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

[Bnjmn]

Great, I think we are in finally in agreement about the critical need to help out cars like the GT3 that have with peaky powerbands and modest torque

[Sboxin]

I agree with Mr. Smith:

"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? "

 

But,

We have been thru this before . . . so what is new ?

We will adjust to the revised rules . . . and enjoy racing with our friends . . .

 

Regards,

Roy T

[Mrsideways]

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"

 

 

Not on those particular cars I didn't awser the question.

Porsche Ran to 8000 rpm and 83 mph in 2nd gear,

Vette ran to 7000rpm and 7X (low 70's in that gear).

 

That = nearly the same gearing in that gear.

 

IIRC weight difference was like 150lbs. Just surprised that 150lbs made up for 100ft/lbs of TQ.

[Greg G.]

I agree with Mr. Smith:

"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? "

 

But,

We have been thru this before . . . so what is new ?

We will adjust to the revised rules . . . and enjoy racing with our friends . . .

 

Regards,

Roy T

I'll start a new thread next week when I have all of the details you are looking for.

I posted in this thread to answer the question regarding ST2 (and ST1 that came up), and because this thread along with input from the ST Series Directors and competitors (and those who want to compete but haven't in ST3) has lead to the ST3 changes, I posted for those who have been following for almost a year. There is no need to post a new thread until I have all of the details, which will probably be this Friday or next Monday. Because these changes come as a "package" (change in method of calculating HP, change in Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio, and change in transmission Mod Factor), we really need to have all of the details posted together so competitors can figure out if they need any changes or not. As in the past, due to Arizona's Winter schedule, we will give Tage latitude to make sure that the AZ guys have plenty of time to adjust to the changes.

[f1honda]

if you want to penalize cars that have a better HP curve, then why not penalize cars that have better weight distribution or better coefficient of drag from factory.

[Greg G.]

if you want to penalize cars that have a better HP curve, then why not penalize cars that have better weight distribution or better coefficient of drag from factory.

We are not "penalizing" cars with a better HP curve. We are leveling the playing field for those that are unable to develop a similar curve. And, we do not penalize those with a better coefficient of drag, but we do help to level the playing field for those that don't--including your vehicle:

4-door Sedan or 5-door Wagon = +0.2

[Mrsideways]

And you do have a modification factor for engine location (rear engine). Having spent A LOT of time in a Porsche 911. It's not nearly enough of a modification factor. That engine location helps corner exit by nearly as much as AWD.

[heavychevy]

And you do have a modification factor for engine location (rear engine). Having spent A LOT of time in a Porsche 911. It's not nearly enough of a modification factor. That engine location helps corner exit by nearly as much as AWD.

 

 

With all due respect, that is utter nonsense.........

 

I hope you are being sarcastic..

[Mrsideways]

I'm not.

I present to you 2009 One Lap of America, Little talladega in the wet on a tight course, 2wd Turbo 911 that made 465whp, vs a couple of 800 hp AWD GTRs, one with a grand am driver in it. All on the same tires, all on track at the same time, pouring rain. Rear engine = awesome. When we showed up to the event and it was raining, I figured I was going to get murdered by the GTR's , STi's, Etc etc. It didn't happen.

http://www.onelapofamerica.com/event/Results.do?eventId=28&res=EVENT05

 

That said for a car over 2700lbs the Rear engine mod factor is only .1 For AWD it's only .3 Not a big difference as is.

[heavychevy]

More hp (especially with turbos) is detrimental regardless of drivetrain. Talladega is basically an autocross which GTR's do not do nearly as well, not to mention 800 hp being completely useless there even in the dry. Rear engine is somewhat helpful in the wet but that doesnt hardly negate the deficiences in the dry to even justify the current nonsensical penalty not to mention an additional one.

 

Not to mention that is ONE case scenario which was not even a race and not even NASA and a very small gap over 3 laps that could have easily gone either way, been better setup choice, or driver familiarity. One lap isn't exactly the best scenario for making performance based adjistments of any kind. The current one is already based on an anomaly from 2011 and ignores all the evidence to the contrary.

