YOUR THOUGHTS--TT Rules Revisions 2006

[Greg G.]

Although we will be looking at the entirety of the NASA TT National Rules for revisions, I wanted you to get a chance to get your ideas to us now, before the changes are made. Many of you have sent your ideas and suggestions to me by e-mail throughout the year, and all of those will be looked at again. Also, there have been many threads here with good ideas.

 

Let's try to make this a thread to concisely list your ideas without having huge debates on any single issue. If needed, I'll split topics off if the thread gets too big. If you think that a car should be reclassified, please list the car and the valid, objective reason you think that it is classed incorrectly. Remember that there are only nine classes, and even with the asterix 5 and 10 point base assessments, there will be some variation in the performance level of cars in the same class.

 

Ok, bring it on

Edited January 6, 2006 by Guest

[FocusTed]

I think the 2005+ Focus ZX4 ST (2.3L non-PZEV). I believe this Focus should be a TTF Plus 5 points. This car comes with more HP (6HP) then mine, and has all wheel discs.

 

and the 2005+ ZX3, Zx4, and ZX5s with the 2.0L Duratect should have a plus 10 points in TTG. They have more HP then the older 2.0 Zetecs.

 

So, we should have this.

 

SVT Focus TTE

2005+ ZX4 ST 2.3L Non PZEV TTF*

ZX3, ZX5, ZTS 2.3L PZEV TTF

ZX3,ZX4,ZX5 2.0L PZEV TTG**

All Zetec Foci TTG*

All SPI Foci TTG

[Neon2dmaX]

and I think that old men, particularly overweight old men with grey hair should get a -10 to -20 point handicap. Is this concise enough?

 

Actually, the rules look pretty good. Might be beneficial to provide some more precise definitions of some of the various upgrades e.g. "performance shocks & struts" or "performance brake pads" There are a number of mods that are still not real clear to me.

[Red Tornado]

I saw that with the brake pads. Do you want to encourage folks to save a point and use stock pads. That sounds a little against basic track safety.

 

Things that you want everyone to run for safety wouldn't you want to encourage.

 

Like rollcage or rear rollbar deduct a point or two, safety harness,etc..

 

Everything is an addition of points so have a few subtractions that motivate people to make it a safer situation.

 

Just something that jumped out at me when looking at rules.

[860TTC]

We should make it hard to bump up more than 2 classes if significant changes to power to weight ratio are not made. A lot of little changes can add up the points very fast. Some of these changes are for tuning, durability, etc. They don't add much too overall lap times.

 

We should make is easier for someone to know what they can do to there car in each classes. Maybe post 'mod sheets' from some of the cars? Post the mod’s with the parts manufacture information. This may help us get some contingency$. Maybe post 'mod sheet' on all the car's while they are in the grid. With the modification sheets made public we can also self police better and it will make a better car show for the fans.

 

I like the idea of a TT license. Too many people move up into TT that cannot take different lines in turns. They get pasted in a turn, freak out, and just about stop on the race track, or cannot pass in a turn. The licensing and associated training should reinforce the fact that TT is not about running on a clean track like an autocross. It’s about making your way around the track, threw traffic, just like in racing, for the lowest lap time.

[FocusTed]

I agree we should have a TT license for drivers, and maybe have a TT Log book for each car.

 

This could be like the Class Sheets, but each driver must keep these and just turn in upgrades to the director.

 

Of course I don't know how this would help, but it would keep things in the open.

[Neon2dmaX]

Like rollcage or rear rollbar deduct a point or two, safety harness,etc..

 

Everything is an addition of points so have a few subtractions that motivate people to make it a safer situation.

 

Roll bars and cages were discussed last year. Although I tend to agree with you, I can certainly live with the present rule. The fact that a replacement seat is free if required by the use of a roll bar/cage offers some solace. I'm just not entirely sure whether such a replacement seat is required whenever there is a roll bar/cage present, or otherwise.

[zuperdave]

We should make it hard to bump up more than 2 classes if significant changes to power to weight ratio are not made. A lot of little changes can add up the points very fast. Some of these changes are for tuning, durability, etc. They don't add much too overall lap times.

 

I'm ALL for this idea

 

It’s about making your way around the track, threw traffic, just like in racing, for the lowest lap time.

