Corvette Dream Car Thread

[ILIKETODRIVE]

The other answer is Spec classes. That is the reason they exist. I still think a Spec C5 would work as well.

or just limited modification classes, like PT... oh, wait!

But too many people get confused by basic adding and subtracting!

[drivinhardz06]

I still think a Spec C5 would work as well.

 

$25,000 B&B engines with 5 more hp in spec classes are stupid, and I think the ST format is awesome (lots of innovation) but I do think it's shame that what is probably the best bang for the buck sports car on the used market in the world has not place to run in stock/near stock form.

 

Ie, folks looking to run 95% of ST3/TT3 lap time speed for not much more than SpecE30 and Me-otter classes (I would argue cheaper than SpecZ)

[braknl8]

but I do think it's shame that what is probably the best bang for the buck sports car on the used market in the world has no place to run in stock/near stock form.

 

Ie, folks looking to run 95% of ST3/TT3 lap time speed for not much more than SpecE30 and Me-otter classes (I would argue cheaper than SpecZ)

 

 

^ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And it usually goes w/ out response as it can't be successfully argued otherwise.

[Ryan F.]

While not a "corvette", lets put a Vette body on this STR car

 

http://www.v8stockcar.com/documents/HoweTA20811.pdf

 

and let it run in ST straight across without any other restrictions equally against a current ST Corvette.

 

Is it totally fair or would it require the current crop of ST Vette owners to start modifying their cars to obtain any inherent advantages?

 

The entire point is that if you let the STR cars in without any or with minimal mod factors, does that entice all the current ST cars to start modifying with STR allowances (Time & Money)? In the most basic terms if you drop the minimum weight requirement on any car is it realistic for the owner to stay at a higher weight and respond "I am good" or look for things to decrease the weight of the car. If we are honest I believe we all know the answer.

[jimtway]

The 1:58 lap the Pfadt/VP Fuels set down was much debated at Nationals. It ran that time only once all weekend, during Thursday qual. It never ran faster than 2:01 the rest of the weekend. 2:01 was the pace of the rest of the ST2 field. I also heard that they were put on the dyno after that 1:58 and had issues getting a good dyno run, either the dyno was having issues or the car was.

 

Either way, the Pfadt car was beautiful and the design put into the car was amazing. Aside from the inner fender legality, the rest of the car is a good example of a fully optimized ST2 car, a car built to the extent of the ST2 rule set. I'm not concerned about this car, we can all build the same car with our production chassis.

 

I would be concerned if we get stomped by a DP corvette (unlikely to show up). Or more likely, if Jon Van Caneghem in his Super Unlimited Elan car decides to ballast and restrict into STR1 or STR2. Or if a Radical with gobs of downforce and little to no drag classes into STR3. You'll be begging for a modification factor then.

[mhoward1]

While not a "corvette", lets put a Vette body on this STR car

 

http://www.v8stockcar.com/documents/HoweTA20811.pdf

 

and let it run in ST straight across without any other restrictions equally against a current ST Corvette.

 

Is it totally fair or would it require the current crop of ST Vette owners to start modifying their cars to obtain any inherent advantages?

 

The entire point is that if you let the STR cars in without any or with minimal mod factors, does that entice all the current ST cars to start modifying with STR allowances (Time & Money)? In the most basic terms if you drop the minimum weight requirement on any car is it realistic for the owner to stay at a higher weight and respond "I am good" or look for things to decrease the weight of the car. If we are honest I believe we all know the answer.

 

 

Well, as that car stands with the 525 trim it would run in STU, so good luck with that.

 

Or they could add 300+ lbs of ballast to it to run ST1. I think a ST1 Corvette would do just fine in that case.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

http://www.v8stockcar.com/documents/HoweTA20811.pdf

Well, as that car stands with the 525 trim it would run in STU, so good luck with that.

 

Or they could add 300+ lbs of ballast to it to run ST1. I think a ST1 Corvette would do just fine in that case.

Or it could run in 475 trim at whatever weight between 2600-2880 (depending on actual rear whp) and be in ST1 no problem.

[J.R. Smith]

Posted by Cobra4B

Tube frame and partial tube frame conversion (with complete optimization of suspension geometry, balance, weight, engine location, ride height)

C5/C6/C7 platform already has very good geometry/balance/layout. No real need to do a tube frame conversion. Plus, this is grassroots racing. There are only so many people with the time/money/now how to throw huge dollars at plastic trophies. Those with that kind of money usually blow through grass roots and go on to buying a pro ride in short order.

