ST 5/6 (PT 5/6) Rules Proposal Thread--give your input here

[Greg G.]

Hi Guys,

 

Well, the '16 ST Rules are out, and the Calculator tool, new ST/PT/TT Dyno Certification Form and ST Car Classification Forms will all be out within a week. So, it seems to me that it was very helpful this past year to have a few threads where drivers and potential new ST competitors had a chance to give their input and ideas in regard to specific rule items that were up for consideration. In fact, these discussions not only lead to both making some changes and not making changes to the rules, but also lead to some new ideas that were either implemented for '16 or put into the pipeline for '17 and beyond. 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. However, we also know that those of you who take the extra time to follow these forums are often well informed, intelligent, and have some valid points and ideas that we appreciate. So, now that I'm done with my disclaimer:

 

ST4 is definitely planned for '17. Now, whether it ends up being called ST4 or PT4 or something else is still up for a final decision, but I suspect it will be ST4. The idea is to extend the ST series classing scheme down to the lower HP and higher Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio vehicles. And, the current plan is to set that class at a limit of Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of 12:1 (using the Avg HP calculation that is being tested in '16 in ST3). The goal is to attract new competitors that are neither competing in ST (because they have difficulty reaching 10:1 for ST3) or PTB/PTC (because they have difficulty with the points system), and to increase field sizes of the cars that are competing in PTB currently. Assuming we add ST4 (PT4, etc.) as a new class, we would delete at least one class, which in this case would be PTB (with a consideration for PTC, but that would likely depend on whether ST5/6 (PT 5/6) become reality as well.

 

So, what are we asking? As you know, unlike some other open classes, our philosophy in ST is that as we move further away from Super Unlimited, there necessarily needs to be either increased vehicle restrictions and/or an increased number of Modification Factors and/or an increased value of current Modification Factors in order to help contain costs to the competitors. While we understand that these rules do not directly prevent someone from spending a million dollars on a build, they definitely can limit the advantage gained by doing so. It does not make sense to ST officials to have vehicles that cost $3000-$7000 to purchase to essentially be required to have $40,000++ of modifications to be competitive. As you know, ST1 and ST2 have the same rules with just the exception of the different limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio. This is appropriate, as these vehicles tend to be much more expensive to begin with, and it is understood that these are going to be fairly high dollar classes. ST3 is where some of these controls start to kick in, with the OEM Aero rule that allows drivers to choose to stick with OEM Aero, and the higher Modification Factor for a non-OEM sequential/semi-automatic transmission. We believe that ST4 should have an expansion of this philosophy, but we are just beginning to work on what these additional controls might look like. Additionally, we have not decided the extent of these additional controls, and it may turn out that we decide that we don't want any, and to have ST4 just mirror ST3 with a different Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio. We have another thread to discuss those issues.

 

What we would like this thread to focus on are proposals and your input on ideas for additional controls for potential ST5/6 (or maybe more likely PT5/6) classes (could be in '17, '18, or later). ST5/6 (PT5/6) will necessarily have significant additional controls as we don't want these classes to end up requiring a $250K car to be the champion of the lowest level classes. Valid arguments can be made for many different approaches, so try not to judge each other or make personal attacks, but if you wish to constructively comment on ideas submitted here without getting nasty, feel free.

 

So, I'll start with my personal opinion. I think that ST5/6 (PT5/6) and any classes below this, that would result in a deletion of many if not all of the current PT classes, will require significant differences from the higher level ST classes, while still keeping the same format, using Dyno based Adjusted Wt/HP classing and Modification Factors to level the field. At the higher levels, it is really expected that a very competitive car is going to be relatively expensive. The inherent issues for each vehicle as it came from the factory can be dealt with using modifications that may be expensive, but ultimately do level the field. Is it possible to take a car built in the 1980's and modify it to compete against cars build with superior engineering today? Sure, but it costs.... Since we don't want to have open classes that cost the same amount to be successful whether you are running at 5.5:1 or 17:1, we need to find ways to compensate for the differences in engineering from the factory (and by this I mean everything but power). For this reason, I think that for these classes, we need to have a Vehicle Model Modification Factor table. This would be something similar to the current PT base class table, but instead of a base class, each model will be assigned a Modification Factor that can be adjusted over time as needed, with new models added over time when requested. I don't see any other reasonable way to attempt to equalize some of the cars that were truly built for economy and buying groceries (especially 30-50 years ago), with those built today for performance and/or track use. Additionally, I think that we need hard restrictions on items like modified Aero components. Of course those with OEM special aero can have that built into the Vehicle Model Mod Factor, but for actual non-OEM modifications, we should limit aero to a list of items with specific maximum dimensions. We should have a wider range of tire Mod Factors than in the higher ST classes. There should probably be a restriction against relocation of OEM suspension mounting points and other complex suspension changes. Remember, anyone who wants to do these things can build for 12:1 in ST4 (or whatever the ST4 rules end up as). I have some other ideas, but I'd rather see how many come up with the same ideas.

