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

[heavychevy]

 

This spread would be great if there was an ST4 class instead of PTB. But as it is, my 350Z for example cannot get close to the 10.50 limit in PTB and have any points left for, I don't know, race tires .

 

The reason I moved into the ST3 from PTB was the points system just doesn't work well for the 350Z. As it is, the points system is an interesting way to get things close, but never are you going to have really great competition by giving the same points for the same mod to two different cars that might effect those cars very differently. That being said, its a great way to a do a catch all class so I wouldn't propose getting rid of it.

 

What would be great is if the ST family would be more open to lower HP cars, like my 350Z. So in my opinion raising ST3 to 9.5 or 10:1 kills two birds with one stone. Increases car counts by allowing more cars to run in ST3, and gets rid of this dual class/detune argument by making it harder for people to prep a car to ST2, then "detune" and destroy ST3 with huge torque numbers and flat HP curves. People may still do it, but I would wager that it would be less than it is now.

 

6:1, 8:1, and 10:1 still gets my vote. However I don't think a lot of folks are going to like changing ST1, by my math a Porsche GT3 Cup on slicks in exactly on the edge of ST1 rules, and I can't think that is a coincidence. So leave ST1 alone if you want, our numbers out west indicated a need for more ST3 cars, our ST1 field was pretty good.

 

I don't mind 6.1 for ST1 my last spread was one to make the most of being able to swap between classes to boost numbers/contingency if your class happens to be low on a particular weekend.

 

I think NASA needs to be more flexible on tire sizes, that's part of the reason the Corvette's are so dominant. Many run bigger sizes in front than most cars can run in the back or anywhere else. Make Power/weight the base concept and then award mod factors (in all classes) for no aero components (or lack thereof), street R-comps, and tire width points. More contact patch can be just as advantageous as a tire compound change, especially in racing where more contact patch is going to last longer.

[Cobra4B]

No matter what you do to us we'll compete and win. You make ST3 10:1 I can do that. You make ST2 7.5:1 I can do that too. I've spent a bunch of time/money developing my car since the ending of TTA/PTA and would enjoy some stability. I'd prefer to have my stock C5Z with a cage back, but that ship has sailed.

 

I'm racing ST2 this year... will be interesting to see what changes occur. 7.5:1 would require something other than a stock motor for me.... not sure I care to go that route. If I keep spending money to keep up with the rules, a street C7 and going back to trackdays and instructing looks more and more appealing vs. every weekend in the garage wrenching.

 

Most of us turn our own wrenches vs. drop it off at the shop blank check racers.

 

Oh... and I'll vouch for Ziggy... his car is legit and he has the balls to drive it. Did some testing with him at VIR with my car making 385 rwhp vs. his 335. I would destroy him on the straights, but his aero is more developed than mine (side skirts and full diffuser) and he keeps his foot on the floor in the esses where I have to lift some. He was also out braking me into T1. Oh... and he's got a trick gearbox with better ratios than what I had... car is well built and he can drive. No cheating needed.

 

Clifs - 6, 8, and 10 works for me. I don't want 7.5 as I can't easily run that with a stock LS1/6.

[jason]

I have super light C5 with a really strong stock LS6 with an aggressive tune, 5" clutch and headers and there's no way I can make 7.0:1

I would be forced to go into the engine ($$$) to make that kind of power. So would every other LS1/LS6 Corvette in the world.

There are a ton of ST2 Corvettes in NASA and I dare say 90% of them are heavier than mine so they would need to make a lot more horsepower than me. Seems hard to justify.

 

Depends on your goal.

[davidfarmer]

I'm not getting into the argument, I'll just cast my vote.

 

St1. 6:1

St2. 7.5:1

St3. 9:1 With OEM aero

 

 

St2 could be 7.75 since st3 has the aero disadvantage.....

[Toilets]

Agree completely with David Farmer. That is my vote as well

[mhoward1]

But David is a Covette builder so his vote doesn't count.

[Varkwso]

Voting against the C5 mafia is not advised. They may move to your class.

[Bnjmn]

I vote for ST4 @ 11:1

[Cobra4B]

I vote for ST4 @ 11:1

We can do that... 3500 min comp weight + stock LS1 with 310 rwhp

[davidfarmer]

just to be clear, I meant ST3 with factory aero OR aftermarket aero with a small penalty. No way ANY factory aero can compare with full race car aero..... 0.4 seems reasonably fair to me, and it gives those that don't want aero a place to run.

[Emmanuel B.]

Tough to keep this subject focused it seems. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the proposal is to increase separation between ST2 and ST3 for 2016. If the current system should be left alone, vote for that as well.

 

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.

[DanSTi]

I would definitely be in support of a switch to 7.5:1.

[mhoward1]

Tough to keep this subject focused it seems. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the proposal is to increase separation between ST2 and ST3 for 2016. If the current system should be left alone, vote for that as well.

 

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.

 

 

agreed, a larger separation would be appreciated.