 

Removal of the entire floor, and raising the new floor

No benefit on a Corvette. Already has a composite flat-bottom. People just want to convert to metal for safety reasons; floor penetration.

 

Modifications to the transmission tunnel to move the engine back

Not much to be gained here on a Corvette. The engine is already behind the front wheel centerline. It's technically a front-mid engine.

 

Tubbing of fender wells

Again not a huge benefit on a Corvette. I can already run 315s square with no modifications.

 

Exhaust through the rocker panels/floor, etc. to lower ride height

Corvette exhaust is already tucked up in the center tunnel. Running the exhaust through the rocker requires building a higher false floor in the passenger compartment. It's done to remove weight more than anything. It doesn't allow you to go any lower.

 

Raking of the windshield and/or removal with closure of open cockpit, alteration of the roof line.

If someone wants to go to that level fine by me... all of the racecar parts made for the Corvette platform are based on the OEM configuration/shape. If someone wants to start modling/baking their own body panels then have at it.

 

Most of the stuff you've listed serves to help inferior cars mod up to the characteristics the Corvette chassis already has.

 

End of the day job #1 should be to increase car counts.

 

_________________

2001 Quicksilver Z06 #4 - TT3/ST3

 

I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE

 

Re: The PFADT car

I am not concerned about the "PFADT car" in ST2. It is very well developed car driven by a very good race car driver.

I believe the fastest time Ian did in the Nationals race is approx. 2.02. He did the 1.58.7 in perfect early morning conditions but could not duplicate it in race conditions. i.e. A6's vs. R6's and race was later in day.

I believe if we had decided to run DOT's and the Goodyear AC's rather than slicks on the Miller track we could have done approx 1.59.8 but I do not think we could have done consistent race laps for 45 min at 2.01 to 2.02 (which we did).

If you looked at the aero development on Bill's, Chuck's and our car I believe there is approx. another second there without major cost (i.e diffuser etc.) You also had a pretty fast Aston Martin and a Lotus (which will be very quick on a tighter course).

 

J.R.

Team Smith-Burke Racing

[UKRBMW]

Howe TA2 cars all got beat by a standard C6 at SCCA runoffs, so they are not quiet the dominant car a lot of folks believe they are. Actually, look at the Runoffs this year - Corvette beat all the tube frame cars and Porsche Cup cars in GT2 and same car beat everything else in T1. I understand it's not a clear apple to apple comparison, but just goes to show a well setup Corvette with still stock roof line and frame is capable of running faster than tube frame cars developed over the past decade.

[mhoward1]

http://www.v8stockcar.com/documents/HoweTA20811.pdf

Well, as that car stands with the 525 trim it would run in STU, so good luck with that.

 

Or they could add 300+ lbs of ballast to it to run ST1. I think a ST1 Corvette would do just fine in that case.

Or it could run in 475 trim at whatever weight between 2600-2880 (depending on actual rear whp) and be in ST1 no problem.

 

 

True. Here are the times from one of the TA2 races at VIR:

 

TA2, (98), Bob Stretch®, Arlington, Texas, Chevrolet Camaro, 2:01.580, 97.628.

TA, (28), Paige Alexander®, Milton, Ga., Chevrolet Corvette C6, 2:01.986, 96.502.

TA2, (40), Gregg Rodgers®, Southlake, Texas, Chevrolet Camaro, 2:03.497, 95.322.

TA2, (16), J. Kurt Roehrig®, Greensboro, N.C., Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 2:04.321, 94.690.

TA2, (19), Ricky Sanders, Fayetteville, Ga., Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 2:09.531, 90.881.

TA2, (53), Mel Shaw®, Voorh, N.J., Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 2:23.593, 81.981.

[mhoward1]

Sorry,

More recent results:

 

http://www.gotransam.com/storage/Final%20Race%20VIR%20'13.PDF

 

Danny Popp's 1:55:6 is a bit faster.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Ohhh Danny Popp...that mofo is fast.

[Falcon]

Ohhh Danny Popp...that mofo is fast.

 

Didn't Wally go sub 2's in his ST2 Vette.

[Cobra4B]

Ohhh Danny Popp...that mofo is fast.

 

Didn't Wally go sub 2's in his ST2 Vette.

Yes... with a 6 year old tired-ass motor about the let go.

[braknl8]

Ohhh Danny Popp...that mofo is fast.

 

Didn't Wally go sub 2's in his ST2 Vette.

