Cobra4B Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I'll post again... leave it alone at 8:1. We had 6 in class at VIR weekend before last before one moved back to GTS3 and I know of many fence sitters. ~Brian Bowers ST2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takjak2 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Don't shoot the messenger. I think there are more scientific way to address changes than voting, especially when there is bias in participation, but there is lots of good input here. TT4/TTA/AI/GTS class discussions are also relevant. In support of ST/TT2 to 7.5 (or faster): 14 brkntrxn - Kevin - ST/TT3 Bnjmn Sterling Doc - Eric Kuhns drivinhardz06 Balroks - Matt - ST/TT 2 & 3 Revolution Mini - ST1 Arca_ex - Aaron Hiar - TT1 zigspeed10 Grintch - Bruce F heavychevy davidfarmer Toilets DanSTi Orange Crush 1LE Supports ST/TT2 remain 8.0 (against faster): 13 troyguitar - Troy Brown - TT3 UKRBMW - Alex - GTS4 cdbmathews - Chuck Mathews - ST2 hakeem - Amir ST 1 & 2 jimtway - Jim Tway ST2 jrgordonsenior - JR Gordon - ST2 sperkins - ST/TT 2 & 3 CSIPerformance - TTA PCSkiBum_21 - Brendon Stewart - ST2 Cobra4B - Brian Bowers - ST/TT2 Varkwso AZBOSS - Drew Wadolny - ST2 Tjyak50 - Tom Johnson - ST3 Supports ST/TT3 higher lbs/hp (slower): 11 troyguitar - Troy Brown - TT3 Billy Bass Balroks - Matt - ST/TT 2 & 3 takjak2 - Jason - TT3 B Esquire - Brian Lock ST/TT 2 & 3 PCSkiBum_21 - Brendon Stewart - ST2 phastafrican - Emmanuel Baako - PT/TTD CSIPerformance Cobra4B - ST/TT2 LJ32 - ST3 geeveepee Suggests ST/TT3 Aero be adjusted (wider spread): 4 Sterling Doc - Eric Kuhns - TT3? braknl8 - Chris - TT3 troyguitar - Troy Brown - TT3 takjak2 - Jason - TT3 Edited April 2, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew W. Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Please add me to the "Keep it 8.0" list; my earlier replies were embargoed until recently approved by a mod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjyak50 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 "No change" vote here. The guys racing in my Arizona ST region seem pretty content with the current classing. Many of us are not quite optimized anyway, running "All in" to the best of constrained resources. Perhaps another year or so of consistent classing brings more car counts overall, especially in smaller regions. 30hp or 200lb is a big change. In many ways I think classing consistency is good for the NASA brand overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takjak2 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Edited the above post to add. I do see that people who don't want ST2 to change are more likely to be actual ST2 drivers. Conversely, ST/TT3 drivers seems more willing to change the ST3 class to be slower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 To clarify, I run ST2 and ST3. I campaigned ST3 all of last year, but have raced ST2 so far this year. The car likes it so far and so do I. I guess that puts me back on the fence. The car is setup right now to run at 8.0 or 9.4. I can make the 7.5 with another tune I already have and some money spent on weight reduction, or I just run at about 7.6. -Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Plavan Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Please keep it the same. No need to change it and cause people to spend more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectator Racing Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I vote NO against changing ST3 ratio! I vote yes on widening the aero/non aero gap. By next year I hope to have aero so this vote is more to get some people I know who are on the fence and afraid of aero... I know this is an ST2 topic but I see a lot of ST3 talk and voting so I want to be included in that. I run ST3 in Great Lakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ32 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ST is supposed to be a open rules class. There shouldn't be an aero factor at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balroks Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ST is supposed to be a open rules class. There shouldn't be an aero factor at all. If you want to keep PTB, former PTA, and every other on the fence ST3 candidate out, sure. It provides a gap for the guy who has 2 years of ST/aero work and the guy who just showed up. Then there's the gap for those who try aero but just don't have parts avail past the basics or expertise and the ones that have full carbon and flat bottoms. That's a $10k difference sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grintch Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ST is supposed to be a open rules class. There shouldn't be an aero factor at all. Then why do we have adjustments for non production, body type, engine size, engine location, transmission type, wheels driven, tire size, tire type, and weight? A better question might be, why is the aero adjustment ST3 only? And are the above adjustments the right ones, with the right weights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braknl8 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ST is supposed to be a open rules class. There shouldn't be an aero factor at all. If you want to keep PTB, former PTA, and every other on the fence ST3 candidate out, sure. It provides a gap for the guy who has 2 years of ST/aero work and the guy who just showed up. Then there's the gap for those who try aero but just don't have parts avail past the basics or expertise and the ones that have full carbon and flat bottoms. That's a $10k difference sometimes. ^^^^ this...however, it looks like it will be a decade before I can get this car back on track so not sure how much weight my opinion should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsiawd666 