Jump to content
focusedintntions

2017 Rule Proposal - GTS2 power/weight and penalties

Recommended Posts

focusedintntions

I'd like to propose that the power/weight ratio be bumped up for gts 2 be bumped up from 14.5 to maybe a 14 or even 13.5 With ST4 coming online next year a big draw is the slightly better power ratio that people can run.

 

Also I'd like to petition that that penalty for running non dot tires be less significant. Under the current rules the penalty of 1.5 makes it impossible to run competitively in that class. There's a big market for used conti series tires out there (both rain and dry) and they don't provide any significant advantage over their DOT counterparts. None of us can easily add over 300lbs of ballast. In the slower classes such as ours that weight carries a much more significant penalty for over all pace than in the higher hp classes. The penalty should be .5-.75.

 

 

~Chris Davis

NASA MA #17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

A 13.5 ratio would not be detrimental to the vast majority of the GTS2 cars that I have seen. The most common motors are S50/52. The 986 Porsche Boxster's can make around 220-230whp and they are easily well under 3k lbs, so no problem for them. The E30's are super light anyway so a slightly higher ratio should not be any issue for them. Most of the e36's, even non M, have S50/52 swaps. This would help not only with racers easily supersizing with ST4/Spec46, but will also further reducing detuning of the common cars in class. Since many regions still don't have proper compliance tools reducing detuning with a higher ratio should be a positive right?

 

The 1.5 slick penalty is excessive which is why nobody ever uses slicks in GTS2. Something closer to .75 would make it an option but still likely not the preferred tire.

 

Lawrence Gibson

NASA MA

Audi #82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wazgtsRacer

Fully Support this change! I think 13.5 power/weight would be a great opportunity to allow supersizing, but also not having to ballast up so many cars in GTS2. Only problem I can see is their will be an even larger gap in speed/performance between the GTS1 and GTS2 cars.... a gap that is already very large. With GTS1 numbers being kinda low already, not sure if this would be a factor. Also this would equal more $$$. More dyno time and guys who run custom ECU's more tuning. Id swap out a restrictor plate so its essentially free(outside of dyno time) to change my P/W but its the other guys I worry about not wanting to invest in yet another tune.

 

I would also add to this rule change that we should allow S54 powered E36s back into GTS2(or just get rid of the CC rule completely). with a higher p/w ratio, the ability to de-tune is more limited. In addition, a removal of the CC rule would allow us who run a "natural" motor in GTS-2 to build a motor from the ground up. I have an old s52 that needs to honed and bored, but if i do so, the overbore will push me over the 3199CC limit... so ive been sitting on it for a year. Now Junk yard S52s are still around, but most need some work. Soon we are going to need to be rebuilding our S52s, not simply looking for a decent junk yard one. That brings me to another compliance issue with the CC limit. If I did overbore an S52 and dropped in in my e36.... how would we make sure im within the CC limit. Id have it de-tuned for the class so the dyno would be legal and if I didnt tell anyone no one would suspect it being over bored. Would we tear down the motor and inspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

Matt,

Just keep your rebuild secret...duh!

 

But to counter your point about retunes vs plates. I think a lot of people wouldn't even need to retune, they could just remove ballast (which is free!) . In our region we have a couple cars that are very light weight and have to both detuned and ballasted up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

Matt,

 

There are simple tools to measure displacement, especially in a BMW engine, so no tear down needed. But if it comes to tear down and if you found in not disclosing the bore on your declaration form - the consequences are not pretty. Again, until we get working on board compliance device, we will keep the displacement limits in place.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wazgtsRacer

I just brought up the CC rule for GTS2 as it will be an issue in a few years with the S52 specifically. You build the bottom end of an s52 and are forced to overbore, now you just forced out of GTS2 with what is a "natural motor" I just see this as a future issue. But also my junkyard beauty powered me fine this year

 

I would never build one and keep it a secret... but I don't see it as something that would be cheating if it was required to build the motor. Maybe keep the CC limits but allow a .002 overbore in an S52 or any "natural class" motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe

I was planning a power add during off season just to get to 14.1. This power/weight proposed change would most likely push me out of GTS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions
I was planning a power add during off season just to get to 14.1. This power/weight proposed change would most likely push me out of GTS2.

 

14.1 would make you gts3 car under the current rules fyi...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Wolfe
I was planning a power add during off season just to get to 14.1. This power/weight proposed change would most likely push me out of GTS2.

