National Staff Greg G. Posted September 13, 2016 National Staff Share Posted September 13, 2016 Sorry guys! The answer is YES, it is happening for 2017. The continued issues we are dealing with are not so much what happens with ST4/TT4, but what happens with the other classes (like PTC/TTC), and to not put this info out at the same time would be confusing to many ("Why do we have ST4 at 12:1, and PTC is still at 12:1?"). Remember, as in before the complaints that ST4 is not identical to ST3, that our goal is to have great racing, but start to apply some reasonable limitations that the drivers (and their budgets) are accustomed to in PTB/PTC. BUT, here is what I'm 95% certain we are going with for 2017, and I hope that we will have the rest before the end of the month 1) ALL ST (1-4) and TT1-4 classes will use the Avg. HP calculation for Dyno tech inspections for compliance with the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio. 2) ST4/TT4 will use the current ST Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio Formula with some modifications to the Mod Factors (like we did with ST3/TT3) 3) ST4/TT4 will have a limit of 12:1 Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio 4) ST4/TT4 will have a maximum Tire Size of 275 5) Non-DOT tires will not be permitted in ST4/TT4 (might need some exceptions for designated rain events--still being worked out) 6) DOT-approved "A" Tires will have a Modification Factor in ST4/TT4--similar to the current non-DOT Mod Factor in other ST classes. 7) No non-Production Vehicles or Modification Factor for ST4/TT4, except for pre-approved vehicles (such as Legends, Legacy's, etc.) that shall be listed in the rules. There may be some individual waivers granted by the National Director under appropriate circumstances for currently unforeseen circumstances (with appropriate Mod Factor if necessary). PTB/TTB will be deleted and no longer available. 9) Aero modifications will be limited to a rear wing/spoiler, front air dam/splitter, and those modifications currently listed as okay under the OEM Aero rule in ST3. ------------- Less certain: 10) Deletion of the OEM Aero rule in ST3 (versus addition of the OEM Aero rule for ST4) 11) The exact Mod Factor changes for ST4 (versus ST3): 11a) Possible change for sequentials/dog ring/straight cut from -0.6 to -1.0 11b) Possible new Modification Factor for windshield removal (since Non-Production not available) for ST4/TT4 11c) FWD Mod Factor changed to +0.6 (from +1.0) for ST4/TT4 11d) Deletion of all four Engine Mod Factors for ST4/TT4 11e) "A" Tire Mod Factor -0.5 for ST4/TT4 12) Deletion of Rear Engine Mod Factors for ST1-3 13) Change the limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for PTC/TTC to 14.5:1, using the ST Formula (instead of the PT Formula) and using Avg HP, but continue to use the points system for 2017 as the primary method of classing for '17. 14) Increase the current Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for PTD/TTD to 15:1 and PTE/TTE to 17:1, using the PT Adjusted WT/HP Ratio Formula (fix a few outliers) ---------------- Additional 99% certain (added 9-22-16): ST1 goes to 6.0:1 but using Avg HP (ST1 drivers generally struggle to get to the 5.5:1, and once we change to Avg HP, it would be even harder--looking to increase ST1 car counts) ST2 stays at 8.0:1 but using Avg HP ST3 stays at 10.0:1 using Avg HP Consider this a comment period for CONSTRUCTIVE comments as we work through these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted September 13, 2016 Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 That all sounds great, I look forward to the completed draft! Thanks for getting this out Greg! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastNotFurious Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Thanks Greg! This let's us get started!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysenpham Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 What is the theory behind having a mod factor for A- tires? From a $$$ perspective, the R7 and A7 cost exactly the same. Other than having mod factors to control costs, I don't see why this one could be in effect if we are solely basing it on costs for a competitor to run the specified class. Other than that, everything makes sense to me. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted September 13, 2016 Author National Staff Share Posted September 13, 2016 What is the theory behind having a mod factor for A- tires? From a $$$ perspective, the R7 and A7 cost exactly the same. Other than having mod factors to control costs, I don't see why this one could be in effect if we are solely basing it on costs for a competitor to run the specified class. Other than that, everything makes sense to me. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion here. Because there is no doubt that "A" Tires are faster than "R" Tires, and they do not last as long. As well, there are a limited number of "A" tire options, where "R" options and contingencies are more numerous. Furthermore, the large majority of cars in PTB/PTC use "R" tires currently, and there is no actual reason to "force" all competitors onto "A" tires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted September 13, 2016 Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 What is the theory behind having a mod factor for A- tires? From a $$$ perspective, the R7 and A7 cost exactly the same. Other than having mod factors to control costs, I don't see why this one could be in effect if we are solely basing it on costs for a competitor to run the specified class. Other than that, everything makes sense to me. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion here. Because there is no doubt that "A" Tires are faster than "R" Tires, and they do not last as long. As well, there are a limited number of "A" tire options, where "R" options and contingencies are more numerous. Furthermore, the large majority of cars in PTB/PTC use "R" tires currently, and there is no actual reason to "force" all competitors onto "A" tires. Agreed! I think A Vs. R needs to trickle up into consideration for ST1-3 as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tut Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 What is the theory behind having a mod factor for A- tires? From a $$$ perspective, the R7 and A7 cost exactly the same. Other than having mod factors to control costs, I don't see why this one could be in effect if we are solely basing it on costs for a competitor to run the specified class. Other than that, everything makes sense to me. