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

[mhoward1]

I passed Mike Skeen...once.

Did he pass you back?

 

That's beside the point!!!

 

Mike was likely replying to a text at the time

 

and possible signing autographs on the other cars as he passed them.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

That's beside the point!!!

[Apexkingjusto]

Speaking as one of the few non vette st2 drivers, if torque and wheelbase were a factor in the calculation, you would open the class up to a ton of other cars, that otherwise would never consider it. I'd prefer sticking to 8:1, BUT if torque and wheelbase became part of the calculation, Id happily run 7.5:1.

[Varkwso]

I passed Mike Skeen...once.

Did he pass you back?

 

That's beside the point!!!

 

Mike was likely replying to a text at the time

 

and possible signing autographs on the other cars as he passed them.

 

 

[StreetSpeed]

My vote counts little, because my ST3 Vette blew it's motor in my first qualifying in April. Have yet to turn the w2w in anger. Car is back with a new ST2 motor, totally capable of 7.5:1. I would have much preferred to run in st3 and save thousands of dollars on the motor and aero, but there are very few st3 cars in the northeast so I ponied up.

 

That said, I vote leave it the way it is. Can anyone from NASA comment yet on which way this debate is leaning?

[Sterling Doc]

That brings up another issue - aero. It's pretty clear that to be seriously competitive at any ST level, you need a very well developed aero package. It would be nice to have a place to run a competitive car that doesn't require all the compromisies of aero - low ride height, splitters and flat bottoms and diffusers that are one curb or off away from being destroyed, etc. ST3 makes an attempt at that, but the the penalty is trivial. I'm not for making more classes, but I'd be interested in a better non-aero modifier.

 

I already voiced my thoughts on the HP issue. As it stands now, I'd need a cam change to make the leap, but it would be doable.

[Balroks]

Agreed - I could technically make the leap to 7.5 but the up-front and recurring cost would far outweigh the benefit, as it would for most. I'd also agree with the aero suggestion - either increase it or restrict it at 3. Such as splitter, rear diffuser, wing, these sizes and lengths off the car, fender flares, etc. Things that help without spending thousands. Leaving the full aero bits to the big spenders in big bore classes.

[mlwbcolorado]

Greg - When will the final rules for 2016 be announced? Can we work to do this by October 15th? This would really help the people who are making a change or building a car for ST next year. It will also help the regions in the south and southwest that begin racing early in the year.

[Greg G.]

I would think so. We will be discussing ST rules after the E. Chanps.

[McMahonRacing]

ST2 North East, FFR Cobra w/ AREO .... myself, spent a boat load of cash last year to get myself to 8.0 w/ a strong torque curve ( 347 stroker w/ a carb ) to better match the competition Vette's ( the prob. here is the availability of GM crate motors w/ big numbers and the ability to tune them as they do ) and it worked for the races I made ..... however, to due so I had to detune the package it was just enough to make ST2 ( added 20lbs of weight ) ...... make the drop to 7.5 and I am likely out of ST2 and now, once again totally underpowered in an aero dynamic brick in ST1 ..... ST3 I could never make w/o tearing the car totally apart ( same w/ the FFR Challenge series I would have to start over and that means big $$$ ) and going to another motor .....

 

ST2 FFR Cobra w/o Aero isn't really good ( we ran # 48 w/o aero & w/ aero guess which one made him very competitive except for the torque advantage I had ) ..... short tracks are good for these aero dynamic bricks but, a long track ( WGI, Pococno, Mid Ohio, etc. ) they are no match for a slippery Vette ......

 

ST2 field in the Northeast at least is usually pretty good, typically enough to qualify for tires, the ST1 field is very small kinda a class of 1 at the moment .....

 

Short version, I would prefer to leave things as they are.

[mhoward1]

ST2 North East, FFR Cobra w/ AREO .... myself, spent a boat load of cash last year to get myself to 8.0 w/ a strong torque curve ( 347 stroker w/ a carb ) to better match the competition Vette's ( the prob. here is the availability of GM crate motors w/ big numbers and the ability to tune them as they do ) and it worked for the races I made ..... however, to due so I had to detune the package it was just enough to make ST2 ( added 20lbs of weight ) ...... make the drop to 7.5 and I am likely out of ST2 and now, once again totally underpowered in an aero dynamic brick in ST1 ..... ST3 I could never make w/o tearing the car totally apart ( same w/ the FFR Challenge series I would have to start over and that means big $$$ ) and going to another motor .....

