2015 Rules Suggestions Thread

[speedengineer]

Ok, figured it was about time we started one of these up. This way we can get the ideas/suggestions in early, and discuss them. Here are my thoughts:

 

 

No-Points Modification List Additions:

1) Wiper blade removal (lots of people do this already, but it's not actually in the rules!!)

2) Rerouting of coolant lines to engine to prevent overheating (should be along the same line as how radiators are open)

3) Replacement of harmonic balancer with aftermarket unit, IF pulley diameter is identical to BTM and unit is of higher mass and/or moment of inertia.

4) Aftermarket ECUs zero points, many cars can reflash BTM ECUs, all cars should have the same ability without taking points for it.

 

Appendix B

1) Remove the weight:power modification factor for Body type 4-door sedan or 5-door wagon +0.4. This maybe made sense back when a majority of TT and PT cars were street cars, and the lack of chassis stiffness, etc was a concern. But, these days nearly every car that is winning is a prepped, built and caged car. There is no disadvantage for a caged 4-door versus a caged 2-door. The extra power they get due to the modifier is ridiculous. It should go away.

 

I also had the idea that I mentioned in the tire thread about making tire base sizes depend on base weight not class, and altering the appendix B weightLpower mod table based on weight. But, let's leave that out for now to not muddle things up.

 

ADD YOUR IDEAS!

[ILIKETODRIVE]

I already did 1) and 2) because I ditched about 60% of the wiring and all unnecessary components (Phoenix = wut iz rain?) and ditched the heater core (and looped/rerouted lines) so that the engine harness could be routed through that opening.

 

So I'm in favor of adding 1) and 2) and even 3).

Edited October 14, 2014 by Guest

[RockLobster]

I like a lot of that. Your tire idea is especially intriguing, though it will take a lot of testing and data to fine tune it.

 

Certainly agree that the 4-door cars shouldn't get that advantage any longer. Especially with all the high strength tensile steel chassis out there now and the fact that there are 4-door cars that don't get to take it even though the rules don't specify which ones. (RX-

 

The ECU thing is probably overdue but at that point do we just require EVERY car to reclass? (I've often mused that is where this is all headed, at least in PT)

[Rob S.]

The modification factors are in Appendix A not B. I'd like to add to Jason's idea. I think both Body Type and Drivetrain Mod factors should be removed from the adjusted ratio calculation for PT/TTF-B. These attributes are used when determining the original base class of a vehicle and a requested re-class. Using the attributes when calculating the adjusted ratio is actually using them twice.

 

The mod factors would obviously remain for ST/TT1-3 since there are not base classes or requested re-classes associated with ST/TT1-3.

[troyguitar]

Still would like to see a third tire option in TT123 besides slicks and A7's, even if it's only R7's. They're now 12 points apart in TTB-F, surely that must be worth at least 0.1 mod factor in TT123.

[heavychevy]

I don't think they can make street tires competitive in those classes without completely blowing the classes up, but they can make R-comps competitive. Like say a .75 for an R888 or something seeing as Toyo has a contingency for NASA. More tire options should equal more competitors. I might be ok with a more inclusive tiered system for tires as well.

[Tcal]

""Appendix B

1) Remove the weight:power modification factor for Body type 4-door sedan or 5-door wagon +0.4.""

 

---If youre talking about TTU-3 where is +.2...you have to leave this if your going to subtract for roofline modification. Any 2 door car such as a corvette or porsche is going to me MUCH more aerodynamic than a 4or5 door subaru or focus.

 

Actually, dont change anything! TT in the great lakes region was crap this year. Stop pushing people away to other driving groups by changing the rules. Let things settle down after the last weight/power ratio change.

[Rob S.]

""Appendix B

1) Remove the weight:power modification factor for Body type 4-door sedan or 5-door wagon +0.4.""

 

---If youre talking about TTU-3 where is +.2...you have to leave this if your going to subtract for roofline modification. Any 2 door car such as a corvette or porsche is going to me MUCH more aerodynamic than a 4or5 door subaru or focus.

 

Actually, dont change anything! TT in the great lakes region was crap this year. Stop pushing people away to other driving groups by changing the rules. Let things settle down after the last weight/power ratio change.

 

Agree about ST/TT1-3. This is why my suggestion above is to leave ST/TT1-3 as is and remove the Body Type and Drivetrain mod factors from PT/TTF-B since they are already used for base classing and re-classes.

[Mike W.]

Agree about ST/TT1-3. This is why my suggestion above is to leave ST/TT1-3 as is and remove the Body Type and Drivetrain mod factors from PT/TTF-B since they are already used for base classing and re-classes.

 

The drivetrain mod factor is so that FWD, AWD and RWD run at different levels due to the inherit issues and advantages with each configuration. I am sure the AWD guys would love to eliminate it, so they can run the same power to weight as the RWD cars.

