UPDATE ST4/TT4 and other for 2017

[Snowmants]

Well, if we "toss" the rule, then anyone running a stock E36 M3 front fascia on a 325 or 330 would not be legal for the class. If we allow canards/winglets, then it opens up Pandora's box to the aero mods and costs that we don't want in ST4/TT4.

 

wouldn't anyone running a stock e36 m3 front fascia on a 325 or 330 be illegal with the rule in place?

seems like that would be a perfect example of a replaced front fascia with aspects that function as canards/winglets.

 

 

 

Agreed. I don't see how this BMW upgrade is any different from the CR front lip upgrade. Look at the e46 M3 / e36 M3 front bumpers, both have protrusions that generate downforce which are absent on the respective lower model cars.

[Pat533i]

I say just scratch the canard/winglet rule but move the mod factor up a little.

It would simplify the cross classing and super sizing.

 

This is coming from someone planning on running a max hp/no aero e36 m3 in tt. Im really wondering how I will be competitive with aero cars at places like wgi/vir. Aero is huge at most tracks

[Greg G.]

Well, if we "toss" the rule, then anyone running a stock E36 M3 front fascia on a 325 or 330 would not be legal for the class. If we allow canards/winglets, then it opens up Pandora's box to the aero mods and costs that we don't want in ST4/TT4.

 

wouldn't anyone running a stock e36 m3 front fascia on a 325 or 330 be illegal with the rule in place?

seems like that would be a perfect example of a replaced front fascia with aspects that function as canards/winglets.

 

 

 

Agreed. I don't see how this BMW upgrade is any different from the CR front lip upgrade. Look at the e46 M3 / e36 M3 front bumpers, both have protrusions that generate downforce which are absent on the respective lower model cars.

The only people that can't tell the difference are those with S2000's.

 

 

[Greg G.]

We will come up with a revision this week, one way or the other. Thanks for the input.

[Snowmants]

 

wouldn't anyone running a stock e36 m3 front fascia on a 325 or 330 be illegal with the rule in place?

seems like that would be a perfect example of a replaced front fascia with aspects that function as canards/winglets.

 

 

 

Agreed. I don't see how this BMW upgrade is any different from the CR front lip upgrade. Look at the e46 M3 / e36 M3 front bumpers, both have protrusions that generate downforce which are absent on the respective lower model cars.

 

The only people that can't tell the difference are those with S2000's.

 

 

 

 

Touché sir. Touché.

[39088/1]

I can see the obvious wing on the s2000 picture you posted.

when I look up picture of an e36 325 vs e36 m3 front bumper cover I see places on the m3 that deflect air up or out and around the side of the car.

those could be considered aspects that function as canards to provide direct downforce.

 

maybe what we need are very specific definitions in rule 2b.

for example, what exactly are the illegal aspects of a canard/winglet? size? shape?

how does a canard/winglet provide direct downforce?

what makes the lip/protrusions/curves on the m3 bumper legal?

if the lower lip extended an extra inch in width would it still be legal? or would it then be a winglet?

 

I'm not being facetious. my bumper cover doesn't have canards or winglets, but it does have angles and curves similar to the m3 pic you posted. without very specific definitions someone could easily argue the 325 version allows air to slip down the side of the car, while the m3 version deflects air out, creating a vortex down the side of the car and providing downforce similar to a canard.

[Jon B.]

I can see the obvious wing on the s2000 picture you posted.

when I look up picture of an e36 325 vs e36 m3 front bumper cover I see places on the m3 that deflect air up or out and around the side of the car.

those could be considered aspects that function as canards to provide direct downforce.

 

maybe what we need are very specific definitions in rule 2b.

for example, what exactly are the illegal aspects of a canard/winglet? size? shape?

how does a canard/winglet provide direct downforce?

what makes the lip/protrusions/curves on the m3 bumper legal?

if the lower lip extended an extra inch in width would it still be legal? or would it then be a winglet?

 

I'm not being facetious. my bumper cover doesn't have canards or winglets, but it does have angles and curves similar to the m3 pic you posted. without very specific definitions someone could easily argue the 325 version allows air to slip down the side of the car, while the m3 version deflects air out, creating a vortex down the side of the car and providing downforce similar to a canard.

