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

[MemphisRob]

Expanding the number of horsepower points or increasing the RPM span during the AVG WGT:PWR calculations would help account for torquey vehicles (especially turbos, which can torque fill on the bottom end and mid-range).

 

An example would be a Miata or RX8 or FRS/BRZ, which lack torque, vs. an EVO or E36 M3 or 350Z which have fatter powerbands with considerably more torque. If we expand the RPM span, that will help account for this disparity.

 

I have an E36M3, so obviously I think this is a terrible idea.

[Snowmants]

Any progress on the ST/PT/TT 5/6 rules? Just checking in. Thanks!

[Greg G.]

Sorry. We are attempting to get a draft of the 2018 revisions for the new class out by the end of the month. I've been waiting for input on the initial draft from some of the NASA Exec's.

However, the basic structure looks like a hybrid of PT and ST for the new class (TT5, PTx). If all goes as planned (and the bail-out is still unfortunately to keep everything the same one more year except for changing the Avg HP formula to 6 data points), then PTC and PTD will no longer exist. Current PTC cars can either be upgraded to ST4, or modified for the new class. As you will see, some would need to be detuned a bit or have weight added to make the new class. Current PTD cars "should" be able to go straight to the new class (based on Mod Factors still), or some could be detuned for PTE possibly.

 

Since there are additional Mod Factors for this class, this may not be very helpful info right now, but the current draft still has the OEM Aero +0.4 Mod Factor. It has no Mod Factor for a basic air dam/wing, and an additional +0.4 Mod Factor for a single horizontal front splitter, with no other Aero mods allowed (other than those legal under the OEM Aero rule). However, this is just a draft, and is subject to changes.

 

 

PTE/TTE/PTF/TTF will be staying the same for '18 as '17.

[Greg G.]

Also, the draft has a new Mod Factor for the better "R" tires that will not stop their use, but will help allow a wider selection of models/brands as we have in PT now.

[MemphisRob]

Also, the draft has a new Mod Factor for the better "R" tires that will not stop their use, but will help allow a wider selection of models/brands as we have in PT now.

 

I think this is a great idea. Maxxis provides a great contingency program and the tires are an excellent value at a good price point. It will be nice to "equalize" options like the RC1's with the R7's.

[Snowmants]

Greg, Thanks so much for the updates! I really appreciate you taking the time to let us know where things stand.

I look forward to the final ruleset.

 

Also, the draft has a new Mod Factor for the better "R" tires that will not stop their use, but will help allow a wider selection of models/brands as we have in PT now.

 

I think this is a great idea. Maxxis provides a great contingency program and the tires are an excellent value at a good price point. It will be nice to "equalize" options like the RC1's with the R7's.

 

Agreed! I would love to run the Maxxis contingency, but currently it just makes the car uncompetitive.

[Balroks]

 

Agreed! I would love to run the Maxxis contingency, but currently it just makes the car uncompetitive.

 

^This mod factor...needs to make it's way up to ST1,2,3+ as well. Nobody's gonna run em unless either required or given the appropriate chance to compete with the same guy on a7's. Not saying a/r's need it, but all of those TW100 tires could use it.

[esr]

I am sure Hoosier is sponsoring all the right people to build it into a hoosier class.

I don't get why at this level nasa does not get a company to make them a descent cheap tire and we all run on them.

I guess we have to cater to the guy that wants to build a car to run in 4 different clubs 5 weekends a month.

 

Weird deal!

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed! I would love to run the Maxxis contingency, but currently it just makes the car uncompetitive.

 

^This mod factor...needs to make it's way up to ST1,2,3+ as well. Nobody's gonna run em unless either required or given the appropriate chance to compete with the same guy on a7's. Not saying a/r's need it, but all of those TW100 tires could use it.

[MemphisRob]

I don't think it is a matter of sponsoring the right people. I don't see anything nefarious from the organization at all.

