Jump to content
Greg G.

ST4 Rules Proposal Thread--give your input here

Recommended Posts

Roundel

I think it may be nice to have to 2 levels of aero mod factors in ST/TT4.

Level 1 would contain: rear wings/spoilers, air dams, front flat bottomed splitters, dive planes/canards, diffusers with strakes up to xx inches tall.

Level 2 would allow full/open aero packages: splitters with diffuser designs, flat bottoms, big diffusers, skirts, vented tires wells, etc.

 

This would allow the ST/TT3 folks to detune and run in 4, as well as give the GTS3 folks a place in TT - Level 2. It would allow ST/TT4 to run aero without it being "required" to run a full monster package - Level 1. It also falls in line with the current spirit of aero. in the letter classes.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn
I think it may be nice to have to 2 levels of aero mod factors in ST/TT4.

Level 1 would contain: rear wings/spoilers, air dams, front flat bottomed splitters, dive planes/canards, diffusers with strakes up to xx inches tall.

Level 2 would allow full/open aero packages: splitters with diffuser designs, flat bottoms, big diffusers, skirts, vented tires wells, etc.

 

This would allow the ST/TT3 folks to detune and run in 4, as well as give the GTS3 folks a place in TT - Level 2. It would allow ST/TT4 to run aero without it being "required" to run a full monster package - Level 1. It also falls in line with the current spirit of aero. in the letter classes.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think policing that would be a nightmare. Put yourself in the shoes of a Race Director and think how you would measure that for compliance between sessions at a National Champs event. Or worse, at a Regional event.

 

However....

 

I do think there should be a larger break between aero and non-aero in the ST4 ranks. As you get farther down the hp:wt ratio AND farther into the PT/TT ranks, there needs to be a larger bonuses for "street" cars vs purpose-built cars. Bigger bonus for factory aero and bigger bonus for running street tires. I actually think that should come back into ST3 as well, but this isn't the thread for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

The benefits of aero gradually decrease as power/speed decreases, so I don't really understand the concept of creating an even larger break for non-aero cars in ST4 than in ST3 etc. Once again I refer to GTS2 and Spec 46 as a study case for that. Both classes have cars with similar levels of modification on suspension/diff/bushings etc. The difference between the two is aero+remote suspension+245 Hoosiers (GTS2) vs non-aero+MCS 2 way non-remote+ 235 Toyos. Both groups run very similar laps times at VIR and Summit Point. GTS2 is 14.5 to 1 power and weight and the top Spec 46 cars are around 12.6 to 1. So to keep the balance of competition the combination of (remote suspension+245 Hoosiers+aero) shouldn't exceed that 2 to 1 power to weight penalty difference. Otherwise you would be overpenalizing one car vs another and therefore pre-selecting "the car to have."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grintch
And, as you know, while we appreciate driver input and take it into consideration, our goal is to always improve and grow the series...

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.

 

So how do you expect to grow the series if you don't consider what potential (but not current) drivers want from it?

But message received, no more pesky questions or input from me (after the one above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hispanicpanic
I think it may be nice to have to 2 levels of aero mod factors in ST/TT4.

Level 1 would contain: rear wings/spoilers, air dams, front flat bottomed splitters, dive planes/canards, diffusers with strakes up to xx inches tall.

Level 2 would allow full/open aero packages: splitters with diffuser designs, flat bottoms, big diffusers, skirts, vented tires wells, etc.

 

This would allow the ST/TT3 folks to detune and run in 4, as well as give the GTS3 folks a place in TT - Level 2. It would allow ST/TT4 to run aero without it being "required" to run a full monster package - Level 1. It also falls in line with the current spirit of aero. in the letter classes.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think policing that would be a nightmare. Put yourself in the shoes of a Race Director and think how you would measure that for compliance between sessions at a National Champs event. Or worse, at a Regional event.

 

However....

 

I do think there should be a larger break between aero and non-aero in the ST4 ranks. As you get farther down the hp:wt ratio AND farther into the PT/TT ranks, there needs to be a larger bonuses for "street" cars vs purpose-built cars. Bigger bonus for factory aero and bigger bonus for running street tires. I actually think that should come back into ST3 as well, but this isn't the thread for that.

