UPDATE ST4/TT4 and other for 2017

[ianbarberi]

Why do you think that if it doesn't pass the 2" rule that it doesn't matter?

 

Actually, it does pass the 2" in rule, but fails the 5 deg vertical tolerance rule for an air dam. So, even though it passes the 2" rule, this air dam cannot be used for ST4/TT4 (and therefore passing the 2" rule doesn't matter).

 

But I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

[Greg G.]

Why do you think that if it doesn't pass the 2" rule that it doesn't matter?

 

Actually, it does pass the 2" in rule, but fails the 5 deg vertical tolerance rule for an air dam. So, even though it passes the 2" rule, this air dam cannot be used for ST4/TT4 (and therefore passing the 2" rule doesn't matter).

 

But I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

I suppose if it is attached and not molded into the fascia, you are correct.

[JCathers]

Why do you think that if it doesn't pass the 2" rule that it doesn't matter?

 

Actually, it does pass the 2" in rule, but fails the 5 deg vertical tolerance rule for an air dam. So, even though it passes the 2" rule, this air dam cannot be used for ST4/TT4 (and therefore passing the 2" rule doesn't matter).

 

But I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

I suppose if it is attached and not molded into the fascia, you are correct.

 

So what I'm hearing is I AM going to have to have a air dam fabbed up -_-

 

Basically all the competitive GTS3/ST3/TT3 cars I've seen have relatively affordable off-the-shelf canards/splitters/air dams... I haven't seen anybody out there with a DTM car yet, and a lot of those guys have big budgets.

 

I really think you're shooting this class in the foot based on paranoia about what could happen if someone, who could obviously afford to run ST/TT1-3, chooses to dump a ton of money into a 4 build.

 

While we're on the subject of people dumping a ton of money into a 4 build - can we talk about how I can go spend $8000 on PFC brakes, $8000 on quad adjustables, and $3000 on a baller rear wing, and all of that is perfectly legal for TT4, but a $200 OTS air dam and $200 canards arent?

 

Just to clarify - I don't have a problem with the open nature of the class, but I have a problem with it being basically totally open except for one little caveat, which has very little overall effect on cutting costs, but which kicks a lot of us in the nuts.

[Greg G.]

 

So what I'm hearing is I AM going to have to have a air dam fabbed up -_-

 

Basically all the competitive GTS3/ST3/TT3 cars I've seen have relatively affordable off-the-shelf canards/splitters/air dams... I haven't seen anybody out there with a DTM car yet, and a lot of those guys have big budgets.

 

I really think you're shooting this class in the foot based on paranoia about what could happen if someone, who could obviously afford to run ST/TT1-3, chooses to dump a ton of money into a 4 build.

 

While we're on the subject of people dumping a ton of money into a 4 build - can we talk about how I can go spend $8000 on PFC brakes, $8000 on quad adjustables, and $3000 on a baller rear wing, and all of that is perfectly legal for TT4, but a $200 OTS air dam and $200 canards arent?

 

Just to clarify - I don't have a problem with the open nature of the class, but I have a problem with it being basically totally open except for one little caveat, which has very little overall effect on cutting costs, but which kicks a lot of us in the nuts.

1) You don't have to do anything--if you weren't running a splitter before or a lower air dam (when you could have in TTB)....

2) I guess you haven't seen the actual fastest ST3/TT3 car built (M3 with many DTM aero features).

3) Rules are written based on the potential of what can be done. It is naive to think that modifications that are permitted, that enhance performance, won't be done sooner or later--It ALWAYS HAPPENS! It is best to limit them from the start of a class if limitations are desired, which they are according to NASA Exec's as we move done the performance levels in this series.

4) Agreed on the brakes---thanks for reminding us that we forgot that one in the rules. It should have followed from PT, and we have added a Technical Bulletin regarding ABS in ST4.

5) High dollar shocks have been allowed in all TT and PT classes--that cat is out of the bag, horse is out of the barn, milk is already spilled.....Early attempts at cost control ran into too many problems with unscrupulous manufactures/dealers.