 

14.1 would make you gts3 car under the current rules fyi...

 

FWD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

wazgtsracer,

 

If we will succeed with the new Black Boxes development, we may eliminate CC limits all together by 2018, so you may have enough of S52s to use until then.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fbirch

I'd also be in favor of a W/P change to 14 or 13.5

 

Felix B.

GTS2, NOLA NASA region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pmk

This seems not unreasonable, but if the GTS2 power/weight ratio is adjusted it will be really important to significantly increase the GTS1 power/weight ratio as well. The difference between those two classes in terms of lap time is already by far the largest (for example, at VIR, there is as much difference between the GTS1 lap record and the GTS2 lap record as between the GTS2 lap record and the GTS4 lap record), and making GTS2 more powerful without bumping up GTS1 will just mean that it will never make sense for those two classes to run together.

 

I would suggest adding in a proposed modification to the GTS1 power to weight, either here or in a separate thread.

 

Peter Kamarchik

NASA Mid-Atlantic

#256 GTS1 2011-2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MG/MClub

Peter,

 

What would you change GTS1 ratio to? We need to hear from guys running in GTS1, please.

 

Michael G.

GTS Nat. Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pmk

Maybe 17.5? I know that would work for my car (M50 2.5 liter), but not sure how that would work for the 944 guys. I'll ask the 944 guys I know and see if I can get them to post their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdgreen

I'd second an adjustment to the penalty for slicks. Slicks are readily available for those of us without the budget for fresh rubber each weekend - and yet running them is totally uncompetitive under the current rules.

 

This past season I went back and forth between Dot R and slicks and found no difference in lap times. This is consistent with what I've been hearing for years, which is that the gap between slicks and Dot Rs (hell, even max performance street tires) has dramatically narrowed.

 

Further evidence: the Toyo reps at the WS Champs told me that their RS1 slicks and RRs have exactly the same rubber compound.

 

 

Mike Dovorany

BMW 325 GTS2

NASA SoCal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fatfinger55

GTS2 W/P change to 14 or 13.5 makes a lot of sense, I'm for it.

 

Paul Donovan

GTS2/GTS3 NOLA Region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigcloud

I support the following proposals:

 

 

1. Power to Weight change.

 

2. Slick Penalty reduction.

 

 

Dorrian Weaver

#332 GTS2 Mid-Atlantic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noodlexyz

14:1 or 13.5:1 I'm in favor of either. Also, the penalty for slicks should be 100% removed from all GTS classes. Why do we have a penalty at all? Damn near everything else is open GTS why are the God damn tires limited? It makes no sense!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

The proposal I am in support of is reducing the slick penalty, not eliminating it. There should be no desire to turn GTS2 into a class where you need sticker slicks to be on top of the podium every weekend. There is absolutely a difference in performance with slicks. Anyone who says there isn't likely just isn't a good enough driver to exploit the additional grip. A .75-1.0 penalty should be sufficient to still allow slicks to be a viable option while compensating for performance difference..... And GTS is not an open rules class anyone. That ended with CC restrictions.

 

 

Lawrence Gibson

MidAtlantic GTS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noodlexyz
The proposal I am in support of is reducing the slick penalty, not eliminating it. There should be no desire to turn GTS2 into a class where you need sticker slicks to be on top of the podium every weekend. There is absolutely a difference in performance with slicks. Anyone who says there isn't likely just isn't a good enough driver to exploit the additional grip. A .75-1.0 penalty should be sufficient to still allow slicks to be a viable option while compensating for performance difference..... And GTS is not an open rules class anyone. That ended with CC restrictions.

 

 

Lawrence Gibson

MidAtlantic GTS2

 

I disagree respectfully of course. You can run $5k abs systems, dry sump oiling systems, $5k brake systems, stand alone ecus, any aero you want, ect. in GTS without getting hit. I know a ton of GTS racers in the Mid West that buy DOT scrubs and race on those, my self included, but the market is small. There is a HUGE market for scrub slicks in almost every size. So I don't get the cost argument at all. Guys run new sticker DOT tires every session and no one cares. If those same guys want to run sticker Michelin slicks every session let them, who cares! If they can afford it let them. I can't but I can afford some really nice scrub slicks at a fraction of the cost that will get me within tenths of the guys on stickers and those stickers are only stickers one time. I've also run back to back on slicks and dots. Some dots are faster than some slicks and vice versa. It all depends but I do not see cost as a reason to limit anything as the guys with big budgets will have stickers no matter dot or slicks. So if you can't afford the same and you feel stickers are your only way to win than you have already lost and you might as well save some $$ doing it.

