ST4 SUGGESTED RULE CHANGES FOR 2018

[clock]

You weren't my race, we ALL knew that. Once you made your intentions known, I timed my speed through turn 3 to slot in behind you so you didn't ruin my 4, and my race with Jon. But you, ego-bot, obviously like to rub in your passes on other competitors, even when they were not podium finishers, and driving, in your own words, cars that were not "nationally prepped".

 

We didn't make an issue of you getting through out of respect which you clearly don't deserve, or reciprocate. If your respect ends when someone asks a parity question, you can keep it, especially when its from the top step. No Class.

 

For the record, I believe like most people that a 55 is the speed that a well prepped car ST4 car should go, based on multiple examples of well driven and well prepped cars doing so, (austins being one of those). Low 53 potentially breaks the class, which is all I care about.

[Dave Schotz]

For the record, I believe like most people that a 55 is the speed that a well prepped car ST4 car should go, based on multiple examples of well driven and well prepped cars doing so, (austins being one of those). Low 53 potentially breaks the class, which is all I care about.

 

You're right... ST4 should be 5 seconds off of ST3?

 

The respect... comes from your actions... and re-read the posts... you just don't like some of the answers. They have nothing to do with an Ego, well at least not one from me.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

[Greg G.]

Hey guys, can we detune this discussion a bit, please?

 

First, the amount of HP in the usable rpm range on track is what powers and accelerates a race car, not the peak torque! That is physics, as pointed out by many here, and for those that continue to want to argue against science, you are wasting your time.

 

Second, aero matters for a variety of reasons, including both grip and drag.

 

Third, there are plenty of top level ST4/TT4 drivers who believe that their cars can and should be doing 1:53's at T-Hill once they are fully developed.

 

Forth, we did have GPS in Dave's car during every competition session that effected standings, and there was never a question about him NOT having better acceleration than the rest of the group. What I can tell you is that GPS did tell us why he was faster than the rest, and it wasn't because of power. Congrats to both Dave and Austin, as their driving was fantastic, especially considering they are from another region and don't visit this track often.

 

Fifth, the FI car took full advantage of having a flat HP curve, and although the 4 data point Avg HP helped those that didn't have a flat curve, it wasn't enough in my opinion, which is one reason we plan on going to the 6 data point Avg HP formula for cars that have higher redlines (wider usable rpm ranges).

 

Sixth, what a great class this is turning out to be! I love the enthusiasm--just wish the numbers were bigger for next week on the East. I fully expect a huge field next year at the Champs in both ST4 and TT4!

[esr]

Are you guys keeping the same power to weight for ST4 after going to 6 points? Or will there be some compensation?

 

 

quote="Greg G."]Hey guys, can we detune this discussion a bit, please?

 

First, the amount of HP in the usable rpm range on track is what powers and accelerates a race car, not the peak torque! That is physics, as pointed out by many here, and for those that continue to want to argue against science, you are wasting your time.

 

Second, aero matters for a variety of reasons, including both grip and drag.

 

Third, there are plenty of top level ST4/TT4 drivers who believe that their cars can and should be doing 1:53's at T-Hill once they are fully developed.

 

Forth, we did have GPS in Dave's car during every competition session that effected standings, and there was never a question about him NOT having better acceleration than the rest of the group. What I can tell you is that GPS did tell us why he was faster than the rest, and it wasn't because of power. Congrats to both Dave and Austin, as their driving was fantastic, especially considering they are from another region and don't visit this track often.

 

Fifth, the FI car took full advantage of having a flat HP curve, and although the 4 data point Avg HP helped those that didn't have a flat curve, it wasn't enough in my opinion, which is one reason we plan on going to the 6 data point Avg HP formula for cars that have higher redlines (wider usable rpm ranges).

 

Sixth, what a great class this is turning out to be! I love the enthusiasm--just wish the numbers were bigger for next week on the East. I fully expect a huge field next year at the Champs in both ST4 and TT4!

