2015 Rules Suggestions Thread

[Arca_ex]

VLSD might as well be an open diff.

[hoki06]

Add metallic brake caliper bushings to the no points mods list

[shuko]

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

 

I completely agree with this.

 

It's essentially picking on the hardware, not tuning capability. A select few models can tinker with their mapping for free, many others can pay big bucks for an aftermarket tune. But a bunch of us are stuck with older ECU's that just can't be flashed or tuned.

 

...though it would make "points only" Miatas a whole new ballgame...

[EricJo]

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

 

If you do this, then Adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulators should be free too. Same effect, just a different way to achieve it.

[Arca_ex]

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

 

If you do this, then Adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulators should be free too. Same effect, just a different way to achieve it.

 

That is not a good idea. With some cars that have ECU's that can be flashed for 0 points, this is a way that even more power can be produced if the injectors were otherwise already maxed out. It is definitely not the same effect either, for example with a car that cannot be tuned for free, simply adding fuel doesn't automatically mean more power. Tuning is more than just dumping more fuel in...

[heavychevy]

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...

 

All of your points are very valid. There have been enough rules that have "upped the ante". The problem with that is that people won't show up if they are not competitive and these days to be competitive, especially in U-3 you will have to have some serious money invested. New guys in TT seem to be few and far between. I think any rules going forward should allow for a broader range of competitiveness while not completely alienating the guys that have taken the plunge to build their cars out.

[Rob S.]

Summary of my suggestions:

 

TTF-B

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

 

Appendix A

Remove Body Type and Drivetrain weight/power modification factors. These attributes are used when determining the original base class of a vehicle and are not applicable for re-classes. Using the attributes when calculating the adjusted ratio for a points car is actually using them twice.

 

TT1-3

Add a modification factor for UTQG treadwear rating of 50+ tires. This would give more tire options especially with the great contingencies of Maxxis and Toyo.

[kbrew8991]

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

 

I completely agree with this.

 

It's essentially picking on the hardware, not tuning capability. A select few models can tinker with their mapping for free, many others can pay big bucks for an aftermarket tune. But a bunch of us are stuck with older ECU's that just can't be flashed or tuned.

 

...though it would make "points only" Miatas a whole new ballgame...

*if* the base classes take this have & have-not into effect then it's not a big deal.

 

KB, who recalls the BRZ/FRS getting a weight bump partially due to unexpected gains from ECU tuning for E85 fuel

[alwaysinboost]

All of your points are very valid. There have been enough rules that have "upped the ante". The problem with that is that people won't show up if they are not competitive and these days to be competitive, especially in U-3 you will have to have some serious money invested. New guys in TT seem to be few and far between. I think any rules going forward should allow for a broader range of competitiveness while not completely alienating the guys that have taken the plunge to build their cars out.

 

I agree with this. I think if we are going to modify the rules it should be done in a way that will encourage more people to get into TT, not make it harder to be competitive.

[Markus]

Summary of my suggestions:

Appendix A

Remove Body Type and Drivetrain weight/power modification factors. These attributes are used when determining the original base class of a vehicle and are not applicable for re-classes. Using the attributes when calculating the adjusted ratio for a points car is actually using them twice.

 

I agree with this.

- As discussed, platform limitations are already taken into account during base classing so they don't need to be handled again via modification factors in F-B.

- This should make enforcement a little easier. IE officials only need to go by class power/weight limit without calculating modifiers.

- If you take advantage of all non-points modifications do some of these things even matter? IE body type - if a sedan driver adds a legal change and does no-points seem welding is there any disadvantage over a coupe? Don't some sedans have better aero and chassis rigidity than their coupe counterparts straight from the factory? Etc.

 

My suggestions:

- Publish a list of power/weight reclasses. Having some "standard" reclasses involved could make it easier for up and coming drivers to plan/prep for TT/PT.

- Have each region publish competitor points sheets via google docs or some other methods.

 

For both above suggestions of mine - the reality is that track competition is really a self-policing sport, whether it be NASA SCCA or any other group. Having competitor points sheets readily available would make it easier to check out other cars. I really do think that the NASA officials are trying to proactively handle this, but it would be nice to have that added review as well.

 

- Mark

[Mike W.]

Appendix A

Remove Body Type and Drivetrain weight/power modification factors. These attributes are used when determining the original base class of a vehicle and are not applicable for re-classes. Using the attributes when calculating the adjusted ratio for a points car is actually using them twice.

 

2 door and 4 door is not accounted for in the base classes. Here are some examples, Acura Integra 1.8L has both but only base class, BMW 3 series, BMW M3, Focus SVT, Honda Civic and many more. The 4 door models usually have a longer wheelbase.

Dodge Neon DOHC is separated by Coupe and Sedan but the base classes and weight are identical.

 

Drivetrain.