 

What I see is that Hoosier has stretched (pun intended) the widths of their tires past the "rated" width and it is already a compound with fantastic grip. So, if you can run a really sticky 245 that is clearly wider than another 245 and be within the rules... then why wouldn't you take the competitive edge?

 

The answer why not for some could be initial cost of Hoosiers... the answer why not for others might be that there is a minimum field of 5 to make contingency with Maxxis only needing a field of 3. The problem there is those with less of a budgetary concern can bring fresh R7/A7 and take full advantage of the rules

(and their less restrictive budgets).

 

I think that Maxxis is providing a solid tire option at price point that is within comfortable reach for most competitors. They also offer a more easily attainable contingency which enables racers to compete at a lower cost... which helps cast a wider net to bring in more competition.

 

So, I am all for having as many contingencies and supporting products from as many companies that would like to support NASA and motorsport in general... but I think it makes good sense for the organization, the racers, and the sponsors to rate modifications accordingly.

 

I feel personally fortunate that I have the ability to compete even if it is on a relatively restrictive budget. I also think most guys would much rather feel like their place on the podium was earned by talent and not because their racing budget enabled them to "buy" the win.

 

To your argument for a "Spec" tire... there are those types of requirements... in the Spec racing classes... but those classes do usually require a significant investment to bring a car to Spec so it kind of ruins the whole... "make one cheap tire so everyone can use it" argument. It would be way cheaper for a driver to take a lightly modded car he has had for a while and then just slap on some new R7 stickers than it would be than trying to build any car into the spec class (especially if they can't or don't want to do their own labor).

 

I am sure Hoosier is sponsoring all the right people to build it into a hoosier class.

I don't get why at this level nasa does not get a company to make them a descent cheap tire and we all run on them.

I guess we have to cater to the guy that wants to build a car to run in 4 different clubs 5 weekends a month.

 

Weird deal!

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed! I would love to run the Maxxis contingency, but currently it just makes the car uncompetitive.

 

^This mod factor...needs to make it's way up to ST1,2,3+ as well. Nobody's gonna run em unless either required or given the appropriate chance to compete with the same guy on a7's. Not saying a/r's need it, but all of those TW100 tires could use it.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Guest

[MemphisRob]

I have a long response in another post... but I just thought of a simpler example.

 

Look at everyone running "200TW" tires in SCCA AutoX... you will see TONS of RE71R's... not because Bridgestone is throwing sponsorship money at anyone... but because they are making a "wide" tire that is by all accounts is much closer to a 140TW but calling it 200TW on the sidewall.

 

I think this is a particularly good example because NASA realized this "anamoly" with the RE71R's and with the 2017 rule revision they increased the number of points these cost to run in the lower classes to level the playing field with other comparable tires.

 

 

I am sure Hoosier is sponsoring all the right people to build it into a hoosier class.

I don't get why at this level nasa does not get a company to make them a descent cheap tire and we all run on them.

I guess we have to cater to the guy that wants to build a car to run in 4 different clubs 5 weekends a month.

 

Weird deal!

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed! I would love to run the Maxxis contingency, but currently it just makes the car uncompetitive.

 

^This mod factor...needs to make it's way up to ST1,2,3+ as well. Nobody's gonna run em unless either required or given the appropriate chance to compete with the same guy on a7's. Not saying a/r's need it, but all of those TW100 tires could use it.

[hufflepuff]

I strongly agree with Memphis Rob's last two posts- well written.

 

I think we all have reason to really be excited for what Greg is working on with TT5. If he is able to execute the ideas he's talked about, it should mean bigger class size (D+C), cheaper operating costs (ability to use 100TW tires, COMPETITIVELY), cheaper build costs (I.E. you don't need aero and you get a credit for not using it or fair penalty for using it), and better parity (I.E. increased number of RPM points for WGT:PWR... an EVO with 200WHP is very different from an FRS/BRZ with 200WHP).