 

 

Mark ran a 2:01 in TTA trim.

[mhoward1]

So i think the bottom line is the TA2 and TA3 cars will fit just fine in ST1/2.

[Grintch]

So, the challenge in this thread is to assume that you take an ST production Corvette that is max'd out under the current ST Rules (all model years), and suddenly have none of the limitations placed on ST cars. So, essentially, all of these rules/limitations would be gone:

b.) ST1, ST2, and ST3 only (not applicable to STR)

A rear wing (or rear spoiler for wagon-style bodies) may not exceed a height of eight

( inches above the roof-line (or OEM windshield height for convertibles).

c.) ST1, ST2, and ST3 only (not applicable to STR)

Modification of the OEM roof line is permitted, but will be assessed via a

Modification Factor in the “Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio”.

c.) ST1, ST2, and ST3 only (not applicable to STR)

A. Every vehicle must retain its unmodified:

1) OEM frame rails and/or Unibody, and Sub-frames

2) Strut towers

3) Inner/inboard side of the fender wells

4) Rocker panels

5) Transmission tunnel

6) Floor pan

7) Windshield frame location

 

 

Sorry if this belongs in the other tread vs this one. But I don't think this is a fair comparison. It appears to me that you are throwing out ST1/2/3 rules that the exisiting tube frame cars we are trying to attract mostly meet. I see no need to waive/eliminate the wing height rule or the roof line rule. Although having exemptions for a specific widely availible car/body (Late Model/Howe type cars) might be a useful option (se how they work with the Mod factor first). And anything else that you think are /or potentially can be a huge advantage could be specificly outlawed or have a Modification factor added for just like the other ones we already have. Afraid of a flood of rebodied F1 cars? Outlaw or handicap carbon fiber tubs, tunnels, big diffusers, rocker arm suspensions, etc.

 

My impression was that people were looking for just the tube frame restriction to go away, not all the other ST vs. STR restrictions. Arguably you could even keep the floor pan/chassis type restrictions and treat the standard Howe Late model chassis as the standard for Howe (recognized) cars and prevent them being bought and then wildly modified.

[Bnjmn]

The "1:58sec" corvette also had at least one other blatant ST rule violation that would be fine in STR, fwiw.

 

TA1/2 cars are not the issue here, rather it is someone pulling a 2009-2012 Scott Tucker, where they show up with a car that has six figures of development cash into it (see the 2009-2011 T1 Runoffs - F430 Challenge and then an insane homebrewed 996 turbo). In an STR rule set, the sky is the limit. ST2 restricts things to (what so far has been) a more reasonable level, but still allows a lot of freedom. Once a rule set is opened, the cost of competing immediately rises. Yes, you can dump cubic dollars into an ST1/2/3 car, but you are typically chasing a few tenths of second advantage over your top competitors (as opposed to >1sec that would be on the table w/wide-open STR rules). So, in short, I agree with Joel's point - ST rules are open enough and should remain roughly as-is.

 

Instead of worrying about the mythical firebreathing class killer, take the opposite route and directly keep it out until there is some data on it, by doing the following:

(a) keep the separate rule sets, and

(b) mix the ST/STR classes on the track, and

© have a variable modifier for known STR-type cars that you want in the class, building on Section 8 of the current rules (add back Panoz, 7's only; add TA1/2, Grand-Am GT, WC, else?), and

(d) any car not on the list gets pushed to SU and needs to request a modifier to race in the mixed ST1/2/3 (kind of like a dyno reclass in TT)

 

Basically, let's focus on the cars we have/want to see in the class and put the theoretically worrisome cars into SU or a TBD situation.

 

Obviously this puts some strain on the modifier determinations in © and (d) above, but cars covered by © should be relatively well-known and for (d), realistically, someone in a Daytona Prototype, DSR (Stohr, West, Elan etc) or similar developed car should be pushed by default to SU (i.e., have some prejudice against detuning such cars).

[Varkwso]

Ohhh Danny Popp...that mofo is fast.

 

Didn't Wally go sub 2's in his ST2 Vette.

 

 

Mark ran a 2:01 in TTA trim.

 

But he is known to be nuts...