 

Thanks for your input, and have a great 2016 season!

[AZELISE]

Sounds like a good plan. I appreciate the advanced warning.

 

So, will the rules be similar to the current rules with a list of cars as long as the current list with base w/p ratios instead of weight plus a table of modification factors more complex than the ST3 rules but more simple than the current PT rules? Something like this:

 

.....

1) Non-BTM gears of a different ratio in BTM transmission +0.1

2) Non-BTM transmission without automated shifting and/or dog ring gears in transmission +0.2 (do not take points in 8.A.1)

3) Non-BTM transmission with automated shifting +0.3 (do not take points in 8.A.1)

4) Non-BTM differential +0.1

...Etc.

[Arca_ex]

Well at first I was excited of hearing of a class that would be a level playing field for everyone, but after reading that there will still be model specific power to weight penalties, why even bother? If you want to try and make a Honda Oddesy competitive that's your choice, I don't think it should be a recipient of assistance via the rules.

[Ryan S.]

What about what IMSA does in the Tudor Series Classes where they use Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments through out the year. The base table could be generated from the PT National Championship results from the last few years; based upon relative times from the different tracks, and every year the results from the national races would modify those results. But it seems more appropriate for this level of speed to more PT evolutionary rather than another creative engineering vibe that ST seeds. So no pickup relocation, no modifications to the stock sheet metal, the factory motor and transmission in the factory location..... leave the success more platform dependent and then use BOP adjustments in the power to weight ratio to bring parity. So in ST5 a miata has X PW ratio, in ST6 it has some different ratio and every year there is a minor (or major tweak) to that ratio.

 

Again, another dumping of my $0.02.

 

Ryan

[CWeber]

Well at first I was excited of hearing of a class that would be a level playing field for everyone, but after reading that there will still be model specific power to weight penalties, why even bother? If you want to try and make a Honda Oddesy competitive that's your choice, I don't think it should be a recipient of assistance via the rules.

 

Because many of us don't want this to turn into a 'one horse' show like certain SCCA classes were a very specific car is really the only option to have to be competitive in 'x' class.

 

As others here I'm sure will concur, I certainly have no interest in buying a Honda Mini-van or other clearly obvious bad choice car but I also don't want to be at a huge disadvantage because I opted for a something like a FWD 4dr Mazda Protege instead of the mighty Mazda Miata (many actually do have a harder time fitting into a Miata so its not even an option for them so the idea of chasing away customers because of an unfair advantage of certain cars holds no appeal for me thanks)

[Arca_ex]

the factory motor and transmission in the factory location.....

 

Ryan

 

No, absolutely not. A power to weight class where they don't care how the power is made should not have a rule against engine swaps. Do you realize how many Miatas and Hondas would be ineligible if that were a rule?

[Arca_ex]

 

Because many of us don't want this to turn into a 'one horse' show like certain SCCA classes were a very specific car is really the only option to have to be competitive in 'x' class.

 

As others here I'm sure will concur, I certainly have no interest in buying a Honda Mini-van or other clearly obvious bad choice car but I also don't want to be at a huge disadvantage because I opted for a something like a FWD 4dr Mazda Protege instead of the mighty Mazda Miata (many actually do have a harder time fitting into a Miata so its not even an option for them so the idea of chasing away customers because of an unfair advantage of certain cars holds no appeal for me thanks)

 

The big bore ST and TT classes seem to have some variety for winners at nationals.

 

Also if you pick a FWD Protege you already have a 1.0lbs/HP advantage thanks to the FWD mod factor. Is that not sufficient?

