Jump to content
Greg G.

UPDATE ST4/TT4 and other for 2017

Recommended Posts

Sterling Doc

 

ST3 = 10:1 power AND 10:1 tire.

- 3150 lb Vette/Z can run 315's

- 2750 lb BMW/S2000 can run 275's

- 2450 lb FWD Honda can run 245's

 

ST4 = 12:1 power AND 12:1 tire

- 3150 lb Vette/Z could run 275's

- 2750 lb BMW could run 245's

- 2450 FWD Honda could run 205's

 

You could also easily adjust for cars that don't weight exactly what tire size they are using. For example...

 

ST4 BMW on 245's = 2750 lbs/245mm = 11.2 lbs/mm, .8 over the limit. So just subtract .8 from the allowed power to weight? This would also allow people that have already fit oversized tires on their car to play, they just need to lower they rev's/tune to a slightly lower power.

 

This is interesting, though it does add some complexity, and the correction may be a bit large. One issue I see in the current rules is that a 285 tire is treated the same as a 345. That's a much larger jump than from a 245 to 275, and I think guys like Terry Fair have demonstrated there are continuing returns from going ever larger (at a big $$ cost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 40

Correct! That is why a tire to weight size factor needs to be considered. Rather than restrict tire size by class, restrict tire to weight ratio's for the classes. For Example...

 

ST3 = 10:1 power AND 10:1 tire.

- 3150 lb Vette/Z can run 315's

- 2750 lb BMW/S2000 can run 275's

- 2450 lb FWD Honda can run 245's

 

ST4 = 12:1 power AND 12:1 tire

- 3150 lb Vette/Z could run 275's

- 2750 lb BMW could run 245's

- 2450 FWD Honda could run 205's

 

You could also easily adjust for cars that don't weight exactly what tire size they are using. For example...

 

ST4 BMW on 245's = 2750 lbs/245mm = 11.2 lbs/mm, .8 over the limit. So just subtract .8 from the allowed power to weight? This would also allow people that have already fit oversized tires on their car to play, they just need to lower they rev's/tune to a slightly lower power.

 

^This. Love this idea! The only thing I would say about it is that in your example of the BMW being 0.8 over the limit so they would subtract 0.8 from their weight/power ratio, that 0.8 seems like it would be awfully high. I think that aspect would require some fiddling with. Also, I think the weight modification factor kind of addresses this issue slightly. for instance I drive a heavy car, so I have a +0.2 weight factor. This idea is definitely worth exploring further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patinum

Looking for a clarification for 2017 for TTC. A lot of us are running dyno reclass with those relcasses giving us power:weight a lot lower than 14.5:1. Would those cars be given updated reclass numbers closer to 14.5? Seems like a big change given that we won't have the modification factor additions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.

Correct! That is why a tire to weight size factor needs to be considered. Rather than restrict tire size by class, restrict tire to weight ratio's for the classes. For Example...

 

ST3 = 10:1 power AND 10:1 tire.

- 3150 lb Vette/Z can run 315's

- 2750 lb BMW/S2000 can run 275's

- 2450 lb FWD Honda can run 245's

 

ST4 = 12:1 power AND 12:1 tire

- 3150 lb Vette/Z could run 275's

- 2750 lb BMW could run 245's

- 2450 FWD Honda could run 205's

 

You could also easily adjust for cars that don't weight exactly what tire size they are using. For example...

 

ST4 BMW on 245's = 2750 lbs/245mm = 11.2 lbs/mm, .8 over the limit. So just subtract .8 from the allowed power to weight? This would also allow people that have already fit oversized tires on their car to play, they just need to lower they rev's/tune to a slightly lower power.

 

^This. Love this idea! The only thing I would say about it is that in your example of the BMW being 0.8 over the limit so they would subtract 0.8 from their weight/power ratio, that 0.8 seems like it would be awfully high. I think that aspect would require some fiddling with. Also, I think the weight modification factor kind of addresses this issue slightly. for instance I drive a heavy car, so I have a +0.2 weight factor. This idea is definitely worth exploring further.

 

Yes I totally agree that the .8 is probably to much, maybe cut that in half. So you can make up being under/over on tire points with half weighted power points. It definitely would need to be fiddled with.

