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

[hufflepuff]

Spec tire in lower class(es):

 

I'm strongly favor of lower classes going the way of the Super Miata series and NASA spec series and having a spec tire. The allowable width can vary based on vehicle type and weight, but the tire type can be specified.

 

I run the maxxis RC1, and it is inexpensive, wears extremely well, tolerates heat, communicates well, has firm sidewalls, tolerates heat cycles well, works well in damp/cold, and has great contingency. It's an excellent budget series tire. If everyone in that lower class runs it, everyone benefits from all of the advantages, and no one gets a competitive advantage by running a softer tire (which I don't think are indexed harshly enough, currently). I'd rather not spend the money on hoosiers in a class not big enough to win free tires, and having to replace them more than once a season. My maxxis have been competitive and have paid out like crazy. The RC1s are available in a decent range of sizes, which shouldn't preclude any car from getting a fair fitment.

 

TP01190100 205/50ZR15 86W BSW 22.9 8.6 51 1168 5.5-[6.5]-7.5 6/32

TP01010100 225/45ZR15 87W BSW 23 8.9 44 1201 7.0-[7.5]-8.5 6/32

TP01536100 245/40ZR15 88W BSW 22.5 9.8 51 1235 8.0-[8.5]-9.5 6/32

TP01020100 225/45ZR17 94W BSW 25 8.9 50 1477 7.0-[7.5]-8.5 6/32

TP01206100 235/40ZR17 90W BSW 24.3 9.6 51 1323 8.0-[8.5]-9.5 6/32

TP01138100 255/40ZR17 94W BSW 24.8 10.5 51 1477 8.5-[9.0]-10.0 6/32

TP00308100 275/35ZR17 94W BSW 24.6 10.8 44 1477 9.0-[9.5]-10.5 6/32

TP01357100 235/40ZR18 91W BSW 25.4 9.3 44 1356 8.0-[8.5]-9.5 6/32

TP00190100 265/35ZR18 97W BSW 25.3 10.7 50 1609 9.0-[9.5]-10.5 6/32

TP00499100 275/35ZR18 99W XL BSW 25.4 11.2 50 1709 9.0-[9.5]-11.0 6/32

 

 

If not the Maxxis RC1 or Nitto NT01, then perhaps the Toyo RR, but I don't see a point in going any softer if everyone is on the same tire.

[PaulB#51]

I am all for this if we can keep the tires in proportion to the weight of the car.

I don't want to see a 2250 lbs, FI miata on 315's, with aero.

To keep costs down punish aero, punish over extra large tires based on weight.

Since we assume 12:1lbs to pwr.

How do we distinguish between various platforms since now we are taking power to weight out of the current PT base classing guide.

What about a chassis modifier.

You start with a Nissan Sentra you have a different modifyer the e36 m3.

Rank the cars 1-5.

One end of the spectrum are known great handling chassis, the other end are known crappy handlimg straight axle cars, ect...to help keep cost down.

 

Regards,

PaulB

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Agreed on tires.

 

Maybe not a spec tire but maybe no non-DOT's and no Autocross compounds..? So A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.8? https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/457/TT__B-F__Car_Classification_Form_2015--v12.1--1-15-15.pdf (page 2)

 

(And for those that are immediately going to jump to UGH NO A7s AND AUTO-X COMPOUNDS?! WUT A JOKE! there are plenty of fast tires in A.3 so get over it)

 

And, like Paul suggested, instead of +/- points for sizes (like A.10) there is a size-to-weight table for tires?

[kbrew8991]

Spec Tires don't save anyone any money really - don't use that as a basis for it.

 

If people really want that, there's alot of Spec classes with NASA. ST, PT, etc offer choice and in PT you used to not get punished for your choice by getting more points to spend elsewhere by picking a lesser tire. That should continue...

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Spec Tires don't save anyone any money really - don't use that as a basis for it.

...which is why I suggested limiting tires to DOT race compounds. Literally eliminate A.1 and A.2 and A.9 and select from A.3 through A.8 for tires. That's a whole lot of tires.

(And for those that are immediately going to jump to UGH NO A7s AND AUTO-X COMPOUNDS?! WUT A JOKE! there are plenty of fast tires in A.3 so get over it)

 

If people really want that, there's alot of Spec classes with NASA. ST, PT, etc offer choice and in PT you used to not get punished for your choice by getting more points to spend elsewhere by picking a lesser tire.

