Jump to content

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


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Greg G.

    38

  • docwyte

    25

  • hufflepuff

    20

  • bionicbelly

    14

  • 2 months later...
Any updates on ST5/6 being implemented in 2017 or is it a definite 2018 time-frame?

 

So the question still stands, is this being implemented for 2017?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Any updates on ST5/6 being implemented in 2017 or is it a definite 2018 time-frame?

 

So the question still stands, is this being implemented for 2017?

 

No. ST4 yes. ST5 & ST6 not for '17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the difference if you spend the money on HP, spend it on weight reduction, spend it on 5k shocks, or spend it on aero.

 

Agreed. If ST 5 and 6 become OEM aero only, I'll probably move to Spec Miata. Most of the guys that are currently running aero miatas in PTE are in PT because the aero makes the car faster and so much more fun to drive than a spec miata. Take away the aero and there's not near as much reason for us to stay in PT/ST. A pro-built SM motor is cheaper than aero, a standalone ECU and tuning, and a good set of PT-legal shocks. ST4 power levels in a miata requires an engine swap or boost, which I (and probably a lot of other guys) have no interest in because of cost and reliability.

Regionally, "most of the guys that are currently running aero Miatas in PTE are..." currently not running. I think you guys are amazing drivers with well thought out equipment and great prep, but you're trying to dictate class rules for a series in which you do not participate. You can threaten SM but you didn't race in PTE to warrant anyone thinking you were going to jump ship. You weren't on the ship to begin with.

 

I read it all last year while deciding between PTE or PTD. All those banging the drums for PTD....*crickets*.

 

Again, I'm not saying you guys shouldn't have an opinion and I know you all are extremely talented, but in my region, which has greatly increased PTE numbers in 2016, please don't try to dictate rulesets for a class in which you do not participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point. This year hasn't gone as planned for me, but I'm still 100% committed to PTE. I'll definitely be at NCM in October, and now that my car is in full PTE trim and I don't have to change anything for new rules this winter, I'll be at a lot more NASA events next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be at a lot more NASA events next year.

That would be awesome. Each one of you guys have great PTE cars and are great drivers. I'd rather run another 8 weekends next year never cracking the top 5, with you all running, than to see you all sit out another season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not convinced the tire penalties are in-line with real-world results. Take a 255 Hankook RS3 vs 225 Hoosier R7 on say a TTD E36. The wider street tire will take +3. The narrower slick will take +6. But those 3 points probably won't be worth enough in suspension or aero to make up that difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • National Staff
Where do we see st5 p/w landing. 14:1?

Currently looking at 14.5:1, which is why PTC is at 14.5:1 now. However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

Why add the mod factor for individual vehicles? I thought that was some of the appeal for the ST system, that it simplified things?

 

I'm a fan of higher weight/power ratios as its relatively cheap and easy to add weight, and difficult and expensive to remove it or add power. Make it so most everyone can achieve the minimum. I'm fine going a little slower if there are more cars and more competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

Why add the mod factor for individual vehicles? I thought that was some of the appeal for the ST system, that it simplified things?

 

I'm a fan of higher weight/power ratios as its relatively cheap and easy to add weight, and difficult and expensive to remove it or add power. Make it so most everyone can achieve the minimum. I'm fine going a little slower if there are more cars and more competition.

 

 

 

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do we see st5 p/w landing. 14:1?

Currently looking at 14.5:1, which is why PTC is at 14.5:1 now. However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

 

I hope you are able to keep it around 14:1 or 14.5:1 at the max. It would follow the precendant set by the other ST classes being off by a factor of 2 or folding PTC at14.5:1 into it. It would help those of us that are building now if it followed one of the two current standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

Why add the mod factor for individual vehicles? I thought that was some of the appeal for the ST system, that it simplified things?

 

I'm a fan of higher weight/power ratios as its relatively cheap and easy to add weight, and difficult and expensive to remove it or add power. Make it so most everyone can achieve the minimum. I'm fine going a little slower if there are more cars and more competition.

 

 

 

Agreed!

 

 

Agreed also!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, there will be an additional Mod Factor added for vehicle model/yr, (something like we have in PT currently using the base classes).

I could see it moving up to 15:1 as well.

Why add the mod factor for individual vehicles? I thought that was some of the appeal for the ST system, that it simplified things?

 

I'm a fan of higher weight/power ratios as its relatively cheap and easy to add weight, and difficult and expensive to remove it or add power. Make it so most everyone can achieve the minimum. I'm fine going a little slower if there are more cars and more competition.