[Billy Bass]

Yep, Greg has made a good point as have many of you. Obviously mixing STR into ST would probably be a mistake, at least at nationals. Regionally it might not be a big deal. We all want the same thing-larger classes of cars to race with. But it takes careful planning to make sure things stay fair and costs reasonable. One thing that has always attracted me to ST was how well it works to keep cars equal with such a simple formula! Yes, the Pfadt car was faster at nationals with a super low ride height, 335 tires all around, highly developed aero, big restricted engine, and a good driver at his home track. However, I went there expecting to hit 1:58's based on my first trip there earlier that year. That was a realistic goal for me based on lap data. But due to tuning issues and a maxed out stock ls6, my car was a good 20 hp low and I was still learning the track (ie. not hitting my target cornering speeds in some sections) when I did the 2:01.0. And you all saw my car, it's a basic ST2 bolt on C5. However, I do agree with Jim Tway that if we allow STR to mix in, we could see some real race cars enter ST and kill everyone so it's probably not the right thing to do.

 

So that brings us back to what makes more sense and that is mixing GTS and ST. Both production car power to weight classes with similar rules. Heck some GTS cars run ST now and visa versa. Please mix them together and make the racing better with larger fields of cars. If any bmw drivers cry about how much faster the corvettes are, just tell them to call Tony C who ran a 2:03 flat at Miller in his GTS3 bmw during his very first visit there.

[Balroks]

Agreed on most all of it, let the Directors combine STR and ST at the regional level for contingency, separate them for season points. This way if there's always an STR car that beats you at least your still in contingency. As long as people get one or the other they're usually happy.

 

But on topic, in our region we don't have to worry about vettes at all, it's mostly all mustangs on the AI front. Well there's one vette in TT2 but nobody else plays there. The concern then would be the Elan's and the Radicals that regularly show up for TTU, IF you could get them to go wheel to wheel which is doubtful.

[Greg G.]

Billy, I agree, but its really hard to pull hen's teeth. Of course I'm biased, but I think that ST and SU should be the only high HP (low Wt/HP) series that we have.

 

Matt, it would generally not fly with any contingency sponsor to combine two classes to bolster then numbers for prizes, but then separate them for series points. Many sponsors don't actually look at the race results. They look at the season points results to determine what position someone ended up with officially, and how many participants there were.

 

Ben, if we want the STR cars back with the ST cars for contingency, then adding back a few of them like the Panoz, 7's Only, etc. will only serve to alienate those other STR cars out there, leaving a dead STR series alive for no reason. Also, there is nothing about a Panoz or 7's Only car that would prevent someone from "rebuilding" it. In fact, 7's Only had their "Spec" series in the past (that is now gone), and they had a GT2 car that was based off the same car, but was modified, and much faster. So, if we are going to let STR continue, we should not allow those cars back into ST. If we are going to kill STR, then we need to find a way to bring them in where they will actually come, and not quit, claiming that they are already slower than the fastest STR cars, and now they have to add more weight because of an STR Mod Factor. No, it is not our fault that they are slower. If they were prepped to the limit of their rules, like some of the ST cars are approaching, they would definitely be faster.

 

Keep working guys, its a tough problem. I think that we have some ideas that have not been brought up on the Forums at all, that could solve both the real world issues as well as the theoretical ones, and maybe even tighten up the competition against the current class leaders. No, not a Corvette penalty

[sperkins]

There already is a class for those drivers that don't want to prep to the limit and complain about not being competitive. It's called HPDE4.

[Vettedoctor]

Some have said that there are cars that have been pushed out of ST and therefore they don’t run with NASA anymore, why don’t they run in STR then? Are we sure they will come back if they’re allowed into ST mod factor or not?

What if everyone just said screw ST and ran STR? You would have the group that some of you are currently calling for. If there is no advantage to tube frame cars then why don’t all of the ST cars just run STR and do what some have been saying all along about combining groups?

 

The truth, in my opinion, it’s because as soon as a ST prepped car does a STR mod and becomes faster everyone will jump ship back to ST, when STR2 was going there were some that had to de-mod to get back to ST2 trim – because they knew no one would run with them in STR2. I don't think that will change.

Also I don’t think a mod factor is going to help this one bit – it may be needed - but currently those that would have to obey the new mod factor would say screw that and stay in STR.

Even though I’m not sure this will help, here is my idea for a mod factor.

 

Grand Am gives GT class competitors 2 options. You can run a Prep 1 car – production based cars - or you can run a Prep 2 car which are tube frame cars and it just so happens that they have 1 car that can run either Prep 1 or Prep 2 – the Corvette.