[Varkwso]

Leave it alone

[LJ32]

un F'ing believable ST2 is fine. Its St3 that was made to low in the first place. Forcing ppl to build 6 and 4 cyl with forced induction throwing out what reliability we were holding on too trying to keep up with detuned v8’s. So here I am spending all this money chasing st3 and st2 numbers. Now that ive spend all of last year building to st3, you wanna talk about changing it!? !? W.. t… f….

 

whatever the outcome, lesson learned ( should of raced a spec class) that’s my 2 cents but it does not change the main problem. car count. Im so sick of racing maybe 1 other guy or bumping up regionally and seeing 3 – 5 in a national race. NASA needs to be worried about fixing that. car count is on topic because thats the only reason we are talking about shuffling ratios is it not?

 

5.5 – 7.5 – 9.5 – 11.5 ST1, 2, 3, and 4 and BURN that god forsaken idea to race GTS or American iron in their own class!!!!!

 

To hell with ST, S2000 for sale, ill take 30k. I could have bought an NP01 by now… smh

Edited February 20, 2015 by Guest

[LJ32]

lol it needed to be said/asked, so I did it.

 

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=130348

[braknl8]

lol it needed to be said/asked, so I did it.

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=130348

 

That's going to go over about as well as parking in spec e30, in the se.

[SNAKBITN]

Come on over to Spec Iron.It's fairly cheap,good contingency prizes, and almost as fast as ST3 but cheaper to run,and you can run in PTB also!

[Orange Crush 1LE]

I'm good with ST2 at 7.5.

[geeveepee]

ST3 at 10:1 or an ST4 at 11:1 please.

 

I have the same 350z problem as Besquire. Limited mods in PTB make it uncompetitive out of the gate given its base class. Spec Z is going nowhere west of Texas. Stock DE motor with Spec Z trim gives about 12.5:1.

 

An ST4 class would be a hell of a lot of fun with cheap bolt-ons. I'm stupid enough to chase 10:1 at the cost of my retirement funds. I'm even stupid enough to chase 9:1, I just don't have the cash.

 

Where else do I race without switching cars? Spec E46 had 7 or 8 entries on Day 1 at Sonoma this weekend...

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Leave it alone

Best response yet.

[J_Roberts]

The numbers don't lie.

Class Wt/hp Delta Delta %

ST1 5.5

ST2 8.00 2.5 45%

ST3 9.00 1.0 13%

PTB 10.25 1.25 14%

PTC 12.0 1.75 17%

PTD 14.25 2.25 19%

PTE 16.5 2.25 16%

PTF 19.5 3.0 18%

 

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

I asked Greg about this a few months ago in an e-mail (before this thread started), but I am probably not the only one who has asked guessing from the response here. That large 45% gap between 1 and 2 was essentially what I was trying to convey. ST2/TT2 participation for most races in the Texas region is pretty dismal compared to 3 and 1, and I suspect there are a few here that run ST1 (without capturing all of the w:p allowance) because they cannot quite squeeze into ST2.

 

Good opinions on both sides of this discussion.

[Drew W.]

My vote is to keep it at 8.0.

 

Its hard enough to meet 8.0. With my 390 rwhp Corvette at 3120 lbs, I need to either drop 195 lbs (impossible) or spend thousands of dollars to get to 416 rwhp. The classing for ST2 is great, leave it alone.

 

If the goal of this to separate the ST1, ST2 and ST3 classes more evenly, I suggest to make ST1 6.5 and leave ST3 at 9.5. 90% of the ST1 cars are not optimized at the current 5.5. Getting to 5.5 requires a ridiculous motor build. For example, a C6 Corvette Z06 puts down 500 rwhp with simple bolt-ons at can easily come in at 3200 lbs. That's 6.4 wt/hp. One would need to build a 581 rwhp motor for 5.5 wt/hp.

 

Completely agree. I have no interest in having to spend another fistful of thousands of dollars to chase a 7.5 limit when I'm not even at the 8.0 right now. More power won't be helpful and making the car THAT light just isn't realistic.

[Drew W.]

Here is what I posted on my regional board:

 

NO!

 

Not worth the extra money that would have to be spent chasing the new P:W limit line, nor would extra power actually make many of us any faster.

 

Edit: Apparently I can get pretty close to 7.5 with about $4K in intake/long tube headers/tuning but the car doesn't need more power and I don't want to spend another $4K on this thing.

 

No thanks.

 

Just leave it alone. And when we talk about "the classes being too close together" or whatever that perception is--you're not racing the people in the other classes.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Guest

[jimtway]

I chimed in awhile ago, but I want to re-iterate that changing ST2 too 7.5 would be a huge mistake. The only reason for the poor ST2 counts on the West Coast in 2014 was that SCCA pulled a trump card out and did the Runoffs at Laguna.

 

This year, at the first event, we had double digit entries at Willow Springs in ST2. We are set to beat that count in 2 weeks at the next one.

 

I see a few people in favor of 7.5. I also see a lot of opinions with no names behind them. If you have posted or plan to post yay or nay, please note your name and what class you currently run.

 

Jim Tway

ST-2