 

A canard or winglet by definition would have an angle to it which would 'redirect the oncoming air upwards'.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/canards.html

The front fascia of an M3 has a lip which extends around the sides, but remains horizontal. That said, perhaps a middle ground could be reached whereby cars which use a front fascia with obvious canards/deflectors/etc on the sides for the purpose of either providing downforce or deflecting airflow down the side of the vehicle in order to create vortices, must take a slight modification factor so that if they choose not to buy a different front end, they can still run their car as is?

[zdr93523]

Not trying to stir the pot but if we're making new average hp rules to attempt to level the playing field, why don't we fix it right and include hp averages with a max torque factor like GTS?

 

300 Average hp with 250 lb/ft is not going to be level with 300 Average hp and 350 lb/ft of torque. The GTS calculations fix that problem.

[slowap2]

I can see the obvious wing on the s2000 picture you posted.

when I look up picture of an e36 325 vs e36 m3 front bumper cover I see places on the m3 that deflect air up or out and around the side of the car.

those could be considered aspects that function as canards to provide direct downforce.

 

maybe what we need are very specific definitions in rule 2b.

for example, what exactly are the illegal aspects of a canard/winglet? size? shape?

how does a canard/winglet provide direct downforce?

what makes the lip/protrusions/curves on the m3 bumper legal?

if the lower lip extended an extra inch in width would it still be legal? or would it then be a winglet?

 

I'm not being facetious. my bumper cover doesn't have canards or winglets, but it does have angles and curves similar to the m3 pic you posted. without very specific definitions someone could easily argue the 325 version allows air to slip down the side of the car, while the m3 version deflects air out, creating a vortex down the side of the car and providing downforce similar to a canard.

 

A canard or winglet by definition would have an angle to it which would 'redirect the oncoming air upwards'.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/canards.html

The front fascia of an M3 has a lip which extends around the sides, but remains horizontal. That said, perhaps a middle ground could be reached whereby cars which use a front fascia with obvious canards/deflectors/etc on the sides for the purpose of either providing downforce or deflecting airflow down the side of the vehicle in order to create vortices, must take a slight modification factor so that if they choose not to buy a different front end, they can still run their car as is?

I'd agree with this.

 

Why not make a Canard a .2 modifier and state that it cannot protrude above the top of the fascia and no more than one canard per side of the car.

[Mrsideways]

Scion FRS TRD package front bumper....

 

Even the Standard front lip has a pretty good amount of rake, far more hidden but I'd say similar at angle and size to a CR lip.

[slowap2]

Nismo 370Z fits the bill for this too.

 

 

[Mrsideways]

There are literally 100's of cars that would be forced to buy aftermarket bumpers to run.

[zigspeed10]

I think these types of aero elements should be allowed. I’m thinking in terms of future competitors coming from the HPDE/Track Day crowd that often have these simple aero elements already on their cars and also most of the off the shelf items available. Here is some proposed language for front aero rules.

 

--Modified or replaced front fascia with splitters, canards, or other elements may protrude a maximum of 4 inched forward of the vehicle and no wider than 2 inches per side of the vehicle and no higher than the top of the front fascia. Splitters must be single flat horizontal and may extend as far back as the centerline of the front axle. Aero elements acting as tunnels, wings, or diffusers are not allowed.

 

Language like this will provide a small box to play in and will allow most of the off the shelf lips and splitters etc. and still avoid the more radical front mounted wings and radical front aero seen on some of the time attack cars.

 

Thanks

[Mrsideways]

That Z bumper deffently has canard like elements built into it.

[39088/1]

--Modified or replaced front fascia with splitters, canards, or other elements may protrude a maximum of 4 inched forward of the vehicle and no wider than 2 inches per side of the vehicle and no higher than the top of the front fascia. Splitters must be single flat horizontal and may extend as far back as the centerline of the front axle. Aero elements acting as tunnels, wings, or diffusers are not allowed.

 

good language, somewhat precise with no subjective words like 'aspect' that will mean different things to different people.

possibly the 'no wider than 2 inches per side of the vehicle' needs to have a qualifier to define vehicle width.

2 inches wider than tires? doors? fenders?

I realize the rear wing rule is written the same way, just wondered how it would be applied to cars with fender flares added.

 

the 'aero elements acting as tunnels' could be a problem. many new cars and newer splitters for old cars are using a stepped design where the middle is 40mm higher allowing air under the car to drive the rear diffuser. I tested this with a garden edger air dam, cutting out a center section produced better results than a solid air dam.

