UPDATE ST4/TT4 and other for 2017

[MR2 Biohazard]

Maybe I am the new guy here, but there is something that just does not make sense to me so please help me understand. Everyone says you have to run Hoosier to be competitive and if not you will not win. There is the Z214 exception, but as I have been told by 10+ racers you have to have Hoosiers. So, OK, Hoosiers it is, but why force everyone to run Hoosier in ST in the first place? I know they are the a series sponsor and all, but there are others (maxxis, Toyo) and it just does not make any sense to me. If we are doing up the rules now why not add that in.

 

Pros and Cons. Hoosiers are faster, OK, I get that. Cost is like $1300 a set for me and the reality is maybe two weekends of racing or even three to be competitive. If I race 6-9 races a year and let us say I will get 2-3 weekends out of a set that is $3900 in tires. I have a limited budget for racing for a year, I know some have unlimited funds, not this guy, not even close.

 

Maxxis RC-1. They are like 2-3 seconds a lap slower, but last 2-5 times long and cost half as much. Makes sense to me. Cost about $800 and last at least 3-5 races so cost $1600 a year for two sets. That leaves me $2300 towards race entering fees, fixes, etc.

 

Why are we not using tire type as a factor for the hp to weight calculator in ST? It does not seem that hard to me, but maybe from looking from the outside in and so new I am missing something major here so please help me understand. Example, RC1 is 2 seconds a lap slower on average than R7 or more. We know it takes about 10hp or more to go 1 second a lap faster on 2500-3000lb car. To make up the 2 seconds ore more the car would need like 20hp or more. Let us say you start out with a 3000lb car at 12:1 then 250hp and if RC1 then would need 270hp to make up that 2 seconds. This is a .88 to the hp drop and you would go from 12:1 to 11.1:1. Why not just say .75-1.0 drop if you run RC1 or toyo RR. Something that last longer and gives us poorer races a chance against the ones who have money to blow on new tires every race or so.

 

What I have also been told is just run the RC1 and be slower and finish like last place every time, you are still out there having fun running laps. OH YAH, pure joy running by myself in last place with no chance of a good battle or possibility of doing anything that remotely resembles a good result. Why am I told that is to run anyway and gain experience, so my name is on the list so the winner can get free tires. UGGG

 

For me it is having X amount of dollars a year to race. I can get a year out most of my items now, brakes, engine, wheel bearing, etc. The consumable part is the cost to me of tires, fuel and race entry fee. Let me say I have $10,000 a year I can spend on racing. Averages, Race entry fee $400, gas race car $120, gas tow vehicle $120, hotel $100. $750 per race for me plus tires. Hoosiers average is like $650 per weekend so $1400 per race. RC1 is like $200 or total of $950 per race weekend. Let me say yearly upkeep for brakes, bearings, etc is $4000. With the $6000 in my budget now I could do 4 races in the year. The RC1 I could do 6 races. That is a big difference to me on the cost of racing. I would think the guys who want to run Hoosiers would, but the guys who want to run RC1 and race more often would also. NASA would make out by getting more entries, that is for sure, and the item I can not figure out why they do not do it. Just does not make sense to me.

 

What I am missing here that this simple part of the rule is not applied to the ST classes? And can we put it in there.

Troy

[Mike 40]

 

...Hoosier provides the most competitive product that includes the best size range to go along with generous contingencies. I dont think that should be penalized from a deduction standpoint. I think giving some back to RR's or other tire manufacturers who provide contingincies may make the field more competitive.

 

I agree with Brian though that classing every tire will get tiresome at some point.

 

 

Outside of that, 100% agree with rule proposals for 2017.

 

I agree completely with this statement. I hope to run RR's next year because I can't afford to buy a new set of hoosiers every weekend (and I don't win often enough to take advantage of the contingency). I know they're not as competitive as the Hoosiers, but it's a sacrifice I have to make considering I'm on a somewhat tight budget. I'm sure there are others in TTB/TTC who are in the same boat.

[daytonars4]

There are certainly racers who run new Hoosiers every weekend, but the assumption that it's necessary to remain competitive just simply isn't true. I'm in my second season of GTS2 and a lot of racers tend to run scrubs most weekend. GTS3 etc does tend to have more sticker fixation. I've been on the podium numerous times in a competitive region with 10-20 HC R7's. Despite the hot lap ability of A's, it's not automatic that even that tire is preferred on a given weekend. A lot of other factors come into play. I would personally prefer a high cycle set of Hoosiers over new RR's, but that's a personal choice and one that everyone is free to make.

