Balroks Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The only issue I see is ST3 was made way too close to st2 power to weight. It should be 10:1 or 11:1. Respectfully, that is xxB power isn't it? Again, I don't feel the answer to the ST2 question is to modify ST3. As an ST3 driver i'd be ok with 10 or 11.0, would allow GTS3's and PTB's to put fat tires in and come over if they didn't have the counts. But you'd have to delete the aero penalty then or the detune's would struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grintch Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 As an ST3 driver i'd be ok with 10 or 11.0, would allow GTS3's and PTB's to put fat tires in and come over if they didn't have the counts. But you'd have to delete the aero penalty then or the detune's would struggle. Respectfully, that is xxB power isn't it? Again, I don't feel the answer to the ST2 question is to modify ST3. Given it's greater popularity, I agree that changing ST3 to fix ST2 seems like a move in the wrong direction. If we want to allow overlaps in the ST & PT power to weight subcatagories, I would say bring back TTA/PTA so the current crop of modern American performance cars don't have to go directly to the semi unlimited ST, TTnumber classes even in stock form. Then if that works, consider allowing the lower classes to overlap as well. But I would put a 11:1ish ST class as more like ST4, than shifting ST3 down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Subscribed. My only input here is that I agree ST2/3 are too close and just split everyone up. Why not make it a flat 9:1 and just combine it all. No aero waivers, just open 9:1. Looks like we're shaping up to have a decent ST2 field in Mid-A this year because of VIR nats. I have no budget or desire to have a hot-rod motor. My stock LS6 can make the power to run ST2 at 8:1, but I can detune to run a higher ratio of needed. Most of all I'm tired of everyone being split and having to try and plan for flipping between multiple classis. I'm an analyst by trade... I want to build to one set of rules, then move on and focus on racing/driving, not constantly tweaking for rules changes and jumping classes, but that's just me. I do enough analysis in my 9-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R. Smith Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I know the Calif. guys like to stay with 8.0 and they have been a strong supporter of ST2 racing. They also added to the car count while switching over from T1 because NASA was a organization that listened. They are also developing a strong Calif. ST2 group for next season. I previously thought that 7.5 would be o.k., but that is probably because I have an LS3 engine. I could also support increasing the ST1 ratio to 6.0 or 6.5 thereby making the ST classes 6.0-6.5/8.0/9.5 (non aero). I raced ST1 this year because of the number of cars in class but was underpowered for class and really do not want to spend big bucks to increase HP. Possibly this (6.0-6.5 for ST1) would also get more Porsches to enter class? J.R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maynor Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 ...I previously thought that 7.5 would be o.k., but that is probably because I have an LS3 engine. I could also support increasing the ST1 ratio to 6.0 or 6.5 thereby making the ST classes 6.0-6.5/8.0/9.5 (non aero). I raced ST1 this year because of the number of cars in class but was underpowered for class and really do not want to spend big bucks to increase HP. Possibly this (6.0-6.5 for ST1) would also get more Porsches to enter class? J.R. I'm TOTALLY in agreement with J.R.'s position. I've got the same LS3 motor dilemma. The HP spread in ST1 can be 150 hp or greater at the 5.5 - 8.0:1 spread that currently exists (doing the math off the top of my head). Its either build for 5.5:1 ($$$), major detune/add weight to get into ST2, or go home. The spread J.R. suggested for ST1/2/3 makes a lot more sense and might allow a large car count in all classes plus the cross over potential from other categories when/if needed. That's my vote for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimtway Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I keep reading we got to "fix ST-2". Who said it was broken? Greg, please provide your thought process on this proposal? What are you trying to gain? If this is a reaction to the fact that only 3 ST-2 cars showed up to the West Nationals, I would say that you are making a grave mistake. West coast ST car counts stunk because SCCA moved the Runoffs into our backyard for the first time in 50 years. Combine that with half of the ST-2 group blowing up their motors this year and you get what happened. Last point, please speak to the actual guys who race ST1/2/3. I see a lot of opinions and remarks on this thread from guys who run other classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 17, 2015 Author National Staff Share Posted January 17, 2015 I keep reading we got to "fix ST-2". Who said it was