ST4 SUGGESTED RULE CHANGES FOR 2018

[Balroks]

It's funny you guys keep harping on the 4 door as "theeeeee evoooooo!!!", and the reasons you give show little experience in building one and how floppy they are Vs say building a 99 2door EJ. We went through all of this already mostly in the west regions years ago. On top of that I know of 1 whole Evo8 that's in TT4 and he's done a whole 2 events. There's a X out there as well but he isn't anywhere close. I'm really the only ST Evo out there anymore and I jump between 2 and 3 depending on counts but more focused on 3 for said reason - and the aero rule alone forbids most every time attack build evo into 4. The Evo's and STI's just aren't happy at that low of power aka boost, even on stock blocks. People have moved on to other platforms and org's, so the threats being claimed are ...really...unwarranted.

 

Lets do the math here. A sorted xx3 Evo running 285+ A7's in order to keep up with the Corvette's would be about 313 AHP, that's stock block and turbo with reliability mods to keep it sane but she still breaks, and that's completely gutted and the typical min cage weighing at 3150. No increased spool, no fancy carbon, just more weight in cooling/oiling parts. IN ORDER To compete in in xx4, the same car would have to add 800 LBS.....cmon. You can't run 245's due to overwhelming weight in ST, you can't go much lower then 14psi to keep the ecu happy. Oh and forgot to mention you have to redo all your aero you already spent 4 figures on. You can likely count these efforts on 1 hand before they realize how not-as-fun it is. It's honestly cheaper and more fun to buy a Ex6 or miata as a second car to compete in.

[Charliehayes22]

I second the ABS issue.

 

The MK60 is such a easy system to use and install. I installed one in our Le Mans Pole sitting GT2 Porsche RSR chassis the night before the 2016 25hr. Ran it in tested and finished 3rd overall. Either take it away from everyone or give it to everyone. It is an advantage. Most other cars have a hard time running their OE systems standalone.

 

The Ford can do aftermarket abs with a penalty. I would take that same penalty to put a teves in my MX5.

[esr]

ABS is a very big performance issue. Should be carefully looked at.

 

 

-Banning the most commonly used e36 splitter due to a tiny lip on the side (considered a canard by the rules) doesn't seem reasdonable. It really doesn't provide a material advantage and just prevents larger fields when other classes like Spec46 and GTS2 are interested in joining in.

http://www.bimmerworld.com/Body-Aero/Front-Spoilers/MaxVelocity-E36-M3-EVO-II-Track-Splitter_2.html

 

-M3's, regardless of year, are allowed to convert to the MK60 ABS system which happens to be one of the best on the market. There are even Cup cars who do the MK60 standalone conversion over the Porsche ABS system. So allowing all M3's to have the system which is better than the factory ABS on almost any other car is fine. But then to ban other cars from being able to do the MK60 conversion doesn't make much sense. All cars should be allowed to run an MK60 and you can keep race systems like the Bosch Motorsport on the banned list.

 

-The 4 door mod just doesn't seem necessary. In both GTS2 and Spec46 the 4 door cars don't appear to have any material disadvantage, so why offer it. You can eliminate the 4 door mod and reduce the AWD mod to maintain that "goal variance" you are looking for with Evo's etc.

[esr]

I think there should be greater penalties to cars under 3000 lbs and at 200 lb intervals not 400lbs.

also a similar rule should be in place for tire size.

 

Looks good on the way up, not so much on the way down.

 

this is the current rules

lower than:

3000 lbs = 0.1

2600 lbs = 0.2

2200 lbs = 0.3

Greater than:

3300 lbs = +0.1

3400 lbs = +0.2

3500 lbs = +0.3

3600 lbs = +0.4

3750lbs = +0.5

3900lbs = +0.6

[esr]

that sucks,

 

looks like your situation would require car specific rules! probably too much work for this organization.

