E1 Rules Changes?

[rob_h]

Hi,

I've seen some talk, and heard a lot of chatter about the potential to change class mappings for E1, specifically that USTCC will get moved to E0.  Is this the case?  Is there a place for the discussion to be had in public?  Are there other changes under consideration?  How can I be included in some of these discussions.  It's time to start prepping for next year and we are thinking about building another car, or changing some things about our current car.  We only endurance race this car so it is of interest to me.

Thanks!

Rob Henretta

[Brian L.]

In my opinion there shouldn't be any other way to class cars for enduro's other than the ST ruleset.  You can class any car under that ruleset, and it would eliminate any possible competitive issues trying to class a sprint class into an enduro class that is not quite fast enough for one class, but to slow for the other.

ST1-2 = ES

ST3 = E0

ST4 = E1

ST5 = E2

ST6 = E3

And done. 

[rob_h]

I think NASA deserves a lot of credit for mapping the rules sets of different sanctioning bodies to the NASA enduro classes.  It makes the enduro races a lot easier to get to for your average racer.  I guess as the NorCal ST/SU group leader it's reasonable that you would view the world through that lens.  I know a lot of racers want to move easily between endurance and sprint racing.  Most sanctioning bodies admit that there will always be a class for a car, but they can't promise every car will be competitive.  The only real outlier I saw in the E1 mapping was the USTCC car (which under your rules if they hit the Wt/HP ratio would be ST3/E0).  Your proposal would also push cars with aero into E1, E2 and I presume E3 but I don't recall seeing the ST6 rules.  This would seem to add cost to all of those classes.  I'm not sure how that helps improve access and brings more cars in.

 

[Brian L.]

It is my opinion that NASA Enduro will never grow bigger than it is, and take advantage of it's huge potential, if it is an afterthought.  If someone is only running one race a year because it is convenient, that isn't growing the series long term.

Is it a little extra work to read a ruleset, yes.  But the point of ST is that EVERY car has a class.  Nothing will be left out.  And there are even adjustments for cars not running aero, or tire size, or tire type, or car weight, or transmission type.  It's all there, and the point is that it's all supposed to balance out.  Have you read the ST rules?  Your comments on aero don't make sense.

If you don't do this, and you leave cars in a class that have an unfair advantage, and people seek out and build a car for that sprint class with no intention of running that sprint class, you are then driving other competitors out that might have built something else.

Bottom line is, you will never have true parity among the classes as long as things stay the way they are.  E0 has AMAZING parity in the class, and all the cars are basically built to ST rules.  

[rikgray]

The problem with ST mapping to E classes is there are seven ST classes: SU ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 and five E classes: ES E0 E1 E2 E3 .

There will have to be some parity mismatches.  Now the mismatch is ES with three ST classes included.

And then there is ESR. 

[Ron G.]

I'm with Brian on this one! Right now ST4 is in no man's land in E classes. Having all the fastest 2, 3, 4(basically unlimited) classes lumped together into 2 (ES and ESR)makes sense. Crossing  the HP/wt classes(production cars) in progression(ST3-6) into the E0-3 classes is logical. All the cars that come from outside NASA classing will just be assessed as necessary(most already have been).  I want to campaign in WERC this year but my car doesn't compete based on current rules with ST4 and ST3 in the same class! E2 will actually become a class if ST5 crosses into this!

[djqd36]

If you compare USTCC TC, BMWCCA JP, and ST4 they are all very very similar. Essentially aero cars with 12~12.5lbs/hp. 

USTCC and BMWCCA JP are both currently in E1. ST4 is E0 as has been stated. 

To run aero with ST5 rules you’re easily above 15lbs/hp and expected to be competitive with those classes mentioned above in E1. The jump from 12 to 15+ lb/hp is giant. 

Another popular platform for E1 is spec46 and I think this makes total sense. The’re allowed an advantageous lbs/hp ratio but aren’t allowed aero and limited to spec wheel size.

With USTCC and JP you get aero and power which doesn’t align with Spec46 or ST5 at all. It best aligns with ST4.

I can agree that’s it’s maybe not as simple as making every car use ST rules to class in. But the enduro rules should at least reasses the base classes using the ST rules as their guideline. It very quickly highlights some pretty big variations.

Where each ST class should fall within the E classing structure is almost an entirely different discussion. 

[rob_h]

7 hours ago, djqd36 said:

If you compare USTCC TC, BMWCCA JP, and ST4 they are all very very similar. Essentially aero cars with 12~12.5lbs/hp. 

