Jump to content
Greg G.

2016 Rule Proposal--Decrease ST2 to 7.5:1 Adjusted Wt/HP

Recommended Posts

Greg G.

Please place your comments here regarding the proposal to decrease the Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio for ST2 to 7.5:1 (from 8.0:1 currently) for 2016 and beyond. Please stay on point, and only use this thread for discussion of this one issue. For those of you that participate in other series, please state whether this increases or decreases your ability to run in ST2 in the future.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

Oooh, oooh, me first, me first.'

 

Anyway....

 

 

I think ST2 should be at 7.5. With ST1 at 5.5 and ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero), 7.5 is the perfect medium.

 

Does it make it harder for me to magically switch between ST2 and ST3 with a keystroke of the laptop? Yes it does, but I am ok with that. I will run my max tune on my stock long block with my lighter weight and pray that I don't kill the motor.

 

Why would I be in favor of this as an ST3 podium car? Easy, it helps the midpack ST2 guys with their straight line talent adjustment. There needs to be a bit more separation in power levels to help them get out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).

 

I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).

 

I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?

 

 

I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

7.5 makes sense as it would align the "2" classification with another series and allow competitors to (more easily) cross-over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

 

I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.

 

But what if it's not about cross over? Why now, when the market has gotten to ~10k for initial purchase, would you slam the door on one of the best bang/buck chassis (I feel like I'm preaching to an AWOL choir here) out there...when it's now affordable? I can understand the guys that have aero'd up moving to st2 but I'm not sure I get closing the door on new participation in the lower of the st class. I'm sure there are still folks getting into the sport....and I'm not for creating 4000 classes and 3000 different tire modifiers to please everyone but .....that seems a little strong. I may be the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troyguitar

ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).

 

I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?

 

 

I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.

 

I'm still trying to come up with the money to build my damn car for TT3... not all of us are "done" building up. I entered a total of one event in 2013+2014 because my entire budget went into car mods. THANKS NASA

 

That being said, this is not the topic of the thread. (my opinion is that all aero cars should be put immediately into ST2 and it should stay at 8.0, though - that would help keep costs down and still make ST2 and ST3 more distinct - maybe even make ST3's ratio higher so that the heavy muscle cars and low power 4 cylinders can more easily make pwr/wt)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

I would also vote for 7.5 for ST2. Big tired, big aero ST2 cars may actually be slower down the long straights of Road America/Atlanta than an non-aero, smaller tired ST3 car without a bit more separation in go juice. 7.5 would be good to keep the interclass racing down.

 

I also agree that aero should be worth more than 15-20HP in ST3. I will likely be starting next year sans aero to dial in the mechanical grip of the car well, but I realize that aero is inevitable to compete. If I could be competitive, I think I'd rather save the money, and enjoy a little more slip angle in my driving .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Just keep in mind moving to 7.5 will make it even more of an American V8/V10 battle. At 3,000 pounds you will need 400hp which is not easily attainable in a BMW or Porsche (especially non cup). While it makes sense from a separation stand point it will make it harder to attract anything but V8 built cars.

 

Maybe drop the slick penalty for ST1/2 and leave the same for 3 to create a bigger gap between classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06
maybe even make ST3's ratio higher so that the heavy muscle cars and low power 4 cylinders can more easily make pwr/wt)

 

Yes, with street tires to, right?

 

7.5 (or more) makes a lot of sense. There's a smallish gap from 8 to 9/9.4, and an enormous gap from 5.5 to 8 (400 hp and 581 hp for a 3200 lb car)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troyguitar
maybe even make ST3's ratio higher so that the heavy muscle cars and low power 4 cylinders can more easily make pwr/wt)

 

Yes, with street tires to, right?

 

7.5 (or more) makes a lot of sense. There's a smallish gap from 8 to 9/9.4, and an enormous gap from 5.5 to 8 (400 hp and 581 hp for a 3200 lb car)

 

Attempting to stay on topic:

 

Who would run at 7.5 and not at 8.0? Presumably no one, it's easy to detune/ballast and actually gives you a competitive advantage to be at max ballast with a flat power curve.

 

Who would run at 8.0 and not 7.5? Presumably many people, it costs a lot of money to add power or reduce weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

 

Who would run at 7.5 and not at 8.0? Presumably no one, it's easy to detune/ballast and actually gives you a competitive advantage to be at max ballast with a flat power curve.

 

Who would run at 8.0 and not 7.5? Presumably many people, it costs a lot of money to add power or reduce weight.

 

I understand your thought process but I think the reason, other than to even the gaps between 123, is that if you give the xx2 folks an additional .5 it may help the mid-pack'ers stay out of the way of the faster xx3 folks when they drag race down the straights and park it in the turns. The ECC this past year was a good example of how the closer xx3/xx2 gap can cause issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troyguitar

Wouldn't moving ST3 up to 9.5 or 10 accomplish the same thing and also let more cars have a chance at competing? I don't think making any classes faster is going to help but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

 

Who would run at 7.5 and not at 8.0? Presumably no one, it's easy to detune/ballast and actually gives you a competitive advantage to be at max ballast with a flat power curve.