 

Here is how the Grand Am rules are written for the Vette:

 

Chevrolet Corvette C6 ( Prep1 and Prep 2 )

Weight: Minimum weight Prep 1 is 2590 lb., Prep 2 is 2600 lb. with solid axle, 2700 lb. with IRS or 2808 w/ DP transaxle

Tire size: 305/650R18 front 325/680R18 rear.

Maximum RPM 7200

Stock LS-3 (specifications available from GRAND-AM office with approved camshaft, main caps and pistons.)

Complete rear wing height w/ end plates cannot exceed roof height. Stock LS-3 (specifications available from GRAND-AM

office with approved camshaft, main caps LS6 throttle body @ 76mm, and pistons.)

Prep 1 cars are permitted a 3” maximum front splitter dimension.

Maximum Fuel capacity 18.0 gal.

Fuel rig must be fitted with a black 1.1” inch restrictor used to connect the clear1.5-inch ID fuel hose to the clear 2 ¼ inch

hose on the dry-break fueling probe. (Prep 1 w/ saddle tank only)

Approved Modifications:

Prep 1 six-speed transmission, prep 2 five-speed transmission. Prep 1 cars permitted to use CG46 EMCO replacement

transmission Prep 1 cars may use maximum 14” front brake rotor

C6 bodywork allowed with 105.7 inch wheel base.

Allowed to use non-OE brake pedals and cylinders.

Prep 1 Corvettes may use 1” drop spindle

May use side of rear back window for NACA duct mounts.

 

If you want to look into the rules more here is the like to the Grand Am site:

http://www.grand-am.com/CompetitorInformation/GRANDAMCompetitorInformationpresentedbySunTr.aspx

 

So what I’m getting out of this is that the Prep 1 cars get larger front brakes, a sequential transmission, 1” larger front splitter, drop spindles and anywhere between 10 and 218 lbs weight savings over the tube frame cars. I am going to compare the Prep 1 car to a Prep 2 car with IRS since that would be the easiest apples to apples comparison, so add 110lbs to the tube frame car.

 

NASA already has a modification factor for sequential transmissions it’s .2, not sure what kind of an advantage there is in the larger brakes but SCCA makes you add 100 lbs if you go from 355 mm rotors to 380 mm rotors. I’m really not sure how much of a mod factor the 1” larger splitter would add, but I would roll it in with the 100 lbs from the brakes since I think that's a little stiff just for brakes. I would add nothing for the drop spindles because I don’t think it gives an advantage to the full framed car over the tube frame car with optimized suspension. Both cars have a minimum ride height of 2.5" anyway.

 

NASA has figured out the weight differences between these two cars, the Prep 1 car at 2590 would have a mod factor of -.35, the mod factor on the Prep 2 car at 2700 would be -.25 so to equalize those two cars just based on weight the mod factor is just .1. Since that’s the difference between the larger splitter and bigger brakes (from our friends at the SCCA). We have a mod factor of .2 for the weight, brakes and splitter.

 

So here is my tube frame to Corvette frame mod factor, taking all of the above into account: +.4

All else being equal these two cars should be the same if we would just give it a +.4 mod factor.

 

Even though I don’t think people would go for this in my region it doesn’t mean it isn’t going to work in other regions. I agree with Ben, I think it’s something you could try regionally. Put it in the hands of our regional Directors, send the info out to your drivers ask them what they would do if they combined ST and STR with or without a mod factor. This would give us a test to see if it would work out or not.

[Bnjmn]

Other than the cars that I listed, how many STR 1/2/3 cars are there (other than the SE contingent of mini cars)? I.e., how many cars would actually be alienated?

There are a number of Panoz cars, 7s only, TA 1/2, Viper Comp/ACR-X, WC/Conti GT and maybe a couple others that would be worth aiming for (999 Supersport, what else?), which is why I think we should focus on those, which I think would be the vast majority of tube frame cars. Solve for those instead of trying to solve for the entire universe of known and unknowns.

Also, there would always be the option of a custom mod factor upon request, so nobody would be shut out. How many cars would be alienated if the cars I listed are brought in via an enlarged Section 8 of the ST Rules and STR is killed/anything else is pushed to SU?

 

Also, currently, what prevents anyone from rebuilding/further modifying the cars listed in Section 8? The cars I listed above have either an OEM configuration or are subject to another org's rules set - you could require those cars to stick to that configuration or the applicable rule set (other than engine/tire/shock/spring requirements) in order to get the spec'd mod factor.

 

And on the issue of the making only one high-hp series - how many GTS4/5/SU cars are there? What obstacles would they face if forced into ST/SU? And AIX?