 

And the tall guy in a Miata argument is not going to work on me lol. I'm 6'5" size big and one of my cars is a fully caged Miata. If you don't fit, you just didn't try hard enough with your selection of seat and installation of said seat.

[CWeber]

 

The big bore ST and TT classes seem to have some variety for winners at nationals.

 

And the tall guy in a Miata argument is not going to work on me lol. I'm 6'5" size big and one of my cars is a fully caged Miata. If you don't fit, you just didn't try hard enough with your selection of seat and installation of said seat.

 

There in lies the difference of 'big bore' ST (see big $$) vs. those of us who like to keep build cost well under $20k thanks. (heck, under $10k build when you do most of your own labor is what drew us to PTF with our 2x NASA Champ FWD G20) Of course there will always be those who have $80k PTE builds but that will simply never be us.

 

So I'm all for having rules in place to help keep costs down for the higher number ST5/6 or PT5/6 class change should it happen.

 

We've had 5 Miata's since 2007 ranging from 3 SMs to 2 for PTE. After 8 years of Miata's, we are looking to try something else thanks. (and no it isn't necessarily a Mazda Protege either) The other fact is we had to run an aluminum seat with tunnel modification that doesn't work 100% correctly for my 6'2" husband. Fitting and 'fitting well' are 2 completely different things with regards to a Miata.

[Arca_ex]

 

The big bore ST and TT classes seem to have some variety for winners at nationals.

 

And the tall guy in a Miata argument is not going to work on me lol. I'm 6'5" size big and one of my cars is a fully caged Miata. If you don't fit, you just didn't try hard enough with your selection of seat and installation of said seat.

 

There in lies the difference of 'big bore' ST (see big $$) vs. those of us who like to keep build cost well under $20k thanks. (heck, under $10k build when you do most of your own labor is what drew us to PTF with our 2x NASA Champ FWD G20) Of course there will always be those who have $80k PTE builds but that will simply never be us.

 

So I'm all for having rules in place to help keep costs down for the higher number ST5/6 or PT5/6 class change should it happen.

 

We've had 5 Miata's since 2007 ranging from 3 SMs to 2 for PTE. After 8 years of Miata's, we are looking to try something else thanks. (and no it isn't necessarily a Mazda Protege either) The other fact is we had to run an aluminum seat with tunnel modification that doesn't work 100% correctly for my 6'2" husband. Fitting and 'fitting well' are 2 completely different things with regards to a Miata.

 

 

I never said I was opposed to having modification factors in place in the lower classes to keep costs down. Where are you getting that from?

 

I'm just opposed to having a PT style listing of specific modification factors for specific models of cars. Level playing field.

[davidfarmer]

I don't run those classes, but I personally think it's better to keep it simple and make them straight power-to-weight with the current modifiers. These are "formula" driven classes, and it isnt' anybody's job to make a specific car more or less successful. The competitor needs to pick a car that can fit the formula

 

 

That is all

[Greg G.]

the factory motor and transmission in the factory location.....

 

Ryan

 

No, absolutely not. A power to weight class where they don't care how the power is made should not have a rule against engine swaps. Do you realize how many Miatas and Hondas would be ineligible if that were a rule?

Actually, you are correct about this one. We have a lot of cars with motor swaps, and one of the goals of these changes would be to still allow the motor swaps, aftermarket F/I, ported rotaries, but get rid of the individual car Dyno Re-classing (that has actually worked out well in practice, but has some major drawbacks down the road). But, that is not to say that there can't be some type of small Mod Factor for having a motor swap, although I would hope that Avg HP will ultimately help to equalize the power issue, making that unnecessary.

[Greg G.]

I don't run those classes, but I personally think it's better to keep it simple and make them straight power-to-weight with the current modifiers. These are "formula" driven classes, and it isnt' anybody's job to make a specific car more or less successful. The competitor needs to pick a car that can fit the formula

That is all

There is no way to make an older car manufactured as an economy or family car to compete against a modern (especially detuned) car that was specifically built as a sports/performance/track-duty car by the factory, without spending tons of money on the older car. This is not a problem in the higher level classes, because you can either start with a $60,000-$200,000 car and put in $20K of mods, or you can start with a $20,000 car, and put in $60,000 of mods. But, without calling out a specific series, the open class straight power-to-weight just doesn't work in practice at these lower levels, because they end up necessarily costing just as much for a competitive car as the higher classes, but without the power and speed. This then would send literally hundreds of racers, and maybe a thousand TT drivers to other groups. We don't need lower level classes because we need slower cars. We need lower level classes because we need a place for those to race on smaller budgets. 90% of the drivers that race in these lower classes would absolutely love to drive and compete in an ST1 or ST2 car if they had the budget for it. I know that I would.