[JCathers]

 

1) You don't have to do anything--if you weren't running a splitter before or a lower air dam (when you could have in TTB)....

2) I guess you haven't seen the actual fastest ST3/TT3 car built (M3 with many DTM aero features).

3) Rules are written based on the potential of what can be done. It is naive to think that modifications that are permitted, that enhance performance, won't be done sooner or later--It ALWAYS HAPPENS! It is best to limit them from the start of a class if limitations are desired, which they are according to NASA Exec's as we move done the performance levels in this series.

4) Agreed on the brakes---thanks for reminding us that we forgot that one in the rules. It should have followed from PT, and we have added a Technical Bulletin regarding ABS in ST4.

5) High dollar shocks have been allowed in all TT and PT classes--that cat is out of the bag, horse is out of the barn, milk is already spilled.....Early attempts at cost control ran into too many problems with unscrupulous manufactures/dealers.

 

Don't have to do anything? I guess so... if I weren't interested in being competitive in the class? I assume you're talking about the E92M with the front wing bolted onto the bumper supports, pretty simple language could fix that - no front wings allowed.

 

I'm on a set of revalved koni yellows from the TTB build because real racing shocks with external reservoirs were points-prohibitive - now theres no penalty to stop people from going out and spending thousands on MCS/Ohlins/Penskes.

[Greg G.]

1) You don't have to do anything--if you weren't running a splitter before or a lower air dam (when you could have in TTB)....

2) I guess you haven't seen the actual fastest ST3/TT3 car built (M3 with many DTM aero features).

3) Rules are written based on the potential of what can be done. It is naive to think that modifications that are permitted, that enhance performance, won't be done sooner or later--It ALWAYS HAPPENS! It is best to limit them from the start of a class if limitations are desired, which they are according to NASA Exec's as we move done the performance levels in this series.

4) Agreed on the brakes---thanks for reminding us that we forgot that one in the rules. It should have followed from PT, and we have added a Technical Bulletin regarding ABS in ST4.

5) High dollar shocks have been allowed in all TT and PT classes--that cat is out of the bag, horse is out of the barn, milk is already spilled.....Early attempts at cost control ran into too many problems with unscrupulous manufactures/dealers.

 

Don't have to do anything? I guess so... if I weren't interested in being competitive in the class? I assume you're talking about the E92M with the front wing bolted onto the bumper supports, pretty simple language could fix that - no front wings allowed.

 

I'm on a set of revalved koni yellows from the TTB build because real racing shocks with external reservoirs were points-prohibitive - now theres no penalty to stop people from going out and spending thousands on MCS/Ohlins/Penskes.

Incorrect.

 

No, not that vehicle. The M3 that everyone of us would gladly own--seen in prior Champ events. It was probably a $200K build, although I don't have the verified numbers.

 

Your statements just don't jive. So, weren't you interested in being competitive when you didn't use the full extent of the TTB aero rules, with either a full air dam almost down to the ground along with a belly pan from the air dam to the centerline/axle, or alternatively, a very functional front splitter? FYI, a fabb'd air dam can cost less than $250, and be way more functional than that little added chin spoiler.

 

There was nothing in TTB to prevent someone from going out and getting double adjustable shocks from Ohlin/Penske/MCS, etc. that cost $5K plus, and even getting multiple sets of them specifically built for specific tracks. So, it wasn't the points that prevented you from using better shocks, it was apparently the money.

[dbrad]

 

So what I'm hearing is I AM going to have to have a air dam fabbed up -_-

 

Basically all the competitive GTS3/ST3/TT3 cars I've seen have relatively affordable off-the-shelf canards/splitters/air dams... I haven't seen anybody out there with a DTM car yet, and a lot of those guys have big budgets.

 

I really think you're shooting this class in the foot based on paranoia about what could happen if someone, who could obviously afford to run ST/TT1-3, chooses to dump a ton of money into a 4 build.