 

ST2 FFR Cobra w/o Aero isn't really good ( we ran # 48 w/o aero & w/ aero guess which one made him very competitive except for the torque advantage I had ) ..... short tracks are good for these aero dynamic bricks but, a long track ( WGI, Pococno, Mid Ohio, etc. ) they are no match for a slippery Vette ......

 

ST2 field in the Northeast at least is usually pretty good, typically enough to qualify for tires, the ST1 field is very small kinda a class of 1 at the moment .....

 

Short version, I would prefer to leave things as they are.

 

 

JG and I were talking about this the other day with the same conclusion. The FFRC with Aero will be competitive on short or tighter tracks. Unfortunately national events will almost always be at big long fast tracks. I think if we could get unmodified Challenge cars into ST3 unmodified, they would do OK. That would give the 150+ legacy FFRC cars a place to play again too.

[brkntrxn]

Marty,

 

Why can't an FFR get down to 9 or 9.4 for ST3?

[mhoward1]

Marty,

 

Why can't an FFR get down to 9 or 9.4 for ST3?

 

It's smack in the middel of the two setups.

 

FFR original sits at 10.9 (220 HP). FFR current sits at 7.8 (320 HP) with no areo and prime weight. We can add the weight to get to 8.0 fairly easily, but would have to add 500 lbs to get to ST3. To play in ST3 would mean a whole new engine setup.

[McMahonRacing]

Don't forget you get a pass if you keep the 275's but, John G hasn't figured out how to keep them from cording as yet w/ & w/o aero .... myself, moved too a 295 rear and have been good so far even running A's but they are pretty beat at the end of a weekend.

Also, didn't have time to try a legit R vs A test but, the in either case to be up front you really need stickers ea. weekend to keep pace with the typically more well funded Vette's.

Don't forget we also get a hit for aero in the non-production approved section ( we take a -.2 for adding aero above and beyond the stock FFR air dam, where as aero is free? for everyone else I think ).

[brkntrxn]

I can see where the FFR Originals would have to add motor mods for power no matter which ST class they chose. I assume they are about as light as you can get them so that only leaves adding power.

 

For the FFR Current cars, getting to ST2 is as easy as adding a 65lbs right? Of course, then you have to add aero as well.

 

For FFR Current cars in ST3 Non-Aero, can't you simply detune the motor with a simple throttle stop on the carb or a pedal stop on the accelerator? This is no different than how my car is detuned for ST3. And you would still be 600lbs lighter than my car.

[davidfarmer]

just looking for updates, back on topic

 

. I personally vote YES for changing ST2 to 7.5:1 with no other particular changes in mind. Even 7.3 would be fine, but that would really squeeze a lot of guys to go with big motors. I think 7.5 would widen the gap between ST2 and ST3 and still be attainable for most cars with only minor upgrades.

[jimtway]

just looking for updates, back on topic

 

. I personally vote YES for changing ST2 to 7.5:1 with no other particular changes in mind. Even 7.3 would be fine, but that would really squeeze a lot of guys to go with big motors. I think 7.5 would widen the gap between ST2 and ST3 and still be attainable for most cars with only minor upgrades.

 

MINOR upgrades? I think you meant $thousands of upgrades.

 

 

-Jim Tway

[rpoz27]

Coming to this game a little late and honestly couldn't read 17 pages of opinions.

 

Keep it simple, lower costs and make it easier to get to each class max hp ratio.

 

ST1 6.0:1 folks can easily detune and make the equipment last longer and cheaper entry for big power.

 

ST2 8.0:1 Good spread in the middle class. Let's a few folks build reasonable power across different platforms.

 

ST3 10.0:1 Offers cheaper entry for power and can include other classes currently excluded at 9.0:1 such as AI or others who would have to do more than just ballast up for a race weekend or turn down the timing/boost.

 

These are also good round numbers and looks less intimidating that numbers with odd decimals.

 

Aero is not a penalty in any class.

 

This way is so much more simple. Only other item might be a modifier for Vettes or other chassis that over the season have proven to dominate with the new formula. If Vettes are sweeping the series and causing folks to leave, it's no different than having a base modifier for certain parts such as tube framed cars, sequential gear boxes or non-dot tires. A lot of this comes down to the individual driver and overall car prep.