 

I understand that NASA has reasons for wanting to keep the R(acing)-word out of time trials, but there was more than one session out there that felt like a race and now here's a fellow TTer using the word in context. There continue to be issues at practically every event over dive-bombings, right-of-way at turn-ins/dangerous passing, who should lift off the throttle, and, most recently, driving tactics dealing with defending your line. (Hey, even us slow guys are looking for the best lap time we can clock .) Hmm, sounds a lot like racing to me...

 

That being said, how about changing the way we grid the TT cars. Put the slower cars out first, let us run half a lap (or more) or some number of corners, then let the Uber cars out. Or, conversely, let the super cars out first so they can get their "clean lap ," followed immediately by the rest of the field.

 

This might add some to administering Time Trials in general and would add a bit to the Grid Marshall's responsibilities, but I can see some "TTF" etc hats on top of the cones in the pre-grid area with the cars sorted accordingly and a lot fewer contested corners on the track.

[Neon2dmaX]

We should make it hard to bump up more than 2 classes if significant changes to power to weight ratio are not made. A lot of little changes can add up the points very fast. Some of these changes are for tuning, durability, etc. They don't add much too overall lap times.

 

I'm ALL for this idea

 

It’s about making your way around the track, threw traffic, just like in racing, for the lowest lap time.

 

I understand that NASA has reasons for wanting to keep the R(acing)-word out of time trials, but there was more than one session out there that felt like a race and now here's a fellow TTer using the word in context. There continue to be issues at practically every event over dive-bombings, right-of-way at turn-ins/dangerous passing, who should lift off the throttle, and, most recently, driving tactics dealing with defending your line. (Hey, even us slow guys are looking for the best lap time we can clock .) Hmm, sounds a lot like racing to me...

 

That being said, how about changing the way we grid the TT cars. Put the slower cars out first, let us run half a lap (or more) or some number of corners, then let the Uber cars out. Or, conversely, let the super cars out first so they can get their "clean lap ," followed immediately by the rest of the field.

 

This might add some to administering Time Trials in general and would add a bit to the Grid Marshall's responsibilities, but I can see some "TTF" etc hats on top of the cones in the pre-grid area with the cars sorted accordingly and a lot fewer contested corners on the track.

 

Instead of "just like racing" it should have read "somewhat like racing."

As I understand, TT does not allow blocking of any type, and in fact, encourage, if not expect, a point by for the faster car.

 

As for the proposed staggered start, I disagree with this proposal. Even with the current system, the faster cars are beginning to lap the slower cars after about 6-8 laps. The proposal would only exacerbate this problem.

 

Greg G. has started grouping the SoCal cars into two groups, based loosely on the fastest 1/2 of the TT group and the slowest 1/2 of the group. That way there is less traffic for the faster cars to work through during the first few laps.

 

At least in theory, Greg's method could be expanded so that the cars are lined up according to their lap times (or anticipated lap times). The cars should then be required to run closely for the first 1/2 to 3/4 lap to warm tires and yet, get a good running start for the first timed lap with no passing until the green flag. Again, in theory, such a start would tend to minimize passing since the faster car would already be in front.

 

Assuming for the sake of discussion, this system were used at Buttonwillow, it would be possible to have a complete session with only minimal passing required since there is approximately 20 second spread in lap times between the fastest and the slowest times with the fastest cars running approximately 2 minute laps.

[Greg G.]

Dave,

That is exactly what we do in SoCal when we have a "TT Shootout" session (a separate session at the end of the day for TT drivers only, with no HPDE4 drivers or instructors to worry about). We do a full pre-grid based on each driver's fastest lap time of the day prior to the TT Shootout. It has worked out well this season, and there have been many SoCal records set during the TT Shootouts. It's not a perfect solution because at times cars are still getting passed, and also if a car has newly found speed during this session, it can be difficult to pass because the car ahead is so close to the same speed. It wouldn't work well during the earlier sessions because there is too much variability in many driver's times during those sessions (especially the first day of a two day event). I will continue to use this format during the sessions that I think it will be helpful, and I'm sure we will be using this format at Nationals for at least some of the sessions.