 

 

The point of tt/st classes is that they're unlimited. I'd vote against having two mods for aero, but a massive +1 for those who wish to run street tires. If managing costs is a goal of creating tt/st4, then there's no larger place to look at than allowing a point credit for street tires. Again, let's consider the rule philosophy when considering changes. If the rule philosophy of creating a new class is to allow hondas to be competitive within reasonable budgets, then there's no reason to not consider a street tire point credit. If the rule philosphy is simply to create a wider playing field, and you don't care that ST4 folks are spending as much as ST2/3 folks for competitive setups, then no street tire credit is acceptable.

 

Perhaps one of the higher ups can clarify for us the rule philosophy so our feedback is better guided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.

 

So how do you expect to grow the series if you don't consider what potential (but not current) drivers want from it?

But message received, no more pesky questions or input from me (after the one above).

Bruce, my point is that we have no problem with input from anyone, but input is different than complaining. So, perhaps it is just your style of giving input

that brought my concern. Also, we need to stick to the reason for this thread, which was not to debate whether or not ST4 will happen. We do have the

other thread about PT5/6, that is less definite than ST4/TT4. My point about drivers that chose not to participate over the past 2 years is that apparently,

we did not have the correct formula to entice them, so we think we have a better idea now. So, for those drivers to now say, "Hey, I liked the old way, but you

are correct, I didn't participate, and I didn't even bother to become a NASA member", it seems like contradictory "input". Ultimately, the best "input" is

whether or not drivers are participating (voting with their wallets, so to speak).

 

Also, MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

Can there also be some reconsideration of the +.2 power gain for Sedans? In GTS2 and Spec 46, not only is the sedan NOT seen as a disadvantage, but some actually prefer it for a performance advantage since it can be made to be a more rigid chassis. A rule like that would essentially force racers to run sedans to be competitive. I guess I can understand the premise of the rule (A corvette vs CTSV), but in a class like ST4 there isn't the same dramatic aero discrepancy between the 4 door and 2 door variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hhdinyuma

If turnout in ST3/TT3 is any indication that the new rules are having a positive effect here in AZ then I say we are on to something and the changes have been well received. Our first event earlier this month had 11 TT3 entries and 6 ST3. The turnout for PTB/PTC, and TTB/TTC was poor at two entries total. A lot of new cars showed up for ST3/TT3 and some old guys returned with freshened cars. We also had some GTS cars on the fence and may win them over as the class grows.

 

Because of this, I say keep the rules modifications for ST4/TT4 to a bare minimum. I would suggest keeping ST3/ST4 identical with the following exceptions aimed at reducing cost a little and bringing in those with more modest budgets:

 

1. Production based vehicles only in ST4/TT4. This is a Touring Car series and should reflect that in the types of cars allowed to compete. Too late for the other classes!

 

2. Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio equal to or greater than 12.00:1. Use same adjusted method as ST3 for 2016.

 

3. Any tire with a UTQG Treadwear rating of 100 or greater = +.4 (equal to about 100 Lbs or roughly 12.5 RWHP on a typical car)

 

4. Non remote shocks of any type allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
If turnout in ST3/TT3 is any indication that the new rules are having a positive effect here in AZ then I say we are on to something and the changes have been well received. Our first event earlier this month had 11 TT3 entries and 6 ST3. The turnout for PTB/PTC, and TTB/TTC was poor at two entries total. A lot of new cars showed up for ST3/TT3 and some old guys returned with freshened cars. We also had some GTS cars on the fence and may win them over as the class grows.

 

Because of this, I say keep the rules modifications for ST4/TT4 to a bare minimum. I would suggest keeping ST3/ST4 identical with the following exceptions aimed at reducing cost a little and bringing in those with more modest budgets:

 

1. Production based vehicles only in ST4/TT4. This is a Touring Car series and should reflect that in the types of cars allowed to compete. Too late for the other classes!

 

2. Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio equal to or greater than 12.00:1. Use same adjusted method as ST3 for 2016.

