Drew W. Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think the way to do this is to include either A) a slightly different modification factor based on Forced Induction or Large Displacement. Or B) Have a different Modifier based on how close your peak TQ is to redline based on percentage. Reason for doing it like that is that you can simulate TQ with gearing, but to do so you need to have a very high reving engine, otherwise your just shifting A LOT. I'm trying to figure out a way of doing Math so you don't end up with a little engine getting a large advantage because it makes 100ft/lbs of TQ but revs to 12000 rpm and geared very short so the TQ at the ground is the same as a 500ft/lbs V8 and the MPH in each gear is the same because of 12,000 rpm vs 6,000 rpm. I think the only way to do that is to toss in a Modifier for RPM. There is already a "modifier" for that and it is that you get to replace your engine every 4 weekends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted October 21, 2015 Author National Staff Share Posted October 21, 2015 Greg - Can you provide an update on when the 2016 rules will be announced? The plan this year is for all NASA race classes to publish their '16 rules on Dec 1st. As I was quoted above, Max Tq. is not the number to be used for anything related to classing. I have always correctly considered the area under the (usable) HP curve to be the important aspect of power in relation to classing. The problem has always been the added layer of complexity to get that measurement and for competitors to be able to "easily" adjust to ensure compliance. We have many drivers who don't want to do anything other than divide their Minimum Comp. Wt. by their Max HP to determine their class (and surprisingly, we have been able to accomplish this for a large number of vehicles in ST2 and ST1). That is the challenge for HP aspect, and we have been looking at options for solutions that won't effect those who love the simple one-step division calculation....maybe this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think the way to do this is to include either A) a slightly different modification factor based on Forced Induction or Large Displacement. Or B) Have a different Modifier based on how close your peak TQ is to redline based on percentage. Reason for doing it like that is that you can simulate TQ with gearing, but to do so you need to have a very high reving engine, otherwise your just shifting A LOT. I'm trying to figure out a way of doing Math so you don't end up with a little engine getting a large advantage because it makes 100ft/lbs of TQ but revs to 12000 rpm and geared very short so the TQ at the ground is the same as a 500ft/lbs V8 and the MPH in each gear is the same because of 12,000 rpm vs 6,000 rpm. I think the only way to do that is to toss in a Modifier for RPM. There is already a "modifier" for that and it is that you get to replace your engine every 4 weekends. Bike motor.... Just saying. Super High RPM on a 600cc Bike is nothing. And they make 140-150odd HP. That in a little Caterham would be pretty wicked quick. Pretty easily limit your hp in tuning and gear the thing real short to have loads of TQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 See my car at TT3 weight and this dyno was a solid 6 seconds slower then me driving a BONE stock Z06 in TT3 trim. Z06 didn't even have suspension or aero. TQ makes a difference. Can't say it was driver, I drove both cars. Both cars on A6's, the Z06 was on OLD A6's. Another 1000rpm would be great, but the motor won't last very long. I should also note, the Honda was 14 mph slower down the backstraight with a better exit speed. The problem and it's fairly obvious is the near 100hp sweep in each gear. Where the Z06 pretty well makes 360whp through the entire gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted October 22, 2015 Author National Staff Share Posted October 22, 2015 Greg - Can you provide an update on when the 2016 rules will be announced? The plan this year is for all NASA race classes to publish their '16 rules on Dec 1st. I'd like to thank all of you who participated in this thread this year. While the rules will not be published until Dec 1st, I think that we will be able to post the decisions on the big issues very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grintch Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 See my car at TT3 weight and this dyno was a solid 6 seconds slower then me driving a BONE stock Z06 in TT3 trim. Z06 didn't even have suspension or aero. TQ makes a difference. Can't say it was driver, I drove both cars. Both cars on A6's, the Z06 was on OLD A6's. Another 1000rpm would be great, but the motor won't last very long. I should also note, the Honda was 14 mph slower down the backstraight with a better exit speed. The problem and it's fairly obvious is the near 100hp sweep in each gear. Where the Z06 pretty well makes 360whp through the entire gear. So, he has 100hp more than you. But you were beaten by torque, but not the extra horsepower or the much wider tires? Did you say your car had forced induction before? Is it a centrifical blower (that are known to produce a rather peaky power curve)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 So,he has 100hp more than you. But you were beaten by torque, but not the extra horsepower or the much wider tires? Probably more like a combination of all three. Just like PT or the other ST classes: Pick your poison (car) and try to maximize everything within the rules. Sometimes you pick right. Sometimes the other guy built up an immunity to said poison and whoops you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I could tune an LS6 in a C5 to make 4 cyl torque below 5200 rpm, untouched above 5200 rpm, and it will run the exact same lap time with either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apexkingjusto Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 ST class in on the tipping