 

"....Just how fast do you want to go?.....As fast as my wallet will take me...."

 

We are not going to do anything that will jeopardize our success in the lower level PT and TT classes, that our drivers have enjoyed. But, we do like the idea of going to a more simple system, without the need for Dyno Re-classing of individual cars, that fairly classes motor swaps/F.I./ported rotaries, etc., and that maintains the ability to apply competition adjustments when necessary.

[hufflepuff]

Greg- I appreciate the open forum opportunity and your willingness to seek feedback.

 

To the guy claiming he wants a "level playing field", we must have different concepts of "level". if you delete the car modifiers as you recommend to create a "level playing field", you'll get disparity and overdogs / underdogs. Maybe by "level playing field" you mean "chose the best platform, then every driver for themselves since it's "level"".

 

Overall, what Greg proposed thus far seems to make sense. I'm all in favor of any ruleset that:

 

- Promotes LARGER classes

- Promotes LOW cost

- Doesn't create a huge burden on folks already competing in PT/TT

 

To get larger classes, reducing the number of classes is one way; having more people join the sport is another. This could mean F/E merge, D/C merge, B gets bumped to ST3? I don't know.

 

To promote low cost, high dollar modifications that result in a significant advantage should be increasingly limited or eliminated as you go lower in the classes. Greg is already targeting this, with suspension and aero limitations in lower classes.

 

if we are going to a target power:weight ratio system, I think there needs to be vehicle-specific modifiers as Greg has proposed. My integra has advantages over the similarly prepped sentra, and I don't want an unfair advantage by being allowed the same power:weight ratio while I have better handling.

 

I want a pro driver to be able to hop between two equally prepped ST4 or ST5 cars and turn identical lap times, not turn a faster lap time in a car that is the "car to have" for XX class.

[kbrew8991]

If these classes are to make PT easier/more accessible, they have to have additional factors along those lines

 

If the intent is to be GTS1 for all makes/models and ditch PT, then keep extending simple ST downwards down the number list

 

Since I believe you're aiming for the first one there will probably need to be:

model specific factor

factors for different levels of tire (non-dot, DOT-R As, DOT-R Rs, Mid-Tier Trackday tires (NT01, RR, etc), good streets)

factors for various suspension parts & mods

factors for drivetrain changes like alternate transmissions, added LSD, etc

and so on

basically exchanging +1pt for this, +2 for that to +0.1lb/hp for this & that.

 

I could see some merging of some modifications in maybe the higher level classes that would replace PTB/C/maybe D but still see the need to be pretty granular/accomidating at the PTE/F level for people running more stock cars or stock components in places and only modifying a few things to try and meet the rules, maximize the car as best they can with their budget, and still ending up with the potential for a level playing field.

 

The more factors you have, the better chance some hamstrung but cheap platforms will have. Otherwise I'd expect it to be a Miata series, esp in the lower classes. May end up there anyway.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

I think instituting a table within a PTW series wherein X car gets X help but Y car gets Y help and Z car gets nothing and likes it is a terrible proposal.

 

Why?

 

Anyone with half a brain and a big enough (read: willing enough) bank account will continually chase after unicorn vehicles to start with because they get XYZ assistance in their base table rating.

Bleh. Sounds terrible.

 

The current PT table works since inherent flaws to each vehicle because of table weight vs actual weight matters. If you have a super light version of said car (like me; nearly 300lbs lighter than the given table weight) you submit for a reclass based on PTW.

 

The current reclass works since...well...that help or hurt that Greg dishes out is unknown to us. Keep it that way.

 

Please...if you're going to do away with the PT system as we know it because people are too stubborn or too lazy to figure out that changing their intake is +1 then please do away with PT entirely.

Just sweep through with ST4/5/6 and let me get all sorts of credit for FWD and small tires and OEM aero.

 

I want a pro driver to be able to hop between two equally prepped ST4 or ST5 cars and turn identical lap times, not turn a faster lap time in a car that is the "car to have" for XX class.