 

It's funny you guys keep harping on the 4 door as "theeeeee evoooooo!!!", and the reasons you give show little experience in building one and how floppy they are Vs say building a 99 2door EJ. We went through all of this already mostly in the west regions years ago. On top of that I know of 1 whole Evo8 that's in TT4 and he's done a whole 2 events. There's a X out there as well but he isn't anywhere close. I'm really the only ST Evo out there anymore and I jump between 2 and 3 depending on counts but more focused on 3 for said reason - and the aero rule alone forbids most every time attack build evo into 4. The Evo's and STI's just aren't happy at that low of power aka boost, even on stock blocks. People have moved on to other platforms and org's, so the threats being claimed are ...really...unwarranted.

 

Lets do the math here. A sorted xx3 Evo running 285+ A7's in order to keep up with the Corvette's would be about 313 AHP, that's stock block and turbo with reliability mods to keep it sane but she still breaks, and that's completely gutted and the typical min cage weighing at 3150. No increased spool, no fancy carbon, just more weight in cooling/oiling parts. IN ORDER To compete in in xx4, the same car would have to add 800 LBS.....cmon. You can't run 245's due to overwhelming weight in ST, you can't go much lower then 14psi to keep the ecu happy. Oh and forgot to mention you have to redo all your aero you already spent 4 figures on. You can likely count these efforts on 1 hand before they realize how not-as-fun it is. It's honestly cheaper and more fun to buy a Ex6 or miata as a second car to compete in.

[daytonars4]

It's funny you guys keep harping on the 4 door as "theeeeee evoooooo!!!", ....

 

If you are directing that at me I think you missed my whole point. The AWD mod as it was explained to me is high due to the 4 door mod existing. So the delta of the 4 door mod + AWD mod = target mod for AWD cars. But that approach disadvantages 2 door AWD cars. So my whole point is that if there's no fundamental disadvantage of a 4 door chassis then there's no benefit to having that component in the rules. And as the class begins to grow you will have drivers intentionally build 4 door E46's etc just to take advantage of that rule. So why not get ahead of the issue before it becomes one. I personally think that at this power level AWD isn't even an advantage since lack of grip isn't really coming into play in this power range (except when it rains), but I won't bother trying to argue that.

[Balroks]

In this power level, yes, maybe. Your 4xe46 chassis may be very similar to the two door one. But that's rare. I'm more comparing the Evo to a 2 door EJ subi, which at the same weight would already be FAR stiffer, shorter length, wider wheelbase and better geometry and weight disto. Then - at this power level - who's got the advantage.

[esr]

Man all these are valid points.

 

You both have great info.

 

Very tough!

[Roninph3]

Rafael,

 

You know why we loose to guys like Andrew Kidd,

Good drivers in well-prepared cars? Because, at present

they are better than we are...this is the single biggest

factor in winning and loosing at our level. I'm

getting better all the time, and the secret to winning

and loosing for me is not more power, or more tire...

It's seat time, learning, courage, practicing starts,

Honing racecraft. That being said I'm thrilled to be

doing as well as I have been this year, and love

Racing with the great group of guys in NorCal

st4....thunderhill will be an epic battle, with 13-16

cars. Come on out, have fun, do your best. The

rules are fair, and there is always a battle pack

To race with. Peace.

[esr]

You see this I where you and all the others who read my post are wrong.

You all take it personal, my comments are not intended to make me more competitive. I started racing at age can't remember! And I am way beyond doing this to boost my ego.

I am just proud to be an American and thankfull to my adopted country and speak out of sadness to see club racing in America so deluted.

I know this is just the way we like it but can't help to think there is a better way, not for me or you but for the generations that follow. A place where close racing is developed and we make good drivers beyond spec miata.

 

Will see what happens!

Don't worry about me.

I will be out there since there is nothing better and I am not getting a spec miata, also spec e46 can't seem to get passed 5 cars of different lap times, and I am not a fan of those cars for personal reasons.

NASA prototype is down to 2 or 3 cars for there big west coast events and the car is funky for a 90k car.

 

You think that seat time is going to make you better, well my suggestions are meant to keep cost down labor and parts! That will give the average pocket guy more seat time.

The problem with club racing is that most guys want the unfair advantage because they think they can buy it. But when we can all afford the speed then there is less unfair advantage. This will chase away the big guys the ones that support the shops the same shops that make the rules. But long term it will create large club racing fields.

But that will be hard racing and that's not for everyone.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Arca_ex]

You see this I where you and all the others who read my post are wrong.

