2017 Rules Proposal - Remove Displacement Limits

[7VO-VOM]

GTS is a power to weight class. Displacement has no part in that classification calculation. When part of the rules proposals and changes last year were to reduce costs, all displacement limits serve to do is increase costs by encouraging built motors with higher initial costs, higher operating costs, and shorter lives. That drives up costs and drives out competitors. The addition of displacement limits was completely illogical, reactionary, destructive to GTS fields, and goes against the spirit of the rules.

[Michael G.]

7VO-VOM,

 

Sorry to disappoint, but removal of the displacement limits is not on the table for 2017. As I stated in the original thread - we are committed to no big changes in Rules for 2017. We are concentrating our efforts on the developing the in car compliance tool via Black Boxes, and as I mentioned before, not until we have that in place, would be introducing bigger changes in Rules - the target is for 2018. We are hoping to test new devices through out 2017 season and If all works well - the removal of displacement limits as well as other changes will be considered after.

 

Thank you for the submission.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[7VO-VOM]

Can we go back to this time in 2015 and take all those asinine changes off the table in order to wait for the black boxes to serve their purpose? Why were changes forced on the class against the vast majority of participant racer input in 2015, and yet the first suggestion for (undoing/fixing) a change is summarily dismissed before any participant racer discussion in 2016?

[Michael G.]

No, we can not go back to 2015.

 

We actually have a lot of positive feedback on the changes introduced for 2016 and see the variety of cars in some classes that were pushed out of GTS entirely, so as you can see - there are different opinions on the subject. What the vast majority agrees upon now - is to keep the Rules intact for time being. I happened to travel to different Regions and see first hand a different picture from what you describe. And 52 cars at the Glen were not exactly a show of the collapse of the class. We also established pretty clearly that unlike in your statement - the majority of drivers did see the problem and were for the change - not against.

 

On another note - no one was pushed out of GTS. Displacement limits didn't make any of the cars illegal to run in GTS - some had to be re-classed. Few drivers choose to leave the class, many others decided to stay and run in a higher class, some might not liked it, but still stayed and actually found a good competition there, supported the class and contributed actively. That is why active GTS drivers will have the first hand here.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[7VO-VOM]

Michael,

 

Certain cars were pushed out of popular classes in their region into classes with non-existent participation. That is effectively being chased out. There were no gloves in their intakes or any other valid, measurable reasons to single them out. They simply had cars that were arbitrarily ruled to be different despite measurably equal performance.

 

If ESC was not at a "bucket list" track like WGI this year, you would not have seen the participation you did. Several who did participate have already said they will never attend a NASA Championship event again based on how that event ran. WSC had laughable GTS participation with most (all?) classes not meeting the 5 car minimum even after allowing participants who had not met the qualification minimums.

[Michael G.]

WSC had 4 car per class requirement.

VIR is on the bucket list too - isn't it?

You've heard from few drivers after WGI? I was there to speak to drivers and see the level of competition. And everyone I spoke to said GTS group was the best.

If you would race in GTS4, I believe there are few more cars in 4 in your Region, so I don't think that was the reason you switched to ST.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[7VO-VOM]

The requirement for ESC was 5 cars per class, not 4. Are the rules different between ESC and WSC?

 

As far as being a 'bucket list' track, I doubt many would put VIR on the same level as WGI. As an actual driver's track, they are about equal, but I'm pretty sure VIR was a cow pasture when WGI hosted its last Formula 1 race.

 

I could run GTS4, 300lbs overweight with my max tune. John can't. Both of us invested heavily to build legal GTS3 cars, never cheated, and were booted out.

[Michael G.]

Yes, WSC requirement was different 4 not 5.

 

The attendance at WSC was always low and mainly dependent on the schedule allowing to supersize between Spec E30, 944, ST, PT and GTS. Aside of the fact that Buttonwillow is not a very popular track, the schedule made it difficult to supersize. The actual number of cars was not any less than at Laguna in 2015, but no super sizing this time. In addition we had attrition between Thursday and Sunday.

 

We were considering the exception for S62 to allow him to run in 4, but he was not interested, as I understood.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[7VO-VOM]

In a power to weight class with basically no modification restrictions, why is an exception needed based on an engine's model number from the factory? I still find it hard to understand how people with $3-8k stock engines are perceived cheaters to be forced out of class, and yet people (such as you) with $15k+ VAC/Fletcher/Dinan-built stroker motors are more acceptable in lower classes with greater maximum power (and the associated room to cheat). Did any of the 3 (publicly known) people caught cheating at recent championship events have S65 or S62 engines? Where did this illogical fear of engines that make reliable and economical power come from? How did directors come up with the arbitrary displacement numbers by class (other than looking at a list of Porsche models)?

 

You said at one point that there was nothing you could do to allow John's car to be in GTS4. Then you offered him a waiver. If you were him, would you take a waiver to compete in a class where the rules were changed to kick you out as a perceived cheater? I wouldn't. I didn't, even after you offered me a waiver to run in GTS3 despite the rules putting my car in GTS4.

[Michael G.]

Matt,

 

I never offered you a waiver, I offered to explore the restrictor plates development to the benefit of the class. And I am not running my car in a lower class, with the compression level I have - it is GTS4 at a max. I also don't know too many cars that all of a sudden being built because of the rule change, but also know that no one can roll into the event with the large displacement S65 and claim 200 HP to run in GTS2, causing a lot of finger pointing, especially knowing that many Regions have no compliance tools.

Honestly, I am tired of beating the dead horse here - we've been through this discussion many times.

You made your choice and hope you happy with it.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

[mcdonaldsracing]

The funny thing is that I wouldn't even need to detune if I were allowed to run in 4, lol. At the weight I ran this past year in ST3 I would have to run 375hp to maximize for gts4. Stock, my s62 puts down between 350-360whp. In fact, my max tune that I ran in the 2015 grassroots UTCC was only 372whp. I'm sure that number could possibly be improved upon, but point is that I would most likely be having to tune for more power if I was allowed to run gts4 (not detune, which seems to be causing the cheating perception). I really don't care either way anymore, but it would've been nice to have the option to participate in that big gts4 field that was at the ECC (and get away from all those damn American made cars in ST, lol)