Corvette guys everywhere are laughing.

[kbrew8991]

Ignoring differences between platforms is the easiest quickest path to Corvette & Miata series. And then have a bunch of other people spending $$$$$ trying to catch them.

 

But if that's what the customers want, run with it. Enjoy

 

sorry to pick on you but you illustrated it perfectly by being wrong

I think instituting a table within a PTW series wherein X car gets X help but Y car gets Y help and Z car gets nothing and likes it is a terrible proposal.

 

Why?

 

Anyone with half a brain and a big enough (read: willing enough) bank account will continually chase after unicorn vehicles to start with because they get XYZ assistance in their base table rating.

Bleh. Sounds terrible.

PT works now *because what vehicle you start with is taken into account by base class, asterix, and weight listing*. It needs to be maintained in some form or fashion with a shift to a more limited ST-style approach or the best platform will win. And people right now still do scour the PT listing looking for that oddball car with potential... no ruleset is going to take that work away, but you can affect what reward or how much advantage someone may get by doing so.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

I realized the error in my post and added this:

 

The current PT table works since inherent flaws to each vehicle because of table weight vs actual weight matters. If you have a super light version of said car (like me; nearly 300lbs lighter than the given table weight) you submit for a reclass based on PTW.

 

The current reclass works since...well...that help or hurt that Greg dishes out is unknown to us. Keep it that way.

Don't make it wholly transparent.

 

I don't know what it should be. I do know tons of people still build Miatas and Hondas...even now with penalty through weight and base classing or Greg's smackdown.

 

For instance:

All FWD vehicle get +0.6 help vs RWD vehicles.

NASA stipulates that some are "better" than others.

The conclusion by NASA is that Nissan FWD is superior to average FWD.

The conclusion by NASA is that Nissan FWD is inferior to Honda/Acura FWD.

There is a +0.2 difference due to this inferiority.

My Acura has shocks/springs/sways/chassis reinforcement (for rear sway)/rear upper arms (for camber)/gear swap/add LSD/tires.

Competitor X builds a Nissan Sentra SE-R with the same mods.

He gets +0.5 help for his FWD Nissan.

I get +0.3 help for my FWD Acura.

I whoop his butt both days of the weekend.

He shouts for more help because that +0.2 is clearly not enough to level the playing field.

I facepalm and do just-for-fun track days.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Guest

[evowned]

When will the proposed p/w classes and modifiers come out? Or a general idea of what is being considered. I like the idea. I think the money part should be left out most of the fast guys have degrees in fields that help more than money to a race car and if u have money to build a stu car but no one to race in your region it wouldn't be fun that stuff will never change engineers don't have a modifier.

[Drew W.]

What about what IMSA does in the Tudor Series Classes where they use Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments through out the year.

 

 

 

The "moving target" aspect of this would be annoying (at best) for most competitors. There are other motives behind this other than "making the cars equal", as well, IMO. Same in Pirelli World Challenge. "Market Forces", and such...

 

If there does need to be an ongoing "BOP" type adjustment I would suggest doing it the way PWC was doing it a few years back--victory weight.

[Greg G.]

When will the proposed p/w classes and modifiers come out? Or a general idea of what is being considered. I like the idea. I think the money part should be left out most of the fast guys have degrees in fields that help more than money to a race car and if u have money to build a stu car but no one to race in your region it wouldn't be fun that stuff will never change engineers don't have a modifier.

The current plan is to have everything planned for ST4 to be published by mid-2016. There are some in NASA that would like to proceed with these lower classes for '17 also, and there are others that believe we should wait until '18 or later. I would not endorse a full season of these new classes without at least a 6 month period from the time the rules (at least the 99% likely tentative rules) are published and the start of competition. So, that means that we have a lot of work to do before June '16 if these will end up being for '17.

[Eric J.]

For the lower classes, perhaps including ST4, there should be a means to compete without requiring an initial dyno on a car. i.e., maintain the status quo that there is a path to compete without a dyno sheet. This makes it more inviting for entry level or very-low-budget drivers, particularly if they are just starting competition after moving up from DE.

