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

[docwyte]

Yup, that's a TT1 car isn't it? So at that point the "factory" aero doesn't matter. There are always going to be factory special models (S2000 Club Racer for instance) that will need to be classified on a case by case basis.

 

I just don't think that OEM aero should have to take the +4 point penalty. Seems like everyone agrees that it has basically no affect, so why penalize it the same as a large wing that actually does do something?

 

There's already a delineation for the front splitter (bigger than this and you take points) why can't the same be put in place for the rear wing?

 

Any other answers for my other questions? What's the power/weight ratio for TTC/TT5 going to be?

[Mike W.]

There is no PT5/TT5 yet, not until at least 2018. TTC is the same as PTC as it always has been.

[Matt@NCM]

I think the smart thing to do when asking for this type of feedback is to build a little bit of framework into which you guys are looking to accomplish. Some of it may seem obvious, but if you just ask for suggestions you end up with everyone trying to twist the class to make it most convenient for their specific situation.

 

A tremendous amount of objective perspective is required to get this kind of thing right. And it NEEDS to be right. The only other thing more aggravating than a broken rulebook is a consistently changing rulebook.

 

Dumb question that may have been asked a million times before, but why suffer the same death that the SCCA is dying in over saturating class options?

 

(I'm sorry for this) Why does GTS need to continue to exist? If you are looking for higher car counts, look no further! Spec 3, Spec E46, Spec Focus, Spec 7, NP01, American Iron, American Iron X, Honda Challenge, Spec Z, CMC... If the rulebook was competent and consistent, these classes could start being absorbed by a simple to understand, and easy to manage ST class structure which makes retaining customers easier, but attracting new customers easy as well. Im sure these classes felt like a good idea by whoever was marginalized by whatever class they were in before, but it is nothing but oversaturation at this point.

 

Separating signal from noise is always a moving target, but being a bit more direct with objectives and "unmovable" guidelines makes this whole process a lot more productive on the front end as opposed to after you've pissed a bunch of people off.

 

My final poke at the beehive - Being to close to it all can be a huge handicap in making tough decisions for competent long-term strategy. Again - Objective Perspective.

[Grintch]

(I'm sorry for this) Why does GTS need to continue to exist? If you are looking for higher car counts, look no further! Spec 3, Spec E46, Spec Focus, Spec 7, NP01, American Iron, American Iron X, Honda Challenge, Spec Z, CMC... If the rulebook was competent and consistent, these classes could start being absorbed by a simple to understand, and easy to manage ST class structure which makes retaining customers easier, but attracting new customers easy as well. Im sure these classes felt like a good idea by whoever was marginalized by whatever class they were in before, but it is nothing but oversaturation at this point.

 

 

I agree with this, but at the same time don't think all classes should be forced into ST. I also question if every/most ST sub-classes need their own unique rules.

 

I really like the power to weight approach of ST & PT, and think they can solve a lot of traditional classing issues, like "why is car A in class 1, while the similar car B is in class 2?"; and "why do they get to run a lower minimum weight or bigger restrictor than me??". But do all power to weight classes need to be ST? Why not keep a new hybrid/simplified PT (and potentially another more stock like category), with more restrictions on what you can do and larger penalties for certain things to control costs (kinda like the ST3 & 4 unique limitations, but more extensive).

 

This way a stock C6 Corvette could run in T1 or T2 (a stock like category), in more modified form in PT1 or 2, and in even more modified form ST1 or 2 - rather than going directly to ST2 where you need those $40,000 in mods to compete. In addition a heavily modified (but stock block, like a SCCA F or E Production style) Miata could run in ST4 or 5 with the same basic prep rules as the rest of ST. This being different than the current approach that seems to want to make ST1 cars resemble SU cars, and ST5 cars resemble PT cars while killing off both SU & PT.

 

While the points approach in PT was maybe a little too complicated, it allowed different options/approaches to building a car. But other than power & weight, the new ST1-6 seems like it will tend to force one option.

[Alan_Wolfe]

I'd rather have them drop the German part of GTS so all car makes were welcome. Grand Touring Series? Goforit Touring Series?

 

Why?

The 2017 GTS rules are 7 pages.

The 2017 ST/SU rules are 22 pages.

[flier129]

(I'm sorry for this) Why does GTS need to continue to exist? If you are looking for higher car counts, look no further! Spec 3, Spec E46, Spec Focus, Spec 7, NP01, American Iron, American Iron X, Honda Challenge, Spec Z, CMC... If the rulebook was competent and consistent, these classes could start being absorbed by a simple to understand, and easy to manage ST class structure which makes retaining customers easier, but attracting new customers easy as well. Im sure these classes felt like a good idea by whoever was marginalized by whatever class they were in before, but it is nothing but oversaturation at this point.