[Calif_Kid]

Chris, I posted my incar of the start... We timed the green... and I made two passes from momentum... Percy's car was having challenges that day, and the other car was a very down on HP CMC mustang. Coming out of Turn 1... I got pulled by the Civic, S2000 and Mini... Interesting to thing how close Percy's car and Austin's were on Friday... when the E36 was running fine with Tony driving.

 

Dave - I wasn't at the track but watched the timing and races on Nasa Live and RaceHero. I saw on YouTube your TT4 Time Trial laps of 1:53.4 and 1:53.3. Were you running the same setup and tire compound for the TT laps vs the ST4 race on Sunday? What brand, size, and compound tires do you run? On the race, I saw that you and Austin were running in the 1:55-1:56 range, but not sure how much traffic affected the lap times. Anyway, thanks for posting your laps on YouTube. - Jim

[tcdesign]

so you are basically saying that with another few grand over and above the 25k already invested in the vette and finding a pro driver or one of those guys 2 sec faster that someone mentioned, the st4 vette would be doing st3 factory audi times?

 

how much is tony coliccios car? or the audi? are they legal for st3?

what tires are they on?

 

 

Tony's car to duplicate would be $80-100k depending on the level of detail. If someone was competent and they had us do the fab work, and they did the rest, you could probably do it close to $60k The Audi is ~$135k from Audi Racing.

 

Are they legal for ST3?

 

A7's for me. Yoko slicks for Brett.

 

 

 

Dave, great job at WCN. Those that are fast, understand why you are fast. And from your post, I think we would get along very well.

 

-the Tony

[MHISSTC]

Hey all!

 

I was the Team Incidental Contact driver of the underpowered orange/black #8 Mustang known as The Pumpkin at the WSC at Thunderhill this past weekend. Since there seem to be some folks here hung up on a few issues, including the start and number of cars D.S. was passing, I thought I'd contribute my perspective on all of this.

 

Our car is a 100% legal CMC car. What that means is we are not even close to the lb/HP limit pf ST4. We would either need to lose well over 100lbs, or bump the power up considerably to even be close. We have ZERO added aero. We also don't have any communication system with which we can communicate to a spotter. And even though our car is 100% CMC legal, we are still leaving a lot on the table with regard to suspension development in the form of ride height, corner weighting, spring selection, and damping within the CMC rules that we've never taken the time/effort/expense to accomplish. This was also our first visit to Thunderhill. We do reasonably well in our series in home region, and we have a heck of a fun time doing it on an extremely limited budget of funds and time. All things considered, I thought we did reasonably well. We didn't break, we drove every day, and we weren't last in the final race. WOOHOO!

 

Q: So why were we in ST4?

A: No other CMC driver in the nation has had the fortitude to sign up for CMC at either the Western or Eastern States Championships, and there is currently no ST5 group. So with a lack of CMC cars, we chose to run with the more populous ST group that most closely matched up with the car.

 

Side note: You California folks really need to work on getting more CMC cars out to the track.

 

It seems an AI car with it's aero and lb/HP ratio, is a much better fit in ST4 than a CMC car. When additional ST classes are eventually developed, I see a CMC car being a much better fit into an ST5 group, but it might be sketchy with a lack of aero on the CMC cars if ST5 allows it.

 

So here is my view of the start. The starter stand was very hard to see, and I was most likely was late getting on the throttle. Coupling a late start with being underpowered, it was no question as to why DS had an easy time pulling around us. The truly awesome part of the start was how DS slotted in directly in front of me after he went around me into a spot that I didn't think was big enough for his car. That's where driver skill became obvious and I was literally cheering him on from my spot directly behind him. It was a great thing to watch. I haven't had time to pull the video from my cameras yet, but I can't wait to watch it all.