 

If the rules (credits / penalties) are well-balanced, it should be less about "buying the win" and more about driving well, which is very in-line with a "lower cost" class.

[hufflepuff]

I don't get why at this level nasa does not get a company to make them a descent cheap tire and we all run on them.

 

Maxxis has pretty much done this with their RC1. It is the spec tire for the west coast supermiata series.

 

I don't think NASA should have to force a tire on anyone. I think if the rules are well-written, competitors can choose to run a 200/100/40TW tire and still have a fair chance against anyone else in class. So what may happen is that if the TT5 rules are more fair towards 200/100TW tires, and the contingency remains strong and costs low, people will choose to run them and you get a de-facto 100TW class.

 

There's nothing stopping a regional group from having a gentleman's agreement to run, say, Maxxis, but that's for the individual competitors to decide (if you're into that sort of thing. )

[Mrsideways]

I have a long response in another post... but I just thought of a simpler example.

 

Look at everyone running "200TW" tires in SCCA AutoX... you will see TONS of RE71R's... not because Bridgestone is throwing sponsorship money at anyone... but because they are making a "wide" tire that is by all accounts is much closer to a 140TW but calling it 200TW on the sidewall.

 

I think this is a particularly good example because NASA realized this "anamoly" with the RE71R's and with the 2017 rule revision they increased the number of points these cost to run in the lower classes to level the playing field with other comparable tires.

 

 

I am sure Hoosier is sponsoring all the right people to build it into a hoosier class.

I don't get why at this level nasa does not get a company to make them a descent cheap tire and we all run on them.

I guess we have to cater to the guy that wants to build a car to run in 4 different clubs 5 weekends a month.

 

Weird deal!

 

 

^This mod factor...needs to make it's way up to ST1,2,3+ as well. Nobody's gonna run em unless either required or given the appropriate chance to compete with the same guy on a7's. Not saying a/r's need it, but all of those TW100 tires could use it.

 

 

As someone who competitively races in autox in one of these 200treadware classes I can tell you right now it's the devil and half the people walking around the paddock are saying..... can we just have hoosiers back. This theory that it's cheaper is completely 100% out the window. The RE71r's are rarely used now. It's moved to the Rival S 1.5, Soon to be the new yoko and or maybe the Nexan. In just one year we have bought more sets of tires for testing just to try to determine which is the fastest. Each tire likes completely different things in terms of setup and some are faster in certain sizes then others. Then you need to test new vs worn vs somewhat worn because certain tires are faster half worn, some tires like to be new on ashpalt but damn near worn out on concrete. Just this past weekend we got our hands on a skid pad and had 3 sets of tires. Our Conclusion was that we needed more wheels and more tires to get our anwsers. I can tell you for a fact on RE71'rs that they are .6 faster per 60 seconds on Concrete when darn near worn out vs new. However on Asphalt it's a complete flip and new is faster then worn. Basically we came down to a sweet spot last year on the 71R's were they were at their fastest on Concrete for a couple runs at a certain wear point once. Getting them to that exact spot to run them for the championship was tricky. The other issue is about every 2 months a new street tire hits the market. So you gotta buy several sets in several sizes try em new, try em worn try em at different temps etc etc. With the amount of events we've done this year in the Miata we would have bought 1 set of A7's and been done. But now we are on 2 sets of RE71R's, 3 sets of Rival 1.5's. and now looking at trying a set of the new nexans and of course we need 2 sets cause you have to try worn and new. It's a Rabbit hole I advise no one to go down. Spec tire all the way. Which of course sends you down the road of "what if they don't make that tire in a size that works on my car". Well Hoosier usually does.... so Spec Hoosier.

 

Something I wouldn't mind seeing is a Mod for Stock Suspension. I can drive my car to the track with new wheels and tires in the trunk and swap those at the track. But bolting up high dollar coil overs and camber plates at the track is a bit much. Plus Stock Suspension on Big Sticky tires is soooo much fun. But I'd like to see that stuck in TT1-5. I'd like to grab a new ZL1 and not mod it and go play on track with just some hoosiers bolted up. Cause pretty much the 1 and only Mod you can do to a car that doesn't Ruin it to drive is Hoosiers.