 

And, for those of you that think that TT is "like racing", you must not race. NASA TT is not like racing; however, it is similar to race qualifying sessions, but with much more etiquette expected.

[GAC]

Yep, qualifying sessions...that's exactly how I see it.

 

I was a bit tepid at first with all the traffic that comes when you have sometimes 50-60 cars on track. Further, there is a spread of something like 100 to 600 horsepower out there. At BW last month, in fact, I got lapped twice for the first time ever I think. It was that 600 WHP Viper Competition Coupe.

 

All that said, it's been a great experience overall. I like having to be hyper aware of the traffic around me. It sharpens your senses and makes you more alert on track.

 

With correct etiquette and well-screened drivers I believe the program will continue to flourish. Those two critera though should be the FOCUS of refining the program. Without those two things, all else falls apart.

 

On another note, I think I mentioned this to you Greg, but all 2005 and 2006 Evos are faster stock than the 2003 and 2004 cars. They all have the Active Center Differential, front helical LSD, and new turbo. Further, 2006 cars have MIVEC variable valve timing. More things to think about for classing EVOs.

[Pat L.]

Back on topic:

 

I'd also like to see log books for TT cars. Towards the beginning of the season there was some controversy over certain modifications. If competitors kept detailed records of car maintainence and "extra curricular" work, then we wouldn't have as many de facto problems/complaints. Keeping current log books on TT cars is also good practice for those drivers looking to move up into club racing. I think the dry or "curb" weight of the vehicle should be recorded at the beginning of the year (put those nice NASA scales to use). I'd even go so far to suggest that competitors be required to give a best guess as to what crank or wheel horsepower their car is making. I know we have profiles, but that really doesn't count for anything. Down the road maybe we could have $100 protests which would require competitors to scale and dyno their cars (kidding)

 

I think in order to encourage safety, certain modifications should actually subtract points. For example, roll bars or roll cages, one-piece seats, five point harnesses, fire systems... if these safety features have been PROPERLY added to a competitor's car, maybe the powers at be could subtract a few points? Long shot, I know.

 

Is there a point assesment for brake ducts?

 

I'm pissing in my own cherios here, but the suspension rule regarding springs/shocks/coilovers needs to be revised to make nitrogen-charged racing shocks a little more spendy in regards to points. Currently they fall under the "full coilover" umbrella and there are definitely some diferences between a nitrogen-charged Penske/Ohlins/and-the-like and a koni sport with a coilover kit.

 

Is there anything in the rules to discourage the use of wheel spacers to change front/rear track? Most everyone uses them to help with wheel/tire fitment, but some crafty folk could take advantage of this especially in regard to live axle cars looking for more rear track.

 

That's all I got for now.

[Greg G.]

I think TT log books are something we can look into.

 

I'm not planning on penalizing guys who don't cage their cars by deducting points for those that do. However, we did decide from the start to not assess points for those safety mods that also provide performance advantages. For most street cars, adding a basic NASA cage will help car performance via stiffening more than it will hurt performance with the extra weight. Also, the added protection gives the driver a psychological advantage to be able to push the car harder. We already charge for the seat if it's not part of a cage setup.

 

Brake ducts are not currently charged points. I suppose the controversy would be whether they are really performance enhancing in TT when often your "clean laps" are within the first 3 laps (ie. the Pat L strategy....whoops, I almost gave your strategy away Pat ). And, there are race cars that also TT that may have them for racing, but would be too much trouble to remove for each TT session. Depending on the track, I've generally not had any brake fade problems in TT (racing is a different story, and a longer session). But, we'll consider this for points.

 

Don't worry about your Cherios Pat, I already planned on taking care of them. The Penske's are going to cost you in 2006!

 

That's a good thought on the wheel spacers. I have already been thinking about them, because some use them to get larger tires on the car also when they have large stock flared fenders but not enough inside clearance. In fact, I would like you guys to post more ideas about potential loopholes so we can address them before the season. That way, you guys (and I) don't have to deal with a "crafty" competitor that is trying to bend the rules to right before the breaking point.

[Pat L.]

