Jump to content
Michael G.

FINAL 2016 Rules Posted

Recommended Posts

Nova
mcdonaldsracing,

 

I am not arguing that the proposal was worded right. I am saying - what followed was not a conversation, but a screaming act. We repeatedly asked for constructive remarks and got 99% of bashing in return. We were not stuck on anything and very willing to bend by the way.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

Michael,

 

So what about eliminating the CC restriction for cars which already have an engine swap and are already detuned to a particular class? This way you are not penalizing those who have already spent money, but enforce it going forward. Or perhaps something that if you do not follow the "natural class" - I still hate that idea, but so be it - then you must provide data.

 

The problem as I see it with "limiting detunes" is that you do nothing to stop someone from making 30 more hp through mechanical means, then using SW to detune it. The car still fits in that natural category, but can still have sufficient HP to gain an advantage. You still have a car that could do the whole turbo button boost (I still think this is a myth, but glossing over that) and yet you've made the series more complicated with no change in your ability to police it. "Limiting Detunes" doesn't limit the ability for someone who is cheating to keep cheating, and that is why you have many many people against it.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Greg,

 

You are right, we will not stop cheaters by using CC limits, but the limit will make it somewhat more difficult for those few who took advantage of the loop hole, since they will not be able to play in the lower class. No matter how you look at it, ultimately we will need to have the reliable on board tool or use restrictors (or both). We will look into the option you asked for...

 

Michael g.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
Again, I agree with you on restrictors. But considering that we have a wide variety of cars, we need to have a fair amount of ground work to be done. I personally like the idea and would consider a pilot project with some volunteers on different makes and models. I do agree with your statement on Black Boxes as well, and we recognize the need for protocol in place. Both of the issues are well on our radar.

 

The restrictor plate bit is actually fairly simple. Or can be.

First we need to decide how "equal" we are really trying to make things. Are we going to have variances for engine technology? (different weight/displacement formulas for pushrod/OHC/DOHC/2valve/4valve/single vanos/double vanos?) or just say "hey, old technology generally isn't as good as new technology. deal with it." It should be make/model/user independent. Mathematically driven only. We aren't trying to "completely equalize the cars" we are trying to equalize the power potential of cars at a given weight in a given class. That 2.5L M20 in a 2600 lb E30 is still slower than a 2.5L M50TU in a 2600 lb E36 isn't NASA's problem to fix, IMO. Especially if both make about 170 whp.

 

If we want simple, we can ignore that and just have a chart per class. X axis is weight, Y axis is displacement. Table is then filled with required restrictor plate size. 5 classes, 5 charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1
mcdonaldsracing,

 

I am not arguing that the proposal was worded right. I am saying - what followed was not a conversation, but a screaming act. We repeatedly asked for constructive remarks and got 99% of bashing in return. We were not stuck on anything and very willing to bend by the way.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

Michael;

 

I really think it is time for you to stop banging on this drum. It is time for you and the National directors above you to take a hard look from outside the window and appreciate the manner in which you have handled this situation along with a seemingly lack of regard for the competitors. May of theses people, myself included, have a considerable amount of their disposable income invested in the race car that you are now expecting us to spend even more money on to make said car compliant with a new, as of yet, unsettle rule set. Of course people acted poorly, it was the only option you gave them. We are all reasonable people if we feel we are being treated in a reasonable way. To this point your actions are telling a very different story than your words.

 

The level of mistrust that currently exists between your customers and the sanctioning body is the highest I have ever seen. As series director, it quite frankly is your obligation to change that.

 

Going forward, I believe it would behoove all involved if you and the National directors act in a more professional manner, give greater consideration to the ramifications of your actions, and be honest and forthright with your intentions as we move forward.

 

The ball stands firmly in your corner. How you proceed will dictate the outcome. I sincerely hope you proceed cautiously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wazgtsRacer
That 2.5L M20 in a 2600 lb E30 is still slower than a 2.5L M50TU in a 2600 lb E36 isn't NASA's problem to fix, IMO. Especially if both make about 170 whp.

 

I can not agree with this enough. GTS is not a welfare racing series where everyone should have the right to equal cars. Those who invest in themselves as drivers deserve to be better drivers, just the same as those who invest in car development deserve to have a car with increased potential.