[Ev]

I don't run those classes, but I personally think it's better to keep it simple and make them straight power-to-weight with the current modifiers. These are "formula" driven classes, and it isnt' anybody's job to make a specific car more or less successful. The competitor needs to pick a car that can fit the formula

That is all

They already have that, it's called spec miata/Spec E30/Spec3 and others. To make the rest of the racing world be required to be pigeon holed into one car as the only possible path to winning is a really crappy way to run a series, and a great way piss off people. This is why the Miata brethren have so much butthurt. The Miata is an almost perfect race car, and they outclass everything in a mixed mark series. They picked the "car to have", now it's being "leveled". I say it's good for the series personally, others will disagree.

[Ryan S.]

 

If there does need to be an ongoing "BOP" type adjustment I would suggest doing it the way PWC was doing it a few years back--victory weight.

 

Well that is the same thing right, you win you carry more weight. For ST5/6, you win, your platform takes a penalty in the base power to weight ratio (whether it be a modifier or an absolute)...... The problem with the way PWC did it is that it was done every race, can't do that for a national rules set. However it can be modified yearly based upon the national results, and there are enough years of national PT results to analyze, right now, that would allow for pretty fair and comprehensive establishment of a base table.

 

My suspicion is that the miata may get unfairly penalized the first year, but it seems to me that is the point (and always has been) of PT, that there needs to be some equalizer between the platforms. And if the adaption of the ST philosophy with the "affordable" nature of the PT classes is what is desired it seems that platform equalization on a power to weight ratio is the only way to do it.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

However it can be modified yearly based upon the national results, and there are enough years of national PT results to analyze, right now, that would allow for pretty fair and comprehensive establishment of a base table.

Right. BUT you're assuming those with inferior chassis choices have the money, the means, the on-track ability as those that chose their chassis wisely.

 

(hypothetical for ST6):

All FWD vehicles get +0.6 help vs RWD vehicles.

NASA stipulates that some are "better" than others.

The conclusion by NASA is that Nissan FWD is superior to average FWD.

The conclusion by NASA is that Nissan FWD is inferior to Honda/Acura FWD.

There is a +0.2 difference due to this inferiority.

My Acura has shocks/springs/sways/chassis reinforcement (for rear sway)/rear upper arms (for camber)/gear swap/add LSD/tires.

Competitor X builds a Nissan Sentra SE-R with the same mods.

He gets +0.5 adjustment (help) for his FWD Nissan.

I get +0.3 adjustment (less help) for my FWD Acura.

I whoop his butt both days of the weekend.

He shouts for more help (since NASA has concluded he needs more help than me based on his chassis choice) because that +0.2 is clearly not enough to level the playing field.

 

Competitor X chose a platform that does not have nearly the aftermarket support as my Acura and, as a result, was unable to develop his vehicle as well. Makes sense for the adjustment difference.

Competitor X may not have my on-track ability and, as a result, got whooped. Also makes sense.

Competitor X and his vehicle get more help (or I get hurt more) at the end of the season based on skewed results since I purchased new tires each weekend and he raced on crappy scrubs each weekend.

 

Localized adjustments via weight adjustment or overall PTW adjustment or some other means makes more sense. There are too many variables (money, time, ability, support by OEM and aftermarket companies, etc) to adjust Nationally.

 

Now flip the scenario (Competitor X has an Acura and I have a Nissan and I'm still whooping his butt) BUT everywhere else in the country the crappy chassis is performing poorly. Now I am set up better to succeed after adjustments even though I've already been succeeding and Competitor X is hurt further but not of his own doing.

 

Makes sense? It could be a never-ending series of adjustments and bitching.

[hufflepuff]

I facepalm and do just-for-fun track days.

 

I recently picked up a stock-ish RX8 for just this reason. The integra for TTE, and RX8 for just having fun driving... which is why we all got into this in the first place, right?

 

I agree with the arguments against a BOP modifier. There's no way to tell who spent more money, who developed their car more wisely, who drove better, or which cars are favored at what tracks, to make this fair and consistent. In the world of professional racing where everyone is at a similar level of prep and driving, you can do it- but not as an amateur level.

 

Again, the ideal is that two cars with similar prep / investment, with the same pro driver, will have similar lap times. We shouldn't necessarily penalize front running vehicles because more people choose them, and more development and optimization happens. The basic PT formula has done just this with base class and weight assignments. The key with ST in lower levels will be to set power to weight limits, establish fair vehicle modifiers, and place limitations or penalties on modifications.