Jump to content
Greg G.

ST4 Rules Proposal Thread--give your input here

Recommended Posts

ILIKETODRIVE
Not sure I entirely follow your post. The thread title suggests ST4 Rules Proposal. How is that relevant?

 

Edit: It appears you're referring to eliminating them for ST6. Disregard my comment. I don't have an opinion here nor there on that subject. The focus right now is on ST4.

My fault as well. I confused the topics. A-X tires should be allowed without much (or any) hit in TT4/ST4 IMO.

 

(Edited my posts because I'm a bozo )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.
My fault as well. I confused the topics. A-X tires should be allowed without much (or any) hit in TT4/ST4 IMO.

(Edited my posts because I'm a bozo )

I should have read it closer as well and disregarded it. ST4 is happening in 2017. I would really like to get some traction on this and get a majority consensus and an official rules-set by mid-season just as Greg has mentioned.

 

Any and all ideas are welcome. If we can get majority participation and a simple voting survey to pass around to all competitors by the middle of the season, it would be awesome. Everyone can start making the necessary updates right after East & West Champs just in time for 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
farberio
I agree with Greg on if it's going to be an ST class it needs to follow the same progression. Since the underlying theme is to try and rein in spending through power to weight ratio, and the ratio is targeted at 12:1 I think just heavier penalties that highlight the progression from the slower class to SU.

 

I am with moremazda agreeing with Greg. I think the differences should be such that being able to move between classes is possible on race weekend. With ST2/ST3 I see cars moving up and down with throwing in a different tune or adding/removing ballast. This is a great technique to race with a bigger group depending on the turn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.
I agree with Greg on if it's going to be an ST class it needs to follow the same progression. Since the underlying theme is to try and rein in spending through power to weight ratio, and the ratio is targeted at 12:1 I think just heavier penalties that highlight the progression from the slower class to SU.

 

I am with moremazda agreeing with Greg. I think the differences should be such that being able to move between classes is possible on race weekend. With ST2/ST3 I see cars moving up and down with throwing in a different tune or adding/removing ballast. This is a great technique to race with a bigger group depending on the turn out.

 

With you guys as well. That's why I think we just add a modification factor, but not necessarily ban anything that's allowed in ST3. On a given weekend, it would be nice if one can ditch whatever little ballast he/she has, put on a wider faster tire, and max the tune (if it's an option) to have a decent chance at a race in ST3.

 

It came in handy at eastchamps this year. 2 of the 5 entries in ST2 were ST3 cars that simply maximized what they had, and they both made the podium after an awesome race amongst themselves when the other 2 ST2 cars broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

So detuned Vettes are going to be welcome in ST4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
So detuned Vettes are going to be welcome in ST4?

4814014643_b2e1da67c5_z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc
I agree with Greg on if it's going to be an ST class it needs to follow the same progression. Since the underlying theme is to try and rein in spending through power to weight ratio, and the ratio is targeted at 12:1 I think just heavier penalties that highlight the progression from the slower class to SU.

 

I am with moremazda agreeing with Greg. I think the differences should be such that being able to move between classes is possible on race weekend. With ST2/ST3 I see cars moving up and down with throwing in a different tune or adding/removing ballast. This is a great technique to race with a bigger group depending on the turn out.

 

With you guys as well. That's why I think we just add a modification factor, but not necessarily ban anything that's allowed in ST3. On a given weekend, it would be nice if one can ditch whatever little ballast he/she has, put on a wider faster tire, and max the tune (if it's an option) to have a decent chance at a race in ST3.

 

It came in handy at eastchamps this year. 2 of the 5 entries in ST2 were ST3 cars that simply maximized what they had, and they both made the podium after an awesome race amongst themselves when the other 2 ST2 cars broke.

 

Yes, it was fun, even though my ST2 "tune" turned out to be kind of a pooch. Next year I am going to have a cam in that will make real ST2 power when I want it, and ST3 power with a restrictor. It is nice to have the flexibilty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.
So detuned Vettes are going to be welcome in ST4?