 

The current weight adjustment, IMO, barely makes up for a part of weight that is commonly overlooked, deceleration. Going faster at the end of the front straight away means you also have to slow down that mass, which takes longer, and generates more heat to be dealt with over a race distance. But even so, I would replace that current rule with this one in a heart beat.

 

In my direct example and experience, we have been racing our heavy Z's on 275's against lighter BMWs on 295's all year, with the expected results. I am building a new car for 2017 for ST3 with 315's or 335's, but the BMWs could always go bigger as well, with no further mod penalty, and we'd be screwed again. We can only get the Z's so light without BIG bucks, so if the goal is to have the broadest car variety in ST, then something needs to be done.

 

In the extreme case, we plan on running our NP01 in ST3 on Hoosiers just for fun at Sonoma coming up. Currently they equal ST3 lap times on 245 Toyo's, imagine what is going to happen when we put dot slicks on the car and take no more mod points. It will likely mean destruction of any sedan racecar, because our tire to weight ratio on this car will be so much better, even though it only runs 245's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.

Correct! That is why a tire to weight size factor needs to be considered. Rather than restrict tire size by class, restrict tire to weight ratio's for the classes. For Example...

 

ST3 = 10:1 power AND 10:1 tire.

- 3150 lb Vette/Z can run 315's

- 2750 lb BMW/S2000 can run 275's

- 2450 lb FWD Honda can run 245's

 

ST4 = 12:1 power AND 12:1 tire

- 3150 lb Vette/Z could run 275's

- 2750 lb BMW could run 245's

- 2450 FWD Honda could run 205's

 

You could also easily adjust for cars that don't weight exactly what tire size they are using. For example...

 

ST4 BMW on 245's = 2750 lbs/245mm = 11.2 lbs/mm, .8 over the limit. So just subtract .8 from the allowed power to weight? This would also allow people that have already fit oversized tires on their car to play, they just need to lower they rev's/tune to a slightly lower power.

 

^This. Love this idea! The only thing I would say about it is that in your example of the BMW being 0.8 over the limit so they would subtract 0.8 from their weight/power ratio, that 0.8 seems like it would be awfully high. I think that aspect would require some fiddling with. Also, I think the weight modification factor kind of addresses this issue slightly. for instance I drive a heavy car, so I have a +0.2 weight factor. This idea is definitely worth exploring further.

 

Yes I totally agree that the .8 is probably to much, maybe cut that in half. So you can make up being under/over on tire points with half weighted power points. It definitely would need to be fiddled with.

 

The current weight adjustment, IMO, barely makes up for a part of weight that is commonly overlooked, deceleration. Going faster at the end of the front straight away means you also have to slow down that mass, which takes longer, and generates more heat to be dealt with over a race distance. But even so, I would replace that current rule with this one in a heart beat.

 

In my direct example and experience, we have been racing our heavy Z's on 275's against lighter BMWs on 295's all year, with the expected results. I am building a new car for 2017 for ST3 with 315's or 335's, but the BMWs could always go bigger as well, with no further mod penalty, and we'd be screwed again. We can only get the Z's so light without BIG bucks, so if the goal is to have the broadest car variety in ST, then something needs to be done.

 

In the extreme case, we plan on running our NP01 in ST3 on Hoosiers just for fun at Sonoma coming up. Currently they equal ST3 lap times on 245 Toyo's, imagine what is going to happen when we put dot slicks on the car and take no more mod points. It will likely mean destruction of any sedan racecar, because our tire to weight ratio on this car will be so much better, even though it only runs 245's.

 

Tire size/width restrictions based on weight seems a bit over the top. Keeping Greg's original max tire width suggestion of 275 for ST4 seems more than reasonable. Punishing e36's running 245's (probably the most common sized tire for a mildly prepped BMW racecar) is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.

Tire size/width restrictions based on weight seems a bit over the top. Keeping Greg's original max tire width suggestion of 275 for ST4 seems more than reasonable. Punishing e36's running 245's (probably the most common sized tire for a mildly prepped BMW racecar) is ridiculous.

 

It is not a punishment??? It is balancing car performance. Do you not see the issue? At some point they only make so big of a tire, and if one car weighs significantly more than another and can't upgrade tires to compensate, they are screwed.

 

You really think that .1 of power to weight adjustment is enough from 2600 lbs all the way to 3299 lbs??? .1 adjustment is supposed to make up for cornering forces assuming both cars are on the same tire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.