If everyone is at the same hp/weight then the best chassis wins, and you have a Super Miata sort of series.

 

The intent of the model specific factor for the ST classes that replaces these lower PT classes is to avoid that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone is at the same hp/weight then the best chassis wins, and you have a Super Miata sort of series.

 

The intent of the model specific factor for the ST classes that replaces these lower PT classes is to avoid that.

If we are going to have factors for each car then why go to ST type rules in the first place??

 

Don't forget that now you can tune the car with all kinds of different items without the concern for points cost. Control arms, bumpsteer correction, bushings, gearing, intake, exhaust... Before you had to constantly factor in the points trade off for each part, now you have so many more tools to use. Plus there are the weight and tire size/type factors to work in your favor.

 

People are quick to assume that their chassis can't compete, and aren't willing to make actual setup changes to improve their performance. A lot of the chassis' competing in PTC-D don't have another home (Some spec class or one brand class) why handicap them from the very beginning with an arbitrary factor. Keep it simple at the start, and if there's a glaring exception make an adjustment based on actual results.

 

Why is it that general ST concept applied to 1-4 was considered successful enough to grow into 5-6, but now for 5-6 we need to additional rules specific to each car? What is the change point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
If everyone is at the same hp/weight then the best chassis wins, and you have a Super Miata sort of series.

 

The intent of the model specific factor for the ST classes that replaces these lower PT classes is to avoid that.

If we are going to have factors for each car then why go to ST type rules in the first place??

 

Don't forget that now you can tune the car with all kinds of different items without the concern for points cost. Control arms, bumpsteer correction, bushings, gearing, intake, exhaust... Before you had to constantly factor in the points trade off for each part, now you have so many more tools to use. Plus there are the weight and tire size/type factors to work in your favor.

 

People are quick to assume that their chassis can't compete, and aren't willing to make actual setup changes to improve their performance. A lot of the chassis' competing in PTC-D don't have another home (Some spec class or one brand class) why handicap them from the very beginning with an arbitrary factor. Keep it simple at the start, and if there's a glaring exception make an adjustment based on actual results.

 

Why is it that general ST concept applied to 1-4 was considered successful enough to grow into 5-6, but now for 5-6 we need to additional rules specific to each car? What is the change point?

We are talking about the same "arbitrary factors" used to classify your car in PT/TT, that allowed it to break longstanding track records by 5 seconds.

 

It's pretty simple, if you want to run without the model specific Mod Factors, then you run in ST4/TT4 or higher. Using your argument, then it is just as easy for someone to spend money and drop weight or increase HP to max out for ST4, than someone with a crap chassis starting point to spend money attempting to replicate a good chassis (almost impossible because the rules are not 100% open). You are correct that a lot of chassis in PTF-PTC don't have another home, which is exactly the reason that we will have model specific Mod Factors for them. Nobody can turn a sloth into a cheetah, or a turd into a piece of gold, no matter how much money or time you spend. If you want to end up competing against two other competitors, as the rest leave because they don't have $20-$30K to spend on their $5000 race car (or $40-$50K on their $10K car), then your approach will accomplish that. The "Super Touring" classes are just that, for super cars with fairly unlimited mods. As we move down to the next series (lower TT classes), then restrictions will increase, vehicle Mod Factors will apply, and cost controls will be in place. Yes, we will be able to do away with the highly successful, but work intensive Dyno re-classing by the National Director, that for years was a subject of controversy (until the results proved its success). However, that process is labor intensive, consumes time on the part of the competitors waiting for their results, will be difficult to hand off in the future to others due to the complex nature and algorithms, and, of course, is proprietary and not an open process. The Dyno based classing for everyone is what some, including the guy who started all of this in '03-'04 envisioned from the start, but was declined by Exec's year after year due to the perception that having everyone get a baseline Dyno was too much of a barrier to entry. This perception has changed over the years as thousands of Dyno re-classes were requested by the competitors, and Dyno's at the track or close (enough) by most became more readily available. Additionally, while Dyno based classing does not prevent the need for engine tear downs, it definitely decreases the need significantly. Lastly, we get rid of some of what can be variable power performance gains of the Mod Points system for engine modifications. I can list a lot more reasons, but I've got other things to do right now. But, basically, it is not the intention or the plan, and never has been, to have ST1-6 open rules with no other options for the budget minded racers with less expensive cars/budgets/lower HP, etc. In fact, if we did, then we would absolutely just make a list of cars that were eligible for those 5/6 classes, and none of the cars owned by those recently posting here would be permitted.