 

While we're on the subject of people dumping a ton of money into a 4 build - can we talk about how I can go spend $8000 on PFC brakes, $8000 on quad adjustables, and $3000 on a baller rear wing, and all of that is perfectly legal for TT4, but a $200 OTS air dam and $200 canards arent?

 

Just to clarify - I don't have a problem with the open nature of the class, but I have a problem with it being basically totally open except for one little caveat, which has very little overall effect on cutting costs, but which kicks a lot of us in the nuts.

1) You don't have to do anything--if you weren't running a splitter before or a lower air dam (when you could have in TTB)....

2) I guess you haven't seen the actual fastest ST3/TT3 car built (M3 with many DTM aero features).

3) Rules are written based on the potential of what can be done. It is naive to think that modifications that are permitted, that enhance performance, won't be done sooner or later--It ALWAYS HAPPENS! It is best to limit them from the start of a class if limitations are desired, which they are according to NASA Exec's as we move done the performance levels in this series.

4) Agreed on the brakes---thanks for reminding us that we forgot that one in the rules. It should have followed from PT, and we have added a Technical Bulletin regarding ABS in ST4.

5) High dollar shocks have been allowed in all TT and PT classes--that cat is out of the bag, horse is out of the barn, milk is already spilled.....Early attempts at cost control ran into too many problems with unscrupulous manufactures/dealers.

 

 

Greg - please provide language regarding the the technical bulletin on brakes as I do not see in the ST rules. Have already registered for 2017 events and am concerned this bulletin will contradict previous communications regarding the allowance of Ford Racing ABS in my 2010 Mustang (in Spec Iron trim).

[Greg G.]

 

Greg - please provide language regarding the the technical bulletin on brakes as I do not see in the ST rules. Have already registered for 2017 events and am concerned this bulletin will contradict previous communications regarding the allowance of Ford Racing ABS in my 2010 Mustang (in Spec Iron trim).

 

The TB is posted here on the Forums.

 

If we have previously discussed the Ford Racing ABS in regard to ST or PT, please send me the e-mails we had.

[dbrad]

 

Greg - please provide language regarding the the technical bulletin on brakes as I do not see in the ST rules. Have already registered for 2017 events and am concerned this bulletin will contradict previous communications regarding the allowance of Ford Racing ABS in my 2010 Mustang (in Spec Iron trim).

 

The TB is posted here on the Forums.

 

If we have previously discussed the Ford Racing ABS in regard to ST or PT, please send me the e-mails we had.

 

I found the technical bulletin - thanks.

 

You and I initially addressed for the 2016 season and is why I was bumped from TTB to TT3. In this forum I specifically addressed on page 8 and you answered on page 10. The published rules did not exclude non Oem brakes and I registered for events accordingly.

 

I understand James Cathers points but I believe TT should carve out an exclusion for Spec Iron Mustangs similar to the previous consideration given to the NP01s last year for TT classification. Our region (SE) has the only viable SI class in NASA and last season 4 SI cars ran in TT. Believe 4-5 SI cars plan to run in various TT4 events. Thanks for the consideration.

[JCathers]

Your statements just don't jive. So, weren't you interested in being competitive when you didn't use the full extent of the TTB aero rules, with either a full air dam almost down to the ground along with a belly pan from the air dam to the centerline/axle, or alternatively, a very functional front splitter?

 

There was nothing in TTB to prevent someone from going out and getting double adjustable shocks

 

 

............seriously? We were given a finite amount of points <-- that is why I only had a splitter and not an air dam, and the benefit/points ratio for 8 point shocks prevented most people, myself included, from going that route (just like the points made A7's a non-factor), but without those barriers now it will be the route.

[Greg G.]

 

............seriously? We were given a finite amount of points <-- that is why I only had a splitter and not an air dam, and the benefit/points ratio for 8 point shocks prevented most people, myself included, from going that route (just like the points made A7's a non-factor), but without those barriers now it will be the route.

