CLOSED 2016 Rule Change - Add Adjustment for FWD cars

[Michael G.]

Proposed Change

Front wheel drive cars will receive a BoP of 0.5. For example, in GTS2 RWD cars will run at a weight to power ratio of 14.5, while FWD cars will run at a weight to power ratio of 14.0.

Reason

Currently NASA PT, ST&SU, and TT have BoP adjustment of +1.0 for FWD.

 

 

Also, IMSA for Continental Tire ST series & the FIA for WTCC provide BoP for their entrants.

 

 

For IMSA I could not derive how exactly that is done because of the many factors they use in BoP.

http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/CTSC%20%20SCR%20April%2015%202015%20FINAL.pdf

 

 

For FIA rules concerning WTCC I could not find any public records later than 2012. But the Touring Car Times did publish their interpretation of the WTCC regulations for 2014. It did contain a quote from the WMSC: "New Technical Regulations for 2014 Super 2000 cars were agreed in principle by the WMSC to provide for more spectacular cars with bigger aerodynamic devices and greater performance through weight reduction and power increase, while maintaining similar costs. More technical freedom will be allowed in order to cancel the current system of waivers and balance of performance. However, a balance of technology between front and rear wheel drive cars (balance of technologies) will be maintained." Note the last sentence. Article here: http://www.touringcartimes.com/2012/12/05/fia-confirms-new-wtcc-regulations-for-2014/

 

 

Based on what I could garner after fruitlessly trying to spreadsheet the various adjustments to get to some apples to apples comparison, general reading, and our discussion on this topic previously I agree that +1 is too big an adjustment.

 

 

 

Proposed wording

Proposed wording Front wheel drive cars will receive a BoP of 0.5. For example, in GTS2 RWD cars will run at a weight to power ratio of 14.5, while FWD cars will run at a weight to power ratio of 14.0.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[Zach H.]

NO.

 

GTS should not be held accountable because you chose the wrong platform.

[daytonars4]

No... But dropping the ratio for all of GTS2 to 13.5 or 14.0 would make sense for the power potential of cars for the class.

[scottbm3]

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[Greg Smith]

No.

 

This would give FWD cars a straight line advantage, especially valuable at race starts.

[bimmerhead]

NO. This proposed rules change is the start down a very slippery slope.

 

Keep the rules simple and stable. That will attract racers.

 

Cheers,

-jerry

 

GTS3

Western Region

[hamflex]

No,

 

I see a trend here, another GTS progression to ST/PT

[Brad Waite]

NO

 

Again, leave GTS alone. This is a solution looking for a problem.

[gjkasten]

No.

 

I was trying to decide on my platform 2 years ago and dumped my fwd car that was successful in time trials for a rwd one that would be more competitive in GTS.

[drhm3]

NO, for all the reasons stated above. Slippery slope of rule changes, penalizing people who have already developed their cars, stable rules encourage more people to join and those already racing to stay.

[peter*g]

Absolutely not. There is an implicit assumption in this that the drive wheels and engine location are an advantage/disadvantage under any and all conditions, but that is not completely accurate and is hard to predict. Given all of the other things you can do to modify a car under GTS rules, it is entirely possible to build a GTS1 or GTS2 car that could be very, very competitive without the extra horsepower.

[JS154]

No dog in this fight, but I think this is not a good idea. Your rules don;t restrict relocation of suspension pickup points. Also, the newer Hondas (yes I know it's GTS) but the point is, FWD cars can be made to work very well. Look at the RealTime Acuras, or the HPD/HART Civics.

 

What you might want to consider if it's not already there is a weight adjustment for AWD cars.

[tbert122]

I echo peter*g and JS154 comments.

 

I vote no.

[dnvrdrvr]

I'm against this rule change proposal. As others have already stated, this gives an unfair advantage to FWD cars simply because of where their power is put to the pavement. Every car owner/drive has the opportunity to select their chassis and drivetrain for competition in GTS. If they want to drive FWD and get an advantage for it, they should seek another available series.

[Alan_Wolfe]

So far I don't see any responses that refute the need for an adjustment for FWD.

 

Two responses agree with the need for an adjustment needed for FWD, then just give the big FU. Very sporting

 

Several give the philosophical argument of change leads to more change. That already started with rule 5.4 and DOT / NON-DOT tire split.

 

Two arguments are made that modifications can compensate. Say what? Under a set of rules which allow ALL cars to make these modifications to maximize performance, how can that help? In fact under such a set of rules FWD is MORE entitled to an allowance.

 

And one states the obvious advantage of the adjustment.

 

One response references cars racing in other series that HAVE BoP and one of the cars is AWD. And then the reference is made that AWD should be considered for a weight adjustment (I'm gonna guess that's not a weight reduction), yet none is needed for FWD.

 

I just had to laugh!

 

If this is all there is let's give it a try next year and see how it goes. And I do agree AWD probably needs an adjustment as well.

[Greg Smith]

And one states the obvious advantage of the adjustment.

And what about that obvious advantage?

[Alan_Wolfe]

It makes up for the FWD disadvantage. That's how BoP works....