 

3. Any tire with a UTQG Treadwear rating of 100 or greater = +.4 (equal to about 100 Lbs or roughly 12.5 RWHP on a typical car)

 

4. Non remote shocks of any type allowed.

 

I agree with a couple of your points, mostly I agree that costs need to be contained for ST4 giving people a place to get their feet wet in ST racing, without totally braking the bank. And yes, NO non-production vehicles or non-production modifications in ST4!

 

BUT, I do think we should make it as easy as possible for people to move up a class when they/their wallet is ready. So I disagree with these points...

 

3. Not allowing at least a DOT slick in ST4 would make it tough for people to move up a class when they were ready. The setup changes required from say a Toyo to a Hoosier are significant, and would require people to throw out their old setup and start over, as well as dealing with more HP.

 

4. Again, I would argue that a one time cost of a decent shock package is not going to be the limiting factor on whether or not someone can go ST racing. Allow someone to make the good investment of a good set of shocks right away, and not be required to upgrade suspension pieces when trying to move up a class.

 

I come back to three things that I have seen create the biggest performance gaps in the field, requiring the most money/R&D time to be competitive against.

 

1. Limit aero with simple rules such as, splitter length (both forward and backwards), and wing height and placement. All easy to police.

 

2. Don't allow non-DOT slicks. Stop's the argument over DOT vs. non-DOT before it even starts.

 

3. Maximum wheel width, such as 9". Still allows a decent size tire and discourages expensive wide body kits.

 

 

When someone is ready to move to ST3, other than the obvious engine power modification requirements, all you are looking at is some new wheels, and maybe not even that given a 275 can fit on a 9" and allows someone to run without a tire penalty in ST3.

 

 

Excited to hear the rules changes helped the field, can't wait for the NorCal season opener!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.
...

3. Any tire with a UTQG Treadwear rating of 100 or greater = +.4 (equal to about 100 Lbs or roughly 12.5 RWHP on a typical car)

...

 

The tire conversation can probably be looked at closer, but everything else stated above sounds great! The advantage of a 245 A7 vs 245 200TW surpasses a 100lb penalty if being used in TT4. Street tires still account for a large number of our TT participants (Over 50% of 30 cars this past weekend in Southeast). That could be a major change.

 

I reckon the slowest tire anyone will use in ST4 is the R888. Still greater than 100lbs, but that's simply not trying to be competitive. One can easily switch to another tire for the same price and longevity to reduce the gap to the fastest compound. So the proposal might be valid for ST4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
...

3. Any tire with a UTQG Treadwear rating of 100 or greater = +.4 (equal to about 100 Lbs or roughly 12.5 RWHP on a typical car)

...

 

The tire conversation can probably be looked at closer, but everything else stated above sounds great! The advantage of a 245 A7 vs 245 200TW surpasses a 100lb penalty if being used in TT4. Street tires still account for a large number of our TT participants (Over 50% of 30 cars this past weekend in Southeast). That could be a major change.

 

I reckon the slowest tire anyone will use in ST4 is the R888. Still greater than 100lbs, but that's simply not trying to be competitive. One can easily switch to another tire for the same price and longevity to reduce the gap to the fastest compound. So the proposal might be valid for ST4.

 

Edit: I re read this and I believe you are in favor of balance tires above 100 UTQG, that is opening pandora's box of tire balancing.

 

It is a mostly open tire class, that means you need to be on the best to win. There is nothing wrong with competing in a class on a slower tire because you want to drive your car to the track, just know that you are their to measure yourself and your improvement against people with similar tires and setup.

 

I love the ST/TT mapping because it gives people a chance to NOT waste money on parts they are going to have to change later. You can slowly build your car in TT, at the same time as building your experience. When you are ready to go racing, you just put an "S" in front of the "T" and you are good to go!

But given this mapping, it has to stay identical to ST for it to work, and no one is going to race on a street tire. Trying to balance the class on a tire by tire basis is a subjective nightmare. That is why spec tire rules exist, but for spec classes. ST/TT is not a spec class, and it will never be as cheap as a spec class. So if you want to be competitive in ST/TT, you need to be on the right tire. Even for ST3/4, that means a DOT slick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.

I'll apologize for the long post, but that is another comment that disregards the TT effect (participation) of the ST rules.