Very few models came in two drive train configurations but several of these cars only have one base class. Audi A4 1.8T (170hp) came in both FWD and AWD but only one base class. Also A4 2.8L, A4 3.0L.

Porsche 996 C2 vs C4 same class PTB but the AWD is 124lbs heavier.

[Rob S.]

Appendix A

Remove Body Type and Drivetrain weight/power modification factors. These attributes are used when determining the original base class of a vehicle and are not applicable for re-classes. Using the attributes when calculating the adjusted ratio for a points car is actually using them twice.

 

2 door and 4 door is not accounted for in the base classes. Here are some examples, Acura Integra 1.8L has both but only base class, BMW 3 series, BMW M3, Focus SVT, Honda Civic and many more. The 4 door models usually have a longer wheelbase.

Dodge Neon DOHC is separated by Coupe and Sedan but the base classes and weight are identical.

 

Drivetrain.

Very few models came in two drive train configurations but several of these cars only have one base class. Audi A4 1.8T (170hp) came in both FWD and AWD but only one base class. Also A4 2.8L, A4 3.0L.

Porsche 996 C2 vs C4 same class PTB but the AWD is 124lbs heavier.

 

I'll leave it to Greg to comment as to whether the Body type and/or Drivetrain are considered when base classing a vehicle. But if they are not considered then yes, at least the Drivetrain Type mod factor should remain for points cars. However I'm with Jason about the 4-dr mod factor, it should be removed....or at least reduced. +0.4 is the same as the difference between 275 and 245 wide tires and seems too large for the affect of having 4 doors vs 2.

 

Just my opinion. You have a 4-dr, FWD car so obviously your thoughts are different.

[Mike W.]

 

Just my opinion. You have a 4-dr, FWD car so obviously your thoughts are different.

 

Which would still be 100% legal if both of those mod factors were eliminated and we also have a PTE Miata, so if they are eliminated it would only help us. FWD cars are not dominating in any of the PT classes, so clearly the mod factor is not helping them. The fastest cars at the East coast nationals were RWD and AWD.

[kbrew8991]

One race at one event needs to be carefully evaluated, it's a small sample size.

 

Also, I didn't realize a Ford Escort was RWD or AWD.

 

stupid dyno.

[Rob S.]

^^^ agree 100%

 

Plus how could you forget the Billy Brees TTD mobile.....4-dr and FWD

[Mike W.]

One race at one event needs to be carefully evaluated, it's a small sample size.

 

Also, I didn't realize a Ford Escort was RWD or AWD.

 

stupid dyno.

That is why I said fastest cars, not "winning" cars. You put down faster lap times than the Escort. Which of course was due to your excessive horsepower

 

TT is a different story, because the front tires do not have to last for 30-40 minutes of continuous use.

 

Look at the results for the entire season of MW and GL PT when there are more then one or two cars racing. FWD is not dominating.

[kbrew8991]

Still ~2 sec off what the TTF record there should be (long backstory there). A little bit of that is weather, but still. My theoretical best only barely cracked 1:49.9XX. I bet Cody in the Miata's theoretical is lower, I really only pulled away due to consistency / no mistakes. Both of us were (allegedly / according to results) 6whp over.

 

I only race against RWD stuff (1st gen RX7s) but TT against a really really good Honda CRX. I've got a head scratching session or three ahead of me to figure out how to catch it. And the @#$%#$ thing is on street tires which everyone says can't work.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Shaved streets can work in F or E for FWD with a good LSD for 2 laps. If the competition isn't up to snuff it'll work F through D for anything.

[braknl8]

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...

 

All of your points are very valid. There have been enough rules that have "upped the ante". The problem with that is that people won't show up if they are not competitive and these days to be competitive, especially in U-3 you will have to have some serious money invested. New guys in TT seem to be few and far between. I think any rules going forward should allow for a broader range of competitiveness while not completely alienating the guys that have taken the plunge to build their cars out[/color][/color].

 

 

I hate it when Kevin's right....

 

I agree 100% with your last statement but, how? I think that, since the demise of **A, you are correct.... you have to spend some serious money in u-3. Will throwing a street tire mod out there help? ...or is it just an illusion to the folks that you are drawing in...as in "hey we can go run our streets now"...."oh wait, I need HP to make up for the tires...." At the u-3 levels, any way you slice it, isn't taking cost from one aspect just requiring it in another? Isn't the difference required to "make up" going to be more and more as you go from 3 up to u? I'm all for growing the org but I'm not for making a ton of changes that everyone has to abide by in order to attract 2-3 long-timers, in the end.

[heavychevy]

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...

 

All of your points are very valid. There have been enough rules that have "upped the ante". The problem with that is that people won't show up if they are not competitive and these days to be competitive, especially in U-3 you will have to have some serious money invested. New guys in TT seem to be few and far between. I think any rules going forward should allow for a broader range of competitiveness while not completely alienating the guys that have taken the plunge to build their cars out[/color][/color].

 

 

I hate it when Kevin's right....