Tire size/width restrictions based on weight seems a bit over the top. Keeping Greg's original max tire width suggestion of 275 for ST4 seems more than reasonable. Punishing e36's running 245's (probably the most common sized tire for a mildly prepped BMW racecar) is ridiculous.

 

It is not a punishment??? It is balancing car performance. Do you not see the issue? At some point they only make so big of a tire, and if one car weighs significantly more than another and can't upgrade tires to compensate, they are screwed.

 

You really think that .1 of power to weight adjustment is enough from 2600 lbs all the way to 3299 lbs??? .1 adjustment is supposed to make up for cornering forces assuming both cars are on the same tire?

 

What I think is that everyone has a choice with regards to what they decide to run, every platform has advantages/disadvantages over another, bigger is not always better, and a max tire width per class would provide a solution for the perceived fear that people are just going to keep adding more and more tire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JCathers

Soooo are canards/dive planes not going to be allowed in TT4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.

Tire size/width restrictions based on weight seems a bit over the top. Keeping Greg's original max tire width suggestion of 275 for ST4 seems more than reasonable. Punishing e36's running 245's (probably the most common sized tire for a mildly prepped BMW racecar) is ridiculous.

 

It is not a punishment??? It is balancing car performance. Do you not see the issue? At some point they only make so big of a tire, and if one car weighs significantly more than another and can't upgrade tires to compensate, they are screwed.

 

You really think that .1 of power to weight adjustment is enough from 2600 lbs all the way to 3299 lbs??? .1 adjustment is supposed to make up for cornering forces assuming both cars are on the same tire?

 

What I think is that everyone has a choice with regards to what they decide to run, every platform has advantages/disadvantages over another, bigger is not always better, and a max tire width per class would provide a solution for the perceived fear that people are just going to keep adding more and more tire.

 

Except that a max tire size doesn't solve the problem, it just will provide a target for an ideal weight for the class. And if we want ST to truly be broad and cover all types of cars, there can't be an ideal weight within reason, we need to cover our bases. Your comment of "everyone has a choice of what car to run" is implying that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive, or is "choosing" to not be competitive by running a certain car. ST rules in theory should make all cars equal, within reason, no one is going to race a school bus for example.

 

And it is not perceived fear, Tony @ TC, if I can quote your comment on Facebook, "yeah, we've been thinking about going to 315's".

 

What I love about ST is the thought of a BMW M3, a Nissan 350/370z, a Honda S2000, a Toyota Supra, a Mustang, a Corvette, etc., all going into turn 1 together, hopefully with equal grip .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tcdesign

The ST and other power to weight classes are about building a better "mouse trap" If you have not built a mouse trap to keep up with mine, don't penalize me if what I did was with-in the rules. Build a better mouse trap.

 

-tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.

Except that a max tire size doesn't solve the problem, it just will provide a target for an ideal weight for the class. And if we want ST to truly be broad and cover all types of cars, there can't be an ideal weight within reason, we need to cover our bases. Your comment of "everyone has a choice of what car to run" is implying that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive, or is "choosing" to not be competitive by running a certain car. ST rules in theory should make all cars equal, within reason, no one is going to race a school bus for example.

 

And it is not perceived fear, Tony @ TC, if I can quote your comment on Facebook, "yeah, we've been thinking about going to 315's".

 

What I love about ST is the thought of a BMW M3, a Nissan 350/370z, a Honda S2000, a Toyota Supra, a Mustang, a Corvette, etc., all going into turn 1 together, hopefully with equal grip .

 

When I said, 'everyone has a choice of what car to run' it was not to imply that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive. I also certainly don't think that a 25+ year old e36 platform has any sort of unfair advantage over cars many years newer having the advantage of better engineering inherent in progress. What I was implying is that whatever reasonable car (not bus, truck, or Yugo) you choose will have advantages or disadvantages over another and that's what keeps things interesting. Arbitrarily just saying that a certain weight per tire width ratio is going to make things more equal is not realistic and adds complexity without solving a real problem. As an example, if one were to compare an e46 M3 with the same size and compound of tire, at the same power to weight ratio as a similarly prepped e36 m3, even though the e46 will be heavier, the e46 will be faster. I personally think a tire width per weight rule as opposed to a max tire width rule would just create more opportunity for those with deeper pockets to exploit/use better technology elsewhere, negating any supposed advantage a lighter car with less horsepower might have over a heavier car with more horsepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
The ST and other power to weight classes are about building a better "mouse trap" If you have not built a mouse trap to keep up with mine, don't penalize me if what I did was with-in the rules. Build a better mouse trap.