[peter*g]

It makes up for the FWD disadvantage. That's how BoP works....

 

What disadvantage precisely? Have we seen equally prepared FWD and RWD cars competing together in GTS that demonstrates a clear advantage for one platform over another? If so, can you share build details and race results?

[7VO-VOM]

The current adjustments in GTS are penalties for something being better than the common standard. I don't think that should be changed. If you pick FWD, you are at a disadvantage, deal with it.

 

NO.

[loftygoals]

I find this thread fascinating... On every other car related message board you will find dozens of threads attesting to RWD's superiority to FWD. And it isn't just internet wisdom: many racing bodies where there is mixed drive configurations penalize RWD or reward FWD. The internet is even filled with fun FWD memes:

 

 

 

 

 

(I really like that 3rd one.)

 

Despite all this, some people in this thread suddenly think FWD is just as capable as RWD. And I can understand, you can't believe everything you read on the Internet, right?

 

Well how about common sense? We you accelerate weight is transfer to the rear wheels providing traction, right? How does that work in FWD? Tires don't like to be over worked. This causes them to overheat and not work as well, right? Well in RWD, the fronts turn and the rears accelerate. In FWD the fronts do it all. Which will work the tires more?

 

I think any reasonable person can see that FWD is at a disadvantage to RWD. The only question is by how much. In PT/ST/TT, FWD is allowed a +1 allowance. Applied to GTS, this would mean a FWD GTS3 car would be allowed 10:1 instead of 11:1. This is quite a bit, but it seems to be working in those other classes. At Nationals there have been some great competition between FWD and RWD cars in PTB/TTB and PTC/TTC with this FWD allowance in place.

 

But the suggested rule change isn't even asking for +1, it's only asking for +.5. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Why not try it? There are only a couple of regions in the country that will be impacted by this. If it doesn't create more parity, repeal the change. Hell, do it mid-season if necessary.

 

Alternatively it could only be adopted it in the regions where it even matters for testing. I know Texas is one region where there is a FWD GTS car. The first race in Texas is in January, before any other region starts their season. If it makes for better racing, consider adopting it nationally.

 

Another option would be to put a pro driver in a FWD GTS car and a similarly prepared RWD car. There just happens to be a pro in Texas that could make that happen. Get some feedback from him. In fact, I can think of another pro in Texas that has raced MINI's and 911's professionally. Maybe get some feedback from him as well. There's still ample time to arrange this before the first races of 2016.

 

In principal I think rules like this make the series better. Sure it adds a couple of lines to a rule book, but if it creates better racing and means you don't have to change anything on your car, who cares? Personally, I think having competitive MINIs and GTIs would be a lot of fun. FWD cars will be fast in different places than RWD cars. This is a great recipe for fun and interesting overtaking. The key is that the FWD cars have to be competitive.

 

-bj

[John Graber]

against

[peter*g]

I say check the results before you start making changes. We have a MINI that raced in GTS1 at the Western Championships. It finished in P4, with lap times within a few tenths off the P2 finisher (P1 was an outlier 3 seconds faster than the entire field). Judging purely on lap times, it was competitive with the best in the field and could have easily finished in P2:

 

http://timingscoring.drivenasa.com/NASA_Championships/Western%20States%202015%20Mazda%20Raceway%20Laguna%20Seca/Sunday/Group%20E%20HPD%20Honda%20Challenge,%20GTS/Group%20E%20Sunday%20Championship%20Race%20-%20Official.pdf

 

Until we see multiple FWD cars entered who are struggling to run up front, I don't get why you would gift any chassis something like this. If we go down that road, then you also have to consider every chassis configuration. If it's about traction, should Porsche's be penalized because they have a motor sitting on top of their drive wheels? What about front-engine AWD? It gives you more traction on launch, but also tends to overheat the front tires. Should we give them a break for the tire issue, or a penalty for their acceleration grip?

 

The joy of a class like this is you can pick a chassis you want and then do whatever you want to make it competitive. Don't like the chassis balance in your FWD or AWD car? Relocate the driver, move all of the weight rearward, and you have a car that has a weight balance of a WTCC competitor**. Want to give your FWD car more front grip through corners? Run a giant front wing like the time attack guys do. On the flip side, if you have a car that is a total pig and will never be competitive, this class does not give special dispensation for your poor choice of car. If that's what you want, go find a class designed for that car. It's that kind of "class engineering" that kept many of us from racing with the SCCA and picking NASA in the first place.

 

-

 

**As an aside, if you want to know what's possible with FWD, the Chevy Cruze in WTCC turned a 1:45.235 at Sonoma. The car has a similar power to weight ratio as a GTS3 car, and is just as fast as those cars with almost no aero and considerably smaller tires. People who complain about FWD are talking about street cars, not properly built racecars.

[RCarmichael77]

 

I think any reasonable person can see that FWD is at a disadvantage to RWD. The only question is by how much. In PT/ST/TT, FWD is allowed a +1 allowance. Applied to GTS, this would mean a FWD GTS3 car would be allowed 10:1 instead of 11:1. This is quite a bit, but it seems to be working in those other classes. At Nationals there have been some great competition between FWD and RWD cars in PTB/TTB and PTC/TTC with this FWD allowance in place.