 

Aero is a big deal for grip in the corners. Even being down on power compared to what the limit of the class is, folks really didn't pull us as much as I thought they would on the straights. But being one of the most passed cars out there, the really big gains were clearly in the corners where the mechanical grip attributed to aero was clear. It was unfortunate DS never ran with the ST4 group prior to the final race and wasn't sitting with us all when we all had the opportunity to look over each other's cars, but I don't find any fault with that for someone who runs multiple groups during an event and most certainly preps the car 100% for a national level event. If you've gone to multiple national events like we have, it's also very clear which cars and drivers are doing it, and which ones, like us, aren't. One thing that actually surprised us about DS 'vette is that it is riding on only 245 wide tires all the way around. I would have figured he was running a wider tire. But that's the beauty of a class like ST4, you get to pick and choose the variables you'd like to concentrate on to make your own vehicle more competitive. Go ahead and max out your lb/HP ratio, then figure out the best way, according to your own car and driving style, you can minimize your lap times. Make the car lighter, make more power, add more aero, go with wider tires, just remember it's all a trade-off. Lower weight means lower power levels. Wider tires means less aero or less power, and vice versa. Optimize your gearing for you preferred operating RPM range. It's all up to the competitors to figure out, so figure it out.

 

Having local competition also does wonders for your own driving skill and level of prep done on your car. And the local competition between DS and Austin paid off to make both of them more competitive. I don't know the circumstances, but it was very unfortunate Austin missed the grid for the final race and was dispatched onto the track way behind the rest of the group. But that's were the benefit of experience also comes in. You don't miss grid at a National event. Period. But for the announcers to call it a great race and to go on and on, and on and on, and on and on, about how Austin could maybe catch DS when the lap times and gap were clearly NOT showing that happening was really too much. Yes, they both were faster than the rest of the group, but IMO it would have taken a huge mistake by DS for Austin to be able to catch him. I didn't see that happening. It would have also been nice if the announcers actually used the driver information sheets we all provided to them and talked about some of the other drivers in the class, and some of the other classes in Group D. There were a lot more than two cars and two drivers out there. But that's likely a topic for another discussion.

 

I think the 6 data points instead of 4 to find the "average" power is a better idea, but why not make that infinity points from a certain starting point up to redline? Doesn't the dyno software have the ability to calculate "average" horsepower via this method? Wouldn't it be better to take into account the entire area under the curve, which is essentially what is attempting to be done (poorly IMO) by adding only two more data points at additional 500 RPM incremental steps?

 

So to bring this novel to a close:

Great job competitors on the very clean racing through the entire event. Close competition makes everyone better. We may not make it out to Thunderhill again, but had a ton of fun doing it this year. Keep developing the ST classes. Get more CMC cars out there to field a CMC class.

[BADVENM]

I'm the other driver in the orange CMC Mustang. I wanted to expand a bit on what MHISSTC said about us entering ST4. We did so because we thought (from previous years nationals events we've been in) you had to have a minimum of 4 cars to have a championship race. We registered for CMC with a plan to transfer to ST4 if the CMC car count wasnt at 4. I may be wrong but from the entry list there was only one car registered for PTD and one car for one of the GTS (2 or 3 I think) races. Had we known the minimum car count for a championship race was one car we may have stayed in CMC.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to you all in group D for great clean racing Thursday through Sunday and congrats to Dave S for the ST4 win.

 

Dave

[Savington]

A well-driven ST4 car prepped to the limits of the rules should go 1:53s at Thunderhill. Not just Dave's car but others. If you think otherwise, you haven't been watching closely enough this season.

[Calif_Kid]

Dave - I wasn't at the track but watched the timing and races on Nasa Live and RaceHero. I saw on YouTube your TT4 Time Trial laps of 1:53.4 and 1:53.3. Were you running the same setup and tire compound for the TT laps vs the ST4 race on Sunday? What brand, size, and compound tires do you run? On the race, I saw that you and Austin were running in the 1:55-1:56 range, but not sure how much traffic affected the lap times. Anyway, thanks for posting your laps on YouTube. - Jim

Dave PM’d me with info (and OK'd me to post it in Nasa forums):

 

I run mostly the same set-up between ST and TT. Some of the differences though that weekend were:

 

TT times were in cooler weather, cleaner track.