 

-tony

 

This isn't about "penalizing." That is the word being thrown around here. It is about "equalizing."

 

Yes Tony, you've found a potent combination, and it would probably be great for your business if things remain the same and everyone built e36's lol. But for the health of the series, I think you know better. If/when people think they don't have a fair playing field, they will go somewhere else, and it's far less fun to beat up on a field of no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.

Except that a max tire size doesn't solve the problem, it just will provide a target for an ideal weight for the class. And if we want ST to truly be broad and cover all types of cars, there can't be an ideal weight within reason, we need to cover our bases. Your comment of "everyone has a choice of what car to run" is implying that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive, or is "choosing" to not be competitive by running a certain car. ST rules in theory should make all cars equal, within reason, no one is going to race a school bus for example.

 

And it is not perceived fear, Tony @ TC, if I can quote your comment on Facebook, "yeah, we've been thinking about going to 315's".

 

What I love about ST is the thought of a BMW M3, a Nissan 350/370z, a Honda S2000, a Toyota Supra, a Mustang, a Corvette, etc., all going into turn 1 together, hopefully with equal grip .

 

When I said, 'everyone has a choice of what car to run' it was not to imply that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive. I also certainly don't think that a 25+ year old e36 platform has any sort of unfair advantage over cars many years newer having the advantage of better engineering inherent in progress. What I was implying is that whatever reasonable car (not bus, truck, or Yugo) you choose will have advantages or disadvantages over another and that's what keeps things interesting. Arbitrarily just saying that a certain weight per tire width ratio is going to make things more equal is not realistic and adds complexity without solving a real problem. As an example, if one were to compare an e46 M3 with the same size and compound of tire, at the same power to weight ratio as a similarly prepped e36 m3, even though the e46 will be heavier, the e46 will be faster. I personally think a tire width per weight rule as opposed to a max tire width rule would just create more opportunity for those with deeper pockets to exploit/use better technology elsewhere, negating any supposed advantage a lighter car with less horsepower might have over a heavier car with more horsepower.

 

That is an interesting assessment. Maybe someone who knows the chassis better could enlighten us, but why do you think a new chassis would just be magically faster?

 

I still don't see your point in how you think it would help level the playing field. We already moniter and try to level the playing field in how many G's a car can pull in a straight line, why wouldn't it make sense to try to limit how many G's a car can pull in a corner?

 

How can it hurt?

 

We already have a form where we plug in numbers, this would just be one more number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.

Except that a max tire size doesn't solve the problem, it just will provide a target for an ideal weight for the class. And if we want ST to truly be broad and cover all types of cars, there can't be an ideal weight within reason, we need to cover our bases. Your comment of "everyone has a choice of what car to run" is implying that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive, or is "choosing" to not be competitive by running a certain car. ST rules in theory should make all cars equal, within reason, no one is going to race a school bus for example.

 

And it is not perceived fear, Tony @ TC, if I can quote your comment on Facebook, "yeah, we've been thinking about going to 315's".

 

What I love about ST is the thought of a BMW M3, a Nissan 350/370z, a Honda S2000, a Toyota Supra, a Mustang, a Corvette, etc., all going into turn 1 together, hopefully with equal grip .

 

When I said, 'everyone has a choice of what car to run' it was not to imply that everyone should buy whatever car is proven to be the most competitive. I also certainly don't think that a 25+ year old e36 platform has any sort of unfair advantage over cars many years newer having the advantage of better engineering inherent in progress. What I was implying is that whatever reasonable car (not bus, truck, or Yugo) you choose will have advantages or disadvantages over another and that's what keeps things interesting. Arbitrarily just saying that a certain weight per tire width ratio is going to make things more equal is not realistic and adds complexity without solving a real problem. As an example, if one were to compare an e46 M3 with the same size and compound of tire, at the same power to weight ratio as a similarly prepped e36 m3, even though the e46 will be heavier, the e46 will be faster. I personally think a tire width per weight rule as opposed to a max tire width rule would just create more opportunity for those with deeper pockets to exploit/use better technology elsewhere, negating any supposed advantage a lighter car with less horsepower might have over a heavier car with more horsepower.

