NASA 2018 ST5 Rules Released 11-29-17

[Greg G.]

11/29/2017—NASA 2018 Super Touring 5 Rules Released!

 

NASA is proud to announce that the new Super Touring 5 class is ready to roll out for 2018! The 2018 ST5 Rules will be posted in the next few hours on the NASA Rules page. https://www.nasaproracing.com/rules

 

As in past years, NASA Time Trial classing will mirror classing of the Super Touring and Performance Touring series, so TT drivers can use these rules for purposes of 2018 TT classing as well.

 

The new ST5 class will be taking the place of the Performance Touring C class (PTC) this season, with a transition of the Performance Touring D class into ST5 as well in the future. Because of the disparity between the rules for the new ST5 class and the ST1-ST4 classes, it was decided to separate these rules into an entirely different rules file. While still written in an open modification format, these rules are more restrictive than the higher level ST classes, and there are more Modification Factors (some of which have transitioned over from the PT classes) that should serve to even the field at a lower cost to the competitors than in the higher level classes. While the limit of Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio is 14.00:1, competitors will see that there are significant differences between the higher level class rules, and that a direct comparison between the 14.00:1 in ST5 versus the 12.00:1 in ST4 would not be valid.

 

As in the ST1-4 rules, there is now a rule (that didn’t exist in PT) that allows for reinforcement of suspension mounting locations for strengthening purposes only. Competitors will immediately notice that the entire system of tire sizing has changed to the “NASA Section Width” measurement, and that not only are there no longer Modification Factors for tire size in this class, but that tire size is limited based on the vehicle competition weight. NASA has developed its own method of measuring tire width, called the NASA Section Width measurement, along with measurement tools that will be available in every region and templates for those tools in a .pdf file on the NASA Rules page. We have added a Modification Factor for UTQG Treadwear 200 or greater tires as well.

 

The new method of calculating the Average Horsepower (Avg HP), while a little more complicated, should provide a better approximation of the horsepower available over a range of usable RPM. As in the past, if a competitor does not want to do any of these calculations, the Maximum Horsepower can always be used to calculate the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio instead! The improved method has more data points to be evaluated with a switch from looking at the HP in 500 rpm increments to 250 rpm increments. As well, the number of data points used for the actual calculation will depend on the engine’s rpm redline. Larger, lower revving engines will use less data points, and the smaller engines that rev higher will use more data points giving them a measurement of a wider rpm power band.

 

Changes to the weight tables, new Modification Factors for Suspension, such as the “Upper “A-arm” or “wishbone” type control arms” Mod Factor, and the Drivetrain Modification Factor for “Rear-Mid or Rear engine layout” will all serve to take the place of the vehicle base class table in the Performance Touring rules. There is a Modification Factor for Front Splitter as the progression of decreasing Aero modifications continues down the series classes.

 

As with any new class, we hope for perfect rules that serve the competitors, but we remain realistic and ready to make minor adjustments as needed. Your constructive input on the NASA Forums or via your regional series leaders is always welcome.

 

Have a great 2018 season, and we will see you at COTA in September for the once again unified NASA National Championships!

 

Greg Greenbaum, M.D.

NASA National ST/PT/TT Director

[Greg G.]

The rules are posted.

[Gabe O.]

Is this class an option to run in for the any events remaining in 2017?

[Greg G.]

Is this class an option to run in for the any events remaining in 2017?

No, officially these rules don't take effect until the 2018 season starts. (Unless you let me drive your car at AMP on 12-9. -----Just kidding)

 

You can talk to Tage and see if there is anything you or a group can do as a "fun run". Or there is always the option of running in SU with a group of drivers who all agree to abide by these rules (just can't be held to them in Tech).

[srproductions]

All the rules seem really spot on and I think will make for a competitive field. Great work!

 

The only rule that sticks out to me is .7 for double wishbone suspension which seems a bit excessive. Could you elaborate a little on how you guys reached that number?

[Snowmants]

I agree. I really like the spirit of these rules and the direction. Tire measurement is a great idea. I also have to wonder, however, about the .7 double wishbone mod factor....seems very high. Thank you for your hard work on these new rules.