Car was about 50lbs lighter at start of TT vs start of ST

Car went out on fresh new stickers for the TT session

I run Hoosier 245/40/17 R7 in TT, which are really good for first couple laps before falling off

 

In summary: I think the time difference for us was mostly the higher temps so late in the day, and traffic.

 

Best Regards, Dave

 

************

I replied:

Dave,

Thanks for the PM/info. The reason I'm mentioning this, is because in the Sunday race, you and Austin both had times in the 1:55-1:56 range which is the same range as Graham Downey had driving Tom Tang's S2000 during the Friday qual race, and that Tony had driving Percy's M3. Your running 245's is also interesting for a fairly heavy car, but I guess that going with 275's would hit the HP/wt ratio. - Jim

************

 

Dave replied:

I agree, Tony and Graham were all running same times and I believe the race would have looked different on Sunday if we had same grid plus me as the Friday grid. It would have been a great 4 car sprint and possibly more. And you're right, I run the 245's to get any advantage on hp to weight I can.

Best Regards, Dave

***********

 

Dave also wrote:

I just got done watching Tom's in car Friday Qualifying race with Graham driving... I think the race would have been significantly different if Percy's car ran like it did on Friday, and Graham and Austin all at the front from the start.

 

Tony/Percy's car seemed to have some significant straight line speed, and Graham/Tom's car had a bit better cornering grip. Both of them clearly are extremely talented drivers.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

Edited October 14, 2017 by Guest

[esr]

you talk about 6 points and the full rpm range, I would add even doing it over every usable gear for that model with a declared ratio.

(or do car specific rules)

 

you state the vette running narrow tires and taking advantage of the rules is the beauty of the class, well no matter how the rules are written you could always find a similar scenario to get car advantage over your competitors with one set of rules for everyone.

 

as long as we are aware of this I have no problem and lets just go have fun.

 

most race series of this type have car specific rules that can be changed at any moment for the sake of competition.

 

hey if i am kicking every ones butt i would give the benefit of the doubt to my competitors and would be ok with a small adjustment to my car till proven right or wrong, and not think they all suck. we need this type of generosity to grow the class.

 

we are underestimating how hard it is to grow a class and recruit guys from the outside, most guys who can afford this type of activity are by nature winners in life, if they don't think they can win they will go do something else. (we need winners in every car model out there)

 

the 6 hard core racers are already racing, you will see these 6 faces untill you dont wanna see them no more.

 

Greg seems to be disappointed by the numbers at the nationals, well unless we welcome his 6 hard core customer's bitching, we will have a hard time recruiting and retaining new bad ass dudes that can afford this type of game!

 

I realize that it may seem that we are all gang banging against the crowned champ and undermining the efforts of NASA to maintain parity but this is not the case, this is a new class, we are aware everyone is working hard at NASA, we are just trying to help. I understand it may be coming across a bit disrespectful of the authority but this is a new class and hopefully trying to accomplish something never done before.

 

I have to admit that I hate this type of open car model racing at the club level, only reason I am considering it is for lack of a good fast spec series, so I understand I may be coming from an extreme angle but nevertheless this is the time to talk, before the rules are posted!

 

I am also trying not to embark on an impossible mission and maybe asking for some help here!

hopefully I am not reading too much into it and over complicating things.

 

I drive a 350z that i have about 35k into and still missing probably 10 to 15k of upgrades, i did all the labor so no cost there.

I saw Brian Lock drive his customer car which he claimed was pretty dialed in to a best of 58 flat in qualy at thill, so this leaves me puzzled as I consider him a pretty good driver.

