Jump to content
Greg G.

ST5 & ST6 2019 Official Rules

Recommended Posts

JH36
3 hours ago, 1jeffcat said:

.....so add 160lbs....

Jim is over the displacement limit. That won’t get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JH36
3 hours ago, 1jeffcat said:

I'm fine with the rules, but will admit that the 2449cc displacement rule is pretty stupid.  Obviously, having ulterior motives on forcing E30s and 944s to do spec racing.  Quite frankly having a displacement rule at all is pretty stupid if you have a factory HP cap in place already.  

I don’t understand the reasoning at all, unless the desire was to get rid of “E” cars and embrace “F” cars which doesn’t make good business sense.

I am not interested in running in a 944spec class.  ST6 seemed like a great fit.  And so it goes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flier129

The displacement rule has excluded some of my main competitors in the South East. The cars in question are E30 and Sentra(B15 non-Spec-V). Over the past 2-3 seasons we've battled for top spot in TTE at many events. We had plans to make a handful of ST6/TT6 events next season along with several other current TTE competitors.

On top of that, there were two other drivers recently making a move from DE to TT, E30 and B15 Sentra as well. Both slot into the ST6/TT6 rule-set easily, they even made some changes on their "aero" to conform to BTM aero. Simple change routes for a simple entry level competition class.

Keeping in mind this is only my perspective in a single region. I can imagine there are many others in a similar situation for 2019 competitors. I'm afraid this displacement rule will only harm the health of the class for 2019 and in the future. Reducing the "pool" in which to pull from to the least inexpensive ST/TT class can and in my opinion WILL negatively affect the class.

Again, what's the best outlet to provide feedback? Please give us a channel to for our input and I promise you'll see the view point on this displacement rule will be the same across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cabowabo

With the ability to exclude specific chassis (Ex. NC) I don't see the need for the displacement limit that removes cars from a class they should be in. If the goal of the displacement limit is to prevent an overdog chassis or motor swap that's somehow sneaking past the 168hp limit, then it should be called out as ineligible. As pointed out above it seems many cars that were previously squarely in PTE are now being bumped up to ST5. Doesn't make sense. 

If removing the displacement opens some can of worms I (we) am not aware of, then maybe more cars need to be added to the exemption list such as e30, 944, Sentra, etc. 

Edited by cabowabo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smike

For public, my reply to Greg on banishing displacements over 2449. 

"I’m not sure I understand the logic to the decision they chose. If they were looking to exclude specific cars - a list of non-eligible cars would have been just as effective.

That is unfortunate and will limit cars from running ST in a competitive light. These 944 motors will not make ST5 power levels with our weight. That leaves just GTS-1 for me. Sadly in this region that is a defunct class. 
 
I will look at PCA, SCCA, and SVRA for racing. "
 
We all have the ability to be heard - by racing (and spending money) with other sanctioning bodies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
racefiero1

I'm not going to complain. This isn't a club expecting member feedback, it's a business organization that sets rules to follow.

I'll figure out how to make my car work within the new rules.

20171116_164856.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ceboyd

Thank you for posting up the official rules this early in the year still allowing plenty of time to prepare before the 2019 season starts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dadasracecar

What is the appropriate method for providing  feedback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roman V.
47 minutes ago, dadasracecar said:

What is the appropriate method for providing  feedback?

You can provide feedback in this thread and it will be noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dadasracecar

this ruleset is BS. It blows apart PTE and gives competitive PTE cars no place to go. 18:1, no 944s or e30s, makes no sense. This sort of illogical catering to a small esoteric group is one of the main reasons why I left SCCA. It’s like they’re trying to resurrect PTF even though it had limited or no presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1jeffcat
8 hours ago, dadasracecar said:

this ruleset is BS. It blows apart PTE and gives competitive PTE cars no place to go. 18:1, no 944s or e30s, makes no sense. This sort of illogical catering to a small esoteric group is one of the main reasons why I left SCCA. It’s like they’re trying to resurrect PTF even though it had limited or no presence.

I will somewhat agree and disagree.  

The agree:

The displacement thing is a dirty rule, clearly with ulterior motives.  I'm not sure I can find 1 person that supports it.  It doesn't even affect me, and I still don't support it.

The disagree: 

It really doesn't hurt high E class cars, unless they were already dyno reclassed out that wazoo.  The car we have in E is pointed out, and requires no changes to run in 6, so if somebody is running a big setup, you can either spend more, and run in 5, or just run a restrictor and/or ballast and you easily run in 6.  That part isn't that complicated.  