 

You are right, we will not stop cheaters by using CC limits, but the limit will make it somewhat more difficult for those few who took advantage of the loop hole

 

I think this statement is what has alot of racers upset. If the new rules do not eliminate the ability for cheaters to cheat then what good is the rule. To follow that up, I agree a CC limit does limit and make more difficult to gain a large advantage, ie. a 400hp motor being detuned to 270hp has more potential to "cheat" than one detuned 30hp. but still if a cheater is cheating with 30hp or 130 hp he is still going to have an advantage, and "limiting detunes" still does not address the cheaters ability to cheat... I dont think any rule can completely eliminate cheating. That's why I am in support of the simplest rule set: Ahp * class multiplier. It is the easiest to enforce, and optimize.

 

With that being said, I think in 2-3 years if a CC rule is implemented now not many will think its unfair by then because we all will have time to tweak/build our cars to that rule set. The ever changing rule set is what screws a lot of drivers due to never ending building/adjusting. I agree with NOVA...Phase that in not to punish those who have invested already, and put a time on it, by 2017-8 the CC rules will be for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pmk
Greg,

 

You are right, we will not stop cheaters by using CC limits, but the limit will make it somewhat more difficult for those few who took advantage of the loop hole, since they will not be able to play in the lower class. No matter how you look at it, ultimately we will need to have the reliable on board tool or use restrictors (or both). We will look into the option you asked for...

 

Michael g.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

With respect, I think this "loop hole" attitude is part of the problem and part of the reason for the shouting match that took place when the rules were announced. At least speaking for myself and those that entered the series around the time I did, I am not aware of anyone who viewed this as a "loop hole." We viewed this as "the rules." And i'm also not aware of anyone having done anything that doesn't pass the laugh test (e.g. a detuned 5-liter v8 in GTS1, which was presented to me as a serious concern by at least one concerned official). As long as this "loop hole" attitude persists, i'm afraid people will keep talking past each other.

 

I also heartily second Douglas's remarks regarding disposal income and the total lack of trust that now exists. This is a serious problem, and needs to be at least acknowledged before much constructive discussion is likely to take place.

 

Edit: To clarify somewhat, I viewed the ability to put a restrictor on an essentially stock engine a huge benefit of GTS (as compared to something like BMWCCA Prepared class). It meant I didn't need to build a crazy-expensive engine to be competitive, and could focus on improving other parts of the car instead. Going to a CC rule runs directly counter to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
Again, I agree with you on restrictors. But considering that we have a wide variety of cars, we need to have a fair amount of ground work to be done. I personally like the idea and would consider a pilot project with some volunteers on different makes and models. I do agree with your statement on Black Boxes as well, and we recognize the need for protocol in place. Both of the issues are well on our radar.

 

The restrictor plate bit is actually fairly simple. Or can be.

First we need to decide how "equal" we are really trying to make things. Are we going to have variances for engine technology? (different weight/displacement formulas for pushrod/OHC/DOHC/2valve/4valve/single vanos/double vanos?) or just say "hey, old technology generally isn't as good as new technology. deal with it." It should be make/model/user independent. Mathematically driven only. We aren't trying to "completely equalize the cars" we are trying to equalize the power potential of cars at a given weight in a given class. That 2.5L M20 in a 2600 lb E30 is still slower than a 2.5L M50TU in a 2600 lb E36 isn't NASA's problem to fix, IMO. Especially if both make about 170 whp.

 

If we want simple, we can ignore that and just have a chart per class. X axis is weight, Y axis is displacement. Table is then filled with required restrictor plate size. 5 classes, 5 charts.

 

Michael,

 

Would that apply to to stock configurations only or can be used for an open Rule format in regards to engine mods? I realized that would work fine for a spec scenario, but wouldn't we run into conflicts dealing with completely open rule set?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
Greg,

 

You are right, we will not stop cheaters by using CC limits, but the limit will make it somewhat more difficult for those few who took advantage of the loop hole, since they will not be able to play in the lower class. No matter how you look at it, ultimately we will need to have the reliable on board tool or use restrictors (or both). We will look into the option you asked for...