[Mrsideways]

More hp (especially with turbos) is detrimental regardless of drivetrain. Talladega is basically an autocross which GTR's do not do nearly as well, not to mention 800 hp being completely useless there even in the dry. Rear engine is somewhat helpful in the wet but that doesnt hardly negate the deficiences in the dry to even justify the current nonsensical penalty not to mention an additional one.

 

Not to mention that is ONE case scenario which was not even a race and not even NASA and a very small gap over 3 laps that could have easily gone either way, been better setup choice, or driver familiarity. One lap isn't exactly the best scenario for making performance based adjistments of any kind. The current one is already based on an anomaly from 2011 and ignores all the evidence to the contrary.

 

From years of being behind the wheels of 911's. It's an advantage. A larger one then most people give credit for. A 911 GT3 I autoxed for many years on 285 hoosiers puts power down MUCH better then my S2000 on 275's despite having 100 less hp and weighing a good 400 lbs less. I'd boardline say it's better then AWD as most AWD's I have raced pick up a massive push like a FWD once you go to the throttle (I understand that's due to diffs and setup, but most were bone stock, as was the 911). The 911 doesn't do that. Talladega isn't as tight as you would think. Even in the wet I ran out of 4th gear in the GT2 which is 120ish (many years ago don't remember that well).

[heavychevy]

The GT2 like the turbo tops out 4th in the mid 130's. I doubt you got that fast in the wet. And if your 911 wasn't pushing, especially on street tires, you guys found a magical setup that no one else has. The fact remains there is nothing the 911 can do or has done that can't easily be done in another chassis. Talledega is a Porsche friendly track because of its smallish wheelbase. I would bet I have even more time than you in a 911 as I run one un TT, and Ive driven several cars that are much easier to drive at the limit than mine. The 911 struggles mid corner due to the weight in the back. A quick trip through the lap records section at most tracks will show you what the fastest cars are.

 

There is no solid data to justify even the current penalty let alone more of one.

[Mrsideways]

The GT2 like the turbo tops out 4th in the mid 130's. I doubt you got that fast in the wet. And if your 911 wasn't pushing, especially on street tires, you guys found a magical setup that no one else has. The fact remains there is nothing the 911 can do or has done that can't easily be done in another chassis. Talledega is a Porsche friendly track because of its smallish wheelbase. I would bet I have even more time than you in a 911 as I run one un TT, and Ive driven several cars that are much easier to drive at the limit than mine. The 911 struggles mid corner due to the weight in the back. A quick trip through the lap records section at most tracks will show you what the fastest cars are.

 

There is no solid data to justify even the current penalty let alone more of one.

 

If you currently own and drive one your kinda bias on the argument. Sell it, Go buy something that runs against it. And then argue for it. Lets see how that goes.

I would love to own one, Having driven them. There is no replacement for Porsche's.

 

As for mid corner understeer...... WUT. You have the huge lump in the rear, you lift off and it rotates very nicely down to the apex for you as it swings all that weight around. Go back to the throttle and it plants the rear and exits the corner nicely. If you have the tire stagger correct you can use excessive throttle to slide the rear under power "slightly" and keep the push from happening. If you run to much rear tire it won't do that and it just pushes like crazy mid corner.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

[heavychevy]

The GT2 like the turbo tops out 4th in the mid 130's. I doubt you got that fast in the wet. And if your 911 wasn't pushing, especially on street tires, you guys found a magical setup that no one else has. The fact remains there is nothing the 911 can do or has done that can't easily be done in another chassis. Talledega is a Porsche friendly track because of its smallish wheelbase. I would bet I have even more time than you in a 911 as I run one un TT, and Ive driven several cars that are much easier to drive at the limit than mine. The 911 struggles mid corner due to the weight in the back. A quick trip through the lap records section at most tracks will show you what the fastest cars are.

 

There is no solid data to justify even the current penalty let alone more of one.

