UPDATE ST4/TT4 and other for 2017

[Greg G.]

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...

 

If your car is still at 13:1, including the +1.0 for FWD (or was that with the proposed +0.6), the likely +0.7 for 245's, then it is likely one of those TTC cars that belongs in ST4/TT4 anyway. I posted above why we are not going to have the same Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio for ST4/TT4 and PTC/TTC in '17--that would not make sense. If you need to detune to make 14.5:1 (maybe 14.0, but more likley 14.5) for '17, then you would have to for '18 as well anyway if you don't want to be in ST4/TT4.

[geeveepee]

Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars.

 

-tony colicchio

TC Design

 

Section 7.3.2 C 1. of the 2016 TT rules indicate that sub-frame connectors and cage reinforcements through the floor pan are to be assessed at the discretion of the National Director. I never understood why these were allowed in GTS and not in ST. They don't offer a performance advantage, just prevent the weak BMW subframe from ripping out. What will the National Director assess in 2017?

So, its not an advantage to not have your subframe rip out?

 

 

In advance, it's a jerk thing to say and I only do it for the humor value, but...

 

I guess the subframe isn't part of a better mousetrap?

[Greg G.]

 

Hi Brian - I think that most of us would share your vision of wanting to have larger fields of cars competing fairly. Many of us have also witnessed the downfall of a series where overly complex rules, in overreaction to a perceived 'problem' largely voiced by a minority of participants, were applied. Where I believe there is disagreement is:

 

1) the owners of the higher HP, heavier ('Big Bore') cars think they are at a disadvantage with regards to tire sizing as compared to the lower weight, lower HP ('Flyweight') cars in the turns. They are.

2) the Flyweight cars think they are at a disadvantage to the Big Bore cars on the straights. They are.

 

The advantages and disadvantages of either choice are what keeps things interesting. Depending on the track, the driver, aero, suspension, whatever, each type (Big Bore vs Flyweight) may have an advantage over the other on any given day. Look to the early days of SCCA Trans Am racing as an example.

 

Maybe a cap isn't the right answer and maybe the mod factors as written could be improved, but let's not kill the allure of a power to weight class by trying to apply a linear formula (tire width to weight) to a non linear scenario. Let the racers/market figure out what's best for themselves.

 

Guys, I agree with this. As long as we have the large car guys telling us they are at a disadvantage, and the smaller car guys telling us the same thing, and the racing proves that both wash out evenly depending on the track, we have it right. I also agree that we want to keep ST as non-complex as possible, yet don't have some of the ridiculous possibilities that completely open rules would allow and kill the series. So, with that said, I would not be in favor of a tire/wt ratio at this time. We have plenty of ability to make adjustments using the Mod Factors for weight and tire size, along with the potential cap for the lowest class (as opposed to adding more Mod Factors). I cap of 295 is also in consideration.

[jldefanti]

Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars.

 

-tony colicchio

TC Design

 

Section 7.3.2 C 1. of the 2016 TT rules indicate that sub-frame connectors and cage reinforcements through the floor pan are to be assessed at the discretion of the National Director. I never understood why these were allowed in GTS and not in ST. They don't offer a performance advantage, just prevent the weak BMW subframe from ripping out. What will the National Director assess in 2017?

So, its not an advantage to not have your subframe rip out?

 

Please send me the $20,000 engineer's study and all calculations showing that there is no performance advantage to having sub-frame connectors in a BMW that tie the cage to the subframe, through the floor. Please include comparisons to stock, basic cage, multiple different cage combinations, seam welded vs not, and include the different models of E36 and E46 cars that have different chassis (318's, two door, four door, etc.). Also, include the exact specifications of the proposed subframe connectors--or include a separate study for various proposals. Then, please send me the $50,000 study of at least 5 other highly used car models in ST for comparison. Once we have that data, and it shows that you are correct, and we know that what we intuitively think for most vehicles is an advantage based on past experience is incorrect, we will change the rule, and open it up for all models. For now, Appendix A of the ST Rules discusses permitted repair/prevention for E46's, and the allowance of the Sub-frame connectors through the floor for Mustangs and BMW E36 M3's for a -0.2 Mod Factor (an entire 50 lbs in ST4 for a 250 hp vehicle).

 

Before I spend $50,000 for an engineering study on cars I don't have, can you please explain why you didn't do this in GTS but did it in ST which is also supposed to be primarily a power-to-weight class? Also why penalize the E36 and the mustang and not the E46?

[Greg G.]

 

Before I spend $50,000 for an engineering study on cars I don't have, can you please explain why you didn't do this in GTS but did it in ST which is also supposed to be primarily a power-to-weight class? Also why penalize the E36 and the mustang and not the E46?

I don't remember doing anything in GTS?

GTS has always been a less regulated series than ST--although each year it seems their rules get closer and closer to the ST Rules.