 

Who would run at 8.0 and not 7.5? Presumably many people, it costs a lot of money to add power or reduce weight.

 

I understand your thought process but I think the reason, other than to even the gaps between 123, is that if you give the xx2 folks an additional .5 it may help the mid-pack'ers stay out of the way of the faster xx3 folks when they drag race down the straights and park it in the turns. The ECC this past year was a good example of how the closer xx3/xx2 gap can cause issues.

 

Chris - I'm pretty sure that is more driver's skill, not car prep. I imagine there is a solid 3-4 second difference between classes right now but that is not how they are being driven. You can give me a Daytona Prototype car and I'll still be running 1:30 at Road Atlanta cause I'm slow.

 

I guess I simply don't see the point of moving up the ratio - what is it really going to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8
You can give me a Daytona Prototype car and I'll still be running 1:30 at Road Atlanta cause I'm slow.

 

I've watched you drive.

 

Since I just TT and there is only a slight chance that I might run a race or two late in the season, I'll defer and bow out. You've been racing a lot longer than I have. In my case and from my perspective it would probably have absolutely zero effect on a race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKRBMW

Exactly my thought as well. Guy setting track records will go a little faster - mid or back markers will probably run exactly the same times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balroks

5.5 for ST1

7.0 for ST2

8.5 for ST3

 

Or

 

6.0 for ST1

7.5 for ST2

9.0 for ST3

 

Technically, 5.5 cars are already built on at an SU level, leaving SU to the 700+hp or 2000lb down-force tube purpose cars makes more sense. On the aero comment, it should in all fairness boil down to the car's oem CDA# (aerodynamic drag) on how much the penalty is really worth. For example we have a honda minivan that runs with us in the SE region, how do you think .4 is used there Vs say a naturally aero C5. So at that rate, ST3 would need to be totally non aero, and leave aero to ST2/1. With maybe the only thing allowed in ST3 is the wing that doesn't stick up past the 8" rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8
On the aero comment, it should in all fairness boil down to the car's oem CDA# (aerodynamic drag) on how much the penalty is really worth. For example we have a honda minivan that runs with us in the SE region, how do you think .4 is used there Vs say a naturally aero C5. So at that rate, ST3 would need to be totally non aero, and leave aero to ST2/1. With maybe the only thing allowed in ST3 is the wing that doesn't stick up past the 8" rule.

 

There's two that don't want aero in xx3. I'm good with it. Build to the rules or shut up, right?

 

The only issue I see is the guy with fat pockets that wants to have a record under his belt that goes and buys a new car (many newer performance cars have some fairly aggressive aero) detunes and is untouchable. However, that chance already exists so if someone wants to spend 70-100k to have a grassroots title, they can have it...IMHO.

 

This was a weight thread and I've somewhat jumbled it up with aero talk so I apologize to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billy Bass

I think ST3 should be at 10:1 and leave st2 at 8:1. I think that would make it easier for more cars to be competitive based on power to weight. It's always cheaper to add weight than remove weight or add power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revolution Mini

7.5 will help me get my car down to ST2 vs ST1 trim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06

Who would run at 8.0 and not 7.5? Presumably many people, it costs a lot of money to add power or reduce weight.

 

So by this logic, we should have a 75 car ST3 field at VIR right? Since every ST1 and ST2 car is a $20 restrictor plate and $250 worth of lead away from ST3?

 

If you want to run 10:1, there are cheaper ways than an ST checkbook class (PTB, etc)

 

With ST3 replacing PTA (8.7) which is the next step from PTB, you need something in the ~9 range to fill that void. And the rest of working backwards from there, which seems to make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06
You can give me a Daytona Prototype car and I'll still be running 1:30 at Road Atlanta cause I'm slow.

 

See, you've now lost credibility with all your other statements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troyguitar
If you want to run 10:1, there are cheaper ways than an ST checkbook class (PTB, etc)

 

I would detune and ballast my car to run TTB if it were possible, that would be AWESOME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cdbmathews

I vote for No Change to the ST2 ratio.

 

My LS3 C6 can esily make the power, but for others such as BMW, Porsche, Lotus, Mustang, C5 I don't know so unless it is comfirmed that all the current ST2 driver can easily make the new ratio, why change it and loose drivers and or require us to spend money chasing rules.

 

On the other hand, it migh be possible to find a more optimum set of ratios for each ST1,2,3 to better serve the existing and future cars. So, find that and change them all or nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balroks

Hell at that rate why not ditch PT all together and do ST 1-5 just like GTS 1-5. The I suppose someone will comment why GTS, everything go ST. But getting back on topic - I like the idea of an even split ratio between the fields, like others said sometimes the out of class racing can get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×