USTCC and BMWCCA JP are both currently in E1. ST4 is E0 as has been stated. 

To run aero with ST5 rules you’re easily above 15lbs/hp and expected to be competitive with those classes mentioned above in E1. The jump from 12 to 15+ lb/hp is giant. 

Another popular platform for E1 is spec46 and I think this makes total sense. The’re allowed an advantageous lbs/hp ratio but aren’t allowed aero and limited to spec wheel size.

With USTCC and JP you get aero and power which doesn’t align with Spec46 or ST5 at all. It best aligns with ST4.

I can agree that’s it’s maybe not as simple as making every car use ST rules to class in. But the enduro rules should at least reasses the base classes using the ST rules as their guideline. It very quickly highlights some pretty big variations.

Where each ST class should fall within the E classing structure is almost an entirely different discussion. 

One of the key differences between ST and USTCC and BMW or Spec E46 is that both BMW and Spec E46 have minimum weights where as the others have a Weight/HP ratio so you can always hit or get very close to the edge of class performance (can't make power, take out weight or have plenty of power add weight to get to 11.95:1).  Spec E46 and BMW CCA JP cars are very close in performance.  BMW CCA JP does give aero, but at a higher weight than Spec E46 and is less aero than USTCC and at a higher Weight/HP.  

Regardless of what other cars are classed in E1, a USTCC TC build would be under 12:1 with aftermarket brakes (up to 6 piston), aftermarket pedal sets, remote reservoir 3 way shocks, coil over on all 4 corners, spherical bearings, aftermarket ECU (Motec for instance),  splitter 5" in front of front bumper, wing 6" behind the rear bumper, +25mm fender flares, over 3,000 lbs gives you 10" wheels. Meaning the car could put down 251RWHP with way more suspension, aero, and tires than anything else in class.

ST4 has basically unlimited performance mods for the suspension and brakes, and the 12:1 weight/HP.  If you take aero you get a splitter 4" in front of the bumper, a rear wing 8" above the root and 12" behind the rear bumper? Am I reading that right?  Talk about understeer!

Spec E46 Weight/HP is 12.6 to 1 best case.  If you can't make 225 (average is 215?) your weight is still 2850.  SA shocks, stock brakes, no aero.

BMW CCA JP gives you a chassis Weight/HP range of 12.9 to 15.2 with the average in the mid 13's.  Brakes are more limited, splitter 3" in front of the front bumper,  rear wing 2" past the rear bumper, non-remote dual adjustable shocks, no rear coil over conversion, limited spherical bearing use, stock pedals, modest power gains (must keep stock ECU, no piston, crank, rod, or displacement changes but can add header, cams, intake).  Weight is fixed and over 3,000 lbs for E46 330, E92 325/328.

Reading and researching this it looks like USTCC is a lot closer to ST4 than Spec E46 or BMW JP.

[Ron G.]

In theory, every E class will have that perfect car which will be quickest based on how it slots in with the current rules. With so many different potential cars NASA has to give it it's best shot to be fair. When there are unicorns or turtles, I guess its up to us the competitors to bring this to the powers that be and hope for some love!

But at a minimum to start...the basic HP/WT progression that the ST format provides is solid. My guess is, the PT series was very similar but it has moved on. 

As has been pointed out above...there are some ??? as to how and why certain cars from different series slot in. Since it would seem NASA officials pay attention to the forums, I'd like to offer up some thoughts. Understand...I'm not new to NASA or the 25HR race...but I have never gotten involved in the WERC or other Endurace races...which I'd like to this year.

NASA has always allowed and encouraged other classes(from different organizations)to join in the endurance racing. But NASA should give emphasis to its own rules and classes when it comes to that "perfect car" to race. Any car from another rule set(outside NASA) should not be able to dominate an E class. AND CURRENTLY...there are NASA racers who purposely class their cars with an outside class they don't even run!!!! NASA needs to error on the side of underdog for any outside class...not over dog!

BTW...ES and ESR is the wild wild west...you guys knock yourself 's out!  My comments are aimed at all cars that begin life as a production car and are at 10/1 HP/WT or less!

 

 

 

[SRC/SampsonRacingComm.]