 

Michael g.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

With respect, I think this "loop hole" attitude is part of the problem and part of the reason for the shouting match that took place when the rules were announced. At least speaking for myself and those that entered the series around the time I did, I am not aware of anyone who viewed this as a "loop hole." We viewed this as "the rules." And i'm also not aware of anyone having done anything that doesn't pass the laugh test (e.g. a detuned 5-liter v8 in GTS1, which was presented to me as a serious concern by at least one concerned official). As long as this "loop hole" attitude persists, i'm afraid people will keep talking past each other.

 

 

I also heartily second Douglas's remarks regarding disposal income and the total lack of trust that now exists. This is a serious problem, and needs to be at least acknowledged before much constructive discussion is likely to take place.

 

Edit: To clarify somewhat, I viewed the ability to put a restrictor on an essentially stock engine a huge benefit of GTS (as compared to something like BMWCCA Prepared class). It meant I didn't need to build a crazy-expensive engine to be competitive, and could focus on improving other parts of the car instead. Going to a CC rule runs directly counter to this.

 

Peter,

 

Unfortunately, the the fact that you are not aware of anyone having done anything that doesn't pass the laugh test, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it shouldn't be on the level of the laugh test. We have real issues (may not be near you or obvious to you) which have real negative effects. By the way, none of the proposed rules will stop the use of restrictors on the models we see being used now. Most of the compliance issues we have with newer cars detuned electronically.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.
mcdonaldsracing,

 

I am not arguing that the proposal was worded right. I am saying - what followed was not a conversation, but a screaming act. We repeatedly asked for constructive remarks and got 99% of bashing in return. We were not stuck on anything and very willing to bend by the way.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

Michael;

 

I really think it is time for you to stop banging on this drum. It is time for you and the National directors above you to take a hard look from outside the window and appreciate the manner in which you have handled this situation along with a seemingly lack of regard for the competitors. May of theses people, myself included, have a considerable amount of their disposable income invested in the race car that you are now expecting us to spend even more money on to make said car compliant with a new, as of yet, unsettle rule set. Of course people acted poorly, it was the only option you gave them. We are all reasonable people if we feel we are being treated in a reasonable way. To this point your actions are telling a very different story than your words.

 

The level of mistrust that currently exists between your customers and the sanctioning body is the highest I have ever seen. As series director, it quite frankly is your obligation to change that.

 

Going forward, I believe it would behoove all involved if you and the National directors act in a more professional manner, give greater consideration to the ramifications of your actions, and be honest and forthright with your intentions as we move forward.

 

The ball stands firmly in your corner. How you proceed will dictate the outcome. I sincerely hope you proceed cautiously.

 

Douglas,

 

I will not engage into the arguments and you certainly entitled to your opinion, but let me respectfully disagree in regards to the "only option we gave them" - the total lack of respect to all of the officials and the level of unacceptable profanities used were just mind-blowing, none of which was ever apologized for, by the way. And I am not banging on the same drum - just pointing at the need to be able to converse in a reasonably leveled manner, and even if temper is lost for a moment - have decency to acknowledge. If you would rewind the tape - you would see that when the original proposals were posted - no discussion followed... We see our mistakes and make steps to deal with those, but it is always a two-way street, no matter how you look at it.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nar Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikew968

Michael:

 

I continue to be completely amazed by what feels like NASA leadership's arrogance and failure to listen to its customers. I race in a region that has a dyno fairly often and I think most GTS racers in my region do not believe there is a material issue with cheaters. I think the proposals from National feel like knee jerk reactions not well thought out ideas. I strongly encourage you to proceed with the 2015 rule set, enforce the current rule set with greater compliance checks (like having Dyno's at races) and plan major changes more carefully with greater notice.

 

Submitted respectfully,

 

Mike Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

I feel like we are starting to go in circles.lol The entire focus of the structure of the original detune/restrictor idea was with the intent to get S54's out of GTS2 and V8's out of GTS3. Once that was rejected the CC idea came out which was focused on doing the same exact thing. For us to now circle back to the restrictor idea as though there was flexibility with the intent of it just seems strange. Had the proposal been more along the lines of "using a restrictor to reduce the maximum potential of an S54 in GTS2 and a V8 in GTS3" the entire conversation would have gone differently. But I guess that's one of those live and learn situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjmccoy
Again, I agree with you on restrictors. But considering that we have a wide variety of cars, we need to have a fair amount of ground work to be done. I personally like the idea and would consider a pilot project with some volunteers on different makes and models. I do agree with your statement on Black Boxes as well, and we recognize the need for protocol in place. Both of the issues are well on our radar.