I don't recall any point in time when a certain car wasn't welcome in a class it fits in.

Ave. HP calculation is being implemented in 2016 to help out engines that don't make power in the same way as an LS or similar. Bring the vettes. The more the merrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.
Yes, it was fun, even though my ST2 "tune" turned out to be kind of a pooch. Next year I am going to have a cam in that will make real ST2 power when I want it, and ST3 power with a restrictor. It is nice to have the flexibilty!

Hands down the way to do it. It's been tough explaining to people who ask why I'm going through the trouble of making my car faster to detune it. Because I have that option and it serves as an advantage. Car's now set to be competitive in C/D. Once the rules are approved, adding FI for ST3 power and detuning to ST4 for 2017. Should be able to play with my friends in whichever class we can have the most fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc

Awesome - may we meet on track some day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.
So detuned Vettes are going to be welcome in ST4?

I don't recall any point in time when a certain car wasn't welcome in a class it fits in.

Ave. HP calculation is being implemented in 2016 to help out engines that don't make power in the same way as an LS or similar. Bring the vettes. The more the merrier.

He's talking about the PT base class table sending the C5's to ST from PT.

Clearly, the C4's will be eligible for ST4.

 

Joel, so, you're thinking about a possible C5 at 3360lbs, 300 Avg HP, and on 245's?

(Might be time for a C5/6/7 Corvette Mod Factor for ST4--like -2.5 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
(Might be time for a C5/6/7 Corvette Mod Factor for ST4--like -2.5 )

popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vmcclure10

I would prefer keeping the rules simple and close to TT. Run the same basic rules as ST3. I may have to stretch getting to ST 4 weight/HP but would like the option.

 

I run GTS3 now but may want to cross over depending on the 2016 GTS rules (which are still in process) and run where the cars #s will be. I run a 275 tire and I don't think a 285 will make a significant difference. Wider tires will lose time at some point. I am not sure if I get enough heat in my tires as is with the long straights at VIR.

 

Vernon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

He's talking about the PT base class table sending the C5's to ST from PT.

Clearly, the C4's will be eligible for ST4.

 

Joel, so, you're thinking about a possible C5 at 3360lbs, 300 Avg HP, and on 245's?

(Might be time for a C5/6/7 Corvette Mod Factor for ST4--like -2.5 )

 

Let's put it this way, would NASA perfer to keep C5/6/7's out of ST4?

 

It would be really nice to have a place where a non-aero Vette could run and be competitive again - personally I think the ST3 aero mod factor is not enough as it is now. From my experience (mostly Vettes) aero is worth about 2 seconds a lap at a place like Road America, about the same as carrying a passenger. So instead of .4 for aero .6 sounds more realistic - if you truly are trying to level the playing field.

 

Now I'm not saying change the mod factor is ST3 but maybe something to think about in ST4 on down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bluebarchetta

He's talking about the PT base class table sending the C5's to ST from PT.

Clearly, the C4's will be eligible for ST4.

 

Joel, so, you're thinking about a possible C5 at 3360lbs, 300 Avg HP, and on 245's?

(Might be time for a C5/6/7 Corvette Mod Factor for ST4--like -2.5 )

 

Let's put it this way, would NASA perfer to keep C5/6/7's out of ST4?

 

It would be really nice to have a place where a non-aero Vette could run and be competitive again - personally I think the ST3 aero mod factor is not enough as it is now. From my experience (mostly Vettes) aero is worth about 2 seconds a lap at a place like Road America, about the same as carrying a passenger. So instead of .4 for aero .6 sounds more realistic - if you truly are trying to level the playing field.

 

Now I'm not saying change the mod factor is ST3 but maybe something to think about in ST4 on down.