 

not sure i want to end up with a 70k st4 car to be competitive, or having to build another car as recomended on facebook, just looking ahead, these are not facts just observations from someone that grew up racing all spec karting and rally cross, then all spec formula cars of my own prep, then raced in koni challenge as arrive and drive so I have seen a few different things from the back mid and front of the pack!

 

and Dave congrats on out thinking everyone at nats.

 

thank you guys for listening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey all!

 

I was the Team Incidental Contact driver of the underpowered orange/black #8 Mustang known as The Pumpkin at the WSC at Thunderhill this past weekend. Since there seem to be some folks here hung up on a few issues, including the start and number of cars D.S. was passing, I thought I'd contribute my perspective on all of this.

 

Our car is a 100% legal CMC car. What that means is we are not even close to the lb/HP limit pf ST4. We would either need to lose well over 100lbs, or bump the power up considerably to even be close. We have ZERO added aero. We also don't have any communication system with which we can communicate to a spotter. And even though our car is 100% CMC legal, we are still leaving a lot on the table with regard to suspension development in the form of ride height, corner weighting, spring selection, and damping within the CMC rules that we've never taken the time/effort/expense to accomplish. This was also our first visit to Thunderhill. We do reasonably well in our series in home region, and we have a heck of a fun time doing it on an extremely limited budget of funds and time. All things considered, I thought we did reasonably well. We didn't break, we drove every day, and we weren't last in the final race. WOOHOO!

 

Q: So why were we in ST4?

A: No other CMC driver in the nation has had the fortitude to sign up for CMC at either the Western or Eastern States Championships, and there is currently no ST5 group. So with a lack of CMC cars, we chose to run with the more populous ST group that most closely matched up with the car.

 

Side note: You California folks really need to work on getting more CMC cars out to the track.

 

It seems an AI car with it's aero and lb/HP ratio, is a much better fit in ST4 than a CMC car. When additional ST classes are eventually developed, I see a CMC car being a much better fit into an ST5 group, but it might be sketchy with a lack of aero on the CMC cars if ST5 allows it.

 

So here is my view of the start. The starter stand was very hard to see, and I was most likely was late getting on the throttle. Coupling a late start with being underpowered, it was no question as to why DS had an easy time pulling around us. The truly awesome part of the start was how DS slotted in directly in front of me after he went around me into a spot that I didn't think was big enough for his car. That's where driver skill became obvious and I was literally cheering him on from my spot directly behind him. It was a great thing to watch. I haven't had time to pull the video from my cameras yet, but I can't wait to watch it all.

 

Aero is a big deal for grip in the corners. Even being down on power compared to what the limit of the class is, folks really didn't pull us as much as I thought they would on the straights. But being one of the most passed cars out there, the really big gains were clearly in the corners where the mechanical grip attributed to aero was clear. It was unfortunate DS never ran with the ST4 group prior to the final race and wasn't sitting with us all when we all had the opportunity to look over each other's cars, but I don't find any fault with that for someone who runs multiple groups during an event and most certainly preps the car 100% for a national level event. If you've gone to multiple national events like we have, it's also very clear which cars and drivers are doing it, and which ones, like us, aren't. One thing that actually surprised us about DS 'vette is that it is riding on only 245 wide tires all the way around. I would have figured he was running a wider tire. But that's the beauty of a class like ST4, you get to pick and choose the variables you'd like to concentrate on to make your own vehicle more competitive. Go ahead and max out your lb/HP ratio, then figure out the best way, according to your own car and driving style, you can minimize your lap times. Make the car lighter, make more power, add more aero, go with wider tires, just remember it's all a trade-off. Lower weight means lower power levels. Wider tires means less aero or less power, and vice versa. Optimize your gearing for you preferred operating RPM range. It's all up to the competitors to figure out, so figure it out.