 

James, I suggest you do some research before any further discussions about this. As well, I did edit your personal attack on your last post, and consider this a final warning.

 

Yes, you had a finite amount of points. And for the same three points for the splitter, you could have had the air dam/undertray that I described. What you don't seem to know, is that companies like Penske sell shocks for $7000-$10,000 (look through their website), that have no external reservoir, no piggyback, and shafts less than 40mm. These are +3 point shocks in PT/TT, not 8 points. There are companies like MCS that are cheaper than that, but still high caliber +3 point shocks. That door has been open a long time. So, it was not the number of points that prevented you from getting good shocks, it was either the cost, or your lack of research. As for the A7's, the Mod Factor will either make them a "non-factor" in ST4, or at least make them a big trade off choice for those using them.

 

This discussion was about the aftermarket lower chin spoiler on the red BMW in the photo. Since you began your comment stating, "So what I'm hearing is I AM going to have to have a air dam fabbed up", it was assumed that you must have had one of these. Apparently you don't, and have a splitter. So, the answer is again, NO, you don't have to have an air dam. You can keep the splitter, assuming it is just a flat splitter that was the +3 points in TTB. Or, you can take all of the Aero mods off, and run OEM Aero, and run with the +0.4 Mod Factor. Or, you can have an air dam fabbed up, and still have the splitter below it. What makes no sense is that this discussion was about having too limiting aero modifications. So, you complaining (because at this point after your edited post, you are complaining) that you need to add a fabbed up air dam would seem to imply that you think we don't have enough limitations. Yet, it is fully your choice to run with the OEM Aero Mod Factor without aero modifications if you want.

[Greg G.]

 

I found the technical bulletin - thanks.

 

You and I initially addressed for the 2016 season and is why I was bumped from TTB to TT3. In this forum I specifically addressed on page 8 and you answered on page 10. The published rules did not exclude non Oem brakes and I registered for events accordingly.

 

I understand James Cathers points but I believe TT should carve out an exclusion for Spec Iron Mustangs similar to the previous consideration given to the NP01s last year for TT classification. Our region (SE) has the only viable SI class in NASA and last season 4 SI cars ran in TT. Believe 4-5 SI cars plan to run in various TT4 events. Thanks for the consideration.

Darren,

 

I do see where I answered you here.

 

I found this that I sent you in January by e-mail:

"TT4 at 12:1 will likely have restrictions on aftermarket ABS like TTB-TTF did."

 

Others may be curious, what does the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of a S.I. come out to be?

 

 

Let's take the SI ABS discussion to e-mail.

[focusedintntions]

*popcorn*

Edited December 22, 2016 by Guest

[daytonars4]

With how the final ratios worked out, the "overweight" E46 M3's will likely be among the top dogs in this class. So why not allow the e36's to upgrade to the e46 ABS systems? I guess I can see an argument for limiting people from going to the expensive race ABS/traction control systems. But not allowing people to use the OEM equipment that other cars in the class have seems odd.

[dbrad]

 

I found the technical bulletin - thanks.

 

You and I initially addressed for the 2016 season and is why I was bumped from TTB to TT3. In this forum I specifically addressed on page 8 and you answered on page 10. The published rules did not exclude non Oem brakes and I registered for events accordingly.

 

I understand James Cathers points but I believe TT should carve out an exclusion for Spec Iron Mustangs similar to the previous consideration given to the NP01s last year for TT classification. Our region (SE) has the only viable SI class in NASA and last season 4 SI cars ran in TT. Believe 4-5 SI cars plan to run in various TT4 events. Thanks for the consideration.

Darren,

 

I do see where I answered you here.

 

I found this that I sent you in January by e-mail:

"TT4 at 12:1 will likely have restrictions on aftermarket ABS like TTB-TTF did."

 

Others may be curious, what does the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio of a S.I. come out to be?

 

 

Let's take the SI ABS discussion to e-mail.