 

I think most would agree that aero (drag reducing, or downforce creating) is generally more effective the faster the car is going. Cars in the lower classes will spend proportionally less time at aero advantageous speeds, than cars in the higher classes. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that applying a lower aero factor in ST4 and down is more realistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

 

I think most would agree that aero (drag reducing, or downforce creating) is generally more effective the faster the car is going. Cars in the lower classes will spend proportionally less time at aero advantageous speeds, than cars in the higher classes. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that applying a lower aero factor in ST4 and down is more realistic?

 

Depends if the intention is to encourage or discourage the use of aero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grintch

So we're going to essentially kill off PT while never actually proving that ST is better or more popular by allowing overlap so the two categories could compete for racers/cars at the same HP/wt level? In TT especially, I am not a big fan of going instantly to almost unlimited mods outside power to weight. Why not simplify PT somewhat by dropping all the power & weight points and let the HP/wt control those mods? And trying ST4 (TT4) vs PTB (TTB) and see which is more popular? It could be that one approach is more popular for racing and the other for TT, would NASA consider a philosophy split between the two styles of competition (say have a TTB and ST4)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hispanicpanic

Can someone please explain the the logic behind why a pdk/dct is penalized but an automatic isn't?

 

 

 

Also, when it comes to tire penalties/awards, the r7 a7 argument complicates things as most of us assume these ST3/4/5 rules are only applied to ST, when in fact you have to consider TT. With this consideration, i think it would make sense dropping the point allotment/penalty for tires based on their dot approval entirely. This problem is one with as much granularity as the power problem which is currently being solved by an average power curve. The same approach can be taken to tires. My saloon is putting 1050 lbs through each front wheel. Contrast that with a honda that's putting probably 800 lbs through each front wheel. How do you create a level playing field with that other than a lb/tire cross section penalty? And then create point alotment/penalties based on treadwear with all slicks and a7/r7's on the same playing field.

 

I know it adds a little bit of complexity, but i see no other way to create a truly even playing field that's resistant to the test of time (a la A7's disrupting dot tire grip levels)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.

He's talking about the PT base class table sending the C5's to ST from PT.

Clearly, the C4's will be eligible for ST4.

 

Joel, so, you're thinking about a possible C5 at 3360lbs, 300 Avg HP, and on 245's?

(Might be time for a C5/6/7 Corvette Mod Factor for ST4--like -2.5 )

 

Let's put it this way, would NASA perfer to keep C5/6/7's out of ST4?

 

It would be really nice to have a place where a non-aero Vette could run and be competitive again - personally I think the ST3 aero mod factor is not enough as it is now. From my experience (mostly Vettes) aero is worth about 2 seconds a lap at a place like Road America, about the same as carrying a passenger. So instead of .4 for aero .6 sounds more realistic - if you truly are trying to level the playing field.

 

Now I'm not saying change the mod factor is ST3 but maybe something to think about in ST4 on down.

Joel, yes, I believe that NASA would "prefer" to keep the C5/6/7 out of ST4, as well as other models that are not eligible for PTB and PTC currently. Now, whether we would actually write them (not just the Vettes) out, or whether they will just be out due to the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio, or whether they are going to be competing in ST4 because they can make the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio is not decided.

 

There are non-aero Vette's that are competitive in ST3, and should continue to be with the new ST3 rules. Many of the TT3 track records are held by one in SoCal, and there is no plan to increase the OEM Aero benefit to more than +0.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.
So we're going to essentially kill off PT while never actually proving that ST is better or more popular by allowing overlap so the two categories could compete for racers/cars at the same HP/wt level? In TT especially, I am not a big fan of going instantly to almost unlimited mods outside power to weight. Why not simplify PT somewhat by dropping all the power & weight points and let the HP/wt control those mods? And trying ST4 (TT4) vs PTB (TTB) and see which is more popular? It could be that one approach is more popular for racing and the other for TT, would NASA consider a philosophy split between the two styles of competition (say have a TTB and ST4)?