 

Fair point; however, ST4/TT4 is replacing PTB/PTC/TTB/TTC. In that vain, it helps to consider how those 4 classes will be affected. A recurring theme on the forums has been the discussion surrounding street tires. Regardless of which side of the argument one picks, my personal interest is growing NASA as an organization and taking into account all the feedback provided by the "customers". I'm aware that it's impossible to please everyone. While I have no problem spending to compete where I choose, I would also like to have a larger field to race in.

 

So I choose to propose that some provision be made for tires greater than 100TW. It's a proposal thread after all. I know many instructors who TT as well. If there's absolutely no chance of winning, there's no draw to sign up for TT when DE4 gets more track time anyway. We hope that instructors do so because they want to instruct, but the added benefit of track time and TT competition is a nice incentive. Once you take that away, the next subject becomes available track time. You'll find that this snowballs into losing instructors to other organizations for "more track time" where there's no scheduled w2w racing. My reasoning may be completely subjective, but this is from experience in my 2 regions in SE and FL.

 

Adding a provision to make >100TW tires somewhat competitive just takes a paragraph in the rules and a line on the class form (and obviously a bit of Greg's time to figure out some measure to assign). That's not a lot to ask for when creating new rules consolidating 4 classes into 2.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
takjak2
I agree with a couple of your points, mostly I agree that costs need to be contained for ST4 giving people a place to get their feet wet in ST racing, without totally braking the bank. And yes, NO non-production vehicles or non-production modifications in ST4!

 

1. Limit aero with simple rules such as, splitter length (both forward and backwards), and wing height and placement. All easy to police.

 

2. Don't allow non-DOT slicks. Stop's the argument over DOT vs. non-DOT before it even starts.

 

3. Maximum wheel width, such as 9". Still allows a decent size tire and discourages expensive wide body kits.

 

Brian, you of all people shouldn't be pushing for 9" wheel limits. Don't let that one happen. Too many 350z with 9.5 and 10" wheels that could otherwise play.

 

Power to weight self-polices a lot of the tire size issues. Bodywork should also come naturally if the rules for aero are well constrained.

 

I would really like to see the provision for street tires to feel competitive (important for both new comers and customer types), even if not podium level. This is also an important option for keeping costs down. 100+ TW is a common level to see around the track (effectively the same class as 180 and 200 TW thanks to current manufacturer offerings) and we just need to figure out what is a reasonable comparison to the 40 TW boogieman. If you're really tricky with it you get the balance to be say -2.0 for the slicks and now you can take an uncompetitive TT3 Mustang or an STi off the street (graduating from HPDE) and and play in TT4 on the 100+ TW tires; then work your way back up into the more expensive class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
I agree with a couple of your points, mostly I agree that costs need to be contained for ST4 giving people a place to get their feet wet in ST racing, without totally braking the bank. And yes, NO non-production vehicles or non-production modifications in ST4!

 

1. Limit aero with simple rules such as, splitter length (both forward and backwards), and wing height and placement. All easy to police.

 

2. Don't allow non-DOT slicks. Stop's the argument over DOT vs. non-DOT before it even starts.

 

3. Maximum wheel width, such as 9". Still allows a decent size tire and discourages expensive wide body kits.

 

Brian, you of all people shouldn't be pushing for 9" wheel limits. Don't let that one happen. Too many 350z with 9.5 and 10" wheels that could otherwise play.

 

Power to weight self-polices a lot of the tire size issues. Bodywork should also come naturally if the rules for aero are well constrained.

 

I would really like to see the provision for street tires to feel competitive (important for both new comers and customer types), even if not podium level. This is also an important option for keeping costs down. 100+ TW is a common level to see around the track (effectively the same class as 180 and 200 TW thanks to current manufacturer offerings) and we just need to figure out what is a reasonable comparison to the 40 TW boogieman. If you're really tricky with it you get the balance to be say -2.0 for the slicks and now you can take an uncompetitive TT3 Mustang or an STi off the street (graduating from HPDE) and and play in TT4 on the 100+ TW tires; then work your way back up into the more expensive class.

 

Me of all people? First let me clear that it is not my job as NorCal ST Series Director to lobby for all Z's just because that is what I choose to race .