NASA has shown with TT3/ST3 that they're willing to add an adjustment for those that do not modify factory aero and hurting those with fancy transmissions. (...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)

 

This is Greg speaking but his voice carries weight:

 

But, I also think that we should probably have a few additional controls. The proposed rule for quarter panels for ST3 that failed to make it to the rules may be one example. Another example may be further restrictions on Aero to some type of defined modification parameters, or perhaps a restriction on "A" tires or Mod Factor for "A" tires. I have some other ideas, but I'd rather see how many come up with the same ideas.

 

I have the exact same idea.

 

So total hypothetical:

TT4/ST4: add an adjustment for A tires from non-A tires (as well as keeping the adjustment for non-DOT tires)

TT5/ST5: eliminate non-DOT tires (A.9) from the classification form and add a huge modifier for A tires

TT6/ST6: eliminate A tires (A.1 and A.2) from the classification form and add modifiers to differentiate 40 TW from 100-190 TW and 200 TW

 

And add to those classes a size-to-weight table that has a smaller window as you move down in classes.

(So TT4/ST4 allows really light cars a lot of leeway with how big they can go and TT6/ST6 has a much smaller window)

 

edit: If there is going to be a weighted classification table for models of cars there damn well better be adjustments for different tires. I'll need 100 TW tires (or worse ) to get back something for my super awesome Acura.

[Greg G.]

Just a note that treadwear (TW) no longer means a damn thing in terms of performance. Manufacturers can list the TW as basically whatever they can "get away with."

So, there are now tires that are clearly much better performers than others with a lower TW rating, which is why we had to start doing what we never intended

to do 10 years ago, namely, list specific tire models and assign them PT points. But, times changed......

 

The other thing that has changed is that we now have cool computer based programs to help drivers with classing. The reason that we never tied base tire size to Competition

Weight, and tied it to base weight instead, was that using Competition Wt. would have caused a crazy loop as the competitor attempted to change competition weight. If you

take an hour to play with the numbers, you will find that there are potential loops that would drive someone nuts trying to class the car. But, if we have much more simplified weight

tables like ST has, and much more simplified tire size assignments, in conjunction with computer based classing assist programs, it may be doable to move to a Competition Weight

tire size assignment (with or without Mod Factors for going bigger).

 

Carry on.....

[ILIKETODRIVE]

But seriously (since it might not get any traffic):

 

Wait: The KUMHO V720 (200 TW) is approximately $15 per tire cheaper retail than the KUMHO XS (180 TW) and yet the XS is +2 and the V720 is going to be +6?

And the RS-3 is still a +2? And where's the ZII Star Spec?

 

I'm so confused about what are street tires and what points and why and...

 

And yes, TW =

[JamesMilko]

Spec Tires don't save anyone any money really - don't use that as a basis for it.

 

I disagree with this. A spec tire *may* save costs if the tire selection is done on the basis of costs. Declaring a R7 as the spec tire isn't helpful to anyone. #1 consumable cost for me is buying a new set of Hoosiers every few weekends. Entry fees are the only thing I spend more on.

 

If NASA brings all TT and "PT" classes to a spec long wearing tire like a RC-1, NT-01 or high performance "street" tire that will save people a ton of money and hopefully give NASA enough leverage to get us a good contingency program. Super bonus if the selected tire can be run as a rain at full tread. Sure, if you win and they're free you can show up on stickers and be a tad faster. But for those of us in the mid/back pack being a tenth of two slower because of old tires doesn't really make that much of a difference. If I run all of Mid-Atlantic's races next year I'll be spending $2,500 on tires and I'm running SM7s instead of the R7s I should be. Winning any from Hoosier is pretty unlikely at my skill level unless I get lucky and poach from from TTE if they have a weak showing.

 

nthing treadwear means nothing. Someone of the most expensive tires you could run are TW200 and are almost as fast as SM7s. They'll also cord in 2-3 hours on a Miata.

 

One other request. Can we allow send only telemetry? With the advent of cheap Android devices simple telemetry is pretty cheap these days. The way the rules are worded now it also presents problems with displays that use bluetooth/wifi to connect to the ECU. I have to hard wire my tablet into my ECU to stay legal which is pretty annoying and ads a ton of complexity to my setup vs connecting it via wifi/bluetooth and running a charger to the tablet. Obviously anything that modifies running configurations shouldn't be allowed. It opens another venue for cheaters, but honestly if someone running a Megasquirt can't figure out a way to hide a switch/use GPS to change tables they aren't clever enough to race.

[Eric J.]