 

The restrictor plate bit is actually fairly simple. Or can be.

First we need to decide how "equal" we are really trying to make things. Are we going to have variances for engine technology? (different weight/displacement formulas for pushrod/OHC/DOHC/2valve/4valve/single vanos/double vanos?) or just say "hey, old technology generally isn't as good as new technology. deal with it." It should be make/model/user independent. Mathematically driven only. We aren't trying to "completely equalize the cars" we are trying to equalize the power potential of cars at a given weight in a given class. That 2.5L M20 in a 2600 lb E30 is still slower than a 2.5L M50TU in a 2600 lb E36 isn't NASA's problem to fix, IMO. Especially if both make about 170 whp.

 

If we want simple, we can ignore that and just have a chart per class. X axis is weight, Y axis is displacement. Table is then filled with required restrictor plate size. 5 classes, 5 charts.

 

Michael,

 

Would that apply to to stock configurations only or can be used for an open Rule format in regards to engine mods? I realized that would work fine for a spec scenario, but wouldn't we run into conflicts dealing with completely open rule set?

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

Every car would be required to run the restrictor plate of appropriate size based on class, vehicle weight, and engine displacement. Rules beyond that would still be open. You can do whatever you want to the engine, but all air entering the engine must pass though the restrictor.

 

This would balance the perception of cheating, but now the engineers of the group would have an even larger advantage. Optimizing the package is less easy for the amateur. The peak power *should* be fairly close across all similar weight cars, and less as displacement goes up if we follow any of the standard formulas used by FIA et al.

 

example for LMP1 way back when:

Displacement (cc) 1 restrictor 2 restrictors

6000 42.5 30.3

5500 43 30.7

5000 43.4 31

4500 43.9 31.4

4000 44.4 31.7

3500 44.9 32

3000 45.3 32.4

 

 

I seriously hope we aren't heading down a path of BoP beyond that. Even the restrictor thing i feel is a big departure from the original intent of GTS, which i thought was purely power/weight. Though I do think it would balance the peak power side, or at least peak power potential.

 

Most of my detunes looked like restrictor plate motors anyway on the dyno graph, and the focus originally (2014 and before) was on making the widest possible usable power band and thus the most total power. The formula after that favored the peaky motor and driver (and gearbox) who could keep it in the narrow band. With restrictor plate racing, we'll be back to the original wide target, and the DVANOS guys will have an advantage in cost again. I can move those cams in software while on the dyno. When i move cams on an S52, i have to remove the valve cover. Doing this on the dyno means more dyno time ($$) or me having to touch a hot motor a number of times ($$).

 

The hard part here is that there isn't anything you can do that won't favor the "smarter" people or those with more $$ to throw at the problem. The more you change the formula, the more brains and cash are needed to keep up.

 

The attempts to "close the net" on the "cheaters" just makes it more difficult/expensive for the "non-cheaters". All of this really being centered around the issues with the GPS compliance tool. If we had the tool needed (and promised?), we would be back to peak power vs weight only for classing. A car making more total power than another, both with the same peak, is not NASA's problem to "fix", and going after that over-complicates the compliance side by a bunch. No longer is it matching up against a peak number on a dyno, its making a dyno for an RPM range and running that though the magic calculator. The more hand-wavy steps we put in place, the more potential to "game" the system, or make an error, or whatever you want to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vwmann1
mcdonaldsracing,

 

I am not arguing that the proposal was worded right. I am saying - what followed was not a conversation, but a screaming act. We repeatedly asked for constructive remarks and got 99% of bashing in return. We were not stuck on anything and very willing to bend by the way.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat Dir.

 

Michael;

 

I really think it is time for you to stop banging on this drum. It is time for you and the National directors above you to take a hard look from outside the window and appreciate the manner in which you have handled this situation along with a seemingly lack of regard for the competitors. May of theses people, myself included, have a considerable amount of their disposable income invested in the race car that you are now expecting us to spend even more money on to make said car compliant with a new, as of yet, unsettle rule set. Of course people acted poorly, it was the only option you gave them. We are all reasonable people if we feel we are being treated in a reasonable way. To this point your actions are telling a very different story than your words.