"KISS" always seem to work the best for both teams and the NASA family to enjoy quality in class racing. Outliers are not welcome and are against the  "Spirit of competitive competition". Please always try to keep this in mind

 

[rob_h]

1 hour ago, RAmotorsports said:

"NASA has always allowed and encouraged other classes(from different organizations)to join in the endurance racing. But NASA should give emphasis to its own rules and classes when it comes to that "perfect car" to race. Any car from another rule set(outside NASA) should not be able to dominate an E class. AND CURRENTLY...there are NASA racers who purposely class their cars with an outside class they don't even run!!!! NASA needs to error on the side of underdog for any outside class...not over dog!"  

I see your point, but I disagree.  NASA should continue to work to find balance between all of the sanctioning bodies classifications.  If NASA handicaps or makes cars from other sanctioning bodies an "underdog" it will discourage enduro participation.  This year's 25 had entries from 8 different sanctioning bodies and I think that's part of the magic.  As the sprint classes and sanctioning bodies evolve the rules will continue to be tweaked.  I don't see the need for wholesale change here.  I don't even (currently) have a car in E1, but in examining the rules USTCC seemed to stand out in E1 as an outlier.  Rule stability is the friend of participation.  I think the much smaller E0 field this year was a result of the 4 tire rule.  Over half of the field was E1-E3 this year.

 

 

 

[Ron G.]

Well Sean...not sure what I'm taking from your post ?  

I'm with you Rob about encouraging outside participation...that wasn't my point. When I see a NASA regular competitor and his car enter the 25HR in a class outside of his normal NASA class that he has never run...rules need to be looked at!  

I'll be more clear...equal is ideal. But if there is any question about the performance of an outside class looking for an E class home...move up before down! And within NASA's own current classes...ST3 and ST4 have no business being in the same E class! 

At least in my region...I believe ST4 had the largest participation...if we are talking strictly numbers NASA is shooting itself in the foot by the current rules in discouraging a whole bunch of cars based on their E class. Which makes me probably look like the dummy because I didnt go find some outside class to slot my car into and move back a class???  I don't think a wholesale change is needed either. But this thread is about E1 and some tweaks...which frankly lets just revisit the classing structure...I have a question about a need for E0 changes!!

Didn't the E0 rule change about tires come really late...long after most were entered? The 25HR class numbers just seem to naturally fluctuate...based on many factors. It is a one off race in which you can usually count on maybe 15 teams to be there every year...after that its a combination of 1st timers and every 2 or 3 year returners.

[Mark M]

1 minute ago, Mark M said:

i have to agree with Shawn on this one. Teams that compete in the WERC on a regular basis deserve a defined ruleset with parity. There are quite a few teams that enter the 25 as a stand alone event, for obvious reasons. Most of the teams that run the series regularly use it to develop their cars, measure fuel and parts economy, tire life, just to get an action plan for the 25. Showing up to a gunfight with a knife ain't fun. Yes, in recent years it has been a non points event,with championships decided prior. I think most teams that run the WERC would trade their championship for a 25 class win all day long. Not singling out anyone, but in E1 there were a couple cars that handled extremely well on the straights. Since it is a championship deciding event again, and " in the spirit of competitve competition"  would sure be nice to see the Dyno shack get used after qualilfying. Nothing malicious implied here, racers are racers, always looking for that competitve advantage, it's found in scouring the rulebook, it's what we do. For 25 hours, those advantages turn in to more total laps, which is the name of the game.

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Mark M

[rob_h]

9 hours ago, RAmotorsports said:

I'm with you Rob about encouraging outside participation...that wasn't my point. When I see a NASA regular competitor and his car enter the 25HR in a class outside of his normal NASA class that he has never run...rules need to be looked at!  

So how about a rule that if you come to the 25 with a non-NASA rules classed car, you need to show at least 2 races in the last year with that sanctioning body, or you have to have run at least 2 NASA eduros?

Edited December 22, 2018 by rob_h

[Ron G.]

12 hours ago, SRC/SampsonRacingComm. said:

"KISS" always seem to work the best for both teams and the NASA family to enjoy quality in class racing. Outliers are not welcome and are against the  "Spirit of competitive competition". Please always try to keep this in mind

 

When I first read this my mind saw "outsiders" not "outliers"...why the response i had  

2 hours ago, rob_h said:

So how about a rule that if you come to the 25 with a non-NASA rules classed car, you need to show at least 2 races in the last year with that sanctioning body, or you have to have run at least 2 NASA eduros?

This would be easy enough but not necessary if all production cars look at the ST rules and figure out which class they fall into...and submit via those?