Just a note that treadwear (TW) no longer means a damn thing in terms of performance. Manufacturers can list the TW as basically whatever they can "get away with."

So, there are now tires that are clearly much better performers than others with a lower TW rating, which is why we had to start doing what we never intended

to do 10 years ago, namely, list specific tire models and assign them PT points. But, times changed......

 

That said, there should be a means for people to have a reasonable crack at competing on NT-01s or similar even if other people are on better tires, via some sort of adjustment or whatever. Tire adjustments have also allowed people to run multiple classes during a season (depending on attendance, car counts, etc.), just by changing tires, and I think that's a good thing.

 

The other thing that has changed is that we now have cool computer based programs to help drivers with classing. The reason that we never tied base tire size to Competition

Weight, and tied it to base weight instead, was that using Competition Wt. would have caused a crazy loop as the competitor attempted to change competition weight. If you

take an hour to play with the numbers, you will find that there are potential loops that would drive someone nuts trying to class the car. But, if we have much more simplified weight

tables like ST has, and much more simplified tire size assignments, in conjunction with computer based classing assist programs, it may be doable to move to a Competition Weight

tire size assignment (with or without Mod Factors for going bigger).

 

Carry on.....

 

Automation is good, especially if the logic of the automated decisions is published somewhere. In other words, I think it's better if the program isn't a Mysterious Black Hole Decision Maker.

[jcindric]

I have run TTB 2 years, then TTA, followed by 1 year of TT3 in a Cayman. In 2014 I changed to a 1990 Miata with 1.6 and then in 2015 a 1.8 swap with reclass so I have tried many of the scenarios. I agree with rules being made easier BUT part of the fun is the build of the car trying different mods and tires.

Unlike the majority, I would like to run whatever tire I desire with corresponding mods.

I do NOT want to see this become a spec series with 1 tire, limited mods, etc.

 

J. Cindric

[kbrew8991]

Spec Tires don't save anyone any money really - don't use that as a basis for it.

 

I disagree with this. A spec tire *may* save costs if the tire selection is done on the basis of costs. Declaring a R7 as the spec tire isn't helpful to anyone. #1 consumable cost for me is buying a new set of Hoosiers every few weekends. Entry fees are the only thing I spend more on.

 

People will spend what they can to win - if you make things a spec tire, you're just going to increase my tire inventory so that I have more sets of said spec tire that are optimum heat cycle number whatever it happens to be, shaved to correct depth where applicable (even if a tire doesn't require shaving you still may wish to if there's an advantage), etc, etc plus all the extra sets of wheels that may entail, and all that crap. Which tends to cost more than ordering a new Hoosier or BFG and running it for cycles 1-5 and relegating it to practice after that stage.

 

Again, if you want that spec tire / control tire class there are classes for it already. PT offers more choice, and going forward to ST4-6 that choice should still be there I feel. If you want to run a Toyo RR or whatnot because you think its better and costs less for your car to run it then cool - run it and enjoy the extra points / extra ratio credit to use elsewhere on the car. I'll run what I think works best for my car, budget, etc. which may be different.

 

If you feel the Hoosier vs Toyo RR or whatever points/adjustment levels aren't set fairly then let's fix that instead of taking away everyone's choice in tires.

[jcindric]

Ken, totally agree ! ST3/TT3. You have your hp average and quickly calculate modifiers , including non Orem aero. Still freedom of choice

Jon

[hufflepuff]

Spec Tires don't save anyone any money really - don't use that as a basis for it.

 

If people really want that, there's alot of Spec classes with NASA. ST, PT, etc offer choice and in PT you used to not get punished for your choice by getting more points to spend elsewhere by picking a lesser tire. That should continue...

 

How will $145 tires that have great contingency and that last almost an entire season not save everyone money over tires costing more and lasting shorter? I paid $580 for tires this season, and still have a lot of rubber left on my first set, and I've won two additional sets. if everyone runs them, everyone benefits from inexpensive, long-lasting rubber.

 

The great thing with Maxxis or Nitto NT01 is that you DON'T need all those wheels and tires you mention - they stay grippy pretty much to the cords. Especially the maxxis, since they come as slicks and don't change appreciably over their life. This reduces the likelihood of people spending money to win; it moves more towards "may the best driver win" and not "may the one who spent the most win". I would hope most drivers would want to duke it out on a level playing field, instead of spending money for the competitive advantage.