 

Greg - yes taking the ABS discussion offline.

 

Per your suggestion, the WT/HP ratio for Spec Iron mustangs require the maximum to be 11.75 and that does not take into consideration the smoothing factor used in TT4 by averaging. Thus most SI mustangs will be close to or at 12:1 without TT adjustments. Factoring weight and tire adjustments, SI cars will pick up +.5 and some cars will be eligible for the +.4 non OEM aero. Thus it is possible for an SI Mustang to be in the 12.75 to 13:1 range. I ran the full 2016 TT3 season in NASA SE (in SI) trim and the car was not competitive.

 

Look forward to working with you on the ABS issue.

[Chase J.]

RIP CR Lip

[fbirch]

With how the final ratios worked out, the "overweight" E46 M3's will likely be among the top dogs in this class. So why not allow the e36's to upgrade to the e46 ABS systems? I guess I can see an argument for limiting people from going to the expensive race ABS/traction control systems. But not allowing people to use the OEM equipment that other cars in the class have seems odd.

 

Here is the rule:

 

7.3.2.E) ST4 Anti-lock braking systems (ABS)

For ST4 only--Anti-lock braking systems may only be OEM or offered specifically for the car model (any trim model or generation) as a factory option. No OEM systems offered for a different car model or aftermarket systems are permitted.

 

My reading of the "any generation" clause is that you can put an e46 ABS on an e36 and not violate the rule

[Greg G.]

With how the final ratios worked out, the "overweight" E46 M3's will likely be among the top dogs in this class. So why not allow the e36's to upgrade to the e46 ABS systems? I guess I can see an argument for limiting people from going to the expensive race ABS/traction control systems. But not allowing people to use the OEM equipment that other cars in the class have seems odd.

 

Here is the rule:

 

7.3.2.E) ST4 Anti-lock braking systems (ABS)

For ST4 only--Anti-lock braking systems may only be OEM or offered specifically for the car model (any trim model or generation) as a factory option. No OEM systems offered for a different car model or aftermarket systems are permitted.

 

My reading of the "any generation" clause is that you can put an e46 ABS on an e36 and not violate the rule

Correct.

[NorcalTT]

"c) Single flat, horizontal front splitter that protrudes no greater than 4” from the vehicle."

 

Would this 4" be measured from the horizontal distance to the fascia/airdam where the splitter would intersect with the vehicle or would it be from a plumb line dropped from the most forward part of the vehicle?

[Greg G.]

"c) Single flat, horizontal front splitter that protrudes no greater than 4” from the vehicle."

 

Would this 4" be measured from the horizontal distance to the fascia/airdam where the splitter would intersect with the vehicle or would it be from a plumb line dropped from the most forward part of the vehicle?

...Tape measure from the edge of the splitter to the intersection with the vehicle.

[jbjones]

"c) Single flat, horizontal front splitter that protrudes no greater than 4” from the vehicle."

 

Would this 4" be measured from the horizontal distance to the fascia/airdam where the splitter would intersect with the vehicle or would it be from a plumb line dropped from the most forward part of the vehicle?

...Tape measure from the edge of the splitter to the intersection with the vehicle.

 

Apologies for the clarifications as I am new to TT and trying to figure the rules out.

 

For the splitter, on something like an FR-S where the front bumper has the "fangs" on the edges and recesses inwards, would the splitter have to similarly recess in that section? If so, as I read the rules, an extension could be added to the recessed area of the bumper that does not exceed 2" or an angle of 5 degrees and then the recess of the splitter would not be required (if the answer to the previous question is yes), correct?

 

On the rule re: cutting of the rear bumper, can these be cut in the rear of the vehicle as well as the part of the bumper behind the rear wheels and on the side of the vehicle so long as the sections removed do not cover the rear frame/bumper cross beam? Additionally, if the rear frame is higher than the cross beam, can a smaller aftermarket cross beam be run and additional bumper be removed?

[Greg G.]