The E46 had a documented manufacture recall, and the allowance is the same repair/prevention that the manufacture recall recommends. It has nothing to do with taking a race cage and attaching it to the subframe, or adding subframe connectors.

[Daniel Pyziak]

What is the penalty for an E46/E46M running rear subframe connectors (though the floor and connecting to a cage)? Will it also be a 0.2 adjustment? If so can it be published in the appendix?

 

Thanks,

[zdr93523]

Forgive me if this is in the 11 pages, but do you have the proposed new power to weight limits for ST1 and ST2? I'm guessing they'll differ slightly than the current rules since ST3 changes last year with the move to the avg. hp. I applaud this move big time! I think its either this or we need a hp vs. torque consideration. Thank you Greg for the work on this.

[Greg G.]

What is the penalty for an E46/E46M running rear subframe connectors (though the floor and connecting to a cage)? Will it also be a 0.2 adjustment? If so can it be published in the appendix?

 

Thanks,

No "penalty", just an "assessment" Yes, it would also be -0.2, and we will add it to the Appendix with the E36 and Mustangs.

[Greg G.]

Forgive me if this is in the 11 pages, but do you have the proposed new power to weight limits for ST1 and ST2? I'm guessing they'll differ slightly than the current rules since ST3 changes last year with the move to the avg. hp. I applaud this move big time! I think its either this or we need a hp vs. torque consideration. Thank you Greg for the work on this.

Sorry, I should have put that on page 1.

 

Yes, ST1 should move to 6.0:1 with the Avg HP, and ST2 will stay at 8.0:1 using Avg HP.

 

So,

ST1 6.0:1

ST2 8.0:1

ST3 10.0:1

ST4 12.0:1

PTC 14.5:1 for '17 (maybe)---but using the ST Formula and Avg HP

[flier129]

Forgive me if this is in the 11 pages, but do you have the proposed new power to weight limits for ST1 and ST2? I'm guessing they'll differ slightly than the current rules since ST3 changes last year with the move to the avg. hp. I applaud this move big time! I think its either this or we need a hp vs. torque consideration. Thank you Greg for the work on this.

Sorry, I should have put that on page 1.

 

Yes, ST1 should move to 6.0:1 with the Avg HP, and ST2 will stay at 8.0:1 using Avg HP.

 

So,

ST1 6.0:1

ST2 8.0:1

ST3 10.0:1

ST4 12.0:1

PTC 14.5:1 for '17 (maybe)---but using the ST Formula and Avg HP

 

I know this might seem apparent, but just wanted double confirmation. PTD/E will continue with the old PT dyno reclass calculation using max HP : weight and not avg HP, correct?

 

I'm personally not opposed to using avg HP for D/E in 2017 , though

[whoahstu]

Forgive me if this is in the 11 pages, but do you have the proposed new power to weight limits for ST1 and ST2? I'm guessing they'll differ slightly than the current rules since ST3 changes last year with the move to the avg. hp. I applaud this move big time! I think its either this or we need a hp vs. torque consideration. Thank you Greg for the work on this.

Sorry, I should have put that on page 1.

 

Yes, ST1 should move to 6.0:1 with the Avg HP, and ST2 will stay at 8.0:1 using Avg HP.

 

So,

ST1 6.0:1

ST2 8.0:1

ST3 10.0:1

ST4 12.0:1

PTC 14.5:1 for '17 (maybe)---but using the ST Formula and Avg HP

 

I know this might seem apparent, but just wanted double confirmation. PTD/E will continue with the old PT dyno reclass calculation using max HP : weight and not avg HP, correct?

 

I'm personally not opposed to using avg HP for D/E in 2017 , though

I'm for the proposed 17:1 for PTE/TTE. It may also help convince some F cars to move to E.

 

However, I would assume that the dyno reclasses would be adjusted to reflect the change.

[zdr93523]

Awesome! Thank you. We should add this to the OP for everyone. It looks like I can lose some weight for next year which will help level things out against the cars with double the torque.

 

Forgive me if this is in the 11 pages, but do you have the proposed new power to weight limits for ST1 and ST2? I'm guessing they'll differ slightly than the current rules since ST3 changes last year with the move to the avg. hp. I applaud this move big time! I think its either this or we need a hp vs. torque consideration. Thank you Greg for the work on this.

Sorry, I should have put that on page 1.

 

Yes, ST1 should move to 6.0:1 with the Avg HP, and ST2 will stay at 8.0:1 using Avg HP.

 

So,

ST1 6.0:1

ST2 8.0:1

ST3 10.0:1

ST4 12.0:1

PTC 14.5:1 for '17 (maybe)---but using the ST Formula and Avg HP

[kbrew8991]

ST4/5/6 range are we still going to stack up some correction factors such that you still have to pick and choose the avenues ou wish to optimize (ie instead of picking points to spend you pick a couple factors to deal with instead)? Or are we going to see people in those ranges doing development all of the many areas (beyond just aero) of the car?