 

That is an interesting assessment. Maybe someone who knows the chassis better could enlighten us, but why do you think a new chassis would just be magically faster?

 

I still don't see your point in how you think it would help level the playing field. We already moniter and try to level the playing field in how many G's a car can pull in a straight line, why wouldn't it make sense to try to limit how many G's a car can pull in a corner?

 

How can it hurt?

 

We already have a form where we plug in numbers, this would just be one more number.

 

Hi Brian - I don't necessarily think that a newer chassis will just be magically faster, but I do think that newer technology in general is better than old. I was using 'chassis' as a general term for the baseline of the production car being used to build a racecar. If we can agree for example that a 2016 Porsche 911 is going to be an overall better platform than a 1969 911, we could probably also agree that if you were to put the same tires on each car and restrict the HP to weight ratio of the 2016 to that of the 1969 Porsche, the 2016 will be the better car. It's somewhat of an extreme example, but the main point is that overall grip is dependent on many more factors than a tire width to weight ratio and that trying to assign a penalty will hurt some cars more than others - with the same ratio. On the other hand, putting a cap on tire width keeps the rules simple and while it might not solve for everything, it's a good step while not creating too much of a slippery slope. I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere and I'm sure that Greg and company will come up with something that makes sense. I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts, but my vote would be (at least for ST4) to have limits on tire width, but not ratios for weight to tire width.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gkmccready
I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts, but my vote would be (at least for ST4) to have limits on tire width, but not ratios for weight to tire width.

 

I'll actually disagree. Testing has proven that if you over-tire a light weight, lower horsepower car you actually slow the car down, so I'm not entirely sure a tire width limit helps anybody in the lower ST classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flier129

Correct! That is why a tire to weight size factor needs to be considered. Rather than restrict tire size by class, restrict tire to weight ratio's for the classes. For Example...

 

ST3 = 10:1 power AND 10:1 tire.

- 3150 lb Vette/Z can run 315's

- 2750 lb BMW/S2000 can run 275's

- 2450 lb FWD Honda can run 245's

 

ST4 = 12:1 power AND 12:1 tire

- 3150 lb Vette/Z could run 275's

- 2750 lb BMW could run 245's

- 2450 FWD Honda could run 205's

 

You could also easily adjust for cars that don't weight exactly what tire size they are using. For example...

 

ST4 BMW on 245's = 2750 lbs/245mm = 11.2 lbs/mm, .8 over the limit. So just subtract .8 from the allowed power to weight? This would also allow people that have already fit oversized tires on their car to play, they just need to lower they rev's/tune to a slightly lower power.

 

 

Tire size/width restrictions based on weight seems a bit over the top. Keeping Greg's original max tire width suggestion of 275 for ST4 seems more than reasonable. Punishing e36's running 245's (probably the most common sized tire for a mildly prepped BMW racecar) is ridiculous.

 

 

Tire to weight does seem a bit convoluted... It's like taking one step forward(moving to ST rule-set), but then one big step back(having a crazy weight/tire formula to follow to be legal for class).

 

Why would it not follow something similar to the current ST123 tire mod rule-set, but with different sizes?

 

Such as....

275mm = 0

245mm or smaller = -0.3

225mm or smaller = -0.6

205mm or smaller = -0.9

 

Inb4 "this favors miataaas!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sterling Doc
I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts, but my vote would be (at least for ST4) to have limits on tire width, but not ratios for weight to tire width.

 

I'll actually disagree. Testing has proven that if you over-tire a light weight, lower horsepower car you actually slow the car down, so I'm not entirely sure a tire width limit helps anybody in the lower ST classes.

 

It may be possible to over-tire a car, but it is pretty hard with proper wheels & geometry. If you add in that a wider tire allows a softer compound to last a whole race, the tire "bell curve" for optimal tire size in a racing situation is shifted pretty far to the right. Even Miatas go faster on lightweight 9" wheels and wide, soft tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubiePig

The hardest part of this rule change roll out with one class at a time for me, and I am curious if others are in the same situation, is that I have started to build a TTB car that now will not be competitive in TT4 as I cant get to the power to weight with out a large cost increase. With the purposed TT5 PTW the car will fit perfect with some ballast but I cant step down to TTC for its last year due to points.. So I am basically in a situation that I sit with the car on jackstands not knowing what will or will not have a modification factor to it as far as aero and other mods till the rules for TT5 come out in late 2017. I am sure I am not the only one that is in this spot, when its all rolled out I think it will be great with possible larger fields and closer competition but the one by one roll out is putting people stuck between classes or ineligible for the one below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave

A tire cap with a huge weight difference is just a non-starter if you ask me...

