2016 Proposed ST Rules Revisions

[brkntrxn]

Greg,

 

Thanks. That does make me feel better about the technicalities around repeatability and disqualifications at a national level event. Watkins Glen is an even longer haul from my house, I would hate to waste a trip and drive home angry.

[Greg G.]

One thing for all to remember--Whatever average HP we use, it will never be higher than your Max HP. So, if you are happy with the way your car is with a flat HP curve, know your Dyno variance well, then just stick using your Max HP number with the amount you have included for Dyno variance. Of course, if you are in ST3/TT3 and get a Dyno compliance test, we will calculate your Ave HP, which is then another "built in" amount of Dyno variance for you. Many of the Dyno's that I looked at for those with flat curves ended up with less than 1% difference between the Max HP and Ave HP, which as we know, is within the variance of the Dyno anyway.

[stevensa]

I have enjoyed all of the feedback in the section, and I believe that everyone makes good points. My only input would be this, pick a method and stick with it. No matter what you come up with, there will be work arounds. With the old max hp method I knew that the best option was an engine that could make more power, and then detune to have a flat hp for a huge power band. I didn't want to spend that money, so I instead have a 5.3 in my c5z that makes the same peak hp, but with a much lower avg hp. I knew this would be less than ideal going into the series, this was my decision.

 

Same with this proposed ruleset, I can already see ways to work around the rules and have a huge advantage. The point is that it is the same for everyone, if you have an engine that doesn't fit well for the rules, modify the car or find another class. Don't want to spend the money? You gotta pay to play. Having browsed these forums for a while now, I feel like we are constantly changing to try to accommodate the people who are not actually racing, and making things difficult for the guys who are actually out all the time.

 

For me the fun comes from knowing what the rules are, knowing they will stay consistent, and developing a plan to optimize the car over time for the rules. Changing things year to year is frustrating and ruins the fun. I basically have a tta car, that was forced to move into tt3, which I was in the process of developing for the old rules, and now have to change plans again for the new rules.

 

Plus like it has already been mentioned, for the vast majority of us at this level, a 20hp difference is most likely not going to matter. The differences in driver skill and car setup are far more important. Simplicity and consistency is key to building car counts.

[loftygoals]

I do think that we are arriving at a solution that will satisfy the issues discussed here, including the diesel Dyno's.

 

Thanks for all the feedback in the thread. I'm interested and excited to see what you have come up with!

 

[The Dyno procedures] do include the requirement for all Dyno's performed after Dec 1, 2015 to include a print out of the numeric RPM/HP table for ALL TT/PT/ST classes when a Dyno is performed. So, no, we will only be using rulers for those with Dyno's done prior to this, when the driver cannot get the table print-out that is likely still just sitting in the Dyno shop's computer. Of course, if we do use the "ruler" method, which I don't expect to be used at all in '17, we will choose the most conservative (high) numbers. So, that is an incentive for guys to either re-Dyno or get the table print-out from their Dyno shop. By '17, whether we have the other classes adopt this or not, most cars will have a Dyno with the table....

 

This is a great roll out plan!

[Greg G.]

I have enjoyed all of the feedback in the section, and I believe that everyone makes good points. My only input would be this, pick a method and stick with it. No matter what you come up with, there will be work arounds. With the old max hp method I knew that the best option was an engine that could make more power, and then detune to have a flat hp for a huge power band. I didn't want to spend that money, so I instead have a 5.3 in my c5z that makes the same peak hp, but with a much lower avg hp. I knew this would be less than ideal going into the series, this was my decision.

 

Same with this proposed ruleset, I can already see ways to work around the rules and have a huge advantage. The point is that it is the same for everyone, if you have an engine that doesn't fit well for the rules, modify the car or find another class. Don't want to spend the money? You gotta pay to play. Having browsed these forums for a while now, I feel like we are constantly changing to try to accommodate the people who are not actually racing, and making things difficult for the guys who are actually out all the time.

 

For me the fun comes from knowing what the rules are, knowing they will stay consistent, and developing a plan to optimize the car over time for the rules. Changing things year to year is frustrating and ruins the fun. I basically have a tta car, that was forced to move into tt3, which I was in the process of developing for the old rules, and now have to change plans again for the new rules.