 

Having local competition also does wonders for your own driving skill and level of prep done on your car. And the local competition between DS and Austin paid off to make both of them more competitive. I don't know the circumstances, but it was very unfortunate Austin missed the grid for the final race and was dispatched onto the track way behind the rest of the group. But that's were the benefit of experience also comes in. You don't miss grid at a National event. Period. But for the announcers to call it a great race and to go on and on, and on and on, and on and on, about how Austin could maybe catch DS when the lap times and gap were clearly NOT showing that happening was really too much. Yes, they both were faster than the rest of the group, but IMO it would have taken a huge mistake by DS for Austin to be able to catch him. I didn't see that happening. It would have also been nice if the announcers actually used the driver information sheets we all provided to them and talked about some of the other drivers in the class, and some of the other classes in Group D. There were a lot more than two cars and two drivers out there. But that's likely a topic for another discussion.

 

I think the 6 data points instead of 4 to find the "average" power is a better idea, but why not make that infinity points from a certain starting point up to redline? Doesn't the dyno software have the ability to calculate "average" horsepower via this method? Wouldn't it be better to take into account the entire area under the curve, which is essentially what is attempting to be done (poorly IMO) by adding only two more data points at additional 500 RPM incremental steps?

 

So to bring this novel to a close:

Great job competitors on the very clean racing through the entire event. Close competition makes everyone better. We may not make it out to Thunderhill again, but had a ton of fun doing it this year. Keep developing the ST classes. Get more CMC cars out there to field a CMC class.

[codename Bil Doe]

Make an adjustment to tire points for small tires:

 

Current:

 

275's to 250's +0.3

245's and smaller +0.7

 

Suggested:

 

275's to 250's +0.3

245's to 230's +0.7

225's and smaller +1.0

[Savington]

blah blah blah

 

Time to call a spade a spade.

 

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

 

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

 

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

 

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.

[esr]

You are spot on pretty much on everything!

That is pretty amazing!

 

Yeah man I am not sure at this point, as I made clear I don't get this type of racing, but is about all there is, and I am trying to race a few more years before I hang it!

 

 

Not sure where the blah blah it looks like I said it but mAybe just a glitch!

 

 

 

blah blah blah

 

Time to call a spade a spade.

 

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

 

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

 

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

 

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.

[ianbarberi]

Chris, I posted my incar of the start...

 

Dave, I'd love to see your video, but I don't see a link. Where is it posted?

 

Congrats on the ST4 and TT4 wins, and to Austin for 2nd place! You and Austin have clearly built your cars to the full ST4 rules, and I know you are both great drivers. My car is not a top running ST4 car yet, and I have work to do. I competed against you in TTC in 2014, then again in TTB last year, and again in ST4 this year. You beat me every time, but were humble about it, discussed your setup, and offered tips. Whenever you running, I know I am competing against the best, which makes it more meaningful. If the real competition doesn't show up, then you are just out there running a glorified track day.

 

It was great talking to you and catching up at the track, and it was a real bummer your car had issues. I am glad you got it fixed and were able to run. That sounded like a tough one to track down. It was cool that you and Austin made the trip from AZ, and it is really too bad Austin missed the start, as I think it would have been a great race up front with you trying to catch him from the back. I almost missed the start too and got lucky when someone let me know we were next.

 

I look forward to running with you and Austin again in the future.

 

-Ian

[ianbarberi]

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

 

Brian, (and Greg), I agree that expanding to 6 points is good. My usable rev range is just about 3,000 RPM, and this will even the competition for the remaining 1,000 RPM (where we only had 2,000 RPM with 4 points, since they are every 500 RPM).

 

My concern is if an engine uses less than 3,000 RPM on track. I can see a scenario where a car only uses 2,500 RPM, and that 6th point is way low, but they don't care since they never hit that RPM. Or, maybe the 6th point is purposefully tuned to be way low, and it brings down the average enough to make an impact.

 

Maybe this is a non-issue. I don't have enough data on the rest of the cars in the field to know if this could be exploited.

