2016 Rules are POSTED

[Michael G.]

2016 Rules are posted now at the www.nasagts.com.

 

http://nasagts.com

 

All the changes are marked in RED.

 

Few areas to pay attention to -

 

All cars regardless of the date of the dyno (even those which have current dyno carried over from 2015 - with in 12 month) must re-do the calculator and the Dyno Declaration Form - both are new/updated for 2016.

 

In addition to the W/HP ratios determining the Class - there will be Displacement size limitations (with few exceptions as listed).

 

Important - S54 powered cars in GTS 3 - Minimum Weight - 3000 lb. or above (as per calculator).

 

Also new - AERO limitations for GTS 1 and adjustment factor for FWD cars as well as for Forced Induction.

 

New - Max bolt on ballast - 300 lb.

 

You will also find few clarifications in wording on Gearboxes, Fixed Windows (allowed), impound protocol and required documentation.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[Greg Smith]

What in the fuck?

[abad46]

...and like that, ST car counts just went up.

[pmk]

Seriously, what the **** is this? The GTS1 aero change was nearly universally panned on this forum by those affected by the change. And let's not even talk about the displacement rule that wasn't even mentioned and will eliminate one of our Mid-Atlantic competitors who just built a new car last year that now isn't legal in GTS1?

[mcdonaldsracing]

Seriously awesome job! So now my car that was 3 legal this year will have to run 5 next year? Makes no f u c k I n g sense! I'm running a 13 year old 4.4 liter that puts out less power than the newer s65 v8's, and I get pushed to 5??? F u c k i n g brilliant!!! A cup car can run 4, but I can't. I don't even know of any 5 cars that compete on the east coast? Am I supposed to go out and run by myself? That sounds like a shit load of fun! I'm out!!! A bunch of complete morons must be running this show!

[abad46]

I'm out!!! A bunch of complete morons must be running this show!

 

I thought the goal was to bring more racers to GTS, not lose them!

[J Smith]

Another year where new rules are implemented that were never even part of the "proposed rule discussion period". Why even have a discussion period if the regional directors and NASA National are going to do what they want anyway. What a waste of everyone's time who contributed.

 

I mean seriously...how the F**K do you end up with these rules after those discussions?

[flink]

There are around 10 GTS3 cars in Norcal. Of those, eight are running S54's and will now need to add 250-300lbs ballast and get a retune. I don't expect this to happen - these guys are going to either switch to ST3 or cease NASA racing. That leaves myself and one other S52 car.

 

You just killed my race class.

[focusedintntions]

I view this as giant middle finger from the nasa brass to it's racers. Very sad to see this as it's gutting classes and has immediately turned away several racers and prospective racers for this class.

[Alan_Wolfe]

Thanks guys for the FWD adjustment.

[Snymo]

Tony, thank you for the insight and your honesty. As a Series Director, competitor, National Champion and someone that I have talked with and raced against, this is pretty telling of what's wrong in GTS at the moment.

 

I moved my car (97 M3 Sedan w/ S52) from GTS3 to GTS2 last year because of rules changes. Now, we get changes out of complete left field that nobody saw coming in any way. Their is a blatant disregard for the rules making and discussion process by the powers that be. I don't know what their end game is, but if this is just Step 1, I can't imagine what's next.

 

The net result of these changes has little impact to my car, and probably my region (Rocky Mountain). But random rules changes to curb phantom issues and distort the spirit and intent of what GTS is supposed to be for two years in a row make GTS seem less and less like a place to be long term. And that, more then anything, is really disturbing and disappointing.

[D_Eclipse9916]

At first I thought this was just a lot of discussion and brainstorming ideas. Many friends reacted immediately to "f%^$ this" and "goodbye". I spent a lot of time trying to rationalize this out with them and told them to wait and see. Never did I think a club with the history and knowledge of other clubs, who has made such a good breakthrough against PCA and BMWCCA would DUMP this ruleset on a growing class.

 

Unfortunately now 1/2 the "regular racers" in my class are either kicked out, or so angry they have already claimed they will not run. The rest of the 1/2 is waiting to see if those actually follow through. I certainly won't be staying around if my class fades away. Even just the shit-storm of comments firing away on facebook are killing the class and NASA itself. This negative press in such a tight community only clouds it further.