 

The level of mistrust that currently exists between your customers and the sanctioning body is the highest I have ever seen. As series director, it quite frankly is your obligation to change that.

 

Going forward, I believe it would behoove all involved if you and the National directors act in a more professional manner, give greater consideration to the ramifications of your actions, and be honest and forthright with your intentions as we move forward.

 

The ball stands firmly in your corner. How you proceed will dictate the outcome. I sincerely hope you proceed cautiously.

 

Douglas,

 

I will not engage into the arguments and you certainly entitled to your opinion, but let me respectfully disagree in regards to the "only option we gave them" - the total lack of respect to all of the officials and the level of unacceptable profanities used were just mind-blowing, none of which was ever apologized for, by the way. And I am not banging on the same drum - just pointing at the need to be able to converse in a reasonably leveled manner, and even if temper is lost for a moment - have decency to acknowledge. If you would rewind the tape - you would see that when the original proposals were posted - no discussion followed... We see our mistakes and make steps to deal with those, but it is always a two-way street, no matter how you look at it.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nar Dir.

 

Michael;

It appears you missed the whole point. The point of that message was to hopefully give you, as a leader, an introspective moment and you missed it. When you have people like me and Mike Ward, two fairly level headed gentleman telling you that as a leader you are doing it wrong, it is time to listen. It would appear that this is beyond you and that is unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rabbit_diesel

Repeat of my question posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:19 am

______________________________________________

 

Have the new classing rules been tested using car-race simulation software, in order to get some idea of whether the effect of the new torque inclusion might be reasonable? If so, then let us see details of each car instance, and the results for each car instance.

 

If not, then I suggest running the simulations using the BMW e30 chassis with at least three engines widely separated in torque characteristic (in order to make more apparent the effects of the changes). Perhaps including these instances, with identical chassis and transmission in all:

 

1) 157 HP @ 5900 rpm; 154 ftlb @ 4300 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(If more data points are needed, they can be picked off the graph in Appendix D of the 2016 SpecE30 rules.)

 

2) 157 HP @ 4500 rpm; 220 ftlb @ 2500 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(If more data points are needed, then let me know and I will supply some.)

 

3) 157 HP, flat from 5300 to 7000 rpm; 155 ftlb, flat from 4000 to 5300 rpm; and whatever final drive ratio gives the best performance.

(Assume the engine has been modified such that this is reasonably possible.)

 

Adjust the weights in the various simulations in order to discover what you need to know.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paffy

I'm in a process of building an E46 M3 racecar with S54.

 

This re-introduction of torque seems so backwards ! What drew me to the GTS series was the removal of it in 2015. It's just a coincidence that lb-ft and HP units that the units are similar numbers, it's like averaging apples and oranges.

 

I'll bump up my redline to 8300 RPM, so my can will never see anything less than 5250 RPM with stock transmission on the track and de-tune it under 5000RPM to make sure no high torque values show up. Then I'll run a flat HP curve above that.

 

So the end result is a detuned motor running 5250-8250 RPM range instead of 4500 - 7500 RPM range to get around this rule.

 

Totally legal and totally against the spirit of what these rules try to accomplish.

 

It will only penalize low redline motors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Eclipse9916
I'm in a process of building an E46 M3 racecar with S54.

 

This re-introduction of torque seems so backwards ! What drew me to the GTS series was the removal of it in 2015. It's just a coincidence that lb-ft and HP units that the units are similar numbers, it's like averaging apples and oranges.

 

I'll bump up my redline to 8300 RPM, so my can will never see anything less than 5250 RPM with stock transmission on the track and de-tune it under 5000RPM to make sure no high torque values show up. Then I'll run a flat HP curve above that.

 

So the end result is a detuned motor running 5250-8250 RPM range instead of 4500 - 7500 RPM range to get around this rule.

 

Totally legal and totally against the spirit of what these rules try to accomplish.

 

It will only penalize low redline motors.

 

After all these rules against detunes and S54s/V8s, the S54s are the only ones NOT affected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Eclipse9916
I'm in a process of building an E46 M3 racecar with S54.

