2014 ST Rules Posted On-line - 12-13-13

[Greg G.]

The 2014 ST Rules are now posted on the NASA website:

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf

 

There are some changes in order to accommodate the removal of the STR classes, and the new allowance for both production based and non-production vehicles into ST.

Please read through them carefully, and do the new calculations for your vehicle. Some have changed, and many have not. Also, the rules have been simplified in some ways, like the much more simple weight tables and Mod Factors in tenths (no 0.05's). There are clarifications on some of the issues that we have had over the years as well. Overall, the rules should be more inclusive, and allow for class size growth.

 

Lastly, expect to have a Technical Bulletin in the next few months regarding power levels in all transmission gears, and Dyno testing regarding this. Obviously, the rules have never allowed a vehicle to have more power than permitted in any transmission gear, whether it is the one closest to a 1:1 ratio or not. We are now testing a potential rule so that this can be verified, to ensure that a vehicle is failing to comply by gear dependent ECU tuning.

 

Thanks, and have a great season!

[Vettedoctor]

Thank you for the update rules and for combining the classes, hopefully the car counts will get a bump.

 

One quick question:

What is considered "rear engine location" just 911's and Corvairs that have the engine behind the rear axle or do rear mid-engine cars like the Boxster/Caymen and Elise/Exige get the hit too?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Guest

[Cobra4B]

Thanks for doing all of this Greg.

 

Interesting that the ST3 aero mod factor is .4 and not .5 and the break for 275s is only .3 now and not .4. Reduces the incentive to keep my car no-aero on 275s.

[brkntrxn]

Thanks for doing all of this Greg.

 

Interesting that the ST3 aero mod factor is .4 and not .5 and the break for 275s is only .3 now and not .4. Reduces the incentive to keep my car no-aero on 275s.

 

 

Thanks, Greg.

 

 

Glad my build lines up nicely with the new rules.

[heavychevy]

 

Gear dependent ECU tuning? I need to catch up on my tech.....

[heavychevy]

Oh yeah, and BTW, am I reading right that Rear Engine is penalized (-0.2) ??

[sperkins]

Not as many changes as I had expected. Hopefully that trend continues.

[Maynor]

Thanks for getting this out Greg. Makes the winter overhaul list a lot easier to deal with.

 

John K

[Greg G.]

Thank you for the update rules and for combining the classes, hopefully the car counts will get a bump.

 

One quick question:

What is considered "rear engine location" just 911's and Corvairs that have the engine behind the rear axle or do rear mid-engine cars like the Boxster/Caymen and Elise/Exige get the hit too?

Behind the rear axle only.

It has been added to version 8.2 for clarity.

[Greg G.]

Thanks for doing all of this Greg.

 

Interesting that the ST3 aero mod factor is .4 and not .5 and the break for 275s is only .3 now and not .4. Reduces the incentive to keep my car no-aero on 275s.

 

Actually, interesting way to look at it, Brian.

 

At 3100 lbs and 358 rwhp on 275's last year, one would only have to add either 35 lbs or drop 4 hp in 2014 with the change in the 275 credit to 0.3.

Since adding aero and losing the 275's would force you to add more than a few hundred pounds in ST3, I guess you are talking about moving to ST2, which is obviously still a great place for Corvettes to play. But I'm not seeing that an extra 35 lbs is going to make much of a difference if you stay in ST3.

[Greg G.]

Not as many changes as I had expected. Hopefully that trend continues.

It felt like a lot of changes, but ultimately, when drivers start doing the math (which is now easier with no more .05's), the changes all work together to improve the series as a whole. There is always the chance that we will see that the -0.4 Mod Factor for Non-Production vehicles (and -0.7 in ST3 which is functionally only -0.3 due to aero) is not enough, and have to increase it in the future. But, we'll try it out, build on the class sizes, and see what happens.

[erioshi]

Thanks for getting the rules out Greg. Time to sit down and rework my spreadsheet to see where the changes move my build's numbers along with a stock set of possible alternate cars.