You all take it personal, my comments are not intended to make me more competitive.

 

 

You think that seat time is going to make you better, well my suggestions are meant to keep cost down labor and parts!

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

You are one interesting individual... I think Roninph3 pretty much nailed it.

 

You started this thread off by calling out one specific person in one specific scenario in one specific race, saying that he needs to be reeled in because your big heavy Z is at a disadvantage? Then say it's not personal and not intended to make you more competitive?

 

Then you say your suggestion is to keep cost down? Marginally slowing down a car is going to cost MORE money because they have to go back to the dyno and re-tune, or purchase more ballast. Pretty simple concept there that seems to have flown right over your head. Keeping the rules the same keeps costs down...

 

Stop contradicting yourself.

[esr]

I am not contradicting my self and please explain what you understand or mean by calling me and interesting guy!

I am giving examples from personal experience, examples that count not make believe fantasy!!

I can only speak for what I see in person or in videos.

As far as making adjustments read my post and if you don't understand English have someone read it for you, I am not trying to save cost to existing builds but I am thinking of future builds.

Please read it fully or have someone else who understands English explain it to you.

Same as what Brian said (future builds)

Long term growth.

Please read fully and analyze before commenting.

 

 

 

You see this I where you and all the others who read my post are wrong.please

You all take it personal, my comments are not intended to make me more competitive.

 

 

You think that seat time is going to make you better, well my suggestions are meant to keep cost down labor and parts!

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

You are one interesting individual... I think Roninph3 pretty much nailed it.

 

You started this thread off by calling out one specific person in one specific scenario in one specific race, saying that he needs to be reeled in because your big heavy Z is at a disadvantage? Then say it's not personal and not intended to make you more competitive?

 

Then you say your suggestion is to keep cost down? Marginally slowing down a car is going to cost MORE money because they have to go back to the dyno and re-tune, or purchase more ballast. Pretty simple concept there that seems to have flown right over your head. Keeping the rules the same keeps costs down...

 

Stop contradicting yourself.

[shuko]

I know Greg and I have been back and forth on email, but can't hurt to put it in the hat again:

 

Re: partial tube frame conversion

 

Allow in ST4 (with or without Wt:Pw penalty) a tubular/non-btm engine subframe, with requirement that OEM suspension and steering geometry remain unchanged or penalized as stated elsewhere in the rules.

 

Currently, modification or swap of the BTM subframe makes a car non-production, and thus can only participate in ST3 or faster. That's just peachy for V8 Miatas, but less potent swaps are left with fewer options. Other swaps can use the OEM subframe and are A-OK! I think the rules are set up this way to provide a hard, physical limitation for engine swap shenanigans outside of ST3 - similar to the limitations on modifying the transmission tunnel etc.

 

A specific example would be my case:

 

I'm running a stock K series Honda motor in my Miata, making ST average 198 whp. To hit ST4's 12:1 ratio, you're looking at a race weight of about 2400 lbs - Spec Miata territory. I'm not allowed to run ST4 due to the subframe swap issue, so instead I'm trying to hit 10:1 - a double whammy since I'm still penalized in ST3 for the subframe. Yes, I can modify the motor for more power, but I'd rather run a slower, more momentum driven class - S2000 and GTS2 cars instead of corvette, mustang, and GTS3 territory.

 

An Ecotec swapped Miata can make similar power pretty easily. OEM subframe stays intact, so they can run ST4. No non-production penalty. The only difference is engine geometry between manufacturers. How about a Mazda rotary swap? Turbo or supercharged Miata? - these are also good fits for ST4.

 

Am I alone in this? Would this open the door for unfair competition? To me it seems it would allow people to build more unique / reliable cars for ST4 instead of trying to build some sort of exotic hypercar out of their 25 year old roadster to compete with the arms race in ST3.

[Greg G.]

Allow in ST4 (with or without Wt:Pw penalty) a tubular/non-btm engine subframe, with requirement that OEM suspension and steering geometry remain unchanged

 

And who and HOW will that be tech'd with any reasonable assurance of accuracy (not to mention differences in weight, strength, ability to place the engine in more strategic location, and/or the ability to use other parts that could not be used otherwise that provide some type of advantage, etc., etc....) It is a huge can of worms, which is why it is in ST3 and above, and takes a Mod Factor for non-Production....