 

Plus like it has already been mentioned, for the vast majority of us at this level, a 20hp difference is most likely not going to matter. The differences in driver skill and car setup are far more important. Simplicity and consistency is key to building car counts.

Steve, points well taken. But, as you stated, if 20 HP doesn't matter, then those that feel that way don't have to do anything--use Max HP and be done with it. But, those that have been sitting on the sidelines because they perceived a disadvantage that they could not overcome, are likely to participate if we do have a solution that helps to level the field. It is not the same for everybody, unless that means that everyone should have $30K to spend on a new engine. We don't expect this at the ST3 or ST4 or ST5 levels, where often the entire car costs less than $30K.

 

Yes, we did have to move the goal post a bit for ST3 to set up for ST4 and ST5 (and ST6?), but we both know that the goal post was set there to accommodate guys that were in dying fields in TTA and PTA, many who have already moved to ST2 or just still talk a lot, but don't actually participate. We did include the OEM Aero Mod at +0.4 for those who would like to stay in ST3, but even with the Ave HP instead of Max HP, will likely have to add weight to the car to make the 10:1. The fact is, that the results/lap times, show that this issue regarding flat HP curves is a significant factor for ST3, and we don't want it to end up like PTA/TTA. However, I do apologize that we moved the goal post in ST3, and you can see that the long term plan would be for it to stay at the 10.0:1, with lower classes added below. Also, we definitely appreciate those guys who were in PTA/TTA, who have stuck with us through those changes. The ST3/TT3 numbers are much larger than PTA/TTA ever were (on a national basis), and our goal is to increase them. I can appreciate the frustration of the few that these changes will put in an ST2/ST3 decision dilemma, but I can also appreciate the frustration of the many getting beat by 4 seconds a lap with what seems like developed cars and good, tested drivers.

[Sterling Doc]

It sounds like some progress is being made, and I'm glad to hear the more obvious ways to game the system will be addressed.

 

The one remaining issue is when the max and 5,250 number come together. I compresses all the numbers around the peak. It would be nice to see some minimum RPM range that is monitored

[farberio]

If the goal is to equalize wide vs peaky power bands why not focus on that aspect?

 

Call the powerband some % of peak and the dyno will measure how wide it is. Use modification points for smaller widths, for example: 4k width is +.0, 3k width is +.1, 2k is +.2, 1k is +.3. This way a narrow limit will have a higher power allowed. For anyone looking to create a close ratio'd box to take advantage you could just say that these modifiers are not allowed for dog boxes, dcts, or ratio modified oem boxes.

[Ryan S.]

I would urge everyone to consider something, likely more signifigant to participation and competition than power, and that is driver aids. The dynamic aids are far more significant in lap times than the argument of 10:1 vs 9:1 vs 8:1....... you only need to look at the current feilds to see that. If more competitive fields and higher car count is the desired out come I think the banning of drivers aids in the lower ST ranks, or at least hefty modifier points should be given serious conversation.

 

Ryan

[AWH]

Yes, we did have to move the goal post a bit for ST3 to set up for ST4 and ST5 (and ST6?), but we both know that the goal post was set there to accommodate guys that were in dying fields in TTA and PTA, many who have already moved to ST2 or just still talk a lot, but don't actually participate. We did include the OEM Aero Mod at +0.4 for those who would like to stay in ST3, but even with the Ave HP instead of Max HP, will likely have to add weight to the car to make the 10:1. The fact is, that the results/lap times, show that this issue regarding flat HP curves is a significant factor for ST3, and we don't want it to end up like PTA/TTA. However, I do apologize that we moved the goal post in ST3, and you can see that the long term plan would be for it to stay at the 10.0:1, with lower classes added below. Also, we definitely appreciate those guys who were in PTA/TTA, who have stuck with us through those changes. The ST3/TT3 numbers are much larger than PTA/TTA ever were (on a national basis), and our goal is to increase them. I can appreciate the frustration of the few that these changes will put in an ST2/ST3 decision dilemma, but I can also appreciate the frustration of the many getting beat by 4 seconds a lap with what seems like developed cars and good, tested drivers.

 

Thanks for that explanation, Greg.