[SubiePig]

My car is a CR and I have never been allowed to demod the car to a base model AP2 for TTB. Seeing as that its always been considered a separated line item on the vehicle list, I hope this isn't implying I will now have to remove the air dam and build my car as a regular AP2 regardless if it came with the airdam from the factory.

[Greg G.]

We can all agree we don't want this in ST4/TT4:

 

 

"Modified or replaced front fascia with splitters, canards, or other elements may protrude a maximum of 4 inched forward of the vehicle and no wider than 2 inches per side of the vehicle and no higher than the top of the front fascia."

 

This is a modified front fascia with canards that do not protrude more than 4" forward of the vehicle, and actually are not past the side of the vehicle.

[Greg G.]

the 'aero elements acting as tunnels' could be a problem. many new cars and newer splitters for old cars are using a stepped design where the middle is 40mm higher allowing air under the car to drive the rear diffuser. I tested this with a garden edger air dam, cutting out a center section produced better results than a solid air dam.

The current rules only permit a single flat, horizontal front splitter, no tunnels (unless OEM).

 

If we do have a rule that allows "canard-like structures" built into aftermarket front fascias, doesn't that essentially "force" all competitors to go and get one (as opposed to the few that have them now getting rid of them)?

[Greg G.]

The Slippery Slope factor on this issue is huge! This is why the NASA Executives are recommending making canards and canard-like structures built into plastic not permitted in ST4/TT4. But, there needs to be a definition that is fairly exact as to what is, and what isn't permitted. I don't think that anyone would argue that an OEM E36 M3 front fascia is a problem of any kind. In fact, most would probably take that fascia, and cover it with the legal air dam and real splitter.

[Chase J.]

the 'aero elements acting as tunnels' could be a problem. many new cars and newer splitters for old cars are using a stepped design where the middle is 40mm higher allowing air under the car to drive the rear diffuser. I tested this with a garden edger air dam, cutting out a center section produced better results than a solid air dam.

The current rules only permit a single flat, horizontal front splitter, no tunnels (unless OEM).

 

If we do have a rule that allows "canard-like structures" built into aftermarket front fascias, doesn't that essentially "force" all competitors to go and get one (as opposed to the few that have them now getting rid of them)?

 

So are you saying there is no way the CR lip will be allowed on base model S2000's

 

I just want a solid yes or no. I currently have a CR front lip on my S2000 and plan to run TT4 in 2017

[Greg G.]

the 'aero elements acting as tunnels' could be a problem. many new cars and newer splitters for old cars are using a stepped design where the middle is 40mm higher allowing air under the car to drive the rear diffuser. I tested this with a garden edger air dam, cutting out a center section produced better results than a solid air dam.

The current rules only permit a single flat, horizontal front splitter, no tunnels (unless OEM).

 

If we do have a rule that allows "canard-like structures" built into aftermarket front fascias, doesn't that essentially "force" all competitors to go and get one (as opposed to the few that have them now getting rid of them)?

 

So are you saying there is no way the CR lip will be allowed on base model S2000's

 

I just want a solid yes or no. I currently have a CR front lip on my S2000 and plan to run TT4 in 2017

I'm saying that we are working on this, and should have a final decision by Thursday, but it is obviously a complicated issue that we would like to get right, and as usual not everyone will like the decision no matter what it is.

[daytonars4]

Should I assume there won't be any explanation as to why the mod was set so high at .5 for AWD in ST4 considering it's only .3 in ST3?

[Greg G.]

Should I assume there won't be any explanation as to why the mod was set so high at .5 for AWD in ST4 considering it's only .3 in ST3?

Our past experience with the AWD's at the ST4 power range in PT showed that they required a significant bump in base class in order to equalize them with the RWD's. Since ST4 is straight up competition, with no base classes, the only way to pull that back is the Mod Factor. Now, how much of this was due to them using Mustang Dyno's for pre-competition testing and the 10% was not enough added, or how much was due to rules non-compliance that was not caught may not be clear, but it was clear that we needed the adjustments. The added 0.2 from prior at the higher HP levels is only 57 lbs for a 3400 lbs car (50 lbs for a 3000 lb vehicle). Yes, the (0.5) would be 125 lbs total for a 3000 lbs AWD if it does not have 4 doors, but most of the ones competing in NASA DO have 4 doors. Also, we have experience with AWD Audi's in the past, showing them to require the extra 50 lbs over the Japanese AWD's. So, I do think we will go with this for this year. However, these are items that can always be adjusted in the future.