[Rob S.]

Agree about ST/TT1-3. This is why my suggestion above is to leave ST/TT1-3 as is and remove the Body Type and Drivetrain mod factors from PT/TTF-B since they are already used for base classing and re-classes.

 

The drivetrain mod factor is so that FWD, AWD and RWD run at different levels due to the inherit issues and advantages with each configuration. I am sure the AWD guys would love to eliminate it, so they can run the same power to weight as the RWD cars.

 

I agree and the drivetrain mod factors (and body type) are taking into consideration during original base classing and re-classes. Including them in the adjusted ratio calculation is using them twice, which doesn't seem correct. That's my point and what I said above.

[fox4life]

I like all the ideas Jason suggested. 1-2 seem like no brainers, and would be easy to implement. 3 would somewhat level the playing field as he mentioned. I understand the whole frogs and warts thing, but that would give all cars coming from the hpde level a better chance right off the bat to compete without having to worry if they started with the "right" platform. I also am in favor of eliminating the power modifications for body and drivetrain, for the exact same reason Rob pointed out.

 

One suggestion I have is regarding the catalytic converter rule C.25. Right now if you remove, modify or upgrade the factory cats, you must take points. The problem is if you want to change to an aftermarket exhaust you almost automatically take points for cat removal as well. I would like to see the rule changed that if you have an aftermarket cat in the system somewhere, it wouldn't be charged points...hey, I can dream, right?

[Mike W.]

On a completely points car I don't see how it is using them twice. By eliminating the mod factors all cars would then have the exact maximum power to weight for a given class. So, you are saying an AWD car will not have an advantage over a RWD or FWD car if they have the same base class?

[jpreston]

+1 to Jason's ideas.

 

I'd also like to see all bolt-on chassis stiffening devices added to the no-points list. Making roll cages free but charging points for bolt-on stiffeners just adds to the perception that you can't run TT in your daily driver and be competitive against the guys with fully prepped cars. Tons of miata guys add the factory lower tie bars, aftermarket frame rail reinforcements, and bolt-in "door bars" to make the car more comfortable on the street, and it's not fair that they have to take 4 points for that stuff while an 8-point cage is free.

[Rob S.]

On a completely points car I don't see how it is using them twice. By eliminating the mod factors all cars would then have the exact maximum power to weight for a given class.

 

Not true. There are other appropriate modification factors like weight and tire width. So you're saying the drivetrain and body type aren't considered when base classing a vehicle and if your car was AWD it would still be base classed PT/TTG? Because I highly doubt an AWD version of your car (if it existed) would be PT/TTG. If theses attributes are considered then using drivetrain and body in the adjusted ratio calculation is using them twice. Case in point, you don't adjust the ratio of the re-class, which is really just a new base class. You have to stick with the comp weight and max whp given to you by Greg. So why adjust the ratio on a points car for drivetrain and body type when it's already been considered during the base classing.

 

So, you are saying an AWD car will not have an advantage over a RWD or FWD car if they have the same base class?

 

No. The AWD car will have a higher base class than a RWD car and the RWD car will have a higher base class than a FWD car. For the FWD car to compete in the same class as the AWD car, it will have more modifications and therefore should be competitive removing the driver as a variable. This logic is the exact reason why your 4-dr, FWD G20 has a base class of PT/TTG and a similar weight Subaru Impreza is PT/TTF**. Your car has 39pts to use to compete in PT/TTF compared to 5pts for an Impreza. That's the parity.

[brkntrxn]

I have a novel idea: How about leaving the rules alone for a year or three?

 

In the past four years, the rules have had tweaks AND major changes. Leave them alone for a while so people can enjoy racing and driving and not buying and building.

 

I cannot believe you people are asking to spend more money on your cars...

[kbrew8991]

Agree about ST/TT1-3. This is why my suggestion above is to leave ST/TT1-3 as is and remove the Body Type and Drivetrain mod factors from PT/TTF-B since they are already used for base classing and re-classes.

 

The drivetrain mod factor is so that FWD, AWD and RWD run at different levels due to the inherit issues and advantages with each configuration. I am sure the AWD guys would love to eliminate it, so they can run the same power to weight as the RWD cars.

I hate that the factor is static

 

with 100whp it doesn't matter a ton in laptime between FWD, RWD, and AWD. Should be a tiny factor if any factor at all (I say none, but...)

 

with 300whp it matters

[speedengineer]

Jeff, I agree with you on chassis stiffening. Cages, though a safety mode, also provide a ton of chassis stiffening and don't cost any point. However, you're only allowed a limited number of attachment points in limited areas without incurring extra points. If we request chassis stiffening be free, it should only be allowed on areas of the car that a cage provides stiffeness for. For example, a driver shouldn't be able to just go weld metal braces onto their strut towers, as a cage wouldn't impact strut tower stiffness without taking additional points.