 

As a data point, it appears that for 2016 I will have to add 60 lbs to a 2100 lb car with its existing engine (curve looks a lot like that S54 curve...not flat). Or I can kill 20hp off the top end and completely flatten the curve to remain at this year's weight. Either way, I'll be slower.

[Junior1]

Quick question just so I can wrap my head around the aero factor...

 

As an example, if under the new rules my ending ratio after all calculations is now 9.7

 

If either I add (by purchasing a stock OEM spoiler) OR if I currently don't have OEM aero parts (base car) I can use a +.4 factor which would then bring me to 10.1 to fit in ST3?

 

Am I understanding how it now gets applied?

[Greg G.]

Quick question just so I can wrap my head around the aero factor...

 

As an example, if under the new rules my ending ratio after all calculations is now 9.7

 

If either I add (by purchasing a stock OEM spoiler) OR if I currently don't have OEM aero parts (base car) I can use a +.4 factor which would then bring me to 10.1 to fit in ST3?

 

Am I understanding how it now gets applied?

Yes.

[Junior1]

Quick question just so I can wrap my head around the aero factor...

 

As an example, if under the new rules my ending ratio after all calculations is now 9.7

 

If either I add (by purchasing a stock OEM spoiler) OR if I currently don't have OEM aero parts (base car) I can use a +.4 factor which would then bring me to 10.1 to fit in ST3?

 

Am I understanding how it now gets applied?

Yes.

 

Thanks Greg...

[kbrew8991]

Yes, we did have to move the goal post a bit for ST3 to set up for ST4 and ST5 (and ST6?)

 

what kind of target hp/weights would you project for those lower ST classes?

 

would this mean the elimination of PT in it's entirety?

 

do you foresee any accommodation in the lower new ST classes for lesser R-comps, street tires, those running less modified suspensions, etc?

[LJ32]

A fiberglass quarter panel flair is the only way to fit a reasonable sized tire to compete in ST for smaller cars. Check my picture in my signature. you won't find an s2000 without fiberglass quarter flairs. it's the only way to fit a tire above 265 safely.

So, serious question... When I calculate my ratio I need to count a modified roof factor for my hardtop and a non production factor for my flairs on a 10.0 ratio for modified aero?

[Greg G.]

A fiberglass quarter panel flair is the only way to fit a reasonable sized tire to compete in ST for smaller cars. Check my picture in my signature. you won't find an s2000 without fiberglass quarter flairs. it's the only way to fit a tire above 265 safely.

So, serious question... When I calculate my ratio I need to count a modified roof factor for my hardtop and a non production factor for my flairs on a 10.0 ratio for modified aero?

We've decided to get rid of that rule, and save it for the lower ST classes in the future.

[Grintch]

I like the idea of not allowing the HP500 number to be more than a certain percentage off. Do our best to not allow people to game the system to much.

 

The aero thing is really simple. ST3 is now a 10:1 class. If you run OEM aero you get a bonus of .4, and can run 9.6:1. However since I have never seen a single ST3 car NOT running aero, it seems more simple to write the rule this way, rather than listing it as a penalty. I imagine only the rare TT3 car that is still being built will not have at least a wing on it, which is non OEM.

 

Which is good indication that the 0.4 factor is too low, if almost everyone feels that it's more than worth the extra expense and the HP/weight penalty.

 

I predict tunners & dyno operators everywhere will make a lot on money in the next year engineering in some power dips that convienently occur at the +500 and -2000 rpm points.

[Greg G.]

Guys, try this one--latest draft proposal in the comment phase by Directors (and now you!)

 

New for 2016: The number used for calculating the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for the ST3 (and TT3) classes will no longer be the maximum horsepower of the three Dyno runs. It will be a calculated average giving a better approximation of the maximum horsepower available over a range of usable RPM. The Dyno test with the highest maximum horsepower will be used to calculate this average (not an average of the three Dyno runs) as follows:

 

Ave HP = Average HP calculated and used in in the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio

Max HP = Maximum horsepower

 

The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s numeric RPM/HP table printout:

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm greater than Max HP rpm

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm less than Max HP rpm

(If any of the above data points at higher RPM than Max HP RPM do not exist due to redline, then those potential data points will not be used in the calculation of Ave HP.)