 

I do agree that if we don't go to a spec tire, or a list of approved long-lasting similarly competitive tires, i think we need to adjust tire points cost again, because I still don't think the softer compounds are being penalized appropriately to give 100TW tires a chance. The step from Maxxis RC1 to Toyo RR is only +1 point and is easily worth 1 second, perhaps closer to 2 seconds, per lap. A Hoosier R6 is worth even more time per lap, and only costs +2 points over my Maxxis. And since the R6 is basically a 225 compared to my 205, you get a compound and a width advantage at the same time for +2 points. If could afford Hoosiers, the choice of where to spend points would be obvious.

[kbrew8991]

I spent $2XX shipped on tires my last full season, including two sets of stickers for Nationals. And I did not use Maaxis. Leave the choice in, fix the ratios so that it's fair, and run from there.

 

No ruleset ever written can fully contain costs, rulesmakers can only provide mild influence on how much effect someone's spending can have on their overall performance.

 

Even if you someone provide a perfect low cost spec tire that's consistently fast from HC #1 to HC #100, doesn't gain or lose anything by shaving, etc. the spending will find another avenue to be used on.

[CWeber]

I left a spec series because of a required spec tire. (Toyo RR) I hate the idea of a required 'spec' tire in PT or ST myself. To me forcing a 'spec tire' chases away customers.

[Ev]

Funny how divided the tire subject is. It's almost as divided as R vs D...

[Dysenpham]

The pwr/weight ratio stabilizes the spending. Naturally a 8.0:1 car will cost more to run per season vs a 12:1 car. The ratio protects the $$$ having to be spent, the mod factors help aid in that as well. If we are now talking about a spec tire for an ST/TT class than how does that address the spending war? Like Ken B said, it will just open up other avenues to spend on and it will also cause people to stockpile spec tires. Let the ratio dictate the spending as it already does and let the mod factors police the spending war. Would I spend $10k on a sequential trans at .6 mod factor in ST4 at 12:1? Probably not, but I would be more inclined to do it at 8:1, that's just the way it is.

[whoahstu]

I left a spec series because of a required spec tire. (Toyo RR) I hate the idea of a required 'spec' tire in PT or ST myself. To me forcing a 'spec tire' chases away customers.

Same here. Go over to other series' boards and listen to them complain about their spec tire. Front runners always have the lowest cycle or are shaving slick tires for lower weight. Then there is the issue with certain tracks like certain tires and not everyone knows the right setup formula or pressure.

 

The SuperMiata example is fine for Miatas but what about all of the other types of vehicles that Maxxis or Toyo or whoever doesn't necessarily make a tire in the right size. Some of the choices are limited. By allowing all of the manufacturers everyone can find a tire that fits their vehicle.

 

IMO, only those with the budget and willingness to win every weekend need to be buying several set of tires per year. We run takeoffs from those spec tire series and manage to do well. We even win some new tires with those takeoffs. The answer to how to run a better tire isn't to buy a pallet of new stickers and then complain.

 

If we went to a spec tire, I'm still going to get beat by someone who has a better car, better setup, better driver.

[takjak2]

The pwr/weight ratio stabilizes the spending. Naturally a 8.0:1 car will cost more to run per season vs a 12:1 car. The ratio protects the $$$ having to be spent, the mod factors help aid in that as well. ... Would I spend $10k on a sequential trans at .6 mod factor in ST4 at 12:1? Probably not, but I would be more inclined to do it at 8:1, that's just the way it is.

 

This is not really true. Power to weight sort of limits what people can spend on motors and, tangentially, consumables. It doesn't matter if you aren't inclined to buy that $$ part, all it takes is one guy at the top paying to win and now everyone is playing catch-up.

 

The cost to develop and install maxed-out aero is not constrained between by 8.0, 10.0, or even 12.0. The total cost of suspension components, safety components, or any cheaty-bits you can think of are still approximately the same. Take a hypothetical TT5 car and prepare it to the same level as a Nationally competitive STU or ST2 car solely without the horsepower. That is miles more $$$ than the PTD/PTE car we are starting with. AND it is miles more $$$ than the next generation of potential competitors want to spend. Bigger fields require attracting and retaining. Simply reducing the number of classes is only a temporary measure.

 

TT1/2/3 and now 4/5/6 cannot be about reducing cost. I'll wager that 9 out of 10 potential future competitors are HPDE drivers, and that their PRIMARY reason for not moving up is [perceived] cost. So if you had a fairly stock car and wanted to get into competition, how do we do that? PT and the points system does it pretty well.