"c) Single flat, horizontal front splitter that protrudes no greater than 4” from the vehicle."

 

Would this 4" be measured from the horizontal distance to the fascia/airdam where the splitter would intersect with the vehicle or would it be from a plumb line dropped from the most forward part of the vehicle?

...Tape measure from the edge of the splitter to the intersection with the vehicle.

 

Apologies for the clarifications as I am new to TT and trying to figure the rules out.

 

For the splitter, on something like an FR-S where the front bumper has the "fangs" on the edges and recesses inwards, would the splitter have to similarly recess in that section? If so, as I read the rules, an extension could be added to the recessed area of the bumper that does not exceed 2" or an angle of 5 degrees and then the recess of the splitter would not be required (if the answer to the previous question is yes), correct?

 

On the rule re: cutting of the rear bumper, can these be cut in the rear of the vehicle as well as the part of the bumper behind the rear wheels and on the side of the vehicle so long as the sections removed do not cover the rear frame/bumper cross beam? Additionally, if the rear frame is higher than the cross beam, can a smaller aftermarket cross beam be run and additional bumper be removed?

Photos needed for your first question.

 

Even if your model vehicle utilizes a single piece to act as a rear quarter panel/rear bumper cover, the side of the car is still the side of the car, and the area behind the rear tires on the side of the vehicle would likely be interpreted as not being part of the rear fascia. So, it should not be cut, except at the rear to prevent a protest.

The second part of that question:

"every Production vehicle must retain its unmodified:

1) OEM frame rails/rear frame cross beam, and/or Unibody, and Sub-

frames/suspension cross-members (in their OEM locations)."

[39088/1]

Even if your model vehicle utilizes a single piece to act as a rear quarter panel/rear bumper cover, the side of the car is still the side of the car, and the area behind the rear tires on the side of the vehicle would likely be interpreted as not being part of the rear fascia. So, it should not be cut, except at the rear to prevent a protest.

 

is this the actual interpretation of the rule or just a probable scenario that might lead to later discussions about the rule?

 

I'm assuming the area in front of the front tires on the side of the vehicle is considered the front fascia and not the side of the vehicle. being the front fascia the rules of 7.3.2 D 2)e) apply.

 

if my assumption is correct about the front, why wouldn't the entire rear bumper cover/fascia(even behind the rear wheels) be considered part of the rear bumper cover fascia for rule 7.3.2 D 2)e)?

[39088/1]

7.3.2 D 2)

aerodynamic parts/devices/aides shall be limited in ST4 to the following

 

if a car has oem side skirts and an oem rear diffuser will they need to be removed for the car to run in ST4?

 

 

are the cars listed in appendix B exempt from the ST4 limitations?

for example will a bmw be able to use m3 side skirts and an m3 diffuser and still be legal in ST4?

 

the ZR1 listed in appendix B has '(front fascia only)' wording.

does that mean the ZR1 must remove the rear diffuser and side skirts to run in ST4?

[Philostang]

Hi Greg,

 

Got another splitter rule clarification question for you - this one came out of a conversation I recently had w/another potential ST4 driver...

 

So the rule states we can use: "c) Single flat, horizontal front splitter that protrudes no greater than 4” from the vehicle."

 

I read "flat" and "horizontal" to mean the entire splitter must reside on a single plane with all lines parallel to the horizon, both viewed from the front of the car and from the side of the car (sans any inherent angle from rake in the chassis set-up).

 

My buddy reads this to mean only viewed from the front. So under his reading, when viewed from the side the splitter can be flat/horizontal for the first 4" or so, but then have an angle (or more than one) that kicks up in the rear. His claim is that when viewed from the front, all lines of the splitter are parallel with the horizon (so it's "horizontal"), and there are no curves in the splitter (so it's "flat").

 

I think this is a b.s. reading of the rule. Viewed from the side the splitter is clearly NOT flat, nor are all lines parallel with the horizon. Would you please clarify for us before something get's fabricated. =)

 

Best,

-john