Proposed changes for '18

[Greg G.]

Hi Folks,

 

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

For ST4, we are planning on limiting size 275mm tires to only those cars weighing more than 3000 lbs (might be more than 3100 lbs--to be decided).

 

There will be new rules that permit vehicles like BMW's to reinforce problem areas of the chassis, such as the RTAB pocket mounting location, as long as there is no other performance benefit or geometry change (without requiring a Non-Production Vehicle Mod Factor assessment).

 

There will probably also be a new Mod Factor for tires that don't perform as well as the best "R" tires on the market (those in lines 6, 7, 8 of the PT Rules). It is not decided which classes this will be included in (or all classes).

 

ST5 (? PT5)/ TT5 might still be coming...stay tuned.

[MemphisRob]

Thank you and the committee/board for the work in getting these details wrapped up. At the same time I am sure a lot of competitors want to know for sure what the details are... I understand that doing it right to provide the most equitable competition within a class is the most important part.

 

I am glad to hear that the tires will have some differentiation within the rules based on actual performance. Unfortunately, you are somewhat forced to figure out how to level the playing field when you can't trust a manufacturers posted width or TW.

 

Has the weight to HP ratio been nailed down for TT5?

 

Thanks again for the updates.

[Greg G.]

Knowing the final Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio won't be of much value, without having the Mod Factors, since they will be more extensive in ST5/PT5?/TT5 than in the higher classes by necessity to keep costs down and attempt to level the field for the various models (instead of ending up with a class with only 5 model types that are competitive). Again, if we can't knock something out for you guys quickly, we will just defer to '19 (but, my plan is to get this done ASAP).

[jpreston]

There will be new rules that permit vehicles like BMW's to reinforce problem areas of the chassis, such as the RTAB pocket mounting location, as long as there is no other performance benefit or geometry change (without requiring a Non-Production Vehicle Mod Factor assessment).

 

I don't own or drive a BMW, but I'm really glad this is finally happening.

[daytonars4]

Any planned review of the ABS rules? The e46 MK60 is a very effective and affordable ABS option that as of now only BMW's are being allowed to run. Why not allow all cars to be able run that specific system while keeping race ABS systems limited? It's become a very popular upgrade for e36's so keep the playing field level.

[Greg G.]

Any planned review of the ABS rules? The e46 MK60 is a very effective and affordable ABS option that as of now only BMW's are being allowed to run. Why not allow all cars to be able run that specific system while keeping race ABS systems limited? It's become a very popular upgrade for e36's so keep the playing field level.

Please submit the request by e-mail, and include additional details (like whether the system can really be used by "all" cars functionally--what exactly is required--what is the cost of adding to a non-BMW, etc.).

[JHo]

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

[esr]

fully agree with this one, otherwise we are increasing cost and creating unreliability.

this may leave cars in no mans land.

the 6 point should be followed by an adjustment in base hp/weight for the class.

Lets figure this one out sooner than later please.

 

this should also be consider when making adjustments for the slower tires, if this means allowing higher horse power then this basically is of no use to many people who are maxed out in horse power.

so maybe the base horsepower would have to be based on the slowest tire available.

 

 

 

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

[944buzz]

Thank you for trying to get this stuff done Greg!

I think the ST4/5 classes are going to draw a good crowd. ST4 is already a good sized class in NorCal.

 

At some point we should address rim width for the slower classes.

A 245 A7 can fit a very large wheel. Some cars like my 944 require expensive custom wheels to take max advantage of that. A limit of wheel width can slow down a tire war. A lot of older cars just can't fit the larger wheel sizes.

I think most of us will buy the best tire we can.

 

Thanks again!

[fbirch]

+3 - It's easier and less costly for people with excess power to detune than it is for those of us with max'ed out NA engines to add power

 

fully agree with this one, otherwise we are increasing cost and creating unreliability.

this may leave cars in no mans land.

the 6 point should be followed by an adjustment in base hp/weight for the class.

Lets figure this one out sooner than later please.

 

this should also be consider when making adjustments for the slower tires, if this means allowing higher horse power then this basically is of no use to many people who are maxed out in horse power.

so maybe the base horsepower would have to be based on the slowest tire available.

 

 

 

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

[Matt@NCM]

Don't envy Greg on this - no matter what you are wrong to someone.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but in conjunction with the rules package updates, are there any plans to integrate compliance measures? I remember there was some talk of telemetry boxes mentioned as a way to supplement tech processes that don't have access to Dynos on site.