 

Last item might be a diesel powered modifier but realistically, that probably isn't a problem right now.

[Arca_ex]

Coming to this game a little late and honestly couldn't read 17 pages of opinions.

 

Keep it simple, lower costs and make it easier to get to each class max hp ratio.

 

ST1 6.0:1 folks can easily detune and make the equipment last longer and cheaper entry for big power.

 

ST2 8.0:1 Good spread in the middle class. Let's a few folks build reasonable power across different platforms.

 

ST3 10.0:1 Offers cheaper entry for power and can include other classes currently excluded at 9.0:1 such as AI or others who would have to do more than just ballast up for a race weekend or turn down the timing/boost.

 

These are also good round numbers and looks less intimidating that numbers with odd decimals.

 

Aero is not a penalty in any class.

 

This way is so much more simple. Only other item might be a modifier for Vettes or other chassis that over the season have proven to dominate with the new formula. If Vettes are sweeping the series and causing folks to leave, it's no different than having a base modifier for certain parts such as tube framed cars, sequential gear boxes or non-dot tires. A lot of this comes down to the individual driver and overall car prep.

 

Last item might be a diesel powered modifier but realistically, that probably isn't a problem right now.

 

 

I like this idea the best...

[Balroks]

5-7-9 or 6-8-10, i'm down either way. Pref 5-7-9 in my opinion as it's closest to the current specs.

[Xeno]

There are diminishing returns as we go farther down the ratio curve. For a 2,800 lb car, changing ST3 from 9.4 to 10.0 with aero only nets a 17 hp difference. Going to 10.5:1 is only another 14 hp difference, and so forth. For this reason the rules actually *encourage* more expensive builds in ST3 which in turn make them more of a challenge to ST2. At 10:1, adding a sequential trans to that same 2,800 lb car only costs 5.5 hp in ST3 vs. 18 hp in ST1. That's less than a third of the penalty. For a real-life example, consider the ST3 M3 at Western Nats that posted times fast enough to place 2nd in ST2.

 

Another point I'd like to make is that horsepower isn't the magic panacea to laptimes we sometimes make it out to be. I'm willing to bet that a lot of ST2 drivers could drop power and post *fairly* similar lap times in ST3, because the car has been well developed beyond horsepower alone. I'm also willing to bet that there aren't any competitive ST2 cars that are actually being challenged by stock-aero ST3 cars. The problem is a well-prepared aero ST3 car, and just modifying a few horsepower isn't going to resolve that issue... especially on smaller, more technical tracks.

 

For the above reasons, my vote is 5.5 / 7.5 / 10.0 for ST1 / ST2 / ST3, *and* proportionate mod factors based on respective ratios. If it costs X in ST1, it should cost "X + ratio difference factor" in ST2 & ST3, with special thought put into increasing the aero penalty for ST3.

[Sterling Doc]

^ Good points

 

Having an option to run some power without aero is just fun. Not having to worry about ripping the splitter off cutting curbs, or with a minor off, lets you hang it out there more.

[davidfarmer]

I can't argue that a well sorted car isn't going to be fast just because it has less HP, but more HP potentially does generate quicker lap times. 8:1 and 9:1 are too close. 3 can go up, 2 can go down, doesn't really matter to me. I just like the idea of changing only one class, not all 3. Moving ST2 is the easiest solution IMO, but I don't object to slowing ST3. It's just a minor tune for me

[sperkins]

5-7-9 or 6-8-10, i'm down either way. Pref 5-7-9 in my opinion as it's closest to the current specs.

 

I don't think 5-7-9 will work. I think most ST2/TT2 guys will choose to run 9 (cheapest option), which will practically do away with 7. Once the ST2 guys go to 9, the existing ST3/TT3 guys will have no where to go and will complain about getting slaughtered by the newcomers. 6-8-10 makes more sense to me to keep the groups separated.

[mlwbcolorado]

Not everyone running in ST2 can get down to 7 or 7.5 without making a significant investment. Please leave it alone. If there has to be a change to ST for 2016 (not sure it is broken), my vote is for 6-8-10.

 

Greg - Now that the East Championship has taken place, when can we expect to see the final ST rules for 2016? Getting this out in the next few weeks will help anyone building a car for next year and will hopefully allow us to continue to attract new drivers to our group.