Savington Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 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. NASA ST4 is not a professional series. It's an amateur club series. Rewards weight would be extremely difficult to police, difficult to adhere to for competitors who double-dip in ST/TT, and wouldn't actually do anything to improve parity because you'll get cars that come in for 1-2 events a year and clean house because they aren't carrying the weight. 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. Ah, no. Can't fit 275s on your heavy car? Too bad, so sad. I can't fit anything bigger than a 225 under my Miata, but I'm not advocating for a 225-width restriction. Race a newer car or add flares like the rules allow. In addition, a limit to 245s would severely hinder the heavier (3000lb+ cars). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy8085 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 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). PLEASE PT5/TT5 for 2018. I'm so curious about the ratio and modifiers! Any news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigspeed10 Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Not sure if this is the best place to post this but wanted to get it out there for consideration. In the rules section 7.3.1 number 6) it states that connecting to the ECU is prohibited. I would like to propose changing the language of the rule so it would still prohibit modifying or altering the ECU but would allow connecting to the ECU for data logging and metering purposes. With modern ECUs and the readily available hardware/software for data logging this rule should be updated to allow us to do that. The way this rule is currently written it just keeps the honest people from having easy and cheap access to data while the cheaters are still going to cheat. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdr93523 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Any chance of removing the aero restrictions and allowing slicks in ST4 (at a penalty of course)? If that happens I would pull my supercharger and move to ST4 from ST2, but I won't un-develop my chassis to make it fit the class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpearson Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Any chance of removing the aero restrictions and allowing slicks in ST4 (at a penalty of course)? If that happens I would pull my supercharger and move to ST4 from ST2, but I won't un-develop my chassis to make it fit the class. That would basically defeat the purpose of ST4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944buzz Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 After reading the rules closely while preparing my car for ST4 it looks like it needs a clarification for the wing and end plate rules for ST4. It states the wing height above roof line but does not state if that includes the end plates in the measurements. The end plate rule just simply states 12" as a measurement. I confirmed with Greg that it is 12" in any direction. The verbiage just needs to reflect a length and width measurement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clock Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Hi Greg, At the ST4 drivers meeting you were talking about new tire rules for next year. There were two aims: 1) level performance between heavy and lighter cars, and 2) incentivize people to use different brands of tire. One of the suggested changes was to have people take points for running "The Tire Who Shall No Be Named", because it performs better than other tire brands of a similar size. I don't think we need to do this at all. I would probably be on different tires than Hoosier, if it were not for this simple fact: On the left of this picture, a stack of Hankook 245/17. In the middle are my 245/17 Hoosiers, and to the right are Tom Tangs 275 Hankooks. Some takeaways 1)no, Tom does NOT have a tire advantage over me because he runs 275 . They are, fact the same size. 2) I don't care how many points you give me, its hard to give up 4" tire. Look at how small those 245 hankooks are. The ST/TT rules always use the manufacturers stated Tire Width number when classifying a tire. We should change this to MEASURED TREAD WIDTH when assigning points. Hoosier is only the chosen tire because it grossly under-reports on its tire width, meaning we simply have a larger tire when we run it(not because of some innate superiority in the brand). You also cannot count on the stamp on the side of the tire to be accurate within the same brand! The Hoosier 245/15 is MUCH wider than the 245/17, for example. So if you penalize all hoosiers, you might be penalizing larger sizes for no reason, because their number may be closer to the true number. You just don't know unless you measure them. The rules as written cannot properly address these discrepancies. And if you write a rule specific to a certain brand, you will have to rewrite it every time a new tire enters the scene. To future-proof any rule, classification of tire should be done by measured TREAD width only, not stated TIRE width, and it should be universally applied to every brand. After that, let the economics sorts out people tire choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 this sounds way too tricky, we need a spec