 

And will tires slower than Hoosiers get ever get a break?

[Balroks]

Such as say Maxxis who's a paying sponsor.

[Greg G.]

 

I know this might seem apparent, but just wanted double confirmation. PTD/E will continue with the old PT dyno reclass calculation using max HP : weight and not avg HP, correct?

 

I'm personally not opposed to using avg HP for D/E in 2017 , though

That is correct--still use Max HP for D/E/F. It would require new Dyno re-classes for everyone, and also a reconfiguration of the limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio.

[Arca_ex]

 

I know this might seem apparent, but just wanted double confirmation. PTD/E will continue with the old PT dyno reclass calculation using max HP : weight and not avg HP, correct?

 

I'm personally not opposed to using avg HP for D/E in 2017 , though

That is correct--still use Max HP for D/E/F. It would require new Dyno re-classes for everyone, and also a reconfiguration of the limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio.

 

 

What is the purpose of doing this and forcing everyone to make adjustments and submit new dyno reclasses if it's changing for 2018 anyways? If this happens I'll just not attend any NASA events for 2017. There's other organizations that I can run for a year with no changes to the car...

[Jon B.]

 

I know this might seem apparent, but just wanted double confirmation. PTD/E will continue with the old PT dyno reclass calculation using max HP : weight and not avg HP, correct?

 

I'm personally not opposed to using avg HP for D/E in 2017 , though

That is correct--still use Max HP for D/E/F. It would require new Dyno re-classes for everyone, and also a reconfiguration of the limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio.

 

 

What is the purpose of doing this and forcing everyone to make adjustments and submit new dyno reclasses if it's changing for 2018 anyways? If this happens I'll just not attend any NASA events for 2017. There's other organizations that I can run for a year with no changes to the car...

 

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. D/E/F will stay the same for 2017.

[Arca_ex]

 

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. D/E/F will stay the same for 2017.

 

You don't know that until the final rules drop. How many times in the past have they considered one thing and then the rules get released and they went a different direction? Look at the original post.

[jpreston]

What is the purpose of doing this and forcing everyone to make adjustments and submit new dyno reclasses if it's changing for 2018 anyways?

 

Agreed. Please don't change D/E/F for 2017 and then change everything again for 2018.

[ja1217]

What is the purpose of doing this and forcing everyone to make adjustments and submit new dyno reclasses if it's changing for 2018 anyways?

 

Agreed. Please don't change D/E/F for 2017 and then change everything again for 2018.

 

I think you guys may have misinterpreted Greg's post. I read it as nothing is changing for 2017 and we are still using Max HP for dyno reclass because moving to avg hp would require everyone to re-dyno and new adjusted hp modifications. So you shouldn't have to re-dyno anything until 2018. I could be wrong, but I think this is what Greg was trying to say.

 

That said, I'm still waiting for some clarification on the aero rules for ST4 as to whether or not any additional aero pieces such as diffusers or canards are going to be forbidden or just cost some extra adjusted hp.

[slowap2]

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?

[Greg G.]

What is the purpose of doing this and forcing everyone to make adjustments and submit new dyno reclasses if it's changing for 2018 anyways?

 

Agreed. Please don't change D/E/F for 2017 and then change everything again for 2018.

 

I think you guys may have misinterpreted Greg's post. I read it as nothing is changing for 2017 and we are still using Max HP for dyno reclass because moving to avg hp would require everyone to re-dyno and new adjusted hp modifications. So you shouldn't have to re-dyno anything until 2018. I could be wrong, but I think this is what Greg was trying to say.

 

That said, I'm still waiting for some clarification on the aero rules for ST4 as to whether or not any additional aero pieces such as diffusers or canards are going to be forbidden or just cost some extra adjusted hp.

Correct--planning no changes for D/E/F at this time for '17 (other than the possible slight bump in the limit on Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio)--but most likely nothing.

Still not sure about "additional aero" for ST4--because this is where we start getting into the $10-20K aero packages that we would like to avoid in this class, we may not allow it, and if we did, the Mod Factor would be prohibitively high for someone with just a diffuser or canards.

[Greg G.]

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.

[heavychevy]

!

 

How about we don't change the TT3 rules every year? Some of us already have a stock pile of A7s for TT3.

 

No one is saying you can't run them... but they are faster than R's, hands down, and some cars can't run them, either do to weight or tire size limitations, so cars that can have an unfair advantage.

 

A's come in the same sizes as R's so being faster than R's and not available in all sizes should not both be counted against them. The general consensus is that the z214's are as fast if not faster and dont come bigger than 275.

 

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.

[slowap2]

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.