[whoahstu]

In PTE here in the Great Lakes, many are on SM7s and run 3 weekends on a set and the ones consistently on stickers R7s won them through contingency.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Guest

[Mike 40]

When I said "a new set every weekend," that was a bit of an exaggeration. But my car is very heavy (~3450) and tends to eat tires (20 HC on Hoosiers would probably be pushing it). Hoosiers in my size would be considerably more expensive ($260 more a set) than RR's in my size, and I would get 5-10 more heat cycles out of a set of RR's. I'm just saying if the aim is to keep the costs of TT4 down, we should consider a modifier for a less competitive tire because there is definitely a cost savings associated with running them.

[mcmmotorsports]

So, if I understand all 13 pages of this, my Legends car has a home in ST4 and TT4?

[Eric W.]

So, if I understand all 13 pages of this, my Legends car has a home in ST4 and TT4?

 

YAY... back from the roundy roundy circle racing

[mcmmotorsports]

So, if I understand all 13 pages of this, my Legends car has a home in ST4 and TT4?

 

YAY... back from the roundy roundy circle racing

 

Take it easy, just weighing options.

[nxfedlt1]

Look forward to seeing the finalized rules for TT4.....as I plan to run in this next year and make the DE jump.

[Salvisol]

 

Man I hope all these rules changes that are coming up still allow people to be competitive and not have to spend an excessive amount of money.

 

If my planned cost have to dramatically increase I'll have to reevaluate my target of running with NASA in whatever the equivalent for PTF and PTE will be in 2 years.

[bionicbelly]

Here's my issue I think myself and several other folks in this thread have already commented on. I've built my car to be as competitive as possible in TTC this year to the current rule set. From everything I have read in this thread I've come to the realization there is nowhere for my car to end up next year without spending a boat load of money to make it competitive in TT4 or spend money making it slower for the new TTC rules.

 

Also before anyone says the average HP will work out in my favor and put me close to the new 14.5:1 limit of the 2017 TTC limit, I did a quick calculation and the car is still at 13:1 as it sits now with average HP. My car was very much built to be a top competitor in TTC and it definitely doesn't fit into next years rules. What's the point of having TTC and TTD so close together? Why not leave TTC very close to the current PTW so we don't have to spend money detuning the car for next year only to have to change it again for when TT5 comes? Makes no sense to me at all. Someone please have this make sense to me or else the car will probably just sit on Jack stands for the next year.

 

Also will torque ever be calculated into the game for figuring out PTW? Seems crazy that's never a factor...

 

I havent really seen a response to this yet. This is also the situation I am in. I am right at the curent TTD 14.25 limit, and realistically cant go up or down.

[Pat533i]

My thoughts to having this be a more budget friendly class.

 

Negative mod factor for remote res/triple/quad adj/ shocks. Not much, maybe -0.2

 

Having the aero mod factor be a negative instead of positive like in st3/tt3.

It would be much easier for people in TT class to be competitive that drive the car to/from the track.

 

Not sure what to do with tires. I wouldn't really be bothered if it was the same as st3/tt3. Thats definitely because it benefits my e36 though .....

[shuko]

While not in the current buzz of rule changes, I would love to see section 12.1 of the TT rules amended with something like this:

Add: Class designations from PT and ST companion classes shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

 

In other words, if I have a car in ST4 and want to run in TT, I don't need a second set of TT4 decals, because for all PT/ST classes it should be apparent which TT class they are in.

[jaje]

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).

Does this also mean the Exocet can run ST4 as well as noted above?

 

In an open cockpit car (I mean really open) with no aero the car maybe 400 lbs lighter than a comparable Spec Miata (99-00 build) but I'm a good 10 mph slower top speed (same whp as I ran a 125whp on dynojet last month and my non-modified ratio was 16.5:1 running ST3 at Nationals) due to drag. I don't want to run NP01 or GTS3 speed in an open style car like this. Just wanted a lighter Miata with the reliability and cheap running costs.

[PaulB#51]

Does putting a aftermarket subframe in my Mk4 GTI make it a non production vehicle? This not legal for ST4?

Mk4's have a history of pulling control arm mounts out.

 

PaulB

[Eric W.]

While not in the current buzz of rule changes, I would love to see section 12.1 of the TT rules amended with something like this:

Add: Class designations from PT and ST companion classes shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

 

In other words, if I have a car in ST4 and want to run in TT, I don't need a second set of TT4 decals, because for all PT/ST classes it should be apparent which TT class they are in.

 

THIS^^!!!!! YES!

 

Im guessing your regional director could waive this though.

[slowap2]

When should we expect the final rules to be out? We're about 85 days from the 1st event of 2017. Would be nice to have some time to make adjustments to the cars so we can fit into the rules correctly.