By overlap, if you mean diluting a single class into two separate classes for the same vehicles, I think that the answer is no. If "proving" means that we need to "overlap" and dilute class numbers, then again, the answer is no. TT3 (along with Dyno Re-classing) has proven that these Dyno classes are more popular than the base table classes. TT3 has proven that the Mod Factors are more popular than the Modification Points. (The reason that I'm saying TT instead of ST is that TT numbers are much larger than ST or PT in general). The current plan, as I have stated, is to "try" ST4 instead of PTB, and then move to ST5/6 (more likely PT5/6) that will have much greater restrictions and rules than ST4. Dilution of classes is a proven series killer, time after time, which is why I never back any proposal that will dilute classes. Now, the thousands of Dyno Re-classes that I have done have proven that our competitors (TT and racers) really do like the Dyno classing scheme (including in the lower PT/TT classes--if not especially there in terms of Dyno Re-classing).

 

So, nobody is killing off PT. We are upgrading it in alignment with what we are actually doing in practice anyway, just with a more esoteric protocol (Dyno Re-classing). And, in the process, we can simplify the PT rules that scare off a lot of folks before they actually take a better look to see that they are not that complicated, but are detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

Joel, yes, I believe that NASA would "prefer" to keep the C5/6/7 out of ST4, as well as other models that are not eligible for PTB and PTC currently. Now, whether we would actually write them (not just the Vettes) out, or whether they will just be out due to the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio, or whether they are going to be competing in ST4 because they can make the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio is not decided.

 

There are non-aero Vette's that are competitive in ST3, and should continue to be with the new ST3 rules. Many of the TT3 track records are held by one in SoCal, and there is no plan to increase the OEM Aero benefit to more than +0.4.

 

Locally I've seen a lot more interest in ST3/TT3 - I've had more calls and emails this year than in the past 2 or 3 years combined. ST2 used to be really big in the MW/GL region then it kind of fizzled out - not sure if it was the economy or the "arms race" in ST2 that scared people off. It seems like there is a better mix of cars in ST3 and the lower power level is easier for more cars to get to, that is why ST3 is drawing in new drivers and builds, it would be great if we could build upon that with ST4. While we don't want to have cars leaving ST3 to go to ST4 it would suck for a guy in a Vette (or any other car that can make 12:1) to not be allowed to play in the ST4 sandbox just because they have a Vette.

 

"Hey you guys have 6 cars in ST4 that's cool, I'm all by myself in ST3, wish I could come down and run ST4 to fill out the field for contingency but I can't because I have a Vette - I guess I'll just run by myself....."

 

Uh what about a Cadillac XLR in ST4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.

"Hey you guys have 6 cars in ST4 that's cool, I'm all by myself in ST3, wish I could come down and run ST4 to blow all of your doors off with my detuned C6Z and win the contingency but I can't because I have a Vette - I guess I'll just run by myself....."

FIXED. LOL!!!

Just kidding guys--don't cry and don't send me e-mails about how I hate Vettes.

 

(Reminder: I drove a C5Z for a year, and we won a SoCal regional TT Championship in it--which is one of the reasons that I know the potential of these vehicles. We would have done well at Nats. at MMP if the motor wouldn't have quit as soon as we got up there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

"Hey you guys have 6 cars in ST4 that's cool, I'm all by myself in ST3, wish I could come down and run ST4 to blow all of your doors off with my detuned C6Z and win the contingency but I can't because I have a Vette - I guess I'll just run by myself....."

FIXED. LOL!!!

Just kidding guys--don't cry and don't send me e-mails about how I hate Vettes.

 

(Reminder: I drove a C5Z for a year, and we won a SoCal regional TT Championship in it--which is one of the reasons that I know the potential of these vehicles. We would have done well at Nats. at MMP if the motor wouldn't have quit as soon as we got up there.)

 

Well nobody on the track is out there to loose Greg

 

One little Corvette lets you down and now the rest of us have to pay for it - that's fair!!