[Jake@JMU]

This has been interesting to follow - I'm not a GTS car yet but was thinking of going that direction for the latter half of 2016. And frankly, I'm sure a stock-motor'd E36 M3 will be a GTS2 car no matter what I manage to do to it otherwise, so for the sake of my own car, I dunno how much it matters.

 

That said, the initial (huge) appeal of GTS, since I started thinking of "where do I go from here", was that GTS is a simple power-to-weight. Make the ratio and you are golden.

 

I still want to go W2W and run the car in a NASA class, and will likely still go to GTS2 as local competition is looking good for the next year or two. But, watching this process unfold both on the forums and on Facebook groups, has been tremendously fascinating with regards to feedback and interaction between those who are affected, and those who are making these rules changes.

[daytonars4]

This has been interesting to follow - I'm not a GTS car yet but was thinking of going that direction for the latter half of 2016. And frankly, I'm sure a stock-motor'd E36 M3 will be a GTS2 car no matter what I manage to do to it otherwise, so for the sake of my own car, I dunno how much it matters.

 

That said, the initial (huge) appeal of GTS, since I started thinking of "where do I go from here", was that GTS is a simple power-to-weight. Make the ratio and you are golden.

 

I still want to go W2W and run the car in a NASA class, and will likely still go to GTS2 as local competition is looking good for the next year or two. But, watching this process unfold both on the forums and on Facebook groups, has been tremendously fascinating with regards to feedback and interaction between those who are affected, and those who are making these rules changes.

 

You may want to sit back and hold off spending money on a GTS2 build in Midatlantic at the moment. The top guy in GTS2 retired, P2 and P3 are getting booted by this. And many of the other racers were sporadic participants in 2015. A few new guys bought GTS2 cars in the last couple months so things looked promising, but are now turned off by this. So better to wait and see where things go so you can build for whatever direction things turn. Or maybe even do yourself a favor and pick up one of their cars on the cheap.

[richiebosco]

What are they thinking. What was all the "Proposed Rule" changes for. This change was not even up for discussion.

 

GTS 1 up to 2600cc

GTS2 up to 3199cc BMW S50B30 must run in GTS3 or higher

GTS3 up to 3600cc Porsche GT3 and GT3 Cup engines must run in GTS4 or higher. BMW S54 powered cars- Minimum Weight: 3000 pounds

GTS4 up to 4000cc

GTS5 and GTSU unlimited

[Greg Smith]

Michael G, can we get get some clarification on "GTS2 up to 3199cc, BMW S50B30 must run in GTS3 or higher"? I believe you're meaning to place the 286HP individual throttle body variant into GTS3, not the US 240HP version?

[scottbm3]

Michael G, can we get get some clarification on "GTS2 up to 3199cc, BMW S50B30 must run in GTS3 or higher"? I believe you're meaning to place the 286HP individual throttle body variant into GTS3, not the US 240HP version?

 

 

They're so smart they forgot to specify S50B30 Euro !

 

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

[gjkasten]

Wow. The new rules really seem to have come from left field. I'm new to GTS (still have a big fat 'R' on the car"), but can safely say that the rule making "procedure" appears to be a waste of time and pure window dressing.

 

While none of the changes impact me (accept that I get to lose a bit of weight), the new rules really don't make any sense with what GTS was supposed to be and with what the discussions over the last month showed people were interested in.

 

Compliance was the issue most people were interested in. It seemed that good ideas were presented and if implemented correctly would have solved or at least been steps in the correct direction with respect to the cheating or perceived cheating. Instead of following that route, more rules.

 

It's frustrating that not only is there the appearance that the leaders of GTS and NASA aren't listening, but there is not even an attempt at an explanation for the steps taken.

[7VO-VOM]

There has been a great deal of speculation over the past month or so as to why NASA wants to destroy the spirit of GTS, the reason we race, love and invest in the series. Is it to attract Porsches from PCA? I doubt it. Is it to stomp out the perception of cheating? Hell no. There is no added compliance mechanism. Is it to punish certain drivers or cars? Hell yes! I think we all know who the 3000lb S54 GTS3 rule targets. Is it to kill GTS and funnel people to ST? Probably.