 

History shows that someone will find a way to completely exploit this (as opposed to your intention which is just to allow more easily a different type of motor to swap). But, like I said, it is my understanding that someone is either working on a K swap kit that will use the OEM subframe, or it has already been finished.

[shuko]

Can't blame me for trying

 

Enforcement would be difficult/impossible, but then again, we're already there with current rules and enforcement means for many other components. We're not running a NASCAR style template over people's OEM-ish hard tops after all. But I do believe that someone would find a way to exploit the rule beyond its intended purpose - and it's a little harder to contain than keeping a front wing below hood level.

 

Thanks Greg!

[codename Bil Doe]

(HP+TQ)/2

 

If you keep ignoring torque you're going to end up with 150hp turbo V8's in ST4/5/6 running faster times than ST1/2/3 and the new classes will drop in popularity fast.

 

Factoring in torque keeps from having to put a cylinder or displacement limit on any class.

[brkntrxn]

(HP+TQ)/2

 

If you keep ignoring torque you're going to end up with 150hp turbo V8's in ST4/5/6 running faster times than ST1/2/3 and the new classes will drop in popularity fast.

 

Factoring in torque keeps from having to put a cylinder or displacement limit on any class.

 

 

 

Please show me a dyno graph where the torque is greater than the horsepower in the rpm bands in which the car is raced.

[codename Bil Doe]

Pretty common for any 4 cyl non-turbo engines, where st4/5/6 fields will be populated. You can find their dynos anywhere. They don't all start at 6500 and go to 9000. I don't have to explain the difference between peak and average.

 

Any big displacement or turbo car can have significantly more torque than hp in a much wider power band when your p2w is 12:1.

 

If it is a non-issue then you would have no problem supporting it.

[brkntrxn]

Pretty common for any 4 cyl non-turbo engines, where st4/5/6 fields will be populated. You can find their dynos anywhere. They don't all start at 6500 and go to 9000. I don't have to explain the difference between peak and average.

 

Any big displacement or turbo car can have significantly more torque than hp in a much wider power band when your p2w is 12:1.

 

If it is a non-issue then you would have no problem supporting it.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I would actually support it for my "big bad V8". Since the torque peak is so much lower than the horsepower curve in my tune, I would be happy as heck to LOWER my average power numbers with a simple mathematical formula.

[clock]

Pretty common for any 4 cyl non-turbo engines, where st4/5/6 fields will be populated. You can find their dynos anywhere. They don't all start at 6500 and go to 9000. I don't have to explain the difference between peak and average.

 

Any big displacement or turbo car can have significantly more torque than hp in a much wider power band when your p2w is 12:1.

 

If it is a non-issue then you would have no problem supporting it.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I would actually support it for my "big bad V8". Since the torque peak is so much lower than the horsepower curve in my tune, I would be happy as heck to LOWER my average power numbers with a simple mathematical formula.

 

And the lower displacement cars would also lower, by an even greater amount, allowing them to run lighter, which is the entire point. If the torque number is part of the equation, larger displacement and turbo cars will take bigger hits than small displacement NA cars. This is not a new idea. Other ptw series use multipliers to calculate effective displacement to balance NA vs FI, and assign mod factors based on displacement ranges to balance engines with different number of cylinders. All are reasonable ways to account for engines that have shifted peak torque ranges from one another.

[clock]

I also think you are missing his point about HP+TQ/2. He doesn't mean peak, he means at each point we measure at.

 

Look at a 4cyl dyno chart, like the s2000. The torque number is always below HP everywhere.

 

Now look at an S52 M3 motor like mine. It has less PEAK torque than HP, sure, but the torque curve is far greater than the HP line at every point until 5.5K rpm, which is about 1000 below my peak hp output.

 

Now look at a corvette v8 motor. Its torque curve is even more pronounced, and it doesn't cross the HP line until right about peak output.

 

Just take a look at some dynographs online, and you will see what he means.