 

 

I agree with this, but at the same time don't think all classes should be forced into ST. I also question if every/most ST sub-classes need their own unique rules.

 

I really like the power to weight approach of ST & PT, and think they can solve a lot of traditional classing issues, like "why is car A in class 1, while the similar car B is in class 2?"; and "why do they get to run a lower minimum weight or bigger restrictor than me??". But do all power to weight classes need to be ST? Why not keep a new hybrid/simplified PT (and potentially another more stock like category), with more restrictions on what you can do and larger penalties for certain things to control costs (kinda like the ST3 & 4 unique limitations, but more extensive).

 

This way a stock C6 Corvette could run in T1 or T2 (a stock like category), in more modified form in PT1 or 2, and in even more modified form ST1 or 2 - rather than going directly to ST2 where you need those $40,000 in mods to compete. In addition a heavily modified (but stock block, like a SCCA F or E Production style) Miata could run in ST4 or 5 with the same basic prep rules as the rest of ST. This being different than the current approach that seems to want to make ST1 cars resemble SU cars, and ST5 cars resemble PT cars while killing off both SU & PT.

 

While the points approach in PT was maybe a little too complicated, it allowed different options/approaches to building a car. But other than power & weight, the new ST1-6 seems like it will tend to force one option.

 

uuuhhhhhh...... this would triple the class count, which is the opposite of reducing class counts.

[Grintch]

Not if power to weight based stock, touring, and super touring with 12-15 sub classes replace 25-30 existing classes/subclasses.

 

(Going to look at GTS rules).

[flier129]

Not if power to weight based stock, touring, and super touring with 12-15 sub classes replace 25-30 existing classes/subclasses.

 

(Going to look at GTS rules).

 

Oh so you mean do stock/touring/super-touring (SCCA-like) and drop all the existing racing classes like AI, GTS, TR, NP01, etc. Interesting idea, but that would require a very long process to complete and p!ss off wayyyy too many people, lol. Would you even drop Spec Miata and Spec E30, because those have some pretty healthy turn-outs.

[D_Eclipse9916]

Not if power to weight based stock, touring, and super touring with 12-15 sub classes replace 25-30 existing classes/subclasses.

 

(Going to look at GTS rules).

 

 

Why is it always NON-GTS guys with smaller class sizes asking GTS to disband? "Let's take a successful class and FORCE them to our non-working class".

[Grintch]

1 - I would keep Spec Miata and any other really other really popular spec class.

 

2 - because GTS and ST are basicly the same, so why have 2 versions of the same class. Feel free to keep the GTS name but allow non German cars (unless you think non German cars will woop you ).

[Grintch]

Quick comparison:

 

German Touring Series (GTS)

Cars must be from German Manufactuer

GTSU - unlimited (DOT tires)

GTS5 - 6.6

GTS4 - 8.5

GTS3 - 11.0

GTS2 - 14.5

GTS1 - 18.5

Averaged HP or peak torque x 0.9

+ Displacement limits

 

Super Touring (ST)

ST1 = 6.0:1

ST2 = 8.0:1

ST3 = 10.0:1

ST4 = 12.0:1

 

GTS steps are a bit bigger, with even steps based on the % change.

ST has "flat" or numerically even steps.

 

Non DOT tires

GTS - Variable (non considtent) Non DOT adjustment - generally larger (different again for tube frame cars).

ST - Flat Non DOT tire adjustment

Extra "Autocross" DOT tire adjustment for ST4 only.

 

Tire size

GTS - unrestricted.

ST - Small and medium size tire bonus, ST4 is restricted to DOT tires no larger than 275mm.

 

Drive type

GTS has a flat FWD bonus.

ST has a larger FWD bonus (smaller for ST4) and a AWD penalty (larger for ST4).

 

ST has a large "sport racer" adjustment (but sport racer not defined - not allowed in ST3 or 4).

 

Non production/tube frame adjustment

GTS has a Variable, inconsistent (for each sub class), Tube frame adjustment.

ST has a smaller adjustment (not generally allowed in ST4).

 

Body

ST has a small bonus for sedan or wagon body styles, and a penalty for changing the shape of the body (e.g. cutting the windscreen)

 

Aero

GTS has unlimited aero.

ST has more aero limits (especially in ST4), and has a small OEM aero bonus in ST3 & 4.