 

Second, regarding width, I have a customer that ran his 350Z on 9" wheels and 275 Hoosier's all year with great results. With a potential 12 or 12.5:1 ratio, I don't see why allowing anything bigger makes sense. And my reasoning is simple. Some cars from the factory can fit much more rubber than a 275 under stock fenders (like a 370Z), and they would have an unfair advantage against those who can't. To keep the class cheap, I agree with not allowing fender flares, but then you need to restrict wheel size as well, they go hand in hand.

 

Regarding 100+ TW. I don't necessarily disagree on any particular point, but it is opening pandora's box. Where does it end? How far do you break it down? We have seen this in ST in the Hoosier R VS. A argument. At some point you just need to be on the right tire. I can see us loosing just as many competitors by have a complicated tire rule that is open to debate. If you are really proposing making a street tires competitive in class, imagine the allowance it would need at a track like Sonoma, or any track other than Daytona for that matter. If you are just talking about a token allowance for some feel good, well, I can't say that is going to do much at the end of the day.

 

I am weighing in here as an ST leader and competitor, I believe there is another thread for TT related concerns about this. But maybe a street tire rules would make more sense as a TT only issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

Tire size is already accounted for in the mod adjustments so I don't understand why anyone would care about rim width or fender flares. An e36 needs flares to run 275's but a 944 can run 285's with no flares. So penalize the e36 in that situation? In TT I can see a mod factor for "street tires" making since bc you are racing the clock. In race classes that huge speed variance in class is just going to create bad racing situations. To balance that you would essentially have the street tire cars absolutely blowing by the race tire drivers on the straights. Then the race tire guys practically running into the back of the street tire guys in the turns as their only chance to keep up bc the speed variance is so dramatic. The variance in corner speed of non-DOT slicks vs DOT slicks in ST4 would be much closer than DOT-slicks vs "street tires." I just can't see that situation playing out safely with a mod factor that actually allows street tire cars to carry an extra 10mph+ straightline speed to balance with race tire cars that carry 10mph+ faster corner speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hhdinyuma

My suggestion is aimed at competitors who would like to run the 100TW MAXXIS RC1. Not really a street tire and I would not expect anyone to run an actual street tire in ST or even TT4. An appropriate mod factor for these tires might balance performance enough for some to give them a try and they are NASA supported with a generous contingency program. Not opening any sort of box of unexpected surprises here at all, just trying to come up with a way for numerous competitors who would like to have a cheaper alternative to purple crack.

 

Rim width restrictions are a very bad idea and will definitely affect participation in a negative way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
My suggestion is aimed at competitors who would like to run the 100TW MAXXIS RC1. Not really a street tire and I would not expect anyone to run an actual street tire in ST or even TT4. An appropriate mod factor for these tires might balance performance enough for some to give them a try and they are NASA supported with a generous contingency program. Not opening any sort of box of unexpected surprises here at all, just trying to come up with a way for numerous competitors who would like to have a cheaper alternative to purple crack.

 

Rim width restrictions are a very bad idea and will definitely affect participation in a negative way.

 

If you are going to make a rule for one specific tire, the box you are opening is why not have an adjustment for every track tire on the market? What about a Toyo RA-1 vs. an RR, or an Nitto, or a BFG R1 (which is slower than a hoosier). A class is either open tire, with the basic size restrictions we have in place, or it is a spec tire class. Trying to go in between will just start a mess of complaints the first time someone feels one tire has an advantage over another in the rules.

 

I have said before that different tires effect different cars differently, so trying to come up with one mod factor for them would be very difficult.

 

Regarding my wheel width comment. I am going to change my opinion on that. I allowed to do that on a public forum right? . I could see the width limit keeping a car that comes standard with a wide wheel from competing. I know a number of people get started on their OE wheels when budgets are tight, especially in TT.

 

BUT! We need to come up with some way to keep an E36 (just to use the car you referenced above) from putting on giant "fender flares" and running a 315. Tire size is a huge part of running cost of a racecar, and not putting some cap on it will not keep ST4 as cheap as I would hope to see it. I think it would be a mistake to allow ST4 to become a class that requires extensive fender work a huge tires to be competitive. We already have a class for that, ST1-2-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

I think the proper approach from a rules perspective is making sure someone running a 315 is penalized to the point where it's not worth doing it. Targeting "flares" is just penalizing certain cars that may come from the factory with a smaller tire like the e36. So if the 255 (for example) is the target tire size, make the penalty for 265 moderate but then make it more progressive going to 285 etc. So maybe 0 from 225-255, .3 mod at 265-275, .6 mod at 285-305, 1.0 mod at 310 etc. With that type of scale no one will run a 315 bc it simply cost too much power.