 

FYI, if we bumped the Mustang Dyno factor to 15%, it would have a much bigger impact on AWD cars than this. Yes, they are required to be compliant on AWD Dynojets as well, and there are more out there now than in the past, but this is still a relevant issue.

[daytonars4]

Should I assume there won't be any explanation as to why the mod was set so high at .5 for AWD in ST4 considering it's only .3 in ST3?

Our past experience with the AWD's at the ST4 power range in PT showed that they required a significant bump in base class in order to equalize them with the RWD's. Since ST4 is straight up competition, with no base classes, the only way to pull that back is the Mod Factor. Now, how much of this was due to them using Mustang Dyno's for pre-competition testing and the 10% was not enough added, or how much was due to rules non-compliance that was not caught may not be clear, but it was clear that we needed the adjustments. The added 0.2 from prior at the higher HP levels is only 57 lbs for a 3400 lbs car (50 lbs for a 3000 lb vehicle). Yes, the (0.5) would be 125 lbs total for a 3000 lbs AWD if it does not have 4 doors, but most of the ones competing in NASA DO have 4 doors. Also, we have experience with AWD Audi's in the past, showing them to require the extra 50 lbs over the Japanese AWD's. So, I do think we will go with this for this year. However, these are items that can always be adjusted in the future.

 

FYI, if we bumped the Mustang Dyno factor to 15%, it would have a much bigger impact on AWD cars than this. Yes, they are required to be compliant on AWD Dynojets as well, and there are more out there now than in the past, but this is still a relevant issue.

 

Midatlantic has an AWD dynojet at almost every event. So whether I have my e36 or A5 for a race weekend they are set to the same standard on the same dyno. I can understand a 10-15% variance if you are taking Mustang numbers to convert to dynojet. I have done tuning on a mustang so I've seen that variance first hand and would agree the mod is needed to level it. But for a region like mine with AWD Dynojets you are essentially building in a mod for the scenario where a mustang is used, when we aren't using a mustang. So I think going with the 15% mustang correction is more fair than using a .5 mod which is pretty unfair to AWD cars using dynojets.

[Greg G.]

Should I assume there won't be any explanation as to why the mod was set so high at .5 for AWD in ST4 considering it's only .3 in ST3?

Our past experience with the AWD's at the ST4 power range in PT showed that they required a significant bump in base class in order to equalize them with the RWD's. Since ST4 is straight up competition, with no base classes, the only way to pull that back is the Mod Factor. Now, how much of this was due to them using Mustang Dyno's for pre-competition testing and the 10% was not enough added, or how much was due to rules non-compliance that was not caught may not be clear, but it was clear that we needed the adjustments. The added 0.2 from prior at the higher HP levels is only 57 lbs for a 3400 lbs car (50 lbs for a 3000 lb vehicle). Yes, the (0.5) would be 125 lbs total for a 3000 lbs AWD if it does not have 4 doors, but most of the ones competing in NASA DO have 4 doors. Also, we have experience with AWD Audi's in the past, showing them to require the extra 50 lbs over the Japanese AWD's. So, I do think we will go with this for this year. However, these are items that can always be adjusted in the future.

 

FYI, if we bumped the Mustang Dyno factor to 15%, it would have a much bigger impact on AWD cars than this. Yes, they are required to be compliant on AWD Dynojets as well, and there are more out there now than in the past, but this is still a relevant issue.

 

Midatlantic has an AWD dynojet at almost every event. So whether I have my e36 or A5 for a race weekend they are set to the same standard on the same dyno. I can understand a 10-15% variance if you are taking Mustang numbers to convert to dynojet. I have done tuning on a mustang so I've seen that variance first hand and would agree the mod is needed to level it. But for a region like mine with AWD Dynojets you are essentially building in a mod for the scenario where a mustang is used, when we aren't using a mustang. So I think going with the 15% mustang correction is more fair than using a .5 mod which is pretty unfair to AWD cars using dynojets.

 

The -0.5 is not because of the Mustang Dyno. It is because of our past experience in PT/TT with the lower level AWD's. I cannot quantify how much of that difference could have been due to the Mustang Dyno, but we found the same issues regardless of which Dyno was used. The higher HP's and more open rules in the higher classes tend to negate the effect of AWD, which is why the factor is only -0.3. For many AWD, the entire factor is offset by "4 door" or weight over 3400 lbs, or just by being able to run a smaller tire than the 2WD. You asked for an explanation, not a debate, correct?