You're killing me, Greg, giving up my secrets like that

 

More ideas:

 

In regards to relocating suspension mount points:

It is not technically relocating a suspension mounting point if one were to fabricate bracketry which still connects a control arm (let's use a stock panhard rod on a camaro for example) to the original mounting point on the body of the car. The bracket could move the stock panhard bar down in relation to the body and rear axle, but still use the same mounting location. This would reduce the roll center on the rear while still conforming to the rules.

 

I would write a rule which would read something like: changing the orientation or design of the OE mounting point/pick up point of a control arm, plus one point. If a mounting point is changed for safety or reliability purposes, I don't think any points should be assesed.

 

Similarly, I would suggest a rule which would read: Changing the mounting orientation/design of the OE shock and/or spring perch, plus one point. In some cases, changing the mounting orientation of a shock absorber so that it mounts inversely can greatly reduce the unsprung weight of the suspension as well as give the shock absorber much better control over the forces of the spring.

 

In regards to camber plates/bolts/arms:

I'd write in a rule to discourage folks from cutting control arms and tapping them to accept rod ends for camber/castor/toe adjustment.

 

Where do tubular k-members fall in regards to points? How about tubular k-members which change the location of the lower control arms? +8?

 

Bump steer kits? Shimming the steering rack to counteract large toe gain in bump?

[GAC]

 

That's a good thought on the wheel spacers. I have already been thinking about them, because some use them to get larger tires on the car also when they have large stock flared fenders but not enough inside clearance. In fact, I would like you guys to post more ideas about potential loopholes so we can address them before the season. That way, you guys (and I) don't have to deal with a "crafty" competitor that is trying to bend the rules to right before the breaking point.

 

Greg, you're going to have to think hard about the spacer issue if you decide to assess points. Some people can only find a wheel with the right width, center bore, and bolt patten. Offset from time to time can't be hit just right, so spacers become mandatory in those instances.

 

I've avoided spacers, but have had to really play around with spring length to get my lower perches to a height where they won't contact the tire in the rear. It's been a royal PITA.

[Shawn M.]

Greg, you're going to have to think hard about the spacer issue if you decide to assess points. Some people can only find a wheel with the right width, center bore, and bolt patten. Offset from time to time can't be hit just right, so spacers become mandatory in those instances.

 

I've avoided spacers, but have had to really play around with spring length to get my lower perches to a height where they won't contact the tire in the rear. It's been a royal PITA.

 

 

I have to use spacers to clear my coilovers. Otherwise I wouldnt use them. My other option is buy all new wheels. That aint gonna happen!

[FocusTed]

Greg, you're going to have to think hard about the spacer issue if you decide to assess points. Some people can only find a wheel with the right width, center bore, and bolt patten. Offset from time to time can't be hit just right, so spacers become mandatory in those instances.

 

I've avoided spacers, but have had to really play around with spring length to get my lower perches to a height where they won't contact the tire in the rear. It's been a royal PITA.

 

 

I have to use spacers to clear my coilovers. Otherwise I wouldnt use them. My other option is buy all new wheels. That aint gonna happen!

 

I think it's best to leave the spacers free, as long as it doesn't go past the wheel well (which we all ready have a rule for, I think it's called the "Keith Parker Rule" ).

 

If we had to add a point for spacers, then we would have to add a point for change of OEM Wheel Offset. That will be hard to police.

[jp99gt]

I would be careful if proscribing a rule about spacers, as they are used for a variety of reasons. I have them on my car's rear axle because I have a track axle assembly swapped in (different from my street). The axle came from a 95 Mustang Cobra, which has a smaller rear track than the 99+ (my original). I use spacers and longer studs to bring the rear rims back out the original 99+ locations. So yes, I have them, but no, my track is not wider.

[Neon2dmaX]

Greg, you're going to have to think hard about the spacer issue if you decide to assess points. Some people can only find a wheel with the right width, center bore, and bolt patten. Offset from time to time can't be hit just right, so spacers become mandatory in those instances.

 

I've avoided spacers, but have had to really play around with spring length to get my lower perches to a height where they won't contact the tire in the rear. It's been a royal PITA.

 

 

I have to use spacers to clear my coilovers. Otherwise I wouldnt use them. My other option is buy all new wheels. That aint gonna happen!

 

I think it's best to leave the spacers free, as long as it doesn't go past the wheel well (which we all ready have a rule for, I think it's called the "Keith Parker Rule" ).