 

Is this something you are concerned about?

 

-Ian

[Arca_ex]

as I made clear I don't get this type of racing, but is about all there is, and I am trying to race a few more years before I hang it!

 

 

Then leave everyone here alone and go race Spec Z if you want all the cars to be dead even in every single part of the track!!!

[brkntrxn]

blah blah blah

 

Time to call a spade a spade.

 

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

 

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

 

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

 

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.

 

 

How do I like this post 1000 times?

 

 

Savington - if we ever cross paths, I want to buy you a beer.

[esr]

we all know you like to buy stuff!

 

 

 

 

blah blah blah

 

Time to call a spade a spade.

 

Rafael, if the result sheets are to be believed, you ran ONE race this year, very early on in the season. Your vocality regarding the "issues" you perceive with ST4 is not even remotely in line with your level of participation in the series. Your car appears underprepped and you are trying to sell the legal tires for your car on FB and elsehwhere, so it's not unreasonable to question your intent to actually run in the class in 2018

 

ST4 had phenomenal participation for a first-year class. That alone should be a strong indication that ruleset as-written works quite well. Further inspection indicates that the ruleset appears to allow very close racing among several different cars. Even with driver talent aside, the fact that the top two cars were vastly different (light+small turbo Miata vs. big+heavy V8 Corvette) just shows how good the rules are out of the box. At a regional level, there are Civics, M3s, 350Zs, Miatas, and S2000s, all of which have a chance at a class win on any given weekend. As someone who has seen and experienced that parity first-hand, and as someone who has never actually seen you at a race first-hand, your constant insistence that the rules need major changes (power/weight adjustments, car-specific BOP, tire limitations, on and on and on) grows more and more tiresome with every single post and comment you make, both here and elsewhere.

 

If you expect me and others to take your complaints seriously, you need to actually race in the class, and you need to build a car that has at least the appearance of being well-prepared. You cannot seriously expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you yourself are not willing to put in the time and money to build a competitive car. Yes, competitive cars cost money. Yes, hard things are hard to do. Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. If it were easy, anyone would do it, and those of us who seek out challenges wouldn't bother.

 

If this posts insults you, perhaps you needed a wake-up call. I've never been one to beat around the bush or mince words.

 

 

How do I like this post 1000 times?

 

 

Savington - if we ever cross paths, I want to buy you a beer.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Guest

[brkntrxn]

we all know you like to buy stuff!

 

 

Negative. We purchased a 100% stock, garage-queen C5Z06 because it slotted very nicely into PTA/TTA where our Mustang Cobras did not. The intent was to race a completely stock car with nothing more than sway bars, brake pads, and Hoosier A6s. People complaining is why we were kicked out to STx. We hesitated through 2013 when this happened and continued running a stock car and getting beat by the larger wallets. In the second half of the year, my wife and friends convinced me to 'Spend The 3uros".

 

Every time you guys fuss and want a change in the rules, the top racers will continue being the top racers. All you are doing is making everyone spend more money.

 

I don't always agree with Greg, but he understands this and I am grateful for his hesitation in changing the rules bases on complaints from cars not built to the ruleset.

[esr]

very smart, we should all do that and call it a day![

 

 

quote=brkntrxn]

we all know you like to buy stuff!

 

 

Negative. We purchased a 100% stock, garage-queen C5Z06 because it slotted very nicely into PTA/TTA where our Mustang Cobras did not. The intent was to race a completely stock car with nothing more than sway bars, brake pads, and Hoosier A6s. People complaining is why we were kicked out to STx. We hesitated through 2013 when this happened and continued running a stock car and getting beat by the larger wallets. In the second half of the year, my wife and friends convinced me to 'Spend The 3uros".

 

Every time you guys fuss and want a change in the rules, the top racers will continue being the top racers. All you are doing is making everyone spend more money.