 

If you currently own and drive one your kinda bias on the argument. Sell it, Go buy something that runs against it. And then argue for it. Lets see how that goes.

I would love to own one, Having driven them. There is no replacement for Porsche's.

 

As for mid corner understeer...... WUT. You have the huge lump in the rear, you lift off and it rotates very nicely down to the apex for you as it swings all that weight around. Go back to the throttle and it plants the rear and exits the corner nicely. If you have the tire stagger correct you can use excessive throttle to slide the rear under power "slightly" and keep the push from happening. If you run to much rear tire it won't do that and it just pushes like crazy mid corner.

 

 

Funny you should mention that. I actually just started looking for a C5 after driving one 2 weekends ago. You see I have 5 TT1 lap records (Barber, Road Atlanta, Mid-Ohio, VIR and Roebling Road) in my 911 TT. I'm a hardcore 996 dude. I wrecked my car at VIR in July at the UTCC so hadn't been driving much until Chin invited me to instruct. While there, a good friend of mine asked me to drive his 427 C5 built with very similar specs (weight/hp/cage/aero) to my car. My (regional) lap record for TT1 at Road Atlanta is a 1:26.3. Here are the first 4 laps in his car...

 

1:36

1:33

1:31

1:30

 

Mind you I had never driven this car, and it was on purchased used well over a year ago old A6's that sat on the car through the cold winter. I was granny shifting, early braking, coasting, you name it. And had competitive driving on (which I hear is not the fastest). Towards the end of the day, he was persistent that I get back in the car. Still taking it easy I did the following.

 

1:32

1:29

1:28

1:28

 

The first 1:28 was a 28.2. I was significantly ahead on the next one (.7) when i actually tried to use throttle before the car was straight exiting 7 and had to make a correction blowong my exit speed. It would have been a 27.

 

 

I stayed in 4th gear from turn 12 (short shifting down the hill) to turn 6. TWO upshifts per lap. 3rd was almost unusable with the condition of the tires.

 

I can unequivocally say I could take that car and beat all of my lap records with a little effort and some fresh tires. It also makes me think I could take my competitors cars and hop in and beat my records as this car does not have anything fancy on it. Some of the cars I run against are built with much more on them than this one has.

 

 

Not to mention, looking at the fastest cars around the country, it's clear what's the fastest. And it's not the 911. Period. The only reason I'm not buying a C5 is because I'm a 996 fanboy and I don't trust the LS motors with hp. They just can't compare in reliability to a Mezger. However the power is instant and the torque is nasty, that part can't be duplicated in a 911. The NA motors don't produce the torque, and the turbos can't spool fast enough.

 

I think I could run 1:26's in that car as is with the old tires, but at Road Atlanta, on ice skates you are asking for trouble so I wouldn't even try that feat.

 

996's and 997's (even up to the RSR's) have inherently produce understeer. All of the factory guys complained about mid corner push and Porsche has been doing everything possible to dial it out, but it's there if you push it hard enough, or want to keep up with the Ferrari's and Corvette's mid corner.

 

I will admit to Porsche bias, but you would have to be plum crazy to even suggest that rear engine is the ideal engine configuration and advantageous to every other. Simple physics puts that argument to rest. Not to mention I would think that if it were such an advantage more than ONLY ONE manufacturer actually would race with it.

 

The evidence is quite clear......

[Balroks]

Sooo, we should satisfy both arguments and all drive LS swapped 928's lol.

[heavychevy]

Sooo, we should satisfy both arguments and all drive LS swapped 928's lol.

 

 

 

 

 

It doesnt have the rear engine advantage though.....

[Sterling Doc]

I'm waiting for the rear engine F1 car to be invented, and dominate .

Those guys must not be very smart.

 

I don't love the rule change, but it does make more sense in ST3 than elsewhere - trying to cater to the import crowd. I'm glad to see ST1/2 are left alone. If this sees big increases in participation, then it was the right choice. If not, not so much. We shall see.

 

I will stay in ST3 if I don't have to make my car into a pig, otherwise spend some $$ on weight loss and go to ST2.