 

So, I would propose that chassis stiffening is free, provided it is located behind the firewall, and in front of the rear tire leading edges. But, that gets tricky for different car types, rear engine, etc... Thoughts?

 

 

On another note, I think the rules have actually been quite stable for the past several years. Changes have been pretty minor.

[speedengineer]

Agree about ST/TT1-3. This is why my suggestion above is to leave ST/TT1-3 as is and remove the Body Type and Drivetrain mod factors from PT/TTF-B since they are already used for base classing and re-classes.

 

The drivetrain mod factor is so that FWD, AWD and RWD run at different levels due to the inherit issues and advantages with each configuration. I am sure the AWD guys would love to eliminate it, so they can run the same power to weight as the RWD cars.

I hate that the factor is static

 

with 100whp it doesn't matter a ton in laptime between FWD, RWD, and AWD. Should be a tiny factor if any factor at all (I say none, but...)

 

with 300whp it matters

 

YES YES YES!

 

In an F or E car, traction is not an issue, drive type doesn't mean squat. But certain cars get extra hp for it....

[Mike W.]

YES YES YES!

 

In an F or E car, traction is not an issue, drive type doesn't mean squat. But certain cars get extra hp for it....

 

Speak for yourself, traction is an issue with 134fwhp at 2715lbs in the G20. Had the same problem with 142fwhp at 2520lbs in the 200sx. Watch my videos, both cars will spin the tires at four places at Mid Ohio.

[brkntrxn]

On another note, I think the rules have actually been quite stable for the past several years. Changes have been pretty minor.

 

 

Deletion of PTA/TTA, creation of ST3/TT3, changing of hp:wt ratios, changing of tire points, changing of exhaust outlet locations, rain race declarations, hood openings for cooling, aero rules, etc. are not "pretty minor". Unless your bank account can absorb $15k in upgrades...

 

The car I started with in 2009, that was competitive, looks NOTHING like the car I have today, that is competitive. Rules changes caused that, not my desire to go faster.

 

You guys need to be careful what you wish for. Every free mod and change you want to list makes it more and more necessary to bring a fully-prepped race car to Time Trials. Since a "free" mod is a mod you HAVE to do because your competitor with more time and money will do said "free" mod.

[Tcal]

I have a novel idea: How about leaving the rules alone for a year or three?

 

In the past four years, the rules have had tweaks AND major changes. Leave them alone for a while so people can enjoy racing and driving and not buying and building.

 

I cannot believe you people are asking to spend more money on your cars...

 

Agree!!!

[ILIKETODRIVE]

YES YES YES!

 

In an F or E car, traction is not an issue, drive type doesn't mean squat. But certain cars get extra hp for it....

 

Speak for yourself, traction is an issue with 134fwhp at 2715lbs in the G20. Had the same problem with 142fwhp at 2520lbs in the 200sx. Watch my videos, both cars will spin the tires at four places at Mid Ohio.

What tires? What diff?

139fwhp (at 2275lbs and 2400lbs) and a MFactory 1.5 clutch diff with shaved 205 Kumho XS, 225 RS3, 205 R888, shaved 225 RA-1, and 205 SM6 has been great.

[kbrew8991]

YES YES YES!

 

In an F or E car, traction is not an issue, drive type doesn't mean squat. But certain cars get extra hp for it....

 

Speak for yourself, traction is an issue with 134fwhp at 2715lbs in the G20. Had the same problem with 142fwhp at 2520lbs in the 200sx. Watch my videos, both cars will spin the tires at four places at Mid Ohio.

I occasionally have to pedal in certain corners at certain tracks too. So would an F Miata if they don't spend points on a diff. Why do you deserve to get 135-140whp at 2600-2700lbs and we get 120-125 in the same weight range?

 

I had wheelspin in iirc 3 places at Mid-O in my old TT-only car. Mid-Engine traction eh?

[Mike W.]

I occasionally have to pedal in certain corners at certain tracks too. So would an F Miata if they don't spend points on a diff. Why do you deserve to get 135-140whp at 2600-2700lbs and we get 120-125 in the same weight range?

 

I had wheelspin in iirc 3 places at Mid-O in my old TT-only car. Mid-Engine traction eh?

 

Why are you limited to 120-125 hp? Your base weight is 2657lbs, correct? Then max horsepower for F would be 138rwhp with all the mod factors. If you remove the body type and drivetrain mod factors, my P to W is still 20.599 which is well within the limit of F. So, not sure what you are complaining about.

 

The 142fwhp 200sx was an E car not an F car. Both the G20 and 200sx have factory VLSD but the G20 has to take points for it and the 200sx does not. The majority of the F Miatas do not run an LSD because the points would put them out of F, the blue F Miata at Nationals had an open diff.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

VLSD? Buhhh. There's your answer.