[BlkGt3]

Nice, Porsche 911's are so dominant that you are leveling the field

 

Peter

[J.R. Smith]

Greg,

 

Thanks for yourself and others spending the time to listen and work on rule changes that we hope will improve racing and increase car count.

 

J.R.

[Balroks]

Nice, Porsche 911's are so dominant that you are leveling the field

 

Peter

 

I chuckled when I saw that too, not sure what to make of it. Since CUP's don't get the .4 now it forces people to buy CUP's instead of building something slower lol.

[jrgordonsenior]

Greg can you explain the logic behind the .2 rear engine Porsche penalty please.

 

Thanks,

 

JRG

[Cobra4B]

Thanks for doing all of this Greg.

 

Interesting that the ST3 aero mod factor is .4 and not .5 and the break for 275s is only .3 now and not .4. Reduces the incentive to keep my car no-aero on 275s.

 

Actually, interesting way to look at it, Brian.

 

At 3100 lbs and 358 rwhp on 275's last year, one would only have to add either 35 lbs or drop 4 hp in 2014 with the change in the 275 credit to 0.3.

Since adding aero and losing the 275's would force you to add more than a few hundred pounds in ST3, I guess you are talking about moving to ST2, which is obviously still a great place for Corvettes to play. But I'm not seeing that an extra 35 lbs is going to make much of a difference if you stay in ST3.

No... staying in ST3, but the spread from big tire full aero vs. little tire no aero used to be 9.5 vs. 8.6. Now it's 9.4 vs. 8.7. My car is only 3050 min comp weight so I have to run it at 350 rwhp to be legal on 275s. Compared to an aero car on 275s making 350 rwhp I can make 16 rwhp more or weight 175ish lbs less. I don't see that making up for the advantages of aero at my home track of VIR or at RA. That said, the new pavement at VIR will wide oak tree so I'll just have to get the best run possible and hope I can make enough ground to hold off what I'll lose in the uphill esses etc. Not complaining... just thinking it may make more sense to go the aero route. Regardless I'm setting my car up no aero on 275s and seeing what it'll do.

[DriverGT5]

I am glad to see a lot of effort to include Thunder Roadsters and Legends cars in the series. We should see some of the Hiyabusa powered roadsters fit well into ST3 although I'm not sure how competitive they will be until we see some other well prepared ST3 cars. I personally plan to run ST3 for our Nationals event at Road Atlanta this year.

 

The only problem I see is the aero factor for the different bodies. Pre '08 which I can only assume is the open wheel car can run as a production vehicle with no penalty where a post '08 car (aero) takes a -.5 penalty

 

600 Racing redesigned that body to allow Roadsters to run with SCCA and fit under the closed fender rules. Any aero benefits have been proven null and void in the SE region as both bodies run almost identical lap times. Any benefit from the new body style seems to be out weighed by the large amount of drag created by the rear end. In fact, all the faster drivers have removed the rear wing and found there lap times faster as a result.

 

At 1550 lbs that is worth another 10 hp and you can add a wing in ST3 without a penalty. That is clearly a large advantage for the old body style Roadsters under this rule set. I think you'll find there's no appreciable difference in the two body styles as it relates to lap times. I would strongly look at making the factor equal for both bodies, however that looks.

 

For comparison, look at lap times from Road Atlanta this year. Rob Hall and Jordan Anderson are running old bodies while Randy Suddreth, Darryl Hamilton, Team Thunder Chicken, and myself (Robert Summers) are running new bodies. In May at CMP Rob Hall was several seconds faster in the old body style. In September at Road Atlanta, Jordan Anderson is running faster lap times in the old body style. Real world data shows the body isn't an advantage.

[Greg G.]

I am glad to see a lot of effort to include Thunder Roadsters and Legends cars in the series. We should see some of the Hiyabusa powered roadsters fit well into ST3 although I'm not sure how competitive they will be until we see some other well prepared ST3 cars. I personally plan to run ST3 for our Nationals event at Road Atlanta this year.

