR is fumbling hard. GTS is doing alright. You combine ST/STR with GTS. The GTS people leave. You are right back to where you started with a different name, and now NASA has lost customers. GTS cars can run ST/STR the way they are, but choose not to because they like the sandbox they are in. I think combining classes is for the good, but you have to convince them when you are "offering more cake, when they already have enough cake".

[LJ32]

GTS has no manufacturer support...unsure where you are getting your information from. AI has Ford Contingency, no GM contingency I am aware of.

 

2 AI racers with mustangs, GTS was just an assumption… because what other reason would you separate German cars out in their own class other than some sort of contingency support.

 

but I hear you, this leaves me scratching my head man. other that AI getting ford rewards, I have yet to hear a good reason why GTS is on its own....

[mhoward1]

GTS has no manufacturer support...unsure where you are getting your information from. AI has Ford Contingency, no GM contingency I am aware of.

 

2 AI racers with mustangs, GTS was just an assumption… because what other reason would you separate German cars out in their own class other than some sort of contingency support.

 

but I hear you, this leaves me scratching my head man. other that AI getting ford rewards, I have yet to hear a good reason why GTS is on its own....

 

 

best one I have heard so far:

 

We don't want to run with american built crap

 

Yes, I actually heard that as the reason for GTS.

 

Same reason they voted to only allow German engines

[kbrew8991]

PCA

BMWCCA

13 - 13 Contact rules

 

case closed - if they had never had their own place to start with we might not have as many but we'd see BMW Porsche and Vette all duke it out cleanly and quickly each weekend with ST1, 2, or 3 on the side.

 

Tough call.

[D_Eclipse9916]

PCA

BMWCCA

13 - 13 Contact rules

 

case closed - if they had never had their own place to start with we might not have as many but we'd see BMW Porsche and Vette all duke it out cleanly and quickly each weekend with ST1, 2, or 3 on the side.

 

Tough call.

 

 

I love when people suggest organizations try to kill successful classes in the "hope" to fix struggling classes.

 

I am not against it, but you guys are doing it all wrong. I campaigned for PTC a long time in my region, but ended up giving in and going where the numbers are. I would love to see a "gts2" (open class to all manufacturers), but in talks with a lot of my fellow gts drivers, they just don't want that. Many would go PCA/BMWCCA if GTS was combined with ST, and we arent talking 1-2, we are talking 50-80% of the field leaving.

[Cobra4B]

Erurosnobs scurred of big 'Merican muscle

 

 

 

[Lemming]

- Eliminate any modifications or special formulas to the competition weight (scale numbers and noting else)

 

Agree with this completely.

[Greg G.]

- Eliminate any modifications or special formulas to the competition weight (scale numbers and noting else)

 

Agree with this completely.

Then, also eliminate any modifications for (lighter weight) cars running on smaller width tires, right?

[mrc24x]

And I'd like an RPM limit.....

 

I have to chuckle when I hear guys talk about only having 260 ft/lbs of torque and then I find out it's at 7000 rpm.

 

I'll trade my 400 tq at 4300 for the 260 tq at 7000 any day of the week. Which one has more POWER.....Hmmm

[UKRBMW]

Then, also eliminate any modifications for (lighter weight) cars running on smaller width tires, right?

 

Greg - sure, we can live with that. You've got GTS3 cars running 275-285s with 11:1 while Corvettes are trying to run 245-275 to gain a little more power at 8:1 - how does that make sense? I don't think that would a huge blow if the weight penalty is gone.

[hakeem]

Many would go PCA/BMWCCA if GTS was combined with ST, and we arent talking 1-2, we are talking 50-80% of the field leaving.

 

Why is this? I don't understand the appeal of racing with German-only cars. Is it really the 13/13 rule?

[Bnjmn]

My guess is that people like to know where they stand against established benchmarks and other existing competitors.

If the BMWCCA and PCA rules are similar to the GTS rules - then you can also participate in a larger number of events.

With such a wide and established base (vs say, TTA), it would be quite difficult to convince everyone to walk away from the accumulated knowledge, track records etc. and in addition, to shell out additional money and development time to compete with factory designed super cars that can be had on the used market for <<$10k.

[Biggie]

Many would go PCA/BMWCCA if GTS was combined with ST, and we arent talking 1-2, we are talking 50-80% of the field leaving.

 

Why is this? I don't understand the appeal of racing with German-only cars. Is it really the 13/13 rule?

 

For the most part the GTS 13/13 rule is pointless. Most NASA regions combine race groups by speed potential, this puts GTS in the same run group as ST and AI. Only the GTS cars are covered by the 13/13 rules, everyone else racing on track with them are not. Even at Nationals the GTS, ST and AI cars were all lumped together in the same practice sessions. And everyone knows that if two cars (even in different classes) with similar lap times are running in the same group they will eventually start racing each other.

 

The GTS guys use the 13/13 rule to keep their classes exclusive to "German Cars"... If NASA dropped the "German" out of GST and allowed Japanese and American cars into in the class, the GTS drivers would probably just stop racing with NASA altogether. GTS is far less about competition and actual racing than it is about stroking egos, being elitists and getting a coveted $5 plastic trophy for being the only driver in your class.