 

But the suggested rule change isn't even asking for +1, it's only asking for +.5. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Why not try it? There are only a couple of regions in the country that will be impacted by this. If it doesn't create more parity, repeal the change. Hell, do it mid-season if necessary.

 

Alternatively it could only be adopted it in the regions where it even matters for testing. I know Texas is one region where there is a FWD GTS car. The first race in Texas is in January, before any other region starts their season. If it makes for better racing, consider adopting it nationally.

 

Another option would be to put a pro driver in a FWD GTS car and a similarly prepared RWD car. There just happens to be a pro in Texas that could make that happen. Get some feedback from him. In fact, I can think of another pro in Texas that has raced MINI's and 911's professionally. Maybe get some feedback from him as well. There's still ample time to arrange this before the first races of 2016.

 

In principal I think rules like this make the series better. Sure it adds a couple of lines to a rule book, but if it creates better racing and means you don't have to change anything on your car, who cares? Personally, I think having competitive MINIs and GTIs would be a lot of fun. FWD cars will be fast in different places than RWD cars. This is a great recipe for fun and interesting overtaking. The key is that the FWD cars have to be competitive.

 

-bj

 

Wow, a well thought out, well written, logical response. That has no place on an internet forum good sir.

 

I agree with BJ. FWD is inherently a disadvantaged platform. If we are trying to get our numbers up, why not at least try this and see if it brings more drivers into the fold ... it could add MINI drivers to the GTS1 (old B-Spec cars) and GTS2 fold. I'd much rather see that than continue with the "you bought the wrong platform" school of thought that's basically turning this into a BMW-only (with the occasional Porsche) series.

[dnvrdrvr]

 

I think any reasonable person can see that FWD is at a disadvantage to RWD. The only question is by how much. In PT/ST/TT, FWD is allowed a +1 allowance. Applied to GTS, this would mean a FWD GTS3 car would be allowed 10:1 instead of 11:1. This is quite a bit, but it seems to be working in those other classes. At Nationals there have been some great competition between FWD and RWD cars in PTB/TTB and PTC/TTC with this FWD allowance in place.

 

But the suggested rule change isn't even asking for +1, it's only asking for +.5. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Why not try it? There are only a couple of regions in the country that will be impacted by this. If it doesn't create more parity, repeal the change. Hell, do it mid-season if necessary.

 

Alternatively it could only be adopted it in the regions where it even matters for testing. I know Texas is one region where there is a FWD GTS car. The first race in Texas is in January, before any other region starts their season. If it makes for better racing, consider adopting it nationally.

 

Another option would be to put a pro driver in a FWD GTS car and a similarly prepared RWD car. There just happens to be a pro in Texas that could make that happen. Get some feedback from him. In fact, I can think of another pro in Texas that has raced MINI's and 911's professionally. Maybe get some feedback from him as well. There's still ample time to arrange this before the first races of 2016.

 

In principal I think rules like this make the series better. Sure it adds a couple of lines to a rule book, but if it creates better racing and means you don't have to change anything on your car, who cares? Personally, I think having competitive MINIs and GTIs would be a lot of fun. FWD cars will be fast in different places than RWD cars. This is a great recipe for fun and interesting overtaking. The key is that the FWD cars have to be competitive.

 

-bj

 

Wow, a well thought out, well written, logical response. That has no place on an internet forum good sir.

 

I agree with BJ. FWD is inherently a disadvantaged platform. If we are trying to get our numbers up, why not at least try this and see if it brings more drivers into the fold ... it could add MINI drivers to the GTS1 (old B-Spec cars) and GTS2 fold. I'd much rather see that than continue with the "you bought the wrong platform" school of thought that's basically turning this into a BMW-only (with the occasional Porsche) series.

 

I appreciate the debate on this because while I have the perception that RWD is a better platform for racing, I don't KNOW that's the case. That said, I haven't yet seen anything outlined that gives me a reason to support a change to the current ruleset.

[efoss28]

Feel the need to post in here.

 

I have a GTS2 BMW (I'm not building a FWD car) and have been fortunate to race in WC and IMSA Conti in both FWD and RWD cars.

 

In both IMSA and World Challenge there were/are adjustments made to create parity between the front wheel drive cars. These series have a ton of internal and external data that NASA does not have. Having driven both I feel that this adjustment is well founded.

 

I remember that in the mid 90's this slightly popular series BTCC had FWD vs. RWD and the RWD cars were required to run more weight. These had manufacturer involvemets at the highest level and open suspension. I think that undeveloped argument could be put to rest. World challenge was the same way and the RWD cars still had to run more weight.

 

I agree that maybe the adjustment needs to be on a scale. Stagger it like the Non-DOT to DOT rule.

 

I think that in any series where you can create a larger spectrum of racers it only helps to improve things for everyone.

 

I hope that people keep an open mind and we can continue to make GTS a fun class to compete in.

 

Thanks,

Eric Foss