2015 Rules Suggestions Thread

[Grintch]

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.

 

 

Let's not forget that real streat cars are generally 200 lbs or so from the minimum weights. Yes, they can go "mother may I?" and request a dyno reclass, but that IMHO is another barrier. Just build in a point give back for overweight cars like the one we have for undertired cars.

[BlkGt3]

Or just go for rules stability and leave things alone for a year. Keeps the costs in line and the added points for A7's is going to shake things up enough.

 

Peter

[AZELISE]

For TTF-TTB:

 

Leave the -40mm alone, some cars run this. (I am one of them)

Use the tire points that have been proposed.

 

Add the following no points modifications:

Wiper blade(s) or assembly(ies) removal

Reroute coolant hoses

 

Add the following:

Modification of BTM suspension components for alignment purposes only (except as noted in I.e.1) +2

 

The above rule would add the same points as alteration of ball joints and allow cars that don't have adjustable ball joints available or prefer modifying BTM parts instead of taking +6 to +10 points to get the camber a car needs. This would also give some relief to the cars that were effected by the removal of slots from last years rules. (I run stock control arms and get exactly the camber I need, but I know some drivers that would benefit from this)

[PCSkiBum_21]

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.

 

Yes we would! I don't really believe there is much (if any) advantage to AWD vs RWD for us, aside from rain races. I vote we do standing starts, then I'd happily keep the AWD penalty

 

Regarding 2 door vs 4 door, (most) 2 door cars are shorter in height so their aero profile and COG is much better. This is where the distinction should be focused, rather than on chassis rigidity.

 

In my case, the only thing helping the AWD penalty is the 4-door advantage. It almost levels it back out, so please don't get rid of the 4-door rule if the drivetrain rules remain unchanged. However I would agree drivetrain rules need to be changed. FWD should still get an advantage, but a full point seems like too much. AWD/RWD should be the same, or much closer.