 

Car "A": 300hp, 3600lbs, 275mm tires.

Car "B": 191hp, 2300lbs, 275mm tires.

 

Does anybody want to predict which has the advantage under braking, which is where the bulk of the passing is going to be? Even if you give a 0.5 bonus to the HP car, and a 0.5 penalty to the light-weight, you still have a difference of over a half ton, on the same contact patch... This is to say nothing of how the two will fare loaded up in a corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
A tire cap with a huge weight difference is just a non-starter if you ask me...

 

Car "A": 300hp, 3600lbs, 275mm tires.

Car "B": 191hp, 2300lbs, 275mm tires.

 

Does anybody want to predict which has the advantage under braking, which is where the bulk of the passing is going to be? Even if you give a 0.5 bonus to the HP car, and a 0.5 penalty to the light-weight, you still have a difference of over a half ton, on the same contact patch... This is to say nothing of how the two will fare loaded up in a corner.

 

^Yes! I am glad I am not alone on this one . A max tire size for a class clearly favors the lighter cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geeveepee
A tire cap with a huge weight difference is just a non-starter if you ask me...

 

Car "A": 300hp, 3600lbs, 275mm tires.

Car "B": 191hp, 2300lbs, 275mm tires.

 

Does anybody want to predict which has the advantage under braking, which is where the bulk of the passing is going to be? Even if you give a 0.5 bonus to the HP car, and a 0.5 penalty to the light-weight, you still have a difference of over a half ton, on the same contact patch... This is to say nothing of how the two will fare loaded up in a corner.

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dbrad

I'm currently in a 11.75 Weight/Power Ratio car running TT3 because I was bumped up due to using after market brake module (Ford Racing). Assuming I meet the 12:1 ratio in the car with the after market brake module would the car be eligible for ST4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon B.
I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts, but my vote would be (at least for ST4) to have limits on tire width, but not ratios for weight to tire width.

 

I'll actually disagree. Testing has proven that if you over-tire a light weight, lower horsepower car you actually slow the car down, so I'm not entirely sure a tire width limit helps anybody in the lower ST classes.

 

I'd agree with that Glenn. There was a GTS2 car trying to run super wide a few years ago at Western Nationals and in talking to him later, he regretted that decision as the car couldn't get out of it's own way. It had great grip in the corners and braked well, but it was slow everywhere else. Given the choice of open, a cap, or some random ratio, I'd take open. Second choice would be a cap. Another question is, is tire width a national/global problem or are we making an issue out of a non issue? What are other series with open cars doing with regards to tire width?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian L.
Another question is, is tire width a national/global problem or are we making an issue out of a non issue? What are other series with open cars doing with regards to tire width?

 

I don't think that is a fair question to ask because ST only recently started to cater to the small bore type cars this last year with the average HP rule. Before that you had a lot of big bore cars, like a big heavy Vette, with 335's. Then started the influx of BMW's, Honda's, and Nissan's in to ST3 as of late 2015. The current iteration of the class is still young, and the tire wars haven't started yet. But I would bet good money that soon, in ST3 anyway, if you aren't on 315's, you won't be on the podium. I am hoping to stop that $$$ battle with my proposed solution. Yes ST4 will help that with a tire cap, but I continue to state the fact that a cap favors lighter cars. I'd like to hear an argument on how it doesn't, might change my mind .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Percyhoward

Let's please not do this tire debate ad nauseum. I think there are a lot of factors involved in why the e36s in NorCal have done well. Love ya Brian, but I agree with TC, build a better mouse trap. I agree with the 275 cap. I myself plan to run 255s in st4 because I am no faster on 285s than on 255s...that could be driver, whatever. St4 will be really cool, it's s great idea with a lot of enthusiasm for next year. Again let's please not kill it with analysis paralysis. I think the preliminary proposed rules look great as they stand. Peace!!!

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...