 

The highest three (3) data points of the above ten (10) will be used in the calculation below:

 

Ave HP = Max HP +(sum of the highest three data points) Divided by 4

[Brian L.]

That raised my Avg HP about 10 to 317 vs. the other method. I have a flat power curve beyond 6000 to redline. Most shifts occur in this range so this is definitely more accurate in penalizing my motor than the other method... which is good!

[ILIKETODRIVE]

The aero thing is really simple. ST3 is now a 10:1 class. If you run OEM aero you get a bonus of .4, and can run 9.6:1. However since I have never seen a single ST3 car NOT running aero, it seems more simple to write the rule this way, rather than listing it as a penalty. I imagine only the rare TT3 car that is still being built will not have at least a wing on it, which is non OEM.

The way it is worded and the way you describe it...now I get it lol. I thought it was a 10.0:1 class but if you run non-OEM aero you're at 10.4:1.

[LJ32]

Works for me. I like it. Thanks for taking the dyno curve into consideration Greg. I think it will level the playing field between 2 liter and 6 liter engines.

[davidfarmer]

Wow deja vu! I think this is a more fair way of doing it. A little more work for the dyno operators, but I just checked it is easy to export the data in Winpep in any rpm increments.

 

that's a LOT of data points though....not sure you need quite that many, but it works!

[Greg Smith]

Guys, try this one--latest draft proposal in the comment phase by Directors (and now you!)

 

New for 2016: The number used for calculating the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for the ST3 (and TT3) classes will no longer be the maximum horsepower of the three Dyno runs. It will be a calculated average giving a better approximation of the maximum horsepower available over a range of usable RPM. The Dyno test with the highest maximum horsepower will be used to calculate this average (not an average of the three Dyno runs) as follows:

 

Ave HP = Average HP calculated and used in in the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio

Max HP = Maximum horsepower

 

The following ten (10) data points will be obtained from the Dyno’s numeric RPM/HP table printout:

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm greater than Max HP rpm

Horsepower at: 500 rpm, 1000 rpm, 1500 rpm, 2000 rpm, 2500 rpm less than Max HP rpm

(If any of the above data points at higher RPM than Max HP RPM do not exist due to redline, then those potential data points will not be used in the calculation of Ave HP.)

 

The highest three (3) data points of the above ten (10) will be used in the calculation below:

 

Ave HP = Max HP +(sum of the highest three data points) Divided by 4

I'm okay with this proposal, thanks for David Farmer for the idea a couple pages back. I do think there needs to be specific wording on how precise we need to be with the +/- 500rpm intervals. For instance I make peak HP at ~8350RPM, so do my -500 rpm intervals need to be at 7850, 7800, or 7900RPM? For the peak number are we going to use the peak number on the graph, or the peak number on the data export? For instance my peak shows 376.56 HP on the graph, but 375.33 HP on the data export with 100 RPM intervals.

 

that's a LOT of data points though....not sure you need quite that many, but it works!

I agree it's a lot, but it's needed. My car was super simple because it makes peak power at redline, then it's just the 3 lower 500 RPM intervals. My average came out to 363 HP+/- depending how accurate I was with the numbers.

 

 

EDIT: For the love of god the abbreviation for average is avg, not ave! Sorry, that's been bringing my OCD out.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Guest

[Greg Smith]

I would also like to propose a dyno variance of 2%, similar to that in GTS. The way I understand the current rules is if you're anything over your declared dyno number you would be DQ'ed, dyno's just aren't that accurate and there needs to be some allowed variance.

[Bnjmn]

The ST solution to dyno variance has been DIY, i.e., you build in your own cushion (so if your calc'd power is 316, you would claim 320, or 325, or whatever HP on your classing form).

[Sterling Doc]

I'd agree this is the best combination of simplicity, fairness, "cheat proof"

 

While I initally though 10 points was a lot (and it is for a car in normal tune), it is needed to cover the usable power band completely, and remove the potential for creative tunes to be worth much. It probably dilutes the benefit to small displacement cars a bit, but it covers at least 1,000 RPM of the HP curve, and it does improve the situation for them vs. the current rule.

 

 

As far as a varience, I agree the amount of cushion should be left up to an individual competitor's risk tolerance.

No need to further complicate things with another calculation.