 

I agree 100% with your last statement but, how? I think that, since the demise of **A, you are correct.... you have to spend some serious money in u-3. Will throwing a street tire mod out there help? ...or is it just an illusion to the folks that you are drawing in...as in "hey we can go run our streets now"...."oh wait, I need HP to make up for the tires...." At the u-3 levels, any way you slice it, isn't taking cost from one aspect just requiring it in another? Isn't the difference required to "make up" going to be more and more as you go from 3 up to u? I'm all for growing the org but I'm not for making a ton of changes that everyone has to abide by in order to attract 2-3 long-timers, in the end.

 

What it would involve is going to be testy. This is a very rough idea but let's say TT3. It will involve letting something like a stockish ratio C6Z in there with something like R888's. That would amount to about a 1.5-2 point ratio benefit for R-comps. It would be pretty easy to be somewhat competitive (if you can drive it well), but you aren't going to beat the good built cars on A's.

 

What that does is give people an opportunity to buy a nearly immediately competitive car or maybe lure some people in without having to build something to be somewhat competitive. Right now competition is fierce, no build, you get your doors blown off. From there they can continue to build and work their way up the ladder, or stay pretty competitive in TT3. There's nothing you can do with a nearly stock Evo or STI or M3 to make it competitive in 1,2,3 with well built, well driven cars but you can make a Viper, C6Z, Porsche Turbo, GT3, GT-R competitive off the bat.

 

It also gives people a chance to have more freedom to switch classes if contingencies are involved. The continuation would be a stockish C5Z in TTB so on so forth. It would take more study for classing, but it would make entry and competitiveness much easier than having to show up with a gutted race car to be competitive.

 

Ease of entry, like it used to be. NASA TT in the SE used to be sold out almost every time at Road Atlanta. Probably half were street cars on street tires. You take that away and make guys feel unwelcome and attendance will suffer.

[EricJo]

With some cars that have ECU's that can be flashed for 0 points, this is a way that even more power can be produced if the injectors were otherwise already maxed out. It is definitely not the same effect either, for example with a car that cannot be tuned for free, simply adding fuel doesn't automatically mean more power. Tuning is more than just dumping more fuel in...

 

You're right, it would have to be one or the other, not both ECU and AFR

Also, I thought the the AFR was used to lean out the A/F at higher RPM, not add more fuel.

 

How about change one thing at a time.

Tires this year.

Other stuff next year.

More stability = less expense.

 

If aftermarket ECUs are no points, then everyone will have to have one to be competitive, additional expense.

Also, double dippers, where their race class doesn't allow an aftermarket ECU, would be at a disadvantage.

[kjbrew01]

I would like the 0 points aftermarket ecm change. of course this is my cars warts but its getting the age where the base engine harness is failing, engine electronics are getting rare and expensive and always in used condition. I have been debating doing a reclass just so I can rip it all out and add a basic standalone ecm in for reliability.

[CWeber]

I'm guessing Ken could no longer run in TTF/PTF if he wanted to run just on points instead of dyno reclass. If we run the g20 on dyno reclass, we are not allowed as much hp as with straight points either (not that we'd ever be able to achieve the max allowed points hp with a stock engine regardless)

 

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.

[braknl8]

Ease of entry, like it used to be. NASA TT in the SE used to be sold out almost every time at Road Atlanta. Probably half were street cars on street tires. You take that away and make guys feel unwelcome and attendance will suffer.

 

I came to nasa just as **A was exiting stage left. At that time there were a lot of people that predicted that it's demise would not "level the playing field" but rather just add a large lump of $ as a requirement to keep driving, for the folks that had been supporting nasa, and drop the lap times to pretty much unobtainable street car times (there are exceptions, of course). Here we are a couple of years later... PTA/TTA and the ability to run a base c5 in TTB were good for nasa, I think. /rant

 

I agree that there should be that type of place but I just don't know where it fits... rather, I don't think it fits any existing class.

[heavychevy]

Ease of entry, like it used to be. NASA TT in the SE used to be sold out almost every time at Road Atlanta. Probably half were street cars on street tires. You take that away and make guys feel unwelcome and attendance will suffer.

 

I came to nasa just as **A was exiting stage left. At that time there were a lot of people that predicted that it's demise would not "level the playing field" but rather just add a large lump of $ as a requirement to keep driving, for the folks that had been supporting nasa, and drop the lap times to pretty much unobtainable street car times (there are exceptions, of course). Here we are a couple of years later... PTA/TTA and the ability to run a base c5 in TTB were good for nasa, I think. /rant

 

I agree that there should be that type of place but I just don't know where it fits... rather, I don't think it fits any existing class.

 

 

They would either have to create another group like time attack enthusiast class and play off of mostly stock cars or find a way to balance the cars. Its been done before. They can do it again. All it takes additional is a peak at ones tires in addition to the normal stuff. The one caveat is group policing becomes more diverse.