 

So, if you have an S2000, BRZ, FRS, 350Z, MX-5, then plan on having some type of negative Mod Factor applied to your vehicle. Or alternatively, using the cup is half full versus half empty paradigm, we may just put model specific positive Mod Factors out there. In fact, this may be a better way to go, but if we do, we may need to start TT5/PT? at 15:1, to keep the spread away from ST4/TT4. The spread needs to increase, because we want to decrease to just two more classes to increase class counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg!

To be fair you beat that track record too.

Perhaps arbitrary wasn't the best word choice.

 

Thanks for taking the time to outline the background in the thinking behind change of approach for 4, and 5-6. I definitely have a better understanding of how you've arrived at the current direction. Your image of how you see 1-4 being a different formula wasn't clear to me previously. Implementing the factors is certainly one way to keep things in check.

 

Since you see 4 and up being more open, perhaps increasing 4's weight/power ratio over time might encourage those in 5/6 who are willing to push the envelope further make the jump. As I mentioned previously, losing weight and adding hp tend to be the most $/laptime once the basic things are done.

 

No matter what you do to detract it, those who want to spend more money or try more combinations are always going to do it. Those who don't want to, won't. And both sides will always come bitching to you at some point!

 

Outlining which cars you have in mind for mod factors is good, I can see how you landed on those 5. It'll be interesting to see what else joins that group.

 

I'm very interested to see which cars from 3/C make the move to 4, and likewise which jump from D to C.

 

No matter if I agree with every detail or not, I'll be at track doing the most I can to finish as well as I can.

 

-DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the proposed hp/weight for TTC/TT5 going to be?

 

I see lots of discussion about how these changes will affect PT/ST but not really how it affects us TT'ers.

 

I haven't been really happy with the way TT has been going. In my mind TT is the place that the guy could take his street car, after graduating up through HPDE, and compete with very little additional investment.

 

Now I'm seeing completely built, gutted, full aero race cars all the way down to TTF. That's ludicrous and makes the "normal" HPDE guy not want to move up to TT.

 

I'm also not a fan of OEM aero only. I have an E36 M3 with a M3 lightweight wing on it. Technically its OEM, but didn't really come on my car. So that means I have to remove it? I'm already getting penalized by having to take +4 points for it, its not nearly as effective as a Brooks Motorsports wing that takes the same points.

 

We need to do more to make things more egalitarian. My rear wing is the perfect example, it's not as wide or high as other rear wings on the market but the points penalty is the same. Even the weeny factory optional rear wing has to take the same points. That's not right by a long stretch.

 

I agree with others about the tires, more points need to be allotted for an R7 vs an NT01, RR, etc. I'm not against a spec tire and do think it would save the vast majority of drivers money. The gunners are going to gun and have a sticker set every weekend. Those of us who choose not to do so can use 1 set of tires for an entire season and still feel somewhat competitive.

 

I would like to see a more wide open power to weight, right now I'm 40rwhp low for TTC and there's no way for me to make up that power without breaking out of class and moving up to TTB/TT4. It'd be nice to be able to add power and stay in class if I chose to spend the money to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc - missing the 944 V8 yet ?

 

Write a simple, enforceable rule that accurately quantifies the performance potential of a given wing or spoiler, and you have a cause to get behind, otherwise, there is no better solution, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the easy button here is no points assessed for OEM wings. Others have already said they give no measurable amount of downforce, which I agree with.

 

So make the only wings that take points have XX inches of rise and YY inches of sweep, or points for aftermarket wings only.

 

Yeah, I miss the brute power of the car but I appreciate how easy (and durable!) the M3 is to work on. I'm able to do all the wrenching myself, which saves me a ton of money and time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this OEM wing?

 

1C3BDECZ3HV500032_ae1d00ace9f98a97.jpg

 

You could write an exception around this, but there are always others. I have no dog in this debate, and will stand down. I just remember writing rulesets - it always more complicated than it seems.

 

I may get tired of going fast the hard way some day too, but not yet .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Good point. That could be handled either by saying any wing with xx rise and yyy width takes +4 points. Or assessing the Viper ACR and cars like it certain point penalties.

 

Remember I had my Ls 951 for 6 years. It was time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this OEM wing?

 

1C3BDECZ3HV500032_ae1d00ace9f98a97.jpg

 

You could write an exception around this, but there are always others. I have no dog in this debate, and will stand down. I just remember writing rulesets - it always more complicated than it seems.

 

I may get tired of going fast the hard way some day too, but not yet .

I don't think any ST4/5 car comes with an OEM wing like that. Bit of a red herring maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...