 

This re-introduction of torque seems so backwards ! What drew me to the GTS series was the removal of it in 2015. It's just a coincidence that lb-ft and HP units that the units are similar numbers, it's like averaging apples and oranges.

 

I'll bump up my redline to 8300 RPM, so my can will never see anything less than 5250 RPM with stock transmission on the track and de-tune it under 5000RPM to make sure no high torque values show up. Then I'll run a flat HP curve above that.

 

So the end result is a detuned motor running 5250-8250 RPM range instead of 4500 - 7500 RPM range to get around this rule.

 

Totally legal and totally against the spirit of what these rules try to accomplish.

 

It will only penalize low redline motors.

 

After all these rules against detunes and S54s/V8s, the S54s are the only ones NOT affected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mmcnw

I am baffled - We had a weighted HP average for last year and now a peak torque limiting element (which makes sense), but how on earth in a horsepower to weight class I can run a built s54 and detune it to fit GTS3, GTS4, or GTS5, but I cannot do the exact same thing with an s65?????

 

It is like saying what is heavier - a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks???? Same thing, right?

 

So now, instead of using my s65 and running in the classes that have car counts merely by changing the tune, I am stuck in GTS4 regardless of what power tune is in the car. For the folks who wrote this new rule, do you recall how many cars ran GTS4 at the WCN this year? Zero. I was originally signed up for GTS4, but because there were no other cars, I changed to GTS3 and drove the 1500 miles and ran close races all weekend with Tristan, the eventual GTS3 Champ. If we didn't show, Tristan would have walked away with the Championship without any competition.

 

With the new rules, guess what, we don't do the 1500 miles to the WCN because there were no GTS4 cars. Sounds like a good way to increase car counts...Or is the goal to drive the folks out of GTS that have shown a commitment to it? Thanks for the support NASA and GTS...NASA bails in the NW and we have to travel thousands of miles to merely qualify, let alone do nationals, and then the rules are re-written so we can no longer compete with the cars that are closest to us... Great plan.... Shoot, an s65 powered car has not won a WCN championship, but s54 powered cars have won the last two WCNs and the majority of nationals before that in GTS3 and GTS4. I just don't get it. The powers that be could merely have told us we were no longer welcome and saved everyone else the hassle...

 

McAleenan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tbert122
I am baffled - We had a weighted HP average for last year and now a peak torque limiting element (which makes sense), but how on earth in a horsepower to weight class I can run a built s54 and detune it to fit GTS3, GTS4, or GTS5, but I cannot do the exact same thing with an s65?????

 

It is like saying what is heavier - a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks???? Same thing, right?

 

So now, instead of using my s65 and running in the classes that have car counts merely by changing the tune, I am stuck in GTS4 regardless of what power tune is in the car. For the folks who wrote this new rule, do you recall how many cars ran GTS4 at the WCN this year? Zero. I was originally signed up for GTS4, but because there were no other cars, I changed to GTS3 and drove the 1500 miles and ran close races all weekend with Tristan, the eventual GTS3 Champ. If we didn't show, Tristan would have walked away with the Championship without any competition.

 

With the new rules, guess what, we don't do the 1500 miles to the WCN because there were no GTS4 cars. Sounds like a good way to increase car counts...Or is the goal to drive the folks out of GTS that have shown a commitment to it? Thanks for the support NASA and GTS...NASA bails in the NW and we have to travel thousands of miles to merely qualify, let alone do nationals, and then the rules are re-written so we can no longer compete with the cars that are closest to us... Great plan.... Shoot, an s65 powered car has not won a WCN championship, but s54 powered cars have won the last two WCNs and the majority of nationals before that in GTS3 and GTS4. I just don't get it. The powers that be could merely have told us we were no longer welcome and saved everyone else the hassle...

 

McAleenan

 

To add to Michael comments. This was best racing I have ever experienced with Michael at WCN. We were tenths off each others times every session and it was a real dog fight.

 

2015 rule set allow for this tight battle to occur in two completely different chassis and engines. Michael with a e46/S65/Sequential trans while I with a e36/S54/5-speed trans. It was awesome how two drivers could race so closely in two different configurations under the 2015 rule set.

 

I hope Michael and I will get a chance again to race like we did at 2015 WCN but it looks like it might not be at 2016 WCN. It was great fun Michael

 

- Tristan

Share this post


Link to post
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...