 

I am hesitant on the tire/mod factor thing, don't have enough information to make a factual case on it outside of what we see out here every weekend, but this is going to be a headache for you guys.

[esr]

I agree with you,

IMO no matter what the rules are there will eventually be a tire of choice. Question is which one.

Since that is the case why not just choose a tire that better serves the type of racing we do.

If you look at racing in general there are very few open tire series left, maybe because of sponsorship reasons but nevertheless open tire series always ends up being a one brand of choice series.

 

with all that said and quoting your post you cant make everyone happy, so why not choose a brand of tire that offers many sizes, is of great quality, reasonably priced, readily available all year long, and be done with! I would not even put too much importance on contingency to

top drivers in this case (tires) since that only benefits 1 or 2 guys, but causes more of a headache IMO. (rather get savings for all drivers)

I am not saying no to hoosier, or anyone else, but lets figure whats best for this great bunch of racers.

I am sure there will be many guys that will feel like their freedom is being compromised but on this topic I think as you mentioned in your post the pain in the butt factor and the continues monitoring and evaluation will outweigh any other reasons to have an open tire rule.

 

But now that i think we already have a spec tire, hoosier. so I guess question is, do we want to cut the cost of tires, if we even need that? I just purchased a set of r7 for $1600, sounds a bit high for club racing IMO but if everyone is ok with that price (and I imagine quality that comes with it) then I will have to get off the forum and get to work and make more $$$$$$$$$$.

 

if the tires are bitching and nothing compares then I guess is worth it!

 

Economy is great now, but we should think of budgets that are resection proof!

 

 

thanks guys

back to work!

 

 

 

 

 

Don't envy Greg on this - no matter what you are wrong to someone.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but in conjunction with the rules package updates, are there any plans to integrate compliance measures? I remember there was some talk of telemetry boxes mentioned as a way to supplement tech processes that don't have access to Dynos on site.

 

I am hesitant on the tire/mod factor thing, don't have enough information to make a factual case on it outside of what we see out here every weekend, but this is going to be a headache for you guys.

[Brian L.]

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

 

You realized you don't HAVE to build a new engine right? Or HAVE to do anything. Leave your car alone and be at the same disadvantage to throttle plate tuned cars that you are now. Moving to 6 points just allows those that can, or want to, tweak their numbers a bit, to run more competitively with those who have a totally flat power curve that expands outside the current measured range.

 

NOT doing this will basically mean that eventually the only cars that win will be those that can run flat throttle plate tunes over 4-5K RPM, and shift half as much as the car next to them. We don't want that for ST. You should be able to win with a standard power curve.

[esr]

but technically if his 2 new measured points are a bunch lower, then divided by 6 would give him a lower average number. so he could take advantage of the new 6 measure point rule and bump up his power to get back to the max power allowed!

isn't it the same as when we went from peak hp to 4 points.

we should talk about what can be done by the rules, not of what people may or may not do based on their budget.

 

you are missing the point of his question, what he is asking is for those guys to detune their cars vs us bumping up our hp. he is asking if the base hp can be lowered to make up for the difference. so that he can as you say leave his car alone but in a more democratic way.

 

 

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

 

You realized you don't HAVE to build a new engine right? Or HAVE to do anything. Leave your car alone and be at the same disadvantage to throttle plate tuned cars that you are now. Moving to 6 points just allows those that can, or want to, tweak their numbers a bit, to run more competitively with those who have a totally flat power curve that expands outside the current measured range.

 

NOT doing this will basically mean that eventually the only cars that win will be those that can run flat throttle plate tunes over 4-5K RPM, and shift half as much as the car next to them. We don't want that for ST. You should be able to win with a standard power curve.

[Brian L.]

Yes exactly, he COULD choose to take advantage of it, but no one is forcing him to. Just like no one is forcing him to build a motor with a throttle plate tune to take advantage of the current loop hole in the rule.

 

The problem with adjusting the base HP/weight number is, how much? Depending on the shape of your curve, it could take more or less to of an adjustment to keep you where you are at, right? So who do we cater to?

 

The best way is to leave the base numbers alone, and just add the two extra points, then people can add more power or take out weight accordingly. Changing the base hp/weight number would almost certainly ensure more people having to go back to the dyno/change their sheets.