tire. good quality,not too expensive, and with all sizes for the different car weights! why wait for another year of arguing, do it now! for the sake of close racing! Hi Greg, At the ST4 drivers meeting you were talking about new tire rules for next year. There were two aims: 1) level performance between heavy and lighter cars, and 2) incentivize people to use different brands of tire. One of the suggested changes was to have people take points for running "The Tire Who Shall No Be Named", because it performs better than other tire brands of a similar size. I don't think we need to do this at all. I would probably be on different tires than Hoosier, if it were not for this simple fact: On the left of this picture, a stack of Hankook 245/17. In the middle are my 245/17 Hoosiers, and to the right are Tom Tangs 275 Hankooks. Some takeaways 1)no, Tom does NOT have a tire advantage over me because he runs 275 . They are, fact the same size. 2) I don't care how many points you give me, its hard to give up 4" tire. Look at how small those 245 hankooks are. The ST/TT rules always use the manufacturers stated Tire Width number when classifying a tire. We should change this to MEASURED TREAD WIDTH when assigning points. Hoosier is only the chosen tire because it grossly under-reports on its tire width, meaning we simply have a larger tire when we run it(not because of some innate superiority in the brand). You also cannot count on the stamp on the side of the tire to be accurate within the same brand! The Hoosier 245/15 is MUCH wider than the 245/17, for example. So if you penalize all hoosiers, you might be penalizing larger sizes for no reason, because their number may be closer to the true number. You just don't know unless you measure them. The rules as written cannot properly address these discrepancies. And if you write a rule specific to a certain brand, you will have to rewrite it every time a new tire enters the scene. To future-proof any rule, classification of tire should be done by measured TREAD width only, not stated TIRE width, and it should be universally applied to every brand. After that, let the economics sorts out people tire choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clock Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Its not tricky. All the tires publish their true measurements. Or you measure them with tape. We compile these sheets for the 4 or 5 brands being used, and set the limits exactly as they have been set now. I am not advocating against a spec tire per se, but it would need to be the right spec tire. Spec tires often ruin a series when not every potential competitor can find a fitment. It also reduces the overall contingency payout available for a class, further reducing interest. A spec tire is not a cure-all. My point here is that if the choice is to keep tire brand open, we should class them by the actual size. Hoosier's tread width advantage is eliminated, and we get to retain the better economic aspects of open tire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 sorry i meant it was tricky despite coming up with a pretty good system like the one you are proposing; avoiding at the end ,having a preferred brand and model of choice, so why not just choose one now! Its not tricky. All the tires publish their true measurements. Or you measure them with tape. We compile these sheets for the 4 or 5 brands being used, and set the limits exactly as they have been set now. I am not advocating against a spec tire per se, but it would need to be the right spec tire. Spec tires often ruin a series when not every potential competitor can find a fitment. It also reduces the overall contingency payout available for a class, further reducing interest. A spec tire is not a cure-all. My point here is that if the choice is to keep tire brand open, we should class them by the actual size. Hoosier's tread width advantage is eliminated, and we get to retain the better economic aspects of open tire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigspeed10 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. This will eliminate any manufactures side wall claim discrepancies and avoids the need to measure all the tires and avoids the next issue of wheel size. From my experience once you have “enough tire” going bigger doesn’t really help much anyway. I’ve tested this with 265’s, 275’s, and 315’s on a 3200lbs comp weight in ST3. 275’s were the sweet spot. One caveat for this to work is that the mod factors for weight need to be addressed. In a pw/wt class heavier with more power is going to be faster in most cases because low hp cars can’t push through the air as well as higher hp cars. Currently the combination of Tire and Weight mod factors account for this and if we remove the tire width mod factors then the weight table alone will need to account for this and needs to be changed. This first table is based on the current rules with example cars at different weights and tire size. The resulting combined mod factor provides a benefit to lighter weight cars compared to heavier cars which is what it should do. We could argue for days on how much the adjustments should be and if they should be different for each class but they are in the correct direction of giving a benefit to lighter weight lower horsepower cars. Comp Weight......Tire Size on Car........Tire size mod Factor.....Weight Mod Factor.....Resulting Combined Mod Factor 2500lbs..............245 or smaller..........