[Grintch]

So the whole world is stupid because they all make mid engined RWD race cars whenever possible.

[davidfarmer]

it's really hard to generalize like you guys are trying to do, but when I was racing in World Challenge 11 years ago......

 

on a Spec tire, a 911 Cup car gets a HUGE advantage coming out of corners, but is crazy twitchy where higher inertia cars were rock solid.

 

With the right setup, a front engine BMW can run circles around an AWD Audi in heavy rain. AWD alone doesn't solve all weather issues.

 

Lets get these rules out so we can just take them and run. I'm curious about the Aero situation. Factory Aero remaining???? I can tune to pretty much any level, but if Aero goes away I'll go up to ST2/TT2 just because faster is always more fun!!!

[Mrsideways]

I'm waiting for the rear engine F1 car to be invented, and dominate .

Those guys must not be very smart.

 

I don't love the rule change, but it does make more sense in ST3 than elsewhere - trying to cater to the import crowd. I'm glad to see ST1/2 are left alone. If this sees big increases in participation, then it was the right choice. If not, not so much. We shall see.

 

I will stay in ST3 if I don't have to make my car into a pig, otherwise spend some $$ on weight loss and go to ST2.

 

Come on now. Mid engine offers the same acceleration advantage. But has other advantages from the weight distribution. Mid engine trumps Rear engine. Or so they say, I personally prefer the engine hanging out the ass.

[hispanicpanic]

I can't argue against the area under the curve rule as us EVO's have a serious advantage there. But one thing i can't agree with is making the penalty higher for those of us with DCT transmissions from the factory. I'd like to hear about the evidence that was brought up to justify such a move. Even the original penalty i can't agree with 100% but increasing it from where it is simply doesn't make any sense, especially considering torque converter equipped vehicles incur no penalty. In the evo world, DCT's have been proven to rob a bit more power over their 5 speed equivalents, very common of auto tq converter transmissions. Our DCT's are also 60 lbs heavier than a 5 speed, similar to an auto trans vs 5 speed. I'm not saying that the quick shifts of a DCT don't have an advantage over a 5 speed, but i AM saying that penalizing DCT's while not penalizing Auto's is erring on hypocrisy. Have you driven a modern sports car with an auto transmission? They're fantastic!

 

Also, a hoosier A7 vs a pirelli super soft compound. Which is faster? Neither. For the case of TT, you're really limiting options of those who wish to be competitive both on track and in their wallet as take off-s can be found cheap. For TT, there really shouldn't be any penalty. For ST, it makes total sense to penalize slicks as they shine over time, but i feel participants could really expand in TT if the tire penalties just made sense. Adding back points for street compounds would also be a good starting point.

[hispanicpanic]

Additionally, you mention a concern to widen the gap between ST1 and ST2. As it sits there is a decent gap between 2 and 3 and that gap exists because of many factors that apply to only st3, but not st2. Such as aftermarket aero. And your plans to have a DCT penalty for ST3 and not st2 do not help the st1>st2 gap. I recommend if you have a penalty in st3, it should remain for st2. Actually i recommend none at all.... but hell i know you're not going to listen to me.

[Mrsideways]

I haven't tested back to back yet but from the feel of A6 to A7 the A7 doesn't feel any faster. In fact I'd venture to say I like the A6 better. But I need to do back to back testing and maybe I've just spent so many years on the A6 that any change is a negative and I need more time on the A7's.

[hakeem]

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.

 

At least years West Nationals Bill, in his ST2 car, caught and overtook all but one of the ST1 cars in the field. These guys have +150hp at least over us. Likewise at this years West Nationals Mike McAleenan in his ST3 car caught and overtook all but one or two ST2 cars.

 

I am not trying to weigh in on "who will win" in this contest of yours, but only to highlight that there is much more to going fast than having a specific amount of hp, torque, weight distribution, center of gravity, or whatever other argument de jour is going around. The discrepancy in driver skill, chassis development, budget, and overall car preparation at the club level is so enormous that arguing over 20hp is close to irrelevant.