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion here. Because there is no doubt that "A" Tires are faster than "R" Tires, and they do not last as long. As well, there are a limited number of "A" tire options, where "R" options and contingencies are more numerous. Furthermore, the large majority of cars in PTB/PTC use "R" tires currently, and there is no actual reason to "force" all competitors onto "A" tires. Agreed! I think A Vs. R needs to trickle up into consideration for ST1-3 as well! How about we don't change the TT3 rules every year? Some of us already have a stock pile of A7s for TT3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon B. Posted September 13, 2016 Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 "Because there is no doubt that "A" Tires are faster than "R" Tires, and they do not last as long. As well, there are a limited number of "A" tire options, where "R" options and contingencies are more numerous. Furthermore, the large majority of cars in PTB/PTC use "R" tires currently, and there is no actual reason to "force" all competitors onto "A" tires." Thanks for the update Greg. Regarding the tire debate, in speaking with a Hoosier engineer (via email), he mentioned that with the testing that they have done, the R7 can be as fast as the A7 as long as the tire is at the right temperature, which I imagine most people are having a hard time getting. The A7 is easier to get up to temp, but doesn't take abuse as well as the R7. There are pluses and minuses to running either tire with each having advantages based on track, temperature, setup, driving style, etc. Will there be fender flare modifications or are they open as long as the tire size is 275 and below? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted September 13, 2016 Author National Staff Share Posted September 13, 2016 How about we don't change the TT3 rules every year? Some of us already have a stock pile of A7s for TT3. A's are safe in TT3 for '17, don't worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkmccready Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 11) The exact Mod Factor changes for ST4 (versus ST3): 11a) Possible change for sequentials/dog ring/straight cut from -0.6 to -1.0 11b) Possible new Modification Factor for windshield removal (since Non-Production not available) for ST4/TT4 11c) FWD Mod Factor changed to +0.6 (from +1.0) for ST4/TT4 11d) Deletion of all four Engine Mod Factors for ST4/TT4 11e) "A" Tire Mod Factor -0.5 for ST4/TT4 12) Deletion of Rear Engine Mod Factors for ST1-3 11a) I think a sequential is worth a lot more performance than a dog ring box? 11b) This is a must-have as I know of NorCal competitors currently windshield-less in PTB, and others building for ST that were planning on using the non-prod mod factor for a similar purpose, and I think ST3 power levels would be a real stretch for these competitors 11e) Some competitors switch tires depending on temperature/weather; I *assume* this will be in the ST spirit of things and taking this mod factor one could run either As or Rs and not like PT where the competitor would need to accurately declare it? For all of the mod factor changes, can you please explain the rationale for them being different for ST4? I don't see the engine & rear engine, fwd mod factors as eliminating costs. I see the transmission one trying to keep people from spending there, but potentially hurting some folks trying to cross over from Production category cars with that other org (many of those cars would fall in ST4/5 pwr:wt). Greg, I think this is absolutely the right direction to go and I wish ST4 (5? 6?) could fold even more classes together. The ST classes definitely make it easier for competitors to bring their cars over to NASA, be competitive and enjoy the racing. This really opens the door to more IT, Touring and Production class cars easily coming over. For those worried about ST4/5/6 driving up costs, I am curious if anybody is seeing unobtanium GTS1 or GTS2 builds in their region? (ie. Are we solving a non-problem?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 ! How about we don't change the TT3 rules every year? Some of us already have a stock pile of A7s for TT3. No one is saying you can't run them... but they are faster than R's, hands down, and some cars can't run them, either do to weight or tire size limitations, so cars that can have an unfair advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 ! How about we don't change the TT3 rules every year? Some of us already have a stock pile of A7s for TT3. No one is saying you can't run them... but they are faster than R's, hands down, and some cars can't run them, either do to weight or tire size limitations, so cars that can have an unfair advantage. Although I will contradict myself a little here, it could be a slippery slope trying to balance every tire brand and compound, so maybe the easier way to help balance tire performance on lighter and heavier cars is a simple tire to weight formula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcdesign Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars. -tony colicchio TC Design Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted September 14, 2016 Author National Staff Share Posted September 14, 2016 Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars. -tony colicchio TC Design Yep. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NammyBoy Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Will the TT4 class have a tire size modifier similar to TT3? Since 275 will be the maximum width, will it be something like +0.3 for 245 and smaller? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00mugenS2k Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Kind of a un even split between TT4, TTC, and TTD. Big jump from 12:1 in TT4 to 14.5:1 in TTC, but hardly any jump from TTC 14.5:1 to TTD of 15:1. Sounds like 13.5:1 for TTC would be more even TT4 12:1 TTC 13.5:1 TTD 15:1 TTE 17:1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apexkingjusto Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 It would be nice to allow the classes that use TOYO's to be able to cross over to TT competitively, by creating some sort of mod factor for RR's as they are a good 2 sec's slower then R7's at most tracks. Of course you could argue, just buy a seperate set of R7's or A7's for TT, but the setup is different so it would make super sizing during a race weekend impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Although I will contradict myself a little here, it could be a slippery slope trying to balance every tire brand and compound, so maybe the easier way to help balance tire performance on lighter and heavier cars is a simple tire to weight formula? I agree that a "weight per millimeter" formula would make things a little more even between light cars/skinny tires and heavy cars/fat tires that start in the same base class (currently, the light cars get width credits, while the heavy cars spend width points to maintain the same ratio). At least limiting the width credit to -30mm/-7 points a season or two ago helped that a bit. Also, with this proposal, there's the fun of a car in tech that meets its listed minimum weight but is slightly lighter than its tire width would allow it to be, which would require a little more easy math in impound, resulting in a DQ or something along those lines. But, that's all part of paying attention and setting up a car properly. This idea probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon (or ever); but, we can still "bench officiate." Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Doc Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 This sounds like a very reasonable proposal, and I'd agree some of these things might be worth to trickle up to ST3 in time, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So the big question is, Now with the lower TTC hp/weight are points cars going to be required to turn in a dyno sheet? Personal Opinion is we need to get away from Dyno's and Dyno Classing. It puts an Extra $100 on to the price of competeting. It's also not easy for people with full time jobs to get their cars to a dyno. I think that a better solution needs to be thought up. Also the pre-event dyno is fairly useless as someone can modify their car between getting dyno'd and turning the sheet in. We have all these rules towards being very anal about the sheets and half the sheets locally get turned away due to the dyno operator not reading all the requests (most people aren't there when their car gets dyno'd because they are at work). But it's a bit like that engineering T-shirt. Using exact science to class a vehicle from a imprecise instrument run by questionable people with the user able to mod the vehicle afterwards and completely negate the dyno sheet.... see also "wizard". Perhaps use the dyno as a "yea that's close enough" and allow people to turn in STD sheets or mustang dyno's or dyno's without time stamps or any of the number of other F ups the dyno operators miss and then do the actual tech at the event. If competitors in the class feel a car is questionable. File a protest fee and take the car off site to be dyno'd. But open it up to make it easier/cheaper for people to actually race. Also use some common sense, If I want to register my wife in a ford Focus rental car for TT1 as a class filler.... don't require a dyno sheet for that. that's just silly. (I'm not actually going to do that, but we've had rental cars used as class fillers here in the past). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Kind of a un even split between TT4, TTC, and TTD. Big jump from 12:1 in TT4 to 14.5:1 in TTC, but hardly any jump from TTC 14.5:1 to TTD of 15:1. Sounds like 13.5:1 for TTC would be more even TT4 12:1 TTC 13.5:1 TTD 15:1 TTE 17:1 you still have points limits in the letter classes, whereas you don't have those in the number classes two cars at any ratio, one limited by points AND the ratio, the other one limited solely by the ratio math - one will be quite a bit faster at all tracks... until you start adding enough factors that they start acting in a very similar manner to the points system. That seems to be where things are headed? For those worried about ST4/5/6 driving up costs, I am curious if anybody is seeing unobtanium GTS1 or GTS2 builds in their region? (ie. Are we solving a non-problem?) 1.) those cars do exist 2.) you should write the rules to contain those builds NOW so that you don't have to do take-backs later Think of what someone like Emilio Cervantes would build for ST5-6 and think if that's the standard you want to everyone else to be chasing or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCivic343 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So we are moving all the w2p down? TTB was 10.5:1 and FWD was a mod factor of 1. Now it is 12:1 and .6...yeesh. I was setting my car up to be a competitive B car but now it seems I will be a tweener car again. Not Mid TT3 and too much for TT4. Well hopefully I can get there with ballast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ja1217 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 9) Aero modifications will be limited to a rear wing/spoiler, front air dam/splitter, and those modifications currently listed as okay under the OEM Aero rule in ST3. Does this mean absolutely no diffusers, canards, etc. or would they just have a separate mod factor? I know there were a few GTS2 guys in my region that were thinking about jumping ship to ST4 and most of them make use of these additional aero pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So we are moving all the w2p down? TTB was 10.5:1 and FWD was a mod factor of 1. Now it is 12:1 and .6...yeesh. I was setting my car up to be a competitive B car but now it seems I will be a tweener car again. Not Mid TT3 and too much for TT4. Well hopefully I can get there with ballast. Same boat. I'm just going to put smaller cams in and drop the rev limiter a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCivic343 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Spent a year of time optimizing a car for a class and now we decide to shake it up, this is SUCH a good way to save people money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.