 

For example, on my ST3 350Z, I would be able to add around 25 HP, or take out a lot of weight, or add some tire. I would probably add tire, but it doesn't mean I can afford to do it right away. We are talking about the long term health of the series, and for that I am happy to be slightly flexible as this amazing, but still forming ST class fine tunes the formula.

[esr]

I just spend a lot on carbon fiber to get my car to 3000lbs, now I am going to have to ballast it to 3100 to run 275 tires.

I have a 350z de, at 3100# and 6 measure points i would need a no jokes racing engine, and 150 octace fuel plus all the hight tech rest of the package, maybe this is ok for you or any other well off guys. for me that would put me out of st4 in my 350z.

so basically this comes down to what is st4?

 

looks like you like to go fast brian, maybe st4 is not for you!

slow the cars down make it about the drivers

I would like to run a lot next year, I thought my car was good to go,

there are 2 of us telling you we are getting screwed!

maybe listen to your customers

 

I am happy to slow my car down if that will include more cars in the series,that can run with equal power and no extra cost, we are all gonna have to go to the dyno I am sure!

 

 

Yes exactly, he COULD choose to take advantage of it, but no one is forcing him to. Just like no one is forcing him to build a motor with a throttle plate tune to take advantage of the current loop hole in the rule.

 

The problem with adjusting the base HP/weight number is, how much? Depending on the shape of your curve, it could take more or less to of an adjustment to keep you where you are at, right? So who do we cater to?

 

The best way is to leave the base numbers alone, and just add the two extra points, then people can add more power or take out weight accordingly. Changing the base hp/weight number would almost certainly ensure more people having to go back to the dyno/change their sheets.

 

For example, on my ST3 350Z, I would be able to add around 25 HP, or take out a lot of weight, or add some tire. I would probably add tire, but it doesn't mean I can afford to do it right away. We are talking about the long term health of the series, and for that I am happy to be slightly flexible as this amazing, but still forming ST class fine tunes the formula.

[Brian L.]

So many contradictory points in your response I won't even bother. Just remember to think of the greater good of the series, saving money is exactly the point of the 6 points. What happens when I detune my 400 hp HR motor and run the whole track in 5th gear?

 

And don't presume to know other people's finances, "I just bought a ton of carbon"

[esr]

maybe is hard to understand in writing.

you keep missing the point just like you did earlier.

6 points is great, bravo!!

having to get more power out of our engines not

 

if you don't like slowing cars down then say it, don't disregard others request and pretend there is a misunderstanding.

 

you keep trying to justify the 6 point rule, that is not the point of this tread, we love the 6 point rule, but only if accompanied by and adjustment if base power

 

very clear in English brian

 

we are asking for an adjustment in the base power to make up for the new awesome 6 point rule.

 

why so hard to understand

 

I bought the carbon from a huge effort, because st4 is the only place to run here, you know i wanted the spec z class that you used to support and believe in! what changed you to the other extreme!

there are no contradictions i have been advocating for low cost from the beginning.

 

you know it took me a while to save for the carbon fiber stuff , i also had to do some small engine bolt ons, i called you and ask you if you had any used stuff or if you could give me some good pricing, so you know my situation. not sure why you are confused or think there is contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So many contradictory points in your response I won't even bother. Just remember to think of the greater good of the series, saving money is exactly the point of the 6 points. What happens when I detune my 400 hp HR motor and run the whole track in 5th gear?

 

And don't presume to know other people's finances, "I just bought a ton of carbon"

[JHo]

We are planning on expanding the Avg HP formula to include 6 data points in '18, instead of 4.

 

Will there be any adjustment to base HP/weight, or just adding the 2 extra points? For some like myself, this will cause a lot of spending. To make more power, I have to build a new engine. This may push me into a no mans land if PT5 doesn't happen.

 

I spent all last winter cutting weight out of my car when the 4 data points were kept. I knew I was on the limit of what I could do with my car, but it fit. Now I have to undo a years worth of work and tuning or look for another series/sanctioning body to run with.

 

You realized you don't HAVE to build a new engine right? Or HAVE to do anything. Leave your car alone and be at the same disadvantage to throttle plate tuned cars that you are now. Moving to 6 points just allows those that can, or want to, tweak their numbers a bit, to run more competitively with those who have a totally flat power curve that expands outside the current measured range.

 

NOT doing this will basically mean that eventually the only cars that win will be those that can run flat throttle plate tunes over 4-5K RPM, and shift half as much as the car next to them. We don't want that for ST. You should be able to win with a standard power curve.