[esr]

very well said, we need a class for racers, there are too many classes already for car guys.

 

 

I strongly agree with Memphis Rob's last two posts- well written.

 

I think we all have reason to really be excited for what Greg is working on with TT5. If he is able to execute the ideas he's talked about, it should mean bigger class size (D+C), cheaper operating costs (ability to use 100TW tires, COMPETITIVELY), cheaper build costs (I.E. you don't need aero and you get a credit for not using it or fair penalty for using it), and better parity (I.E. increased number of RPM points for WGT:PWR... an EVO with 200WHP is very different from an FRS/BRZ with 200WHP).

 

If the rules (credits / penalties) are well-balanced, it should be less about "buying the win" and more about driving well, which is very in-line with a "lower cost" class.

[Balroks]

very well said, we need a class for racers, there are too many classes already for car guys.

 

 

 

Technically, you have to be a car guy before you become a racer. Which really....is what Nasa is all about. "I'm gonna be like an IMSA driver with my 500hp vette! Oh wait...i'm broke now...time to buy a miata" lol

[esr]

I think we are both saying the same thing.

 

 

Technically, you have to be a car guy before you become a racer. Which really....is what Nasa is all about. "I'm gonna be like an IMSA driver with my 500hp vette! Oh wait...i'm broke now...time to buy a miata" lol

[Snowmants]

Just bumping this thread to keep it alive for updates! We are all on the edge of our seats!

[Greg G.]

...running into issues beyond my control--not sure where this is going right now.

[Snowmants]

...running into issues beyond my control--not sure where this is going right now.

 

Thanks for the update. Good luck!

[Smike]

Status?

[dsc off]

I recommend adopting the current 14.5:1 weight:avg. power currently being used in TTC. This will work for a lot of folks. I like the TT4 setup and look forward to TT5. It could be nice from a class size perspective to merge both TTD and TTC into TT5 while allowing the current cars to remain competitive. Allowances/penalties (discussed below) could help balance that field...

 

Many of us in TTE/TTD/TTC are using Bridgestone RE71R / Maxxis RC1 / Toyo R888 / Toyo RR and are pretty close in lap times, but when a guy shows up on Hoosier R7 it's pretty much decided. Most of the new folks I talk to who are interested in getting in TT are put off by Hoosiers because they are street driving street cars and can't afford that budget, and it deters them from even participating ("well, I can't win without hoosiers, so why try?"). So at least a fair modifier would help engage more people...

 

Fully agree with this as well

[Greg G.]

Update:

 

We are reworking the draft without using a vehicle model Mod. Factor, but some additional Mod Factors instead to help equalize the models.

 

The current (very tentative) plan, would be for TTC/PTC to be deleted, and for PT5/TT5 to take it's place. PTD/TTD would still be available as-is, but a competitor could chose to run in PT5/TT5 using the current PTD/TTD rules for the first year also.

 

This will take a bit of time to rework--we'll see how far we get this weekend. But, basically, at this point, it looks like if you are currently in PTD/TTD (and I already announced PTE/PTF/TTE/PTF at the end of June), then you can stick with the same rules for '18 if you want. I don't think there will be a huge amount of modifications or changes needed for current PTC/TTC cars to fit into PT5/TT5, but the option always remains to move to TT4/ST4.

 

Disclaimer: If this doesn't all work out very soon, I will recommend making no significant changes for '18 (and leave PTC/TTC as-is also).

[hufflepuff]

Thanks for the update!

[OSOSLOW]

Can you at least tell us what the power to weight ratio (before the modifiers) is going to be for pt/ tt5?

[aaronsti]

Can you at least tell us what the power to weight ratio (before the modifiers) is going to be for pt/ tt5?

 

 

i second this