[jpreston]

Re: Greg’s original post:

 

I’m all for the switch to an open power:weight system that doesn’t require dyno reclass emails, but I think the rest of the rulebook already does a great job of assigning fair values to modifications and containing costs for the lower classes. It seems like a waste to just throw it away and totally start over. My initial thoughts:

 

1. Keep the current TTB-TTF rulebook as it is for the new ST5 and ST6, but delete sections B. Weight Reduction and C. Engine and replace with max power to weight ratios for each class. ST5 should be intended as a direct replacement for D and ST6 should be intended as a direct replacement for E.

2. Implement Greg’s suggestion of a Vehicle Specific Mod Factor table to replace the current Base Classification table. As much as I hate seeing the miata’s base weight increase every winter, I agree with Greg that this table is a requirement for the lower classes.

3. Section A and sections D-H remain the same, but 1 modification point now counts as a 0.14 power:weight mod factor. (A quick search for miata dyno reclasses showed 17.1:1 for a PTE* reclass and 18.1:1 for a PTE reclass, so 1 mod point is roughly equal to 0.14 lb/hp… for a PTE miata at least. Obviously Greg can set the exact number to whatever is most appropriate for all cars/classes.)

 

In my opinion, the max power:weight ratios for each class and the vehicle specific mod factors should be set as close as possible to the current PTE and PTD dyno reclasses that are in circulation, so that anyone currently running a dyno reclass can reuse their current dyno certification papers and car setup and do nothing but add or subtract <50lb to comply with the new formula. I’m probably overlooking something, but I think this proposal would make for a very easy transition for current D and E competitors, without creating a requirement (real or perceived) to come up with an entirely new car setup.

 

I expect some people will argue that this proposal isn’t a big enough change from the current rules to be worthwhile, but I think it accomplishes what Greg and NASA (and myself) would like to see happen: it creates a fully open power:weight rulebook that doesn’t frustrate customers with the existence of a “secret” dyno reclass formula; it saves Greg from spending hours and hours responding to dyno reclass emails; and it makes for an easy transition for all current competitors. A simpler rulebook would be nice, but the more you try to delete rules and simplify things, the more you open up holes that allow out-of-control spending and unfair advantages. The current Modification Point system isn’t that complex and it has proven itself to be very effective.

 

An added benefit of this proposal is that it would be extremely easy to implement for 2017.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Guest

[Emmanuel B.]

Re: Greg’s original post:

 

I’m all for the switch to an open power:weight system that doesn’t require dyno reclass emails, but I think the rest of the rulebook already does a great job of assigning fair values to modifications and containing costs for the lower classes. It seems like a waste to just throw it away and totally start over. My initial thoughts:

 

1. Keep the current TTB-TTF rulebook as it is for the new ST5 and ST6, but delete sections B. Weight Reduction and C. Engine and replace with max power to weight ratios for each class. ST5 should be intended as a direct replacement for D and ST6 should be intended as a direct replacement for E.

2. Implement Greg’s suggestion of a Vehicle Specific Mod Factor table to replace the current Base Classification table. As much as I hate seeing the miata’s base weight increase every winter, I agree with Greg that this table is a requirement for the lower classes.

3. Sections D-H remain the same, but 1 modification point now counts as a 0.14 power:weight mod factor. (A quick search for miata dyno reclasses showed 17.1:1 for a PTE* reclass and 18.1:1 for a PTE reclass, so 1 mod point is roughly equal to 0.14 lb/hp… for a PTE miata at least. Obviously Greg can set the exact number to whatever is most appropriate for all cars/classes.)

 

In my opinion, the max power:weight ratios for each class and the vehicle specific mod factors should be set as close as possible to the current PTE and PTD dyno reclasses that are in circulation, so that anyone currently running a dyno reclass can reuse their current dyno certification papers and car setup and do nothing but add or subtract <50lb to comply with the new formula. I’m probably overlooking something, but I think this proposal would make for a very easy transition for current D and E competitors, without creating a requirement (real or perceived) to come up with an entirely new car setup.

 

I expect some people will argue that this proposal isn’t a big enough change from the current rules to be worthwhile, but I think it accomplishes what Greg and NASA (and myself) would like to see happen: it creates a fully open power:weight rulebook that doesn’t frustrate customers with the existence of a “secret” dyno reclass formula; it saves Greg from spending hours and hours responding to dyno reclass emails; and it makes for an easy transition for all current competitors. A simpler rulebook would be nice, but the more you try to delete rules and simplify things, the more you open up holes that allow out-of-control spending and unfair advantages. The current Modification Point system isn’t that complex and it has proven itself to be very effective.