Edited by 1jeffcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JH36
On 10/11/2018 at 2:25 PM, Greg G. said:

The 2019 ST5 & ST6 Official Rules should be posted soon.  There are some changes from the Provisional Rules posted at the end of July, as NASA National Executives made choices to help keep ST6 as an entry level class. 

These are the highlights of the classing differences between the Provisional rules and the Official rules:

The Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio for ST6 will be 18.00:1
Eligibility for ST6 will be:
ST6 models must have 168 (one-hundred sixty-eight) or less factory rated engine horsepower and an engine displacement less than 2449 mL (cc). However, 2006+ Mazda MX-5 models are specifically not eligible for ST6. 1   (No exception for E30's).
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5

Yes, NASA realizes that there are vehicles that could fit into ST6, but they are not eligible (just as there are vehicles that are not eligible for ST5 but could be made to fit).  There were many hours of discussions and debates of the merits and downsides of various possible eligibility criteria.  NASA Executives believe that these choices are the best for the success and longevity of the ST6/TT6 classes.

 

Greg G.
NASA National ST/TT Director.   

Greg,

Would you mind explaining the logic behind the displacement cap?  Are we missing something?

Was there a car(s) you feared would dominate?  

Thank you,

jack

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arsprod

Since we're not getting any response from NASA we can only surmise the reasons behind the change. I for one would simply like an explanation of the decision and recognition that it's based on intentionally keeping 944's and e30's out of st6 and steering them to their respective spec classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesMilko

The only legitimate, at least in my mind, thing I can think of would be to keep very heavy cars out of the class.

For example, you could take a C7, ballast it up and remap the throttle to only have lets say 200whp.  Why anyone would actually do this is beside the point.  Even though you're at similar W:P ratios the C7 would dominate over say a 130whp Miata @ 2200lbs.  Lap times may be similar, but the Corvette will be faster down a long enough straights.  Defense is difficult there and as long as it can keep the Miata behind it under braking it'll pull.  The Miata will get held up in turns and the Corvette will have free reign in the straights.  This is the dyno vs points problem in PT and why Ben Anderson's RX7 does so well at RA and VIR.  Fast tracks with long straights.  ST6 doesn't have the tire limitations in PT that somewhat kept this in check so our hypothetical Corvette would also be on properly sized tires.  Ben's formula only worked on a few tracks as I suspect the tires couldn't keep up on a track like Barber.

All of that said, if the issue is actually HP imbalances in heavy cars.  Why not just address it directly and cap race weight?  Is it perfect, no.  Will someone have problems?  Likely.  But there are at least something they can investigate to reduce weight on their cars.  If the disqualifying factor is 100% factory displacement then they're boned with nothing to do other than race some where else, or build a new car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1jeffcat
1 hour ago, JamesMilko said:

The only legitimate, at least in my mind, thing I can think of would be to keep very heavy cars out of the class.

For example, you could take a C7, ballast it up and remap the throttle to only have lets say 200whp.  Why anyone would actually do this is beside the point.  Even though you're at similar W:P ratios the C7 would dominate over say a 130whp Miata @ 2200lbs.  Lap times may be similar, but the Corvette will be faster down a long enough straights.  Defense is difficult there and as long as it can keep the Miata behind it under braking it'll pull.  The Miata will get held up in turns and the Corvette will have free reign in the straights.  This is the dyno vs points problem in PT and why Ben Anderson's RX7 does so well at RA and VIR.  Fast tracks with long straights.  ST6 doesn't have the tire limitations in PT that somewhat kept this in check so our hypothetical Corvette would also be on properly sized tires.  Ben's formula only worked on a few tracks as I suspect the tires couldn't keep up on a track like Barber.

All of that said, if the issue is actually HP imbalances in heavy cars.  Why not just address it directly and cap race weight?  Is it perfect, no.  Will someone have problems?  Likely.  But there are at least something they can investigate to reduce weight on their cars.  If the disqualifying factor is 100% factory displacement then they're boned with nothing to do other than race some where else, or build a new car.

I see what you saying but you are essentially wanting a spec class.  Different powers and weights are the beauty of ST/PT, and the more powerful heavier cars don't always win.  Sure, it might do well at Road America, but will suck at a track like Gingerman, where the light cars will dominate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×