+0.7 ..........................-0.2........................+0.5 3200lbs..............275.........................+0.3 ...........................0.0........................+0.3 3450lbs..............285 or bigger.............0.0...........................+0.2.......................+0.2 This table is the proposed mod factors for weight if the tire size mod factor is removed. It’s at least a place to start from to have a discussion. Comp Weight Less Than........Weight mod Factor 2200lbs...........+0.7 2400lbs...........+0.6 2600lbs...........+0.5 2800lbs...........+0.4 3200lbs...........+0.3 3400lbs...........+0.2 3600lbs...........+0.1 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWI Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Any update on the HP calculations? Moving to six data points, or sticking with four? Or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. "Allow" sounds like a very passive way to make people go buy 8-12 new wheels and tire sizes, which would be pretty painful to the wallet. Identifying an "appropriate" tire size for a given weight would be very subjective. I used to race a 3200 lb car that could have never even fit a 275 size tire on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 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.). The CCR allows 250 lbs of max ballast, what if your car already has 250 lbs? 500 lbs of bolt in ballast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 I think the faster bigger car with more power theory has already been proven not to be correct in st4. unless that vette was heavy with lots of power, but maybe is torque that makes the difference. also you jump from 2800 to 3200 lbs why is that? Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. This will eliminate any manufactures side wall claim discrepancies and avoids the need to measure all the tires and avoids the next issue of wheel size. From my experience once you have “enough tire” going bigger doesn’t really help much anyway. I’ve tested this with 265’s, 275’s, and 315’s on a 3200lbs comp weight in ST3. 275’s were the sweet spot. One caveat for this to work is that the mod factors for weight need to be addressed. In a pw/wt class heavier with more power is going to be faster in most cases because low hp cars can’t push through the air as well as higher hp cars. Currently the combination of Tire and Weight mod factors account for this and if we remove the tire width mod factors then the weight table alone will need to account for this and needs to be changed. This first table is based on the current rules with example cars at different weights and tire size. The resulting combined mod factor provides a benefit to lighter weight cars compared to heavier cars which is what it should do. We could argue for days on how much the adjustments should be and if they should be different for each class but they are in the correct direction of giving a benefit to lighter weight lower horsepower cars. Comp Weight......Tire Size on Car........Tire size mod Factor.....Weight Mod Factor.....Resulting Combined Mod Factor 2500lbs..............245 or smaller..........+0.7 ..........................-0.2........................+0.5 3200lbs..............275.........................+0.3 ...........................0.0........................+0.3 3450lbs..............285 or bigger.............0.0...........................+0.2.......................+0.2 This table is the proposed mod factors for weight if the tire size mod factor is removed. It’s at least a place to start from to have a discussion. Comp Weight Less Than........Weight mod Factor 2200lbs...........+0.7 2400lbs...........+0.6 2600lbs...........+0.5 2800lbs...........+0.4 3200lbs...........+0.3 3400lbs...........+0.2 3600lbs...........+0.1 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. "Allow" sounds like a very passive way to make people go buy 8-12 new wheels and tire sizes, which would be pretty painful to the wallet. Identifying an "appropriate" tire size for a given weight would be very subjective. I used to race a 3200 lb car that could have never even fit a 275 size tire on it. Edited October 10, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 I fully disagree, the advantage should be given to the heavier cars, both in tire and horsepower! as i see it you have it completely backwards! Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. This will eliminate any manufactures side wall claim discrepancies and avoids the need to measure all the tires and avoids the next issue of wheel size. From my experience once you have “enough tire” going bigger doesn’t really help much anyway. I’ve tested this with 265’s, 275’s, and 315’s on a 3200lbs comp weight in ST3. 