broken? Greg, please provide your thought process on this proposal? What are you trying to gain? If this is a reaction to the fact that only 3 ST-2 cars showed up to the West Nationals, I would say that you are making a grave mistake. West coast ST car counts stunk because SCCA moved the Runoffs into our backyard for the first time in 50 years. Combine that with half of the ST-2 group blowing up their motors this year and you get what happened. Last point, please speak to the actual guys who race ST1/2/3. I see a lot of opinions and remarks on this thread from guys who run other classes. Jim, I never said it was my idea. I said it was a proposal, and for folks to place their comments. We have 6 pages already, and the season hasn't even started, so we should have lots of comments to look at in a few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takjak2 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 TT3 driver here. Adding more HP to the rulebook is not a good way to improve racing. It makes costs higher which directly affects the size of the field. Terminal velocities (crash speeds) get higher and the "infield" driving doesn't get any better. I would much rather have fun, competitive classes than higher costs of entry in the name of raw speed. What is the goal here? If you don't want the **3 cars catching up, slow them down. Since the demise of TTA there is wide gap to cross getting up to the fully prepped trophy level in anything that isn't the "ideal car" (coughcorvettecough). I think aero is a big hurdle for new guys (myself included) in time, $$$, and setup and I think everyone agrees the minimal aero points in tt3 make them mandatory. I think changing the aero mod to +1.0 for TT3 would fix more than one problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Since the demise of TTA there is wide gap to cross getting up to the fully prepped trophy level in anything that isn't the "ideal car" (coughcorvettecough). The whole point of eliminating TTA/PTA was to give non-Corvette drivers a chance to openly modify their cars to become competitive. Most haven't tried, but those who have seem to do well. Have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted January 31, 2015 Members Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have not been racing with the ST rules long, but coming from someone who is building multiple cars for myself and customers for the class, my thoughts are. ST1 - Seems fine to me, basically set for a GT3 Cup car, great for people who want to go nuts but not be killed by the little sports racer that show up in SU. ST2 - also ok, any where close to its current HP/weight seems fine. I was considering a 370Z for the class for my next build. Get it light, put on some slicks, tune the motor with basic bolts on and you should be good to go. ST3 - This is where the problem seems to be, why so close to ST2? From someone who is currently trying to make a 350Z competitive in ST3, seems like 9.5 or 10:1 would allows a LOT more cars to be build for this class. So if the goal is to great a stronger ST class lineup all together, I think the attention needs to be in ST3. That was the class that had the least entries at West Coast Champs I believe. And it makes sense, why run ST3 in most cars making that kind of power when you can put some cool aero on your car, slightly bump the power and run ST2 and go faster. I like the idea of the ST ruleset being simple and allowing your own personal touch on how you want to build your car, and I think more cars would run it if ST3 was a little slower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperkins Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ST3 - why so close to ST2? A couple of years ago, there was a points based class (PTA) with the same pw/wt ratio of 8.7:1 as ST2. When PTA was eliminated, there had to be somewhere for those cars to go without forcing them to spend tons of money to be competitive in ST2. ST3 was created for that purpose. At the same time, ST2 pw/wt was bumped to 8.0:1 and ST3 was 9.0:1 with the .5 aero penalty. I don't see much wiggle room for changing the ST3 ratio. I don't think we shouldn't have PTC powered cars running in the ST classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 What about ST4 @ 11:1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted February 2, 2015 Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 ST3 - why so close to ST2? A couple of years ago, there was a points based class (PTA) with the same pw/wt ratio of 8.7:1 as ST2. When PTA was eliminated, there had to be somewhere for those cars to go without forcing them to spend tons of money to be competitive in ST2. ST3 was created for that purpose. At the same time, ST2 pw/wt was bumped to 8.0:1 and ST3 was 9.0:1 with the .5 aero penalty. I don't see much wiggle room for changing the ST3 ratio. I don't think we shouldn't have PTC powered cars running in the ST classes. Were you trying to say we shouldn't have PTC (a 350Z is PTB if you do anything to it at all) powered cars running