 

The only problem I see is the aero factor for the different bodies. Pre '08 which I can only assume is the open wheel car can run as a production vehicle with no penalty where a post '08 car (aero) takes a -.5 penalty

 

600 Racing redesigned that body to allow Roadsters to run with SCCA and fit under the closed fender rules. Any aero benefits have been proven null and void in the SE region as both bodies run almost identical lap times. Any benefit from the new body style seems to be out weighed by the large amount of drag created by the rear end. In fact, all the faster drivers have removed the rear wing and found there lap times faster as a result.

 

At 1550 lbs that is worth another 10 hp and you can add a wing in ST3 without a penalty. That is clearly a large advantage for the old body style Roadsters under this rule set. I think you'll find there's no appreciable difference in the two body styles as it relates to lap times. I would strongly look at making the factor equal for both bodies, however that looks, or allow the new body cars to get the .5 back for removing their rear wing.

Robert, thanks for the input. We would definitely like to see the Roadsters competitive again. We were definitely not aware that the newer body style has turned out to be a "drag". I'm not sure what you mean by "you can add a wing in ST3 without a penalty", though. The older body style Roadsters cannot add a wing without a penalty unless it was a factory "original manufactured configuration". Otherwise, the driver would have to decide to become a "Non-Production" vehicle, which would be a -0.7 Mod Factor in ST3. So, the older body style is most likely best to run as-is. We would have to do more research regarding the new body styles, and whether your assessment is correct. As you can see, we have basically brought a bunch of similar type car models that have tube-frame construction into Section 7.5, and applied similar Mod Factors to them. So, the Aero version Roadster has the same Factors as the Baby Grand, Allison Legacy, Factory Five (with aero). However, we can start now, by adding "aero ok" to the newer body style approval line, which would allow them to remove the wing if the car is faster without it. We need to be careful, because that also allows them to do whatever other aero they want to change or add. We can also move the ST3 Mod Factor to -0.4, to line up with the 7's and Stalker, and the same assessment that every Production car gets for Aero in ST3. Please send an e-mail or have the interested drivers send an e-mail regarding this if further changes are requested, along with some hard data. Often, NASA will run their own comparison tests for a situation like this (two identical cars except for the body style, one top-level driver, and run some TT in both on fresh tires).

[Greg G.]

Guys and Gals,

Version 8.4 is getting posted with some additional fixes.

 

Honestly, in the words of a famous politician (or close to the words). We knew that there were going to be further repercussions when merging these rules, and we knew that we didn't know what we knew would occur, so we knew that we would have to wait to find out what we know now that we knew would happen. Savy?

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Rear Engine Location ('99+ year only) w/Comp. Wt. less than 2700 lbs = -0.2

Rear Engine Location ('99+ mod. year only) w/Comp. Wt. 2700-2900 lbs = -0.1

 

What's with the mod. in one and not the other? Typo? Something specific I don't know? And if declared comp weight is 2901 you can avoid this?

[heavychevy]

That's how I read it. Over 2900 lbs no mod factor. That puts a sock in my mouth.

 

[Greg G.]

Rear Engine Location ('99+ year only) w/Comp. Wt. less than 2700 lbs = -0.2

Rear Engine Location ('99+ mod. year only) w/Comp. Wt. 2700-2900 lbs = -0.1

 

What's with the mod. in one and not the other? Typo? Something specific I don't know? And if declared comp weight is 2901 you can avoid this?

No really a Typo--started out with "model year", then ran out of road on the page--so got shortened. We'll take it out so they are the same.

 

Yes, no rear engine mod factor for older cars, and those over 2900 lbs. Like I said, it was meant to just keep things at par (for the more modern cars) from prior years and compensate for the weight table changes.

[Greg G.]

That's how I read it. Over 2900 lbs no mod factor. That puts a sock in my mouth.

 

It's about time. Have fun this year!

[ILIKETODRIVE]

No really a Typo--started out with "model year", then ran out of road on the page--so got shortened. We'll take it out so they are the same.

 

Yes, no rear engine mod factor for older cars, and those over 2900 lbs. Like I said, it was meant to just keep things at par (for the more modern cars) from prior years and compensate for the weight table changes.

Perfect clarification. Thanks!