point of becoming a great class for imports to join. There really aren't a lot of higher hp/ lighter imports racing, yet there are many out there who would love to race them. If we really embrace this, I suspect we will see a much larger group of new racers joining NASA. Look at this thread alone, you have 3 S2000 drivers in ST2! This trend will only grow with prices lowering and reliability of these cars constantly proven. I think it's really important for the growth of ST and NASA, to ensure these new imports coming into ST class have an equal chance, to compete against the high tq, super wide stanced vettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted October 24, 2015 Author National Staff Share Posted October 24, 2015 OK Folks, here is an update. The Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for both ST1 and ST2 are going to stay the same for '16 at 5.5:1 and 8.0:1. As well, the method of calculating the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio will remain unchanged, using Max HP for the HP number. There will be some changes for ST3 this year with the goals of leveling the playing field even more, increasing car counts, setting the stage for ST4 (and maybe more) in the future, testing out these changes on the single class that needs them the most before any potential expansion to the other classes, and allowing the competitors from ST1 and ST2 to see how potential similar changes in '17 or later would effect them. We understand that changes to the rules can cause a lot of anxiety, and we don't make them just for the sake of change. We understand that some current ST3/TT3 competitors may choose to move to ST2, but we believe that these changes will help open the door to many new ST3/TT3 competitors. I will post more details next week, but we will be changing the way we calculate the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for ST3/TT3. The HP number will change from the current maximum HP to a calculated "average" Dyno horsepower. We are going to make the calculation as simple as possible (no computer or inputs into a website required), but effective at more accurately representing a vehicle's horsepower output over a range of usable RPM (not an average of the three Dyno runs). With this change, we will see a drop in HP numbers by almost all competitors. So, the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for almost all competitors will increase as the cars sit currently, without any changes to the vehicles. Because of this, along with the input from our competitors (including from this forum thread), Series Directors, Regional Directors and Executives that a wider spread between ST2 and ST3 is in the best interest of the ST Series anyway, we will be increasing the minimum Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for ST3/TT3. How these changes effect each individual will vary depending on the vehicle. Many will be set up currently to make no changes, and others will be able to increase power or decrease some weight, while some may have to decrease power or increase weight or choose to move to ST2. Additionally, there will be some changes to the Modification Factor for transmissions in ST3 only (increased). Lastly, I will have more details next week, but it does appear that we will be making a slight change to the Modification Factor for non-DOT slicks for all ST classes in '16 due to the advancements in DOT-approved R compound tires and the narrowing of the performance gap between the two. As of now, the proposal is to change it to -0.5 (from -0.7), and not have any new Modification Factors for the "A" DOT tires. This one has a 95% green light for '16, and I normally wouldn't post until I was 100% certain, but I did want to give the heads up to the ST1 and ST2 guys. Again, next week I should have more details about all of these issues. I'll start a new thread next week when I have all of the details you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 See my car at TT3 weight and this dyno was a solid 6 seconds slower then me driving a BONE stock Z06 in TT3 trim. Z06 didn't even have suspension or aero. TQ makes a difference. Can't say it was driver, I drove both cars. Both cars on A6's, the Z06 was on OLD A6's. Another 1000rpm would be great, but the motor won't last very long. I should also note, the Honda was 14 mph slower down the backstraight with a better exit speed. The problem and it's fairly obvious is the near 100hp sweep in each gear. Where the Z06 pretty well makes 360whp through the entire gear. So, he has 100hp more than you. But you were beaten by torque, but not the extra horsepower or the much wider tires? Did you say your car had forced induction before? Is it a centrifical blower (that are known to produce a rather peaky power curve)? No believe it or not thats a N/A motor.... And the hp to weight was the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew W. Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Works for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 ST class in on the tipping point of becoming a great class for imports to join. There really aren't a lot of higher hp/ lighter imports racing, yet there are many out there who would love to race them. If we really embrace this, I suspect we will see a much larger group of new racers joining NASA. Look at this thread alone, you have 3 S2000 drivers in ST2! This trend will only grow with prices lowering and reliability of these cars constantly proven. I think it's really important for the growth of ST and NASA, to ensure these new imports coming into ST class have an equal chance, to compete against the high tq, super wide stanced vettes. Right - because imports don't have enough classes to run in already with NASA. Whatever man. If you want to run a 600hp v-tech then by all means do so, but don't expect the rules to be changed for your benefit. It's ideas like this that cause rules instability which causes folks to leave the series because they're