[esr]

i think we have to be very open and welcoming to as many ways to monitor performance and create parity with the use of the dyno.

even from year to year.

maybe even in the middle of the season having the option of revising it. this may discourage extra creativity in motor building.

 

 

 

I also think you are missing his point about HP+TQ/2. He doesn't mean peak, he means at each point we measure at.

 

Look at a 4cyl dyno chart, like the s2000. The torque number is always below HP everywhere.

 

Now look at an S52 M3 motor like mine. It has less PEAK torque than HP, sure, but the torque curve is far greater than the HP line at every point until 5.5K rpm, which is about 1000 below my peak hp output.

 

Now look at a corvette v8 motor. Its torque curve is even more pronounced, and it doesn't cross the HP line until right about peak output.

 

Just take a look at some dynographs online, and you will see what he means.

[davidfarmer]

I personally think 6 data points is too many, BUT my only real advice is to figure out a system and lock it down FOREVER. As an racer, instructor, and Dynojet owner, yearly makeovers is doing nothing for the sport. I've still yet to have a competitor come to my dyno that understood the averaging process properly, and I don't think most random Dyno shop are going to do the math for the racer!!

[Brian L.]

I personally think 6 data points is too many, BUT my only real advice is to figure out a system and lock it down FOREVER. As an racer, instructor, and Dynojet owner, yearly makeovers is doing nothing for the sport. I've still yet to have a competitor come to my dyno that understood the averaging process properly, and I don't think most random Dyno shop are going to do the math for the racer!!

 

Care to elaborate on why it's to many? Why shouldn't we measure all the power being used by a competitor?

 

In my experience people don't understand the rules completely only when they haven't read the rules completely. It's pretty straight forward I can sum it up in a sentence. Find peak power, then find the next 5 highest HP reading's in 500 RPM steps from that point above or below, add up and divide by 6.

 

Now adding torque will certainly increase complexity, you'll potentially have to do that once more with your torque numbers. All of this only takes a few minutes, and it's worth getting it right to keep the class strong for years.

 

ST is still a developing series, data still needs to be gathered. We had great data demonstrated at NASA Champs this last weekend. I was watching the Corvette especially, but also the turbo Miata just kill there competitors out of the corners. What did they have that the smaller displacement NA cars didn't? A butt load of torque. Just look at the lap times of the cars, it tells the tail.

[brkntrxn]

I personally think 6 data points is too many, BUT my only real advice is to figure out a system and lock it down FOREVER. As an racer, instructor, and Dynojet owner, yearly makeovers is doing nothing for the sport. I've still yet to have a competitor come to my dyno that understood the averaging process properly, and I don't think most random Dyno shop are going to do the math for the racer!!

 

Care to elaborate on why it's to many? Why shouldn't we measure all the power being used by a competitor?

 

In my experience people don't understand the rules completely only when they haven't read the rules completely. It's pretty straight forward I can sum it up in a sentence. Find peak power, then find the next 5 highest HP reading's in 500 RPM steps from that point above or below, add up and divide by 6.

 

Now adding torque will certainly increase complexity, you'll potentially have to do that once more with your torque numbers. All of this only takes a few minutes, and it's worth getting it right to keep the class strong for years.

 

ST is still a developing series, data still needs to be gathered. We had great data demonstrated at NASA Champs this last weekend. I was watching the Corvette especially, but also the turbo Miata just kill there competitors out of the corners. What did they have that the smaller displacement NA cars didn't? A butt load of torque. Just look at the lap times of the cars, it tells the tail.

 

 

If you ask why it is too many, you are not reading the rules closely enough to understand how to use them to your advantage.

 

As for corner exit, I have driven everything from motorcycles to 4 bangers to whomping V8s. Heck, I raced a Honda Challenge car for five hours at Sebring two weeks ago in preparation of racing my Corvette there next week. Corner exit has everything to do with mechanical grip and gearing. I can promise you, per the data, that my Vette is ALWAYS at an rpm where my HP is greater than my TQ. If I fall that low in the rpm band, then I am in too high of a gear and I need to downshift for the gearing advantage not the torque advantage.

 

 

 

Kevin

"not a believer that torque is the end-all"