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Changing to 7.5 puts me out of tt2 and I have no interest in the cash outlay to reach it nor the massive changes to drop modifications to be competitive in tt3. So I vote no change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensa Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 IMO, leave this alone, same with the tire rule changes. There are already too many classes and constant rule changes that turn people away/make people spend money to change their car over and over again to meet new rules. Consistent rules and classes will help with increasing car counts. Nothing is more frustrating then slowly building and optimizing a car for 1 rule set, only to have the goal line moved when you are halfway there. For reference, I run ST3/TT3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsmtnbiker Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I would like to see more separation between 2-3, but I don't think making 2 faster is the way to do it. Slowing down 3 would help bridge the gap from B (which is pretty wide right now, based on laptimes.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougDMElec Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I've been following this debate since the beginning and have yet to weigh in. I run ST-2 and have to detune to make ST-2 with my 480hp LS-3 crate motor. My feeling is that there probably should be a closing of the gap between ST-1 and ST-2. What I don't understand is the people who claim they won't be able to race if the change is made. No one says you have to build a new motor....just detune to ST-3 and go racing. Just my .02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Plavan Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I've been following this debate since the beginning and have yet to weigh in. I run ST-2 and have to detune to make ST-2 with my 480hp LS-3 crate motor. My feeling is that there probably should be a closing of the gap between ST-1 and ST-2. What I don't understand is the people who claim they won't be able to race if the change is made. No one says you have to build a new motor....just detune to ST-3 and go racing. Just my .02 Not everyone "Will not be able to race". I could tune it for ST2 or ST1, but myself like others do not think anything should be changed. Some people cant go to ST3 from ST2 (aero) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoward1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Maybe I missed this, but we have all the lap times for the past few years. Has anyone done the data analysis for each of these? I think putting it a simple survey out there with 10-15 questions about weight run, dyno results, aero, mods, etc. and a transponder number. Then match that with the lap times of each race, each venue, and each date (to minimize weather effects). After which, look for the clusters and the outliers. Publish the results here for everyone to see. Heck, if NASA sends me a data dump I might even be able to put something together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Marty, I did one better several months ago, but I have not shared it with anyone. After East Coast Nationals at Road Atlanta, I was curious on how ALL of the classes lined up with each other and how many "clusters" of lap times did we have across all of the ST, GT, AI, PT, SpecX, etc. classes. From the ECC Qualifying and Championship races, I took the top TWO lap times from each class and averaged them. Then I ranked and grouped them. Here are the results of how it looks: Lap Times in order 01:27.6 Super Unlimited 01:29.0 Super Touring 1 01:29.5 American Iron Xtreme 01:31.5 Super Touring 2 01:32.5 GTS4 01:34.7 GTS3 01:35.0 Super Touring 3 01:35.1 American Iron 01:35.1 GTS2 01:37.0 PTB 01:37.5 Factory Five Challenge 01:38.7 Spec Iron 01:38.8 Honda Chal 1 01:39.1 Spec Z 01:40.9 CMC 01:42.0 Honda Chal 2 01:42.9 Spec3 01:43.6 PTE 01:44.7 SpecE30 01:45.1 Spec Miata 01:45.1 944 Spec 01:46.1 GTS1 01:50.7 PTF I used the top two and averaged them because that helps take out the argument of some inhuman driver that is uber good or some car owner that spent uber dollars. My intent was to show how 23 classes were running in basically 15 clusters of lap times. This is going to stir up a huge debate, so I will leave it here until Greg wants it deleted. -kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoward1 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 good start. Now if we correlate that with weight, HP, tire size, and general bucks of mods we can have a pretty good cluster map. Heck, I'll even host the survey. I am thinking keeping it simple. Weight Dyno tire height/tire ratio/rime size= to get tire width. Stock Aero Added Aero etc. I wouldn't want to reflect the whole point system. Rather look at large buckets to see where the splits occur. We can then look at time ranges to decide how the grouping works. It really needs to be a variety of tracks and events though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiggyracing Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Some really good points from previous posts: "Consistent rules and classes will help with increasing car counts" "I run ST-2 and have to detune to make ST-2 with my 480hp LS-3 crate motor. My feeling is that there probably should be a closing of the gap between ST-1 and ST-2." "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." and lots of really good pleas not to do anything that will start causing us to put way more money into the cars and lots of requests not to have too many classes; not to have big tires and torque corvettes dominate the St-3 class; and to have ST-3 class affordable and fit all of those PTA and PTB cars ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder if we are missing an opportunity to have the three ST classes separated by taking better advantage of ST-1. It seems to be an underused class. My sense is that ST-1 cars are few. May be we are looking too much at how to separate ST-2 from ST-3 when we should be looking at how to make ST-1 better suited to fit the needs of the club members. What if? The ST-1 ratio is about 6.8-7:1 ratio and would be for -E36's with LS-1's, built out and later generation M3's - faster C6 corvettes including those with LS-3's and ZO6's (with the introduction of the c7 vette, we will start to see more C6 LS-3 grand sports and c6 ZO6's make their way into the racing field and as well it is possible to bring the C6 weight down, eg. i will be about 2850 -2900 with driver) - tube frame TA-2 as the price of these cars are getting lower and are a great alternative -stock Vipers (not the competition coupes) -the well prepared Grand Am and other Mustangs as the price of these cars goes down -AIX cars The ST-2 ratio is 8 to 8.5 and would be for: -996', 997', less built GTS-3/4 BMW's modified for the class -lighter tube frame cars (like the 7'sonly MazdaGT with 13B) -C5 corvettes and LS-2 C6 corvettes -Well prepared but heavier Ford Mustangs -AI cars ST-3 ratio is 10-11:1, no aero mods, and the rules designed to pretty much restrict to suspension mods only so basically the cost of running in this class would be the cost of a good set of sway bars and good coil overs. tire size might also be limited to 275. This would allow all of those PTA, PTB cars to sit well and even some of the PTC cars. also lighter weight tube frame cars. -350Z minimally modified -earlier generation 911's -E36 M3 -Mini Cooper S -C5 corvette but tire size limited -faster Hondas -lots of other production cars -low powered tube frame cars To my ST-1 fellow club members who understandably want to see their class preserved: I wonder how many of you are at your optimum Wt:HP ratios for ST-1 (which is hard to achieve). some simple restrictor plate/de tune problem get your Wt:HP in the 6.8-7:1 range. Also, as another club member pointed out, it would be a little safer to be running slightly slower. So I vote to: Make ST-1 6.8-7:1 Keep sT-2 at 8 to 8.5 so we limit the amount of people effected by a change which helps make NASA more popular Do the things we need to do to make ST-3 a class for lots of different cars If you want to make attendance/racing the most fun and safest…get rid of the tire and other contingencies. Ultimately then you are racing against the guy (or gal) next to you what ever class they are in. Make contingency about attendance. The more events you attend, the more contingency hoosier, hawk, etc dollars you get. That will help fill all the classes and NASA events. (you may strongly disagree with my last or any other points. If you do, that is okay. But, it is not okay to be impolite. The majority of us expect your comments to be polite) Thanks for reading and thanks to the NASA folks for trying to get our thoughts. Jonathan Tempe, Arizona ST-2 (ST-1?) corvette ST-3 7'sOnly MazdaGT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiggyracing Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 some further thoughts: i enjoy the competition and I am very competitive person. I am also not in favor for a trophy for "participation". i want to win ("ricky bobby if you aint first ur last"). must of us are. So, contingency tires are not necessary to maintain the competitive spirit - it will be there no matter what. another news flash: we may be at the top of our game in other venues, but in the world of car racing any one of many truly professional drivers (as opposed to pro am drivers) can get out on the track with us and kick our asses. We need to be thinking less about specific classes (except perhaps for Nationals) and more about having fun racing the guy next to you - no matter what their class. A GTS car may not normally be as fast as me but may be i want to just finish up an old set of tires to keep my costs down. that day i'm a second slower and then we are racing together. emphasis on class is born mostly out of the contingency program. Get rid of that and all of the specifics of ST wt:HP ratios becomes way less important. One might argue then that there will be more dishonesty in what people claim to be in their cars. In terms of being beat by somebody in the same class because they are BS'ing about their car and not because they are a better driver- we all know who those people are. When a mini cooper pulls a corvette in the straight everybody knows the MAP has been changed on the mini. it would be nice to maintain the financial support from Hawk, Toyo, Hoosier, etc. So, make contingency about participation. and by the way participation might include working as a course worker, grid marshal, instructor, etc. based on some kind of point system. that helps everybody get into grass roots racing Jonathan (jiggyracing) Tempe AZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoward1 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 some further thoughts: another news flash: we may be at the top of our game in other venues, but in the world of car racing any one of many truly professional drivers (as opposed to pro am drivers) can get out on the track with us and kick our asses. Jonathan (jiggyracing) Tempe AZ Speak for yourself. I passed Mike Skeen...once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I passed Mike Skeen...once. Did he pass you back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balroks Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I passed Mike Skeen...once. Did he pass you back? Mike was likely replying to a text at the time 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.