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daytonars4

Making rules based on anecdotal evidence is kind of wild. The rave last year was making CC restrictions because of the "perception" of a performance advantage. No actual data to support the concept was presented. All in an effort to "control spending wars." Then all of a sudden this year you want to get rid of the slick penalty. If you are the same pace on slicks and DOT then yea, save your money. Tires don't matter for your driving. But that is certainly not the case for everyone. If you take a top tier GTS driver and let them run laps on Hoosier A's/setup vs Michelin Slicks/slick setup there is absolutely a large difference in performance, which is why there needs to remain a mod for it. If you take a mid/back pack driver on Hoosier A's vs Michelin Slicks there probably won't be any difference in performance.

 

Lawrence Gibson

MidAtlantic GTS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions

I do not want the slick penalty removed. I'd rather leave it where it is than remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cnsprcy

Just for clarity, daytonars4, i race a 2.5L 986 boxster in GTS2 and these cars put 190hp to the ground, not 220 to 230. I agree with the revised penalty for slicks. I was 4 seconds/ lap off the pace at Watkins Glen last month running on DOT Toyo RRs. I could be competitive if i ran non-DOT slicks but i'd have to add apx. 190lbs. definitely not feasible. With a smaller penalty, making me add around 100lbs, or less for example, i could be competitive. For lower HP cars like mine, tires are the only option to be more competitive as i can't modify my motor and the 190 hp motor isn't powerful enough for me to add downforce up front or back.

 

A 13.5 ratio would not be detrimental to the vast majority of the GTS2 cars that I have seen. The most common motors are S50/52. The 986 Porsche Boxster's can make around 220-230whp and they are easily well under 3k lbs, so no problem for them. The E30's are super light anyway so a slightly higher ratio should not be any issue for them. Most of the e36's, even non M, have S50/52 swaps. This would help not only with racers easily supersizing with ST4/Spec46, but will also further reducing detuning of the common cars in class. Since many regions still don't have proper compliance tools reducing detuning with a higher ratio should be a positive right?

 

The 1.5 slick penalty is excessive which is why nobody ever uses slicks in GTS2. Something closer to .75 would make it an option but still likely not the preferred tire.

 

Lawrence Gibson

NASA MA

Audi #82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noodlexyz
Making rules based on anecdotal evidence is kind of wild. The rave last year was making CC restrictions because of the "perception" of a performance advantage. No actual data to support the concept was presented. All in an effort to "control spending wars." Then all of a sudden this year you want to get rid of the slick penalty. If you are the same pace on slicks and DOT then yea, save your money. Tires don't matter for your driving. But that is certainly not the case for everyone. If you take a top tier GTS driver and let them run laps on Hoosier A's/setup vs Michelin Slicks/slick setup there is absolutely a large difference in performance, which is why there needs to remain a mod for it. If you take a mid/back pack driver on Hoosier A's vs Michelin Slicks there probably won't be any difference in performance.

 

Lawrence Gibson

MidAtlantic GTS2

 

I completely understand your position but I will politely disagree.

 

GTS like it or not is a spending war. I'm sorry people got hurt by the cc limitations, I also disagreed with that proposal.

 

I never said my pace was the same with slicks vs. DOTs but it all depends on the car/setup and driver. Most guys will pick up time on slicks and that is a good thing. If your pockets are deep dig in and pay up for sticker Michelins! I guarantee you that will only last so long in GTS2 and 3 since a new set will run you about $2k. But at least they have the option to do so. Just like you can buy Motorsport ABS, 4 way dampers, ect.

 

I don't expect a lot of people to agree but to me it just seems silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
focusedintntions
Just for clarity, daytonars4, i race a 2.5L 986 boxster in GTS2 and these cars put 190hp to the ground, not 220 to 230. I agree with the revised penalty for slicks. I was 4 seconds/ lap off the pace at Watkins Glen last month running on DOT Toyo RRs. I could be competitive if i ran non-DOT slicks but i'd have to add apx. 190lbs. definitely not feasible. With a smaller penalty, making me add around 100lbs, or less for example, i could be competitive. For lower HP cars like mine, tires are the only option to be more competitive as i can't modify my motor and the 190 hp motor isn't powerful enough for me to add downforce up front or back.

 

 

Why do you run the crappy toyo's? They're a lot slower than the other options out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×