 

Suspension

GTS has unlimited suspension

Suspension mounting points may not be moved in ST4

 

Gearbox

GTS has a flat penalty for Sequential & dog ring racing gearbox (same as ST1 & 2).

ST has larger penalties in ST3, and larger again in ST4.

 

Now some areas I like one rule set over the other, but in general I prefer the ST rules. For example wider tires and aero both make you faster, so I think there should be a factor to capture that if you don't want to force everyone to spend big money on aero & fitting steamroller tires (maybe all the GTS guys have big money and don't want the restriction). Though if we keep a less modified PT like version, maybe we wouldn't need those restrictions in ST.

[D_Eclipse9916]

I prefer the ST rules.

 

This is what every ST guy that wants GTS guys to move to ST thinks.

 

The majority, GTS, apparently disagree and are in GTS for a reason. If they didn't agree, they would be in ST, but they are not.

 

If you want to race with GTS fields so bad, why not go GTS? (Hint: it has to do with the 2nd word in your quote, what you "prefer")

[Alan_Wolfe]

For example wider tires and aero both make you faster, so I think there should be a factor to capture that if you don't want to force everyone to spend big money on aero & fitting steamroller tires (maybe all the GTS guys have big money and don't want the restriction).

 

Is there data to support this happening in GTS? Just wondering cause this hasn't happened that I've seen (Texas / Rocky Mountain / NOLA). Folks have settled on optimum tire size range and aero. I'm sure a bunch more $$$ could be spent but it's viewed as not worth it. For example I haven't seen a DTM-looking GTS car. Most cases $$$ spent on driver development is better value.

[Grintch]

I prefer the ST rules.

If you want to race with GTS fields so bad, why not go GTS? (Hint: it has to do with the 2nd word in your quote, what you "prefer")

 

The vehicle must have originally been badged and assigned a VIN by one of the following

manufacturers:

• Audi

• BMW (including MINI)

• Mercedes-Benz

• Merkur

• NSU

• Opel

• Porsche

• Volkswagen

 

For example wider tires and aero both make you faster, so I think there should be a factor to capture that if you don't want to force everyone to spend big money on aero & fitting steamroller tires (maybe all the GTS guys have big money and don't want the restriction).

 

Is there data to support this happening in GTS? Just wondering cause this hasn't happened that I've seen (Texas / Rocky Mountain / NOLA). Folks have settled on optimum tire size range and aero. I'm sure a bunch more $$$ could be spent but it's viewed as not worth it. For example I haven't seen a DTM-looking GTS car. Most cases $$$ spent on driver development is better value.

 

It's bit hard to judge, as the results usually don't identify the car. I am imagining that the higher GTS classes are essentially 911 spec classes. Where as everyone drives very similar cars, they have found the same solutions.

 

F1 cars are supposed to get 5 second a lap faster this year with wider tires & bigger wings.

 

What's the difference between a $200,000 911 GT3 Cup car and a full blown $500,000 911 GT3? Under the GTS rules? Power to weight is similar, easiest difference to pick out (& adjust for) is bigger tires and more aero.

 

But I am not against a ST merge with GTS that keeps the GTS rules. Other than the German car & VIN requirements, as my ST/GTS vehicle of choice would something like a Factory 5 818R that would probably come out better with the GTS rules than the ST rules.

 

I am really more pushing to keep a PT like category, rather than gobbling it all up into ST. But have the new PT be based on ST like adjusted power to weight rather than mod points (so Greg would no longer have to review 500 dyno reclass requests a year). But with more exclusions and items with adjustments, sort of like the direction ST3/4/5 have been taking.

[Matt@NCM]

 

This is what every ST guy that wants GTS guys to move to ST thinks.

 

The majority, GTS, apparently disagree and are in GTS for a reason. If they didn't agree, they would be in ST, but they are not.

 

If you want to race with GTS fields so bad, why not go GTS? (Hint: it has to do with the 2nd word in your quote, what you "prefer")

 

So help me understand the value of GTS over ST? What is the differentiating factor? Competitiveness, compatibility, accessibility, simplicity?

 

In my experience, the overwhelming feedback when masses are asked what will provide more value to their racing is usually "car count"... So if that is not the highest priority in growing a class or NASA as a whole, what is?

 

The differentiation between rulesets may pose value in different ways to different people, but I don't feel like I'm coming out of left field in saying that NASA (and the SCCA for that matter on a much larger scale) has class oversaturation. Thinning out an already small market is not a smart way to capture more market share! So when I hear that the concept of handicapping a chassis (Corvette, Miata) that are more competitive than others in respect to the rulesets presented, I see the potential for the oversaturation to not only get worse but an overt denial of its impact on the organization.