 

Looking forward to seeing how the class develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grintch
So we're going to essentially kill off PT while never actually proving that ST is better or more popular by allowing overlap so the two categories could compete for racers/cars at the same HP/wt level? In TT especially, I am not a big fan of going instantly to almost unlimited mods outside power to weight. Why not simplify PT somewhat by dropping all the power & weight points and let the HP/wt control those mods? And trying ST4 (TT4) vs PTB (TTB) and see which is more popular? It could be that one approach is more popular for racing and the other for TT, would NASA consider a philosophy split between the two styles of competition (say have a TTB and ST4)?

By overlap, if you mean diluting a single class into two separate classes for the same vehicles, I think that the answer is no. If "proving" means that we need to "overlap" and dilute class numbers, then again, the answer is no. TT3 (along with Dyno Re-classing) has proven that these Dyno classes are more popular than the base table classes. TT3 has proven that the Mod Factors are more popular than the Modification Points. (The reason that I'm saying TT instead of ST is that TT numbers are much larger than ST or PT in general). The current plan, as I have stated, is to "try" ST4 instead of PTB, and then move to ST5/6 (more likely PT5/6) that will have much greater restrictions and rules than ST4. Dilution of classes is a proven series killer, time after time, which is why I never back any proposal that will dilute classes. Now, the thousands of Dyno Re-classes that I have done have proven that our competitors (TT and racers) really do like the Dyno classing scheme (including in the lower PT/TT classes--if not especially there in terms of Dyno Re-classing).

 

So, nobody is killing off PT. We are upgrading it in alignment with what we are actually doing in practice anyway, just with a more esoteric protocol (Dyno Re-classing). And, in the process, we can simplify the PT rules that scare off a lot of folks before they actually take a better look to see that they are not that complicated, but are detailed.

 

So we've only killed off PTA (which I still hear the occasional call for it to be brought back, but probably more form the TTA guys). And now we are planning/considering to extend that kill off to PTB & PTC. So why not assume that death would continue creeping down to the lower classes over time?

 

Reading the tread I get an impression of "lets take ST and add a lot of PT style restrictions to it". I guess I am suggesting that some people might prefer a let simplify the PT rules approach (dropping the all the power & weight restrictions to eliminate the need for special dyno reclasses being #1 on that list). That might allow us to avoid the issue of having different rule sets for ST1 & 2, verses ST3, verses ST4, verses ST5...

 

From a racing PT/ST standpoint, I generally prefer ST. But for TT where I am much more likely to have a street driven car with more limited mods (some of which I don't WANT to do on a street driven car), I would like a simplified/improved TTA & TTB type approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.
And, as you know, while we appreciate driver input and take it into consideration, our goal is to always improve and grow the series, which means that ultimately it comes down to the series officials making the decisions on the rules, as opposed to a vote or mob rule. We always understand that regardless of what decisions are made, whether they be to make changes or not do anything, some percentage of the competitors will not be satisfied, and some will be very vocal. With that being said, we all need to remember that the large majority of competitors never actually look at (or certainly post) on these forums (unfortunately). So, just because there is some high volume about a given topic here, does not mean that that sentiment is common or the majority opinion around the country.

This ship has gone off course, and its time to put it back on the correct heading.

 

"We" haven't killed off anything. Those that started the series elected to go with something better, with larger class counts and a more promising future, as opposed to the slow demise that was occurring--and have been proven correct, by the data. Similarly, those that started these other classes, and those that run this organization have decided that these proposed changes are likely to be beneficial for the future of the organization and the series. So, you don't need to take any responsibility for it.

 

In this thread, I asked for specifics on ideas for ST4, not global discussions of whether NASA is making the correct choice to proceed with ST4, or the proposal to move to PT5/6. Feel free to take any ideas that are not requested on this thread off-line by e-mail, or any ideas for PT5/6 to that thread. And, if you by any chance you have not been a NASA member since January 1, 2015, and have not participated in any NASA events since June '14, and never participated in TTA or PTA, I'm not exactly sure why you seem to be complaining, as none of this effects you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...