 

I don't always agree with Greg, but he understands this and I am grateful for his hesitation in changing the rules bases on complaints from cars not built to the ruleset.

[clock]

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

 

Brian, (and Greg), I agree that expanding to 6 points is good. My usable rev range is just about 3,000 RPM, and this will even the competition for the remaining 1,000 RPM (where we only had 2,000 RPM with 4 points, since they are every 500 RPM).

 

My concern is if an engine uses less than 3,000 RPM on track. I can see a scenario where a car only uses 2,500 RPM, and that 6th point is way low, but they don't care since they never hit that RPM. Or, maybe the 6th point is purposefully tuned to be way low, and it brings down the average enough to make an impact.

 

Maybe this is a non-issue. I don't have enough data on the rest of the cars in the field to know if this could be exploited.

 

Is this something you are concerned about?

 

-Ian

 

I agree this is a real issue. I understand the intention of 6 points, which is to give cars with sloped power curves an advantage to the flatter curves. But all of these solutions make the assumption that we are trying to level existing cars who will not change their curves or ranges, when in reality it is just as easily manipulated by tuning as 4 points, in fact, almost more so. As you pointed out, I could tune my car to make incredibly low power at my 1st point in an effort to raise the average of my other points. It could easily backfire(no pun intended) on rules writers.

 

If we really wanted our estimation of Work to be as accurate as possible(thereby ending the torque v power debate for all time) our numbers should be a summation over a range of as many points as possible, like 50 rpm. We have the data from the dynos. If the series is interested, I could write such a calculator. 500 rpm increments is still a very inaccurate estimation, especially for those 4 cylinders that make peak HP at or near redline.

[Alan_Wolfe]

Just to be clear and accurate about this:

4 data points covers 1500 rpm range

6 data points covers 2500 rpm range

[clock]

Just to be clear and accurate about this:

4 data points covers 1500 rpm range

6 data points covers 2500 rpm range

 

While that is probably the intention, that is not how the math was set up.

 

The Interval of the evaluation = the partition size * number of points. So 4 points x 500rpm evaluates a 2000rpm interval, and 6 a 3000rpm interval. You can't arbitrarily make the evaluation exclusive of the lower partition.

 

The ST rules describe a Riemann Sum(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum) when they add up the points as a means of evaluating different curves against one another(dividing by the constant 4 does nothing). One problem is that a LEFT sum (as opposed to RIGHT, or MID) is codified in the rules by 8.2 "If any of the above data points at higher RPM than Max HP RPM do not exist due to redline, then those potential data points will not be used in the calculation of Avg HP". LEFT sum is an OVERESTIMATION of area under the curve PROPORTIONAL TO THE SLOPE OF THE CURVE. A flatter curve means less of an overestimation.

 

This will not go away by adding more points.

 

Without even getting into the "race-ability" advantages of a flat curve(which we should not, because it too difficult to quantify), you can now see why so many people have chosen to tune their cars as flat as possible: because the ST rules math will give engines with a steep power curve a weight ratio disadvantage right off the bat.

 

As I suggested, the best way we can deal with this is to decrease the partition size, which increases accuracy. Simply increasing the interval does nothing.

 

Poor 4 cylinder NA. I feel your pain... And wait until the Rotary shows up. Poor poor rotary.

[daytonars4]

Going to 6 data points will have a significant impact on avg hp, so if that’s the direction please consider a comparable adjustment to the base ratio. Many of the cars that have been racing in ST4 (e36’s/350z’s/S2000’s etc) are already at or beyond what they can reach for power to weight. Without an adjustment expect this to become more of an E46/E92 M class which I don’t think is the intention.

 

GTS chose to not use a 3k rpm band in the averaging bc it allowed too much room for tuners to make adjustments to exploit it. If someone has a sequential which can stay primarily around a 2k rpm range it’ll make a mockery of this revision. But I guess since sequentials aren’t a concern in ST4 it doesn’t matter as much.