 

Is there any data behind the .3 mod for AWD? Of course in wet conditions it's a huge advantage. But on a dry track which is the case a majority of the time, has AWD proven to be an advantage or disadvantage? I'm coming form the GTS perspective where there haven't been any competitive AWD cars yet so maybe it's different in ST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
I think the proper approach from a rules perspective is making sure someone running a 315 is penalized to the point where it's not worth doing it. Targeting "flares" is just penalizing certain cars that may come from the factory with a smaller tire like the e36. So if the 255 (for example) is the target tire size, make the penalty for 265 moderate but then make it more progressive going to 285 etc. So maybe 0 from 225-255, .3 mod at 265-275, .6 mod at 285-305, 1.0 mod at 310 etc. With that type of scale no one will run a 315 bc it simply cost too much power.

 

Is there any data behind the .3 mod for AWD? Of course in wet conditions it's a huge advantage. But on a dry track which is the case a majority of the time, has AWD proven to be an advantage or disadvantage? I'm coming form the GTS perspective where there haven't been any competitive AWD cars yet so maybe it's different in ST.

 

Having driven a lot of AWD at Sonoma raceway, I would say yes! Getting out of hairpin corners putting power down through 4 wheels is a bonus for sure. Now a more wide open track like Thunderhill I would say the benefit is much smaller.

 

Also on the drivetrain thing, I think the FWD allowance needs to be adjusted for ST4. FWD becomes less and less of a disadvantage the lower HP you yet, and can in some cases actually be an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

I just realized how massive the FWD bonus is. That's roughly 20whp (or 10%) in a 3k lb car in ST4. The mini's in GTS1 are already competitive so to give them that large of an edge seems like it's tipping the scales in their favor. Maybe it should be .3 like the AWD penalty? Maybe some testing needs to be done to confirm if that 1 pt bonus is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991
FWD becomes less and less of a disadvantage the lower HP you yet, and can in some cases actually be an advantage.

It's a killer down in TTF/PTF land, definitely needs to look at being scaled or adjusted as you go down to lower power levels for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David K

Question:

 

 

Do we really need 6 different ST classes with only a handful of cars in?

 

Wouldnt it be better if we could combine all the cars into fewer classes so there are more cars to race against?

 

Seems there is a big gap from ST1 to ST2, then a small gap to ST3..

 

 

 

Inwould love to see a rule set that encourages innovation and not necessarily money spending where we could fit a lot of cars into one class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
Question:

 

 

Do we really need 6 different ST classes with only a handful of cars in?

 

Wouldnt it be better if we could combine all the cars into fewer classes so there are more cars to race against?

 

Seems there is a big gap from ST1 to ST2, then a small gap to ST3..

 

 

 

Inwould love to see a rule set that encourages innovation and not necessarily money spending where we could fit a lot of cars into one class.

 

The gap is pretty even actually...

 

ST1 = 5.5:1

down 2.5 to

ST2 = 8:1

down 2 to

ST3 = 10:1 AVERAGE and with additional limitations for sequentials

 

There are 3 nicely spread classes, both in speed and cost in my opinion, and I believe there can be realistic car count in all of them. With a 12:1 or 12.5:1 ST4 class with even more restrictions to keep costs down, and dissolving PTB into that class, I see no reason why a 4'th can't also be successful. These are all very different classes for very different speeds of car/cost to run.

 

Where are you getting 6 classes? My count is 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
Where are you getting 6 classes? My count is 4.
Did you not see this thread? ST 5/6 (PT 5/6) Rules Proposal Thread--give your input here

 

As I understand that class is looking to restructure current PT classes using a power to weight ruleset, but still have heavy restrictions. That is why it will likely be called "PT" then a number, not ST. It will be a different philosophy in that class.

 

So, ST has 4 classes .

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...