[Greg G.]

Remember, we have been Dyno Re-classing these cars for over 10 years, using our NASA magic, and if you look at the PT Base Class table, you will see that this is also built in.

We are going to start conservative, as we can always decrease the assessment in the future if we find it appropriate.

 

But, think of it this way, if you have a lightweight vehicle, is it not worth 110 lbs of ballast (or 7 hp) to have an A-arm suspension design over a strut or trailing arm design? Similarly, for a heavy car at about 3400 lbs, wouldn't you rather have the much better engineered and designed suspension than to remove 160 lbs (or 11 hp) from the vehicle? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

[OffsetMotorwerks]

Remember, we have been Dyno Re-classing these cars for over 10 years, using our NASA magic, and if you look at the PT Base Class table, you will see that this is also built in.

We are going to start conservative, as we can always decrease the assessment in the future if we find it appropriate.

 

But, think of it this way, if you have a lightweight vehicle, is it not worth 110 lbs of ballast (or 7 hp) to have an A-arm suspension design over a strut or trailing arm design? Similarly, for a heavy car at about 3400 lbs, wouldn't you rather have the much better engineered and designed suspension than to remove 160 lbs (or 11 hp) from the vehicle? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

 

Good point!

 

Are differential gearing and LSD modifications unlimited?

[alwaysinboost]

great job with the new rule set.

 

you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

 

so much of this.

[StephenP]

so much of this.

 

Granted, full throttle in a Miata or s2000 isn't exactly much

[kjbrew01]

Based on what I am reading the maximum tire size is 245? I am curious why there wasn't another weight break for more tire above the 2750lb mark, maybe like 3200+lbs. My competition weight was previously 3340lbs (TTC) and I have never ran a tire as small as a 245. I hope the durability will be there in the smaller sizes, given they will not be autocross tires anymore. Maybe I read the rules wrong

[srproductions]

Remember, we have been Dyno Re-classing these cars for over 10 years, using our NASA magic, and if you look at the PT Base Class table, you will see that this is also built in.

We are going to start conservative, as we can always decrease the assessment in the future if we find it appropriate.

 

But, think of it this way, if you have a lightweight vehicle, is it not worth 110 lbs of ballast (or 7 hp) to have an A-arm suspension design over a strut or trailing arm design? Similarly, for a heavy car at about 3400 lbs, wouldn't you rather have the much better engineered and designed suspension than to remove 160 lbs (or 11 hp) from the vehicle? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

 

A lot of that early power delivery is because of complete lack of torque that would upset the car.

[JamesMilko]

 

At first blush this looks good for the lower classes.

 

First question that sticks out, would NB1 (00-99) and NB2 (01-905) Miatas be considered different generations?

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[esr]

Hi Greg,

how do you see a 350z early production 03-04 fitting in ST5, the new st4 rules put my car sort of way down on power, hoping to run fairly stock on the engine side.

 

Thanks

Rafael

 

 

Remember, we have been Dyno Re-classing these cars for over 10 years, using our NASA magic, and if you look at the PT Base Class table, you will see that this is also built in.

We are going to start conservative, as we can always decrease the assessment in the future if we find it appropriate.

 

But, think of it this way, if you have a lightweight vehicle, is it not worth 110 lbs of ballast (or 7 hp) to have an A-arm suspension design over a strut or trailing arm design? Similarly, for a heavy car at about 3400 lbs, wouldn't you rather have the much better engineered and designed suspension than to remove 160 lbs (or 11 hp) from the vehicle? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

[HAZE]

Thank you! Looks very promising

Edited December 1, 2017 by Guest

[Calif_Kid]

 

Greg - section 6.1.5 part 4 has info:

6.1.5 ST5 Aerodynamic Modification Restrictions and Limitations

…

If not using the BTM Aero Modification Factor, aerodynamic parts/devices/aides

shall be limited in ST5 to the following:

…

4) Single rear wing or spoiler that does not exceed a height above the roof

line, or width greater than the vehicle’s body width, or end plates greater than

12” in length or height, or 12” protrusion from the rear of the vehicle. Body

width does not include flared fenders, mirrors, splitter, door handles.