 

I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. It will help my peaky hp motor in the long run.

 

What I more worry about is this is actually quite a big change after less than a year of the class rules. ST4 was supposed to be a stable rules set.

 

In addition, I'm pretty salty that I spent a lot of time and effort lightening my car to build around my budget and the rules. This was on the advice of NASA officials who stated the intent was for TTC cars to best slot into ST4. Now to be max prepped for ST4 I have to either cut out another 200 lbs (where????) or build an expensive high RPM ticking time bomb. The other option is to bolt the weight back in I just spent 6 months removing and change classes to PT5. That may mean skipping 2018 season if that class doesn't happen.

[Brian L.]

I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. It will help my peaky hp motor in the long run.

 

What I more worry about is this is actually quite a big change after less than a year of the class rules. ST4 was supposed to be a stable rules set.

 

In addition, I'm pretty salty that I spent a lot of time and effort lightening my car to build around my budget and the rules. This was on the advice of NASA officials who stated the intent was for TTC cars to best slot into ST4. Now to be max prepped for ST4 I have to either cut out another 200 lbs (where????) or build an expensive high RPM ticking time bomb. The other option is to bolt the weight back in I just spent 6 months removing and change classes to PT5. That may mean skipping 2018 season if that class doesn't happen.

 

I totally understand that frustration. That is why I say don't worry about changing your car right away, just go race and do the work in time as you can afford to. Others will likely be in the same boat. With field sizes the way they are, there will always been someone to race right now.

 

I think we all agree 6 points is the right way to go, then the only argument is what upsets more people, changing the base wt or leaving it alone. My argument is that leaving it alone is the right move in the long run. We can adjust it sure, but by how much?

 

I am in the same boat with my clients, we just got our ST4 350Z dialed in, and now we will have to change. But we saw ST3 go the way of expensive builds that limited field parity, and we would rather change a few things than have ST4 go the same route.

 

Please just bare with it! I know it sucks to chase a moving target, but I feel strongly that with these tweaks the ST4 ruleset will be solid for a long time to come. Not that it is up to me, these were just my suggestions based on listening to the majority in NorCal.

[esr]

adjust it by 1.0 is my request!

less horse power

that way you don't end up sending st4 cars to st5, that won't be good for st5

you have a 350z and an s2000 guy saying less horse power. that has to count for something

350z and s2000 in st5 probably not ideal for the class

 

we should get back to the original 12-1 peak power to weight then use the 6 point and make a compensation, i understand cars may be different, pick the worst case scenario!

 

or if you have to have the fast cars in st4

 

and you think people are gonna be building 370z, vettes, mustang, e92, then maybe all current cars move to st5 with the same rules as st4 minus the hp, then leave st4 for the long term future. and come up with st6 for the slower less prepped cars.

 

also get rid of tire points for st4 as well, allocate correct tire to weight

the lighter cars should be allowed a bit less hp/wt, not sure how much, but any even 0.1 for each 300 lbs, so that you have a precedent from which to adjust in the future if needed

 

in st4 we already have very open rules to buy million dollar brakes, diffs, shocks which I have non of!

now we have to have f1 engines, its too much for this type of racing IMO, at least the engines should be pretty plug and play.

 

 

 

 

 

I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. It will help my peaky hp motor in the long run.

 

What I more worry about is this is actually quite a big change after less than a year of the class rules. ST4 was supposed to be a stable rules set.

 

In addition, I'm pretty salty that I spent a lot of time and effort lightening my car to build around my budget and the rules. This was on the advice of NASA officials who stated the intent was for TTC cars to best slot into ST4. Now to be max prepped for ST4 I have to either cut out another 200 lbs (where????) or build an expensive high RPM ticking time bomb. The other option is to bolt the weight back in I just spent 6 months removing and change classes to PT5. That may mean skipping 2018 season if that class doesn't happen.

 

I totally understand that frustration. That is why I say don't worry about changing your car right away, just go race and do the work in time as you can afford to. Others will likely be in the same boat. With field sizes the way they are, there will always been someone to race right now.

 

I think we all agree 6 points is the right way to go, then the only argument is what upsets more people, changing the base wt or leaving it alone. My argument is that leaving it alone is the right move in the long run. We can adjust it sure, but by how much?