275’s were the sweet spot. One caveat for this to work is that the mod factors for weight need to be addressed. In a pw/wt class heavier with more power is going to be faster in most cases because low hp cars can’t push through the air as well as higher hp cars. Currently the combination of Tire and Weight mod factors account for this and if we remove the tire width mod factors then the weight table alone will need to account for this and needs to be changed. This first table is based on the current rules with example cars at different weights and tire size. The resulting combined mod factor provides a benefit to lighter weight cars compared to heavier cars which is what it should do. We could argue for days on how much the adjustments should be and if they should be different for each class but they are in the correct direction of giving a benefit to lighter weight lower horsepower cars. Comp Weight......Tire Size on Car........Tire size mod Factor.....Weight Mod Factor.....Resulting Combined Mod Factor 2500lbs..............245 or smaller..........+0.7 ..........................-0.2........................+0.5 3200lbs..............275.........................+0.3 ...........................0.0........................+0.3 3450lbs..............285 or bigger.............0.0...........................+0.2.......................+0.2 This table is the proposed mod factors for weight if the tire size mod factor is removed. It’s at least a place to start from to have a discussion. Comp Weight Less Than........Weight mod Factor 2200lbs...........+0.7 2400lbs...........+0.6 2600lbs...........+0.5 2800lbs...........+0.4 3200lbs...........+0.3 3400lbs...........+0.2 3600lbs...........+0.1 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 is this coming from NASA? or an inside source! Why not just remove the tire width mod factors all together and allow people to run the appropriate size tire for the weight of their car. This will eliminate any manufactures side wall claim discrepancies and avoids the need to measure all the tires and avoids the next issue of wheel size. From my experience once you have “enough tire” going bigger doesn’t really help much anyway. I’ve tested this with 265’s, 275’s, and 315’s on a 3200lbs comp weight in ST3. 275’s were the sweet spot. One caveat for this to work is that the mod factors for weight need to be addressed. In a pw/wt class heavier with more power is going to be faster in most cases because low hp cars can’t push through the air as well as higher hp cars. Currently the combination of Tire and Weight mod factors account for this and if we remove the tire width mod factors then the weight table alone will need to account for this and needs to be changed. This first table is based on the current rules with example cars at different weights and tire size. The resulting combined mod factor provides a benefit to lighter weight cars compared to heavier cars which is what it should do. We could argue for days on how much the adjustments should be and if they should be different for each class but they are in the correct direction of giving a benefit to lighter weight lower horsepower cars. Comp Weight......Tire Size on Car........Tire size mod Factor.....Weight Mod Factor.....Resulting Combined Mod Factor 2500lbs..............245 or smaller..........+0.7 ..........................-0.2........................+0.5 3200lbs..............275.........................+0.3 ...........................0.0........................+0.3 3450lbs..............285 or bigger.............0.0...........................+0.2.......................+0.2 This table is the proposed mod factors for weight if the tire size mod factor is removed. It’s at least a place to start from to have a discussion. Comp Weight Less Than........Weight mod Factor 2200lbs...........+0.7 2400lbs...........+0.6 2600lbs...........+0.5 2800lbs...........+0.4 3200lbs...........+0.3 3400lbs...........+0.2 3600lbs...........+0.1 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigspeed10 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 This is just a proposed idea that would eliminate the tire width mod factors that always seem to be a problem for the series. Tried to use numbers that would minimize any change to current pw/wt ratios. If most cars fall between 2400lbs and 3400lbs then most people wouldn't see much if any change to their pw/wt ratio. This is all a complete guess on my part so lets discuss and poke holes in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focusedintntions Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstone Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkntrxn Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes? Typical brake setup on SU-ST3 cars is in the 4-5K range, so 10k is not as outlandish as his example indicates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 6 piston more like 7k?? maybe!!! I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes? Typical brake setup on SU-ST3 cars is in the 4-5K range, so 10k is not as outlandish as his example indicates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 6 piston more like 7k?? maybe!!! I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes? Typical brake setup on SU-ST3 cars is in the 4-5K range, so 10k is not as outlandish as his example indicates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esr Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 6 piston more like 7k?? maybe!!! I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible. Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's. who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes? Typical brake setup on SU-ST3 cars is in the 4-5K range, so 10k is not as outlandish as his example indicates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.