 

Club racing is cyclical, there are a natural ebb and flow of participation and success, but let's stop trying to re-invent the wheel here. You will NEVER be able to regulate the guy who is gonna try and outspend the field to win. Ever. So stop trying, it muddies the water for growth. You will also never be able to regulate certain chassis or platforms into competitiveness in an inclusive manner. You alienate 3 customers for every 1 you gain. Let's get some perspective here, if we regulate down to Lowest Common Denominator as opposed to the median, we end up with an LCD on track product!

[Matt@NCM]

Any update as to how this is looking in operation and implementation?

[Greg G.]

Any update as to how this is looking in operation and implementation?

Lots of work to try and get it right....

[Ev]

Any update as to how this is looking in operation and implementation?

Lots of work to try and get it right....

Do you have a drop dead date in mind?

 

For those who have been holding off on making changes to their cars (me for example), if the rules come out after say August of this year, I'd say it will be tough to really get things taken care of by spring 2018. Heck, I would like to have known last August for the 2018 season. Depending on how it works out, some things are harder to plan for such as budgets...

[Greg G.]

Any update as to how this is looking in operation and implementation?

Lots of work to try and get it right....

Do you have a drop dead date in mind?

 

For those who have been holding off on making changes to their cars (me for example), if the rules come out after say August of this year, I'd say it will be tough to really get things taken care of by spring 2018. Heck, I would like to have known last August for the 2018 season. Depending on how it works out, some things are harder to plan for such as budgets...

No, not yet.

 

...and, Copy That!

[flier129]

Any update as to how this is looking in operation and implementation?

Lots of work to try and get it right....

Do you have a drop dead date in mind?

 

For those who have been holding off on making changes to their cars (me for example), if the rules come out after say August of this year, I'd say it will be tough to really get things taken care of by spring 2018. Heck, I would like to have known last August for the 2018 season. Depending on how it works out, some things are harder to plan for such as budgets...

 

+1 !!!!

 

I'm trying to figure out what I'll need to do to my car to be competitive in TT6(or TT5) for next year and then see what's left in the budget for entry fees and such. If the rules of 5 and 6 are very similar to 4..such as adding in some tire size modifiers, weight modifiers, and oem aero vs aero breaks, then I could convert my car from E to 6 fairly easily.....assuming 6 will be somewhere around 16-17:1 weight to avg rwhp ratio.

 

So the sooner I know the rule set, the better I can prepare and ultimately save $$ in the long-run.

[bionicbelly]

Do you have a drop dead date in mind?

 

For those who have been holding off on making changes to their cars (me for example), if the rules come out after say August of this year, I'd say it will be tough to really get things taken care of by spring 2018. Heck, I would like to have known last August for the 2018 season. Depending on how it works out, some things are harder to plan for such as budgets...

 

+1 !!!!

 

I'm trying to figure out what I'll need to do to my car to be competitive in TT6(or TT5) for next year and then see what's left in the budget for entry fees and such. If the rules of 5 and 6 are very similar to 4..such as adding in some tire size modifiers, weight modifiers, and oem aero vs aero breaks, then I could convert my car from E to 6 fairly easily.....assuming 6 will be somewhere around 16-17:1 weight to avg rwhp ratio.

 

So the sooner I know the rule set, the better I can prepare and ultimately save $$ in the long-run.

 

In for a guess on this as well. FYI- Looking forward to the switch.

[DarkGift]

Another +1 on having the rules out preferably sooner than later. Just lost my PTE motor at our last event and not having rules makes it hard to plan my next build.

[dizzy8085]

Another +1 for getting these rules out as soon as y'all can. I've got an NC mx5 I'm trying to setup for tt5 and I'm scared to do anything with aero until the rules are released.

 

I like the ST4 rules. Just copying those rules with less power would be awesome for tt5/st5 and tt6/st6.

[Matt@NCM]

+2 as we have a March race on our calendar

[bionicbelly]

Since I am in for responses, I would just like to throw in that I am a fan of no aero, or a good size penalty for it that would make aero mods not worth it. Imo, it makes doing TT less attractive if you need a racecar, versus a a street car. If you have full on race car builds in the lower levels, it may be discouraging to people thinking of moving up. It would also be nice to have a place to go that does not require tons of mods to be competitive. That said, if it soes not work out that way, I won't be salty, I guess I will just be adding aero.