[dsc off]

For TTC using average HP, will there be modifiers to the 14.5? What if we want to do a TTC* with a lower PW average?

The 14.5:1 would use the same formula as ST4/TT4. The difference would be that PTC/TTC would still be a class with base class, mod points, dyno re-classes, etc. The 14.5:1 would just be the final check for compliance, like it is currently in PT/TTB-F. It would not be a semi-open class like ST4/TT4. This change would help to move the cars currently in PTC/TTC that "belong" in ST4/TT4, yet not force the cars lacking a lower Wt/HP ratio into ST4/TT4--so they can transition to the new TT5-6 Dyno based/model based hybrid classes in '18.

 

So that will make the S2K basically useless without some serious work which is the only car I ever really see be competitive currently in C. I'm sure other cars will fall into this realm too.

 

TT4 will be too fast and TTC/5 will be too much weight realistically.

 

My C re-class now is 12.86 in a 12:1 class. So say by some miracle I can get to 14.5. That 220HP that i made peak averages out to about 214. I need to add 248LBS to the car for C, realistically even more probably. If I were to run the car in TT4 i would need to take out at least 215lbs to get to 12:1, probably need to pull even more after mod factors if the values are the same as TT3.

 

I'd be fine running TT4 but think it will be too fast for cars like the S2k to be competitive without a little boost of some kind, K swap, or more displacement.

 

I''m in same boat as well...

[TurboShortBus]

Does putting a aftermarket subframe in my Mk4 GTI make it a non production vehicle? This not legal for ST4?

Mk4's have a history of pulling control arm mounts out.

 

PaulB

As a similar example, aftermarket K-members in Mustangs have been considered as "subframe replacements," which kicks them out of the letter classes and into 3 and above (the points for weight reduction and relocation of suspension mounting points are not applicable with this particular modification).

 

As such, I would say that the same interpretation would apply to your \X/.

 

Mark

[eastcoastbumps]

When will the rules be finalized?

[Snowmants]

I saw in the proposed rules TTC would be 14.5:1.... I would expect though the new TT5 class would follow the +2 increase followed by each of the successive TT1-4 classes and be 14:1 correct?

Just trying to get some clarity as I am trying to build the car for TTC, but don't want to go crazy with the mods this winter if the following year I will have to remove them all for TT5.

 

Also just a general note--why change the classes 2 years in a row in a staggered fashion? Why not just roll out all of the new classes now so everyone can figure out where they are going to land? Not criticizing just putting the thoughts out there. You guys do a great job! Thanks!

[Snowmants]

The 14.5:1 would use the same formula as ST4/TT4. The difference would be that PTC/TTC would still be a class with base class, mod points, dyno re-classes, etc. The 14.5:1 would just be the final check for compliance, like it is currently in PT/TTB-F. It would not be a semi-open class like ST4/TT4. This change would help to move the cars currently in PTC/TTC that "belong" in ST4/TT4, yet not force the cars lacking a lower Wt/HP ratio into ST4/TT4--so they can transition to the new TT5-6 Dyno based/model based hybrid classes in '18.

 

So that will make the S2K basically useless without some serious work which is the only car I ever really see be competitive currently in C. I'm sure other cars will fall into this realm too.

 

TT4 will be too fast and TTC/5 will be too much weight realistically.

 

My C re-class now is 12.86 in a 12:1 class. So say by some miracle I can get to 14.5. That 220HP that i made peak averages out to about 214. I need to add 248LBS to the car for C, realistically even more probably. If I were to run the car in TT4 i would need to take out at least 215lbs to get to 12:1, probably need to pull even more after mod factors if the values are the same as TT3.

 

I'd be fine running TT4 but think it will be too fast for cars like the S2k to be competitive without a little boost of some kind, K swap, or more displacement.

 

I''m in same boat as well...

 

Agreed also--the proposed power to weight ratio gap between TTC(TT5) AND TT4 is too large. I know one of the goals is to control cost. Having the power to weight ratios a bit closer together from class to class will mean a given car will have to do fewer modifications (either weight or hp) to be in compliance/competitive. Fewer modifications generally equate to better reliability and less cost.

[BlackCivic343]

When should we expect the final rules to be out? We're about 85 days from the 1st event of 2017. Would be nice to have some time to make adjustments to the cars so we can fit into the rules correctly.

 

Also wondering when rules will be finalized, need to get to work.

[Mike 40]

Also wondering when rules will be finalized, need to get to work.

 

Ditto.

[Jon B.]

If not complete, can we get an estimate of when we might expect the rules or perhaps a rough draft outlining what still needs to be decided and what has been decided?