 

If we had to add a point for spacers, then we would have to add a point for change of OEM Wheel Offset. That will be hard to police.

 

All good points. By way of example, I've been looking at some wheels that if chosen, would require approximately 15mm spacer to allow the center line on the wheel to match the original wheel. However, in my case, there is an alternate wheel available that would retain the same center line without a spacer. Obviously the offsets of these two wheels are different.

 

As Ted stated, it would be difficult to police; even with the exchange of otherwise stock wheels, say Subaru and Chrysler wheels with 5x100 bolt pattern. Subaru typically has +45-50mm offset where Chrysler products commonly use +35mm offset. By using Chrysler wheels, the Subaru owner could increase his track without spacers while the Chrysler owner using Subaru wheels would decrease his track.

 

Moreover, spacers add unsprung weight which would tend to offset the benefits at least in part.

[Carl Byck]

My thoughts as they pertain to TTU (or any other class where "street legal/street driven)" are a topic are located in this other thread. http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=39659#39659

Thanks, Carl

[Neon2dmaX]

Greg: When we spoke briefly on Sunday, you mentioned that there is some consideration towards adding points for exceptionally wide tires. As I understand the current rules, no points are added if the wheel diameter is the same and the tire diameter is the same or very close (e.g. a 225-50-14 is the same diameter as a 205-55-14) and the increased width does not extend beyond the fender line.

 

Please elaborate on this point so that I may have a better understanding of the proposed limits before adding points.

[FocusTed]

 

That's a good thought on the wheel spacers. I have already been thinking about them, because some use them to get larger tires on the car also when they have large stock flared fenders but not enough inside clearance. In fact, I would like you guys to post more ideas about potential loopholes so we can address them before the season. That way, you guys (and I) don't have to deal with a "crafty" competitor that is trying to bend the rules to right before the breaking point.

 

Greg, you're going to have to think hard about the spacer issue if you decide to assess points. Some people can only find a wheel with the right width, center bore, and bolt patten. Offset from time to time can't be hit just right, so spacers become mandatory in those instances.

 

I've avoided spacers, but have had to really play around with spring length to get my lower perches to a height where they won't contact the tire in the rear. It's been a royal PITA.

 

I kinda of agree. The Focus has a strange bolt pattern and offset (48). Almost all aftermarket wheels have an offset of 40 with that bolt pattern. I use Ford Racing wheels because that is what will be spec on the Spec Focus Series, but if I had to by aftermarket wheels, then I might need spacers.

[EricMeyer]

Any plans for points for specific engine mods? i.e., X pts. for forged bottom end, high comp pistons, head porting, etc.?

 

There seems to be some gray area that one could take advantage of.

 

Rock on

[Greg G.]

Eric,

We will definitely be looking at the "Other internal engine mods +4" rule with the revisions. It is very complex and difficult to fairly apply points for some of the mods that one can think of that fit under this rule. Without knowing specifically what engine and car one is making one of these mods to (and especially it's pre-mod and post-mod dyno), assigning points "in the dark" is almost a guess. Now, you can say that many of our points assessments are similar, but this area seems to be one of the most nebulous. I imagine that for some of our 350+ classed cars, aftermarket cams are a huge advantage, while they may only be a slight advantage for others. True, the driver can choose not to use them if we end up overestimating their point value (or worse, a summation of these types of mods that is much more than the current +4), but where does that leave all of the cars/drivers that we want to participate that already have a built street car engine with a bunch of these mods that maybe don't provide the bang for the "points buck"? So, it will be really tough to try and estimate the average gain for an internal engine mod when the variance is so great. The rules revision committee will discuss this at length, and hopefully come up with some type of brilliant decision

[Shawn M.]

I dont know if this actually helps or leaves people scratching their heads as mods to different cars will net different gains.

 

Ive dyno'd my car with a stock 8V motor. (1.8L 8v) 90hp to the wheels.

Then ive dyno'd my 2.0L 8v with mad head work and big cam. 126hp to the wheels. Im also going to do a dyno day this sunday since most of my running issues have been resolved. If you want copies of any of these dyno plots, let me know.

 

(Hope my competitors dont read this, give away my power secrets!)