 

I submitted two rules proposals that are in the new rules. I talked to Michael Gershanok at East Coast Championships about those proposals. Now that it's clear that the rules process is a fraud, I truly respect that he kept his word. My car (NOT A SWAP) that is apparently collateral damage in the attempt to kill engine swaps and is pushed up 1 class to GTS4. In my region, there is a little GTS4 participation so I'm not completely alone. Some would consider this a win, because it could be worse. Well, my region in GTS is decimated by this. I look around and the people I wanted to race most in GTS3 have sold and quit, been punted to GTS5 (from 3?!?!?!), or are looking at going to ST3/AER/BMWCCA. GTS is dead and NASA was the executioner. Do they care? Send an email to Ryan Flaherty and find out for yourself. You will get the same form letter everybody gets implying that people who don't like the changes are selfish and deflecting all blame to Michael Gershanok and Bryan Cohn.

 

Unless these changes are retracted with an apology from a NASA National official...

Edited December 4, 2015 by Guest

[Nova]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to switch to another NASA class if they are frustrated by this. Why spend the money and time when next year it could all change? I doubt I will even bother finishing my NASA Prov license since it is clear they don't care about their current customer's opinions. I had fun my one race in GTS 2, but since my car is now banned (S54 E36), so long.

[mcmmotorsports]

[Snymo]

FYI, I'm being told by my Rocky Mountain Regional Director (overall, not GTS) that the 2016 rules have been pulled down and revisions will be coming later. Full thread here:

 

http://www.nasarockymountain.com/nasa_forums/showthread.php?p=62345#post62345

 

I find it odd that no "official" announcement has been made in this regard on these forums, the Facebook group or the nasagts.com website. Regardless, the rules are no longer listed on the nasaproracing.com site. I don't know why I expect transparency when there has been little to none in the past, but I keep hoping....

[Matt G.]

First I should state that I'm not intimately familiar with how these rules will impact the entire GTS community. My region hosts only a couple of non Cup car GTS competitors, and I value them, but mostly I enjoy working with an almost spec Cup car series. 2nd, change is tough, but it's also a challenge that if accepted can often lead to breakthroughs.

 

Reading through these passionate responses has been informative. As a competitor, I have always had to deal with rule changes. It's tough finding out that an interpretation finds you out of compliance in a championship race, then seeing the rules changed to better clarify your "mistake" in the following years rulebook is bitter sweet. Winning was exciting for the first few years, but in the end, I have never really cherished the trophies won. I look back fondly on time spent with my friends, exciting moments in mock battle with competitors, long nights overcoming mechanical nightmares with those same competitors, and the satisfaction of coming back from a major setback. I have often thought that he who has the most lines in red due to their creativity is ultimately the winner. It's kind of a meta game, the game within the game so to speak. When you are just told no, you didn't play your cards right, get a red line, and you were very clever.

 

As an administrator, I have had to deal with this creativity, find ways to police it without stifling development, or driver advancement. It is never easy, and I am often shocked. Many times I feel like I'm caught off guard by interpretations, and questions asked about some words in an obscure paragraph somewhere, and wish I had more time to deliberate, but the show must go on. Cars are constantly changing, equipment, tires, engine management, aero, suspension, brakes, they are all constantly improving, making competition adjustments that much more challenging. Nothing was designed to eliminate cars, though it clearly could have meant radical changes for some, I have no doubt that with time, and a will, a competitive formula could have been found by the same pioneering competitors that have voiced their strong opinions in opposition of these changes.

 

And while it's hard for many to understand some of the decisions made at the national level, it's important to know that no changes are made to drive people away. Sometimes change should be explored, take Spec Miata for example. It has been struggling through some very real issues that have cost competitors a great deal of energy in the form of championships, and car adjustments, and financial investment. Competitors were so good at exploring the rulebook that even Mazda had to get involved to help stabilize the class. NASA wants to create the best racing environment possible, and for years I feel it has done just that. I hope that many drivers can take a breath, and consider this a speed bump, not a road block.

 

-Matt Guiver

NASAUtah.com

[NASA Midwest Admin]

GTS Drivers,

Just a heads up.

The proposed 2016 GTS rules have been pulled off the website.

The rule changes are being reconsidered today.

Stand by!

I don't have any more info at this time so don't shoot the messenger.

 

Jay Andrew-Great Lakes Regional Director

[ILIKETODRIVE]

I have been relayed likewise info from AZ.