sick and tired of chasing the rule set. Frickin whiners always ask for useless changes and sadly, they usually get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Since the floor is open for suggestions, I recommend surrendering the entire ST series to the ever changing rules and create new pw/wt unlimited classes. SU1 SU2 SU3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apexkingjusto Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 ST class in on the tipping point of becoming a great class for imports to join. There really aren't a lot of higher hp/ lighter imports racing, yet there are many out there who would love to race them. If we really embrace this, I suspect we will see a much larger group of new racers joining NASA. Look at this thread alone, you have 3 S2000 drivers in ST2! This trend will only grow with prices lowering and reliability of these cars constantly proven. I think it's really important for the growth of ST and NASA, to ensure these new imports coming into ST class have an equal chance, to compete against the high tq, super wide stanced vettes. Right - because imports don't have enough classes to run in already with NASA. Whatever man. If you want to run a 600hp v-tech then by all means do so, but don't expect the rules to be changed for your benefit. It's ideas like this that cause rules instability which causes folks to leave the series because they're sick and tired of chasing the rule set. Frickin whiners always ask for useless changes and sadly, they usually get them. I'm sorry my extremely general suggestion to embrace imports into ST class ruffled your feathers so much. You say "whiners always ask for useless changes", maybe I somehow missed it, but I don't see any specific asks in my post, and the only whiner here is you dude. I'm simply stating that we should consider there is a large group of potential cars that would join ST, but feel they'd be at an unfair disadvantage. I race in ST2 under the current rules, and am pretty happy and competitive. I think what Greg's outlined makes a ton of sense, and am really looking forward to it! I imagine we will attract many more racers into ST3 this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 So what I would LOVE a Hint at is so I did the math using the GTS calculator on mine and it showed as an Avg of 255hp. I was planning for TT3/ST3 to put another engine in it that's much higher compression and has deeper valve pockets in the pistons to run more cam and more variable cam timing. I was planning on putting that engine in the car in 2 weeks. I figure I'm going to make 15-20 ft/lbs through the mid range with this motor. So my question being, because it looks like we will be doing some sort of avg hp are we expecting the HP to weights to drop, IE I shouldn't put this other engine in for fear of having to throw a ton of weight at the car or move to 2, or are we expecting the class to stay relatively the same speed wise and the torqueless cars are just going to be able to have a little bump in power? I'd love to leave this motor in the car and sell the other one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bass Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) My vote is to keep the ratios the same, ST2 and 3. I'll still be boosted and can just retune.. I'm just feeling sorry for others that will have to spend a lot of money to adjust because of senseless changes. Seems like the opposition in favor of changing ST2 or 3 have no clue on how to keep car counts up and/or growing... I still think there are other things that can be done rather than moving numbers ups and down. Bruce, My thought behind it was to factor TQ/weight if TQ is Higher than HP. Im gonna go out on a limb and say Mcaleenan wouldn't have been able to pull a 3 second gap over the majority of st3 entries at laguna seca if that ratio was in play IMO and would be closer racing. Ill let you do your own research about his build... 1.3 total aero factor is absurd. I can't even take that suggestion seriously... Pretty sure half the entries in st3 would be looking for another class or association. Billy. Ill take you up on that, On record... me at 8 you at 9? What region are you in? I would really like to come out to one of your regions races so we can discuss. Want to see if you still run that mouth in person. I'm in Norcal, but I run all the CA tracks. Yeah, I would run you with my car at 9 and yours at 8. That would be a good challenge. And why is responding to your insulting post and defending my ideas "running my mouth"? Edited October 26, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bass Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 See my car at TT3 weight and this dyno was a solid 6 seconds slower then me driving a BONE stock Z06 in TT3 trim. Z06 didn't even have suspension or aero. TQ makes a difference. Can't say it was driver, I drove both cars. Both cars on A6's, the Z06 was on OLD A6's. Another 1000rpm would be great, but the motor won't last very long. I should also note, the Honda was 14 mph slower down the backstraight with a better exit speed. The problem and it's fairly obvious is the near 100hp sweep in each gear. Where the Z06 pretty well makes 360whp through the entire gear. That is a very extreme example of a bad curve for a power to weight class. I agree with that and you would be at a disadvantage. Most people have near peak power for at least a 2-3000 rpm range and not a single point. I've never seen a dyno curve like that before and I also race a miata. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bass Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I think everything Greg wrote sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 That kind of curve is not all that uncommon, this is from a 997 GT3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bass Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 That kind of curve is not all that uncommon, this is from a 997 GT3 Hence the sequential shifter and a bajillion gears . I raced those cars in scca and they pull like freight trains on the straights. But I've never seen their dyno curve before so thanks for posting it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Smith Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 OK Folks, here is an update. The Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for both ST1 and ST2 are going to stay the same for '16 at 5.5:1 and 8.0:1. As well, the method of calculating the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio will remain unchanged, using Max HP for the HP number. There will be some changes for ST3 this year with the goals of leveling the playing field even more, increasing car counts, setting the stage for ST4 (and maybe more) in the future, testing out these changes on the single class that needs them the most before any potential expansion to the other classes, and allowing the competitors from ST1 and ST2 to see how potential similar changes in '17 or later would effect them. We understand that changes to the rules can cause a lot of anxiety, and we don't make them just for the sake of change. We understand that some current ST3/TT3 competitors may choose to move to ST2, but we believe that these changes will help open the door to many new ST3/TT3 competitors. I will post more details next week, but we will be changing the way we calculate the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for ST3/TT3. The HP number will change from the current maximum HP to a calculated "average" Dyno horsepower. We are going to make the calculation as simple as possible (no computer or inputs into a website required), but effective at more accurately representing a vehicle's horsepower output over a range of usable RPM (not an average of the three Dyno runs). With this change, we will see a drop in HP numbers by almost all competitors. So, the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for almost all competitors will increase as the cars sit currently, without any changes to the vehicles. Because of this, along with the input from our competitors (including from this forum thread), Series Directors, Regional Directors and Executives that a wider spread between ST2 and ST3 is in the best interest of the ST Series anyway, we will be increasing the minimum Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for ST3/TT3. How these changes effect each individual will vary depending on the vehicle. Many will be set up currently to make no changes, and others will be able to increase power or decrease some weight, while some may have to decrease power or increase weight or choose to move to ST2. Additionally, there will be some changes to the Modification Factor for transmissions in ST3 only (increased). Lastly, I will have more details next week, but it does appear that we will be making a slight change to the Modification Factor for non-DOT slicks for all ST classes in '16 due to the advancements in DOT-approved R compound tires and the narrowing of the performance gap between the two. As of now, the proposal is to change it to -0.5 (from -0.7), and not have any new Modification Factors for the "A" DOT tires. This one has a 95% green light for '16, and I normally wouldn't post until I was 100% certain, but I did want to give the heads up to the ST1 and ST2 guys. Again, next week I should have more details about all of these issues. I'll start a new thread next week when I have all of the details you are looking for. I do wish something that significantly changes the ST/TT3 class rules wasn't posted in a 25 page thread regarding rule changes in ST2, will there be a comment period and when does it open? I don't see how you can accurately and fairly represent a cars horsepower without using a somewhat complex/computed equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watermelon Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I vote for bumping TT3 from 9:1 to 10:1. I believe this change will get more TT3 car because it is much easier to achieve. I have been struggling myself since it is a large jump from TTE to TT3. This will close the gap a bit. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 That kind of curve is not all that uncommon, this is from a 997 GT3 Hence the sequential shifter and a bajillion gears . I raced those cars in scca and they pull like freight trains on the straights. But I've never seen their dyno curve before so thanks for posting it up. They Make the Tq back on the Vette via gearing and running out to 8000. Way way way back a number of years ago when I was autoxing a GT3 in SS we did an instrumented autox specific acceleration test of the Stock GT3 vs a Stock Z06 from iirc 25 mph in 2nd gear to the Vettes redline in 2nd gear (GT3 did 83 in 2nd so it was well above the vette). And despite the vette having loads more TQ on the dyno and low RPM both cars were absolutely identical even from a really low RPM. It was a real shocker to everyone involved. Porsches have Magic TQ. I don't know where it comes from. They are a VW product maybe they have trick the dyno software...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 They Make the Tq back on the Vette via gearing and running out to 8000. Way way way back a number of years ago when I was autoxing a GT3 in SS we did an instrumented autox specific acceleration test of the Stock GT3 vs a Stock Z06 from iirc 25 mph in 2nd gear to the Vettes redline in 2nd gear (GT3 did 83 in 2nd so it was well above the vette). And despite the vette having loads more TQ on the dyno and low RPM both cars were absolutely identical even from a really low RPM. It was a real shocker to everyone involved. Porsches have Magic TQ. I don't know where it comes from. They are a VW product maybe they have trick the dyno software...... You answered your question, then you asked your question "They Make the Tq back on the Vette via gearing and running out to 8000" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.