in ST3? If so I beg to differ. The 350Z for example is not a very good choice for PTB because of its starting class and points, and if you want to do anything to your car you end up in ST3. But now there is a HUGE jump in power from PTB to ST3. Why? It would make more sense to have more even steps from PTB to ST3 to ST2 an so on. ST3 would be a perfect class for around 300 HP at a reasonable weight. I can get a VQ35 V76 to make 300 WHP pretty easily, but getting the weight down to ST3 will be difficult. So yes I can make more power, but not as easily or cheaply. My point is it seems there could be a much better breakup of the ST classes to allow less powerful cars to take advantage of a very simple and fun ruleset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But now there is a HUGE jump in power from PTB to ST3. Why? It would make more sense to have more even steps from PTB to ST3 to ST2 an so on. ST3 would be a perfect class for around 300 HP at a reasonable weight. How is the jump in power from PTB to ST3 huge? It's 10.5:1, ST3 is 9 (9.4 with any aero) and 8:1 down to ST2. ST3 is virtually smack dab in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted February 2, 2015 Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 My apologies, to clarify, a 350z prepped to PTB has a power to weight around 12:1, and there is no way to get it close to the limit ratio hp and stay in PTB. So without this going to a conversation about the PT ruleset, for this example and I am sure other cars stuck in Non competitive classes in PT, it would give those cars a home that they don't currently have. Again I am not sure why the focus on st2, st3 seems to be the least attended class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted February 2, 2015 Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 What about ST4 @ 11:1? That's an option, but I am not usually in favor of further deviding classes. Car counts struggle as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 11:1 is an easy GTS(3) crossover. Could help with pulling a class together if ST4/GTS3 counts are thin on a given weekend. And then German cars could race against cars from rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Again I am not sure why the focus on st2, st3 seems to be the least attended class. Depends on your location. We had 10 cars in ST3 at the East Coast Nationals and only 4 in ST2, 3 in ST1, and 5 in SU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted February 3, 2015 Members Share Posted February 3, 2015 Again I am not sure why the focus on st2, st3 seems to be the least attended class. Depends on your location. We had 10 cars in ST3 at the East Coast Nationals and only 4 in ST2, 3 in ST1, and 5 in SU. That is a good point. I am switching to ST3 from Spec Z because the class is just not picking up out West here, but back East it seems to have ok numbers. I still think that opening up this class to lower HP cars would be a great idea, and would grow car counts further. Who knows, maybe I can get that carbon fiber sponsorship I am looking for and will be able to make weight no problem with my little V6 power level . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakeem Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Some of us have been beating the "why have anything other than ST classes" drum for a while. Maybe one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Because: -budget -running a high PTW dyno reclass -trying to stick to simple drivetrain/suspension/tire points -budget -budget -aaand budget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra4B Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Since the demise of TTA there is wide gap to cross getting up to the fully prepped trophy level in anything that isn't the "ideal car" (coughcorvettecough). L O motherfudgin' L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakeem Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Because:-budget -running a high PTW dyno reclass -trying to stick to simple drivetrain/suspension/tire points -budget -budget -aaand budget Couldn't disagree more, but don't want to pollute the thread too much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balroks Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Some of us have been beating the "why have anything other than ST classes" drum for a while. Maybe one day. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCSkiBum_21 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I was also originally a fan of changing ST2 from 8 to 7.5 or 7, the main reason because I agree ST2 and ST3 are too close together. After reading the thread and comments, I would be in favor of keeping ST2 the same if ST3 is dropped to say 10 or 11. I think it would help increase both class counts by pushing some ST3 people into ST2 and help bring in new cars to ST3. At the end of the day, I just want higher class counts. I only ran 2 or 3 races in 2014 that had a second competitor in ST2 (Utah). 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.