 

An added benefit of this proposal is that it would be extremely easy to implement for 2017.

Very good points re: the validity of the current system sans the "secret" dyno reclass formula. I very much concur with something along these lines and would vote alongside this proposal for 2017.

[jpreston]

Edited my post to change this:

 

3. Sections D-H remain the same,

 

To this:

 

3. Section A and sections D-H remain the same,

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Would I spend $10k on a sequential trans at .6 mod factor in ST4 at 12:1? Probably not, but I would be more inclined to do it at 8:1, that's just the way it is.

I can flip that on it's head: If I don't have to spend $xxx on getting to 8:1 I may be more inclined to spend the money on that sequential trans because I've saved money not reaching 8:1 power.

 

AND even more-so if I'm running said slower class and I can get a healthy amount of help for FWD and/or not running aftermarket aero...why not!

[iwannajag]

Re: Greg’s original post:

 

I’m all for the switch to an open power:weight system that doesn’t require dyno reclass emails, but I think the rest of the rulebook already does a great job of assigning fair values to modifications and containing costs for the lower classes. It seems like a waste to just throw it away and totally start over. My initial thoughts:

 

1. Keep the current TTB-TTF rulebook as it is for the new ST5 and ST6, but delete sections B. Weight Reduction and C. Engine and replace with max power to weight ratios for each class. ST5 should be intended as a direct replacement for D and ST6 should be intended as a direct replacement for E.

2. Implement Greg’s suggestion of a Vehicle Specific Mod Factor table to replace the current Base Classification table. As much as I hate seeing the miata’s base weight increase every winter, I agree with Greg that this table is a requirement for the lower classes.

3. Section A and sections D-H remain the same, but 1 modification point now counts as a 0.14 power:weight mod factor. (A quick search for miata dyno reclasses showed 17.1:1 for a PTE* reclass and 18.1:1 for a PTE reclass, so 1 mod point is roughly equal to 0.14 lb/hp… for a PTE miata at least. Obviously Greg can set the exact number to whatever is most appropriate for all cars/classes.)

 

In my opinion, the max power:weight ratios for each class and the vehicle specific mod factors should be set as close as possible to the current PTE and PTD dyno reclasses that are in circulation, so that anyone currently running a dyno reclass can reuse their current dyno certification papers and car setup and do nothing but add or subtract <50lb to comply with the new formula. I’m probably overlooking something, but I think this proposal would make for a very easy transition for current D and E competitors, without creating a requirement (real or perceived) to come up with an entirely new car setup.

 

I expect some people will argue that this proposal isn’t a big enough change from the current rules to be worthwhile, but I think it accomplishes what Greg and NASA (and myself) would like to see happen: it creates a fully open power:weight rulebook that doesn’t frustrate customers with the existence of a “secret” dyno reclass formula; it saves Greg from spending hours and hours responding to dyno reclass emails; and it makes for an easy transition for all current competitors. A simpler rulebook would be nice, but the more you try to delete rules and simplify things, the more you open up holes that allow out-of-control spending and unfair advantages. The current Modification Point system isn’t that complex and it has proven itself to be very effective.

 

An added benefit of this proposal is that it would be extremely easy to implement for 2017.

 

I would support this as well, but might need to adjust the total number of points available as well. Right now, I have not joined PT because of the base classing and the way I am forced to add HP to get to the correct p/w. This would open the doors for people to get way easier into ST without worry to much about base classing and making expensive adjustments to an existing race car. Also would us to participate in different classes with more participants and have a car that can run in multiple classes by some simple adjustments such as E85/tune or weight.

 

Marcel B.

2013 Scion FRS

[Dysenpham]

Would I spend $10k on a sequential trans at .6 mod factor in ST4 at 12:1? Probably not, but I would be more inclined to do it at 8:1, that's just the way it is.

I can flip that on it's head: If I don't have to spend $xxx on getting to 8:1 I may be more inclined to spend the money on that sequential trans because I've saved money not reaching 8:1 power.

 

Certainly the funds used to procure more HP could very well be used towards a sequential trans but that's where I mentioned that the mod factors will help aid with the spending. If you had $10k to spend would you spend it on a sequential at let's say -.8 or would you rather spend it elsewhere that will not penalize you as much? Just like currently, I don't see much TTErs using A7 compound at 22pts in the lettered classes because the penalty isnt worth it, I'd much rather spend 22pts elsewhere.