 

I am in the same boat with my clients, we just got our ST4 350Z dialed in, and now we will have to change. But we saw ST3 go the way of expensive builds that limited field parity, and we would rather change a few things than have ST4 go the same route.

 

Please just bare with it! I know it sucks to chase a moving target, but I feel strongly that with these tweaks the ST4 ruleset will be solid for a long time to come. Not that it is up to me, these were just my suggestions based on listening to the majority in NorCal.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Guest

[Savington]

I think you have to change the base figure if you add the extra averaging points. Phrase it this way: Would you even consider making a tweak to the current power/weights in each class if you weren't going to add the extra points? I don't think you would, but that's effectively what you're doing as a side effect of going from 4 to 6 points.

 

I think we all agree 6 points is the right way to go, then the only argument is what upsets more people, changing the base wt or leaving it alone. My argument is that leaving it alone is the right move in the long run. We can adjust it sure, but by how much?

 

It's incredibly easy to figure that out - as the ST group leader you have all the data in front of you. Take the data everyone submitted this year, re-calc with two additional points, and do the math. Or send a few representative charts to me and I'll do the math, you have my email address.

 

(For my own car, factoring in those two additional points would give me an extra 0.25:1 (~5hp or ~50lbs). My current average is 211.2whp, six points would drop that to 206.7hp. My paperwork as-filed is 215whp @ 2473lbs)

[944buzz]

There is also the option to do Rewards weight.

 

You simply add weight (25 lbs) to the winners car. The max Rewards ballast is capped at (250 lbs.).

 

This equalizes cars that can take advantage of throttle plate tuning.

 

Rewards weight has been used successfully in many professional series.

 

I also believe capping the largest tire at 245 and widest rim at 10" will help equal out the field.

 

A lot of older cars can't fit the 275 under stock fenders.

 

As far as a Spec tire I am all for that. But finding one that will accommodate all the different cars may be a problem. I know the Toyo RR does not come in enough sizes for this class.

[brkntrxn]

There is also the option to do Rewards weight.

 

You simply add weight (25 lbs) to the winners car. The max Rewards ballast is capped at (250 lbs.).

 

This equalizes cars that can take advantage of throttle plate tuning.

 

Rewards weight has been used successfully in many professional series.

 

I also believe capping the largest tire at 245 and widest rim at 10" will help equal out the field.

 

A lot of older cars can't fit the 275 under stock fenders.

 

As far as a Spec tire I am all for that. But finding one that will accommodate all the different cars may be a problem. I know the Toyo RR does not come in enough sizes for this class.

 

Rewards weight -- This will be extremely difficult to execute in an amateur, franchise series like NASA. Fathom the difficulty of officiating that for people like myself that jump between classes, between TT and racing, and between tracks and regions throughout the year.

 

Capping the largest tire at 245 and 10" wheel for what class? Surely you are talking about ST4 and lower (numerically higher) classes). I can't fit 335s under my current fenders in my ST2-ST3 car. I am not going to ask to penalize my competitors that spent the money on widebody kits just because I don't want to cough up the $10k like they did.

[esr]

yes kevin you bring up a good point,

please we need to say what type of car we have if we do and what class our suggestions apply to.

let's keep clarity a priority.

also we need to justify our suggestions, we should not say for example: I believe this is better in the long term, and not say why!

 

raf

o3 350z norcal st4

 

 

There is also the option to do Rewards weight.

 

You simply add weight (25 lbs) to the winners car. The max Rewards ballast is capped at (250 lbs.).

 

This equalizes cars that can take advantage of throttle plate tuning.

 

Rewards weight has been used successfully in many professional series.

 

I also believe capping the largest tire at 245 and widest rim at 10" will help equal out the field.

 

A lot of older cars can't fit the 275 under stock fenders.

 

As far as a Spec tire I am all for that. But finding one that will accommodate all the different cars may be a problem. I know the Toyo RR does not come in enough sizes for this class.

 

Rewards weight -- This will be extremely difficult to execute in an amateur, franchise series like NASA. Fathom the difficulty of officiating that for people like myself that jump between classes, between TT and racing, and between tracks and regions throughout the year.

 

Capping the largest tire at 245 and 10" wheel for what class? Surely you are talking about ST4 and lower (numerically higher) classes). I can't fit 335s under my current fenders in my ST2-ST3 car. I am not going to ask to penalize my competitors that spent the money on widebody kits just because I don't want to cough up the $10k like they did.