 

I know for ST4, that the rear wing was limited to 8" above the roof, but I read the above for ST5 that the wing has to be level or lower than the roof height. Was that the intention, or was a value left out of the above section? I was just thinking about a rear wing on a hatch in ST5 vs a coupe or sedan. Also, is the 12" protrusion from the rear from the rear most part of the body (fender cover), so the rear part of the wing has to be within that area? Thanks!! - Jim

 

[cadmad]

Thanks to all how worked hard to get this done!

[Rob S.]

I second that. Thank you for all the hard work!

[Mrsideways]

? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

 

 

Or a Porsche (some) on it's well engineered Strut Suspension.

[JamesMilko]

Hi Greg,

how do you see a 350z early production 03-04 fitting in ST5, the new st4 rules put my car sort of way down on power, hoping to run fairly stock on the engine side.

 

Thanks

Rafael

 

All vehicles must either be listed in section 6.3.3 or originate as four-wheel,

fendered/closed-wheel, Production street vehicles with less than 265 hp (two-hundred

sixty-five) factory rated engine horsepower, an engine displacement less than 5.1L

(unless specifically approved by the National ST Director), and comply with the

modification limitations in section 6.1 of these rules.

 

I suggest e-mailing Greg if you want to run a 2003 350Z in ST5.

 

Can plans for the jig that will be used at impound be shared so we can start making our own?

[esr]

thanks for the info.

makes sense, no st5 for 350z at 287hp

 

 

Hi Greg,

how do you see a 350z early production 03-04 fitting in ST5, the new st4 rules put my car sort of way down on power, hoping to run fairly stock on the engine side.

 

Thanks

Rafael

 

All vehicles must either be listed in section 6.3.3 or originate as four-wheel,

fendered/closed-wheel, Production street vehicles with less than 265 hp (two-hundred

sixty-five) factory rated engine horsepower, an engine displacement less than 5.1L

(unless specifically approved by the National ST Director), and comply with the

modification limitations in section 6.1 of these rules.

 

I suggest e-mailing Greg if you want to run a 2003 350Z in ST5.

 

Can plans for the jig that will be used at impound be shared so we can start making our own?

[OffsetMotorwerks]

My wife's WRX is rated AT 265hp. Would her car qualify or does it have to be rated UNDER 265 peak crank horsepower?

[944buzz]

 

Greg, thank you for getting the rules posted as promised!

 

I have a question about rule 6.1.4 ( this has to do with flared or rolled fenders. It does not state if there can be a material change for a flared fender. Often a flare will be made from fiberglass.

Is a fiberglass flare and/or complete fender allowed?

 

Thanks

 

[Greg G.]

Remember, we have been Dyno Re-classing these cars for over 10 years, using our NASA magic, and if you look at the PT Base Class table, you will see that this is also built in.

We are going to start conservative, as we can always decrease the assessment in the future if we find it appropriate.

 

But, think of it this way, if you have a lightweight vehicle, is it not worth 110 lbs of ballast (or 7 hp) to have an A-arm suspension design over a strut or trailing arm design? Similarly, for a heavy car at about 3400 lbs, wouldn't you rather have the much better engineered and designed suspension than to remove 160 lbs (or 11 hp) from the vehicle? If the answer is no, you haven't driven a car that has power that is absolutely unusable because of inherently flawed suspension design, as you watch Miatas and S2000's at full throttle sticking around corners.

 

Good point!

 

Are differential gearing and LSD modifications unlimited?

Yes.

[Greg G.]

At first blush this looks good for the lower classes.

 

First question that sticks out, would NB1 (00-99) and NB2 (01-905) Miatas be considered different generations?

I believe that the MX-5 generations are designated as NA, NB, NC, and ND. So, my answer would be that they would be the same generation, but I always caveat answers like this by saying I'm not an MX-5 expert, and an expert may be able to protest and present evidence otherwise.