YOUR THOUGHTS--TT Rules Revisions 2006

[jrerin]

Greg,

 

tires.....

 

 

1. Should r compound DOT slicks have more points than r compound treaded tires??

 

2. Should we get mor points for wider tires....ie sti 225 width cannot fit bigger than a 245

evo 225 stock can put a 275 on under the stock fender.....

 

srt 205 stock 225 hoosier or 235 kook......

 

maybe there should be a 3 with gain and then points?????

 

Russ

 

P.S. Thanks for all the hard work!!!!

 

[jp99gt]

Greg,

 

When I think about internal engine mods, it's hard to say for all the motor varieties how many points should be assigned for each type of mod. One good example is camshafts - if you replace them, what's it worth? Well, it really depends on the cam specifics and the other engine mods.

 

I don't see how to easily assign points based on this large variation.

 

I was thinking about this, and here's an idea to kick around. Perhaps TT rules could have points assigned for these engine mods, but make them high numbers. And then have the provision that you can have your car dyno'd before and after the engine mods, and that points based on HP gains can be assigned in place of points per type of engine mod. Now we can assign points more fairly based on HP increases. If someone decides not to dyno, that's ok - but the points will be high to cover for extreme HP gain modifications.

 

This pushes people to dyno the cars, but that helps keep the classes more level and balanced.

 

In this system, one can modify an engine for HP, get points that are appropriate; or modify an engine to increase reliability, and get essentially no points if the output is the nearly the same as before.

 

I'm not sure how to handle chip mods in this system, especially is someone is bent on cheating (two programs), but there may be some method to cover that case.

 

Anyway, it's another method that may be worth considering.

[Kerry]

I'll say it again this year. Power to weight ratio. Points added, or in the case of TTA and TTU cars, subtracted, depending on your power to weight ratio.

[GAC]

Unless you're planning on using the SAME dyno this simply will not work. Further, even on the same dyno, different days and conditions will yield different results. And don't even get me started on why CFs don't work well for forced induction cars, further muddying the purity of the numbers.

 

Greg,

 

When I think about internal engine mods, it's hard to say for all the motor varieties how many points should be assigned for each type of mod. One good example is camshafts - if you replace them, what's it worth? Well, it really depends on the cam specifics and the other engine mods.

 

I don't see how to easily assign points based on this large variation.

 

I was thinking about this, and here's an idea to kick around. Perhaps TT rules could have points assigned for these engine mods, but make them high numbers. And then have the provision that you can have your car dyno'd before and after the engine mods, and that points based on HP gains can be assigned in place of points per type of engine mod. Now we can assign points more fairly based on HP increases. If someone decides not to dyno, that's ok - but the points will be high to cover for extreme HP gain modifications.

 

This pushes people to dyno the cars, but that helps keep the classes more level and balanced.

 

In this system, one can modify an engine for HP, get points that are appropriate; or modify an engine to increase reliability, and get essentially no points if the output is the nearly the same as before.

 

I'm not sure how to handle chip mods in this system, especially is someone is bent on cheating (two programs), but there may be some method to cover that case.

 

Anyway, it's another method that may be worth considering.

[Greg G.]

Jim and Kerry,

Theoretically, the idea of Dyno testing sounds good initially, but from a practical basis, it's worse than worthless in my opinion. It may even promote cheating by introducing a biased third party into the classification process that may encourage "fudging a little"--ie. the friendly dyno operator that the driver is paying, and possibly even tuning the car. First we have no way to truely standardize the different dynos (SAE correction clearly doesn't cut the mustard). Even the same vehicle can get a wide variance in dyno numbers on different days on the same dyno despite SAE correction. Second, we actually have no way of even verifying that the dyno graph is for the car that is brought to compete. Third, even if somehow we were assured that the graph was from the correct vehicle, we have no way of knowing what mods were made before or after a given dyno run--particularly the ones made after the run. Fourth, it is extremely easy to de-tune a car for dyno testing, then re-tune it for competition with just about no way for anyone to tell by simply looking at one or two different graphs. Fifth, even if we were assured that we had the right car, with the right mods, and not de-tuned, we still have the problem of dealing with different ECU maps, with forced induction vehicles being the easiest to mess with. Sixth, we generally do not have a dyno at the track to randomly (or not so randomly) test cars to try to ensure compliance, and even if we did, who would pay for the dyno time? Also, we all know that certain cars can easily flip from one program to another with a few flips of a random control switch (lights, horn, fan, whatever...) during the cool down lap.

 

So, the only dyno numbers that I even come close to trusting are the often boggus ones put out by the manufacturers for their stock vehicles. And, Kerry, we do rely on these numbers to obtain wt/hp ratios (along with 0-60 times, slalom times, skid pad results, 1/4 mile times, overall weight, added features/stock upgrades) to get our base classifications.

 

Internal engine mods is definitely going to be a challenge. It seems that sometimes, when there is no way to ensure compliance (I don't think that we are going to be tearing down any engines in TT--although I suppose we could), the best thing to do is just open up the door for everyone to do whatever they want in a given area--we may find that our current +4 for "other internal engine mods" is not such a bad way to approach it?

[mitchntx]

In theory, TT is bridge between HPDE and W2W racing ...

 

I see a lot of points added to cars with modifications in order to reduce lap times.

 

Why not deduct points if a competitor installs safety oriented gear? If a competitor has a fire system installed, deduct 1 point from the total. A master quick disconnect, -1 point. Proper stickers to help corner workers know, -1 and so on ...

 

Not only would this reduce the liklihood of a something really bad happening, it would be an incentive to competitors who run their car's on the edge.

[Neon2dmaX]

In theory, TT is bridge between HPDE and W2W racing ...

 

I see a lot of points added to cars with modifications in order to reduce lap times.

 

Why not deduct points if a competitor installs safety oriented gear? If a competitor has a fire system installed, deduct 1 point from the total. A master quick disconnect, -1 point. Proper stickers to help corner workers know, -1 and so on ...

 

Not only would this reduce the liklihood of a something really bad happening, it would be an incentive to competitors who run their car's on the edge.

 

Again, this general topic was discussed last year. While I tend to agree with you that in a system that is intended to penalize participants for weight reduction (I think it was mentioned that losing approximately 20 lbs. will add 1 point), it doesn't seem fair to fail to provide some incentive to add safety equipement, especially a roll bar or cage where one is not otherwise required.

 

The only concession in this area is the allowance for a replacement seat (e.g. saving 1 point) where required with the use of a roll bar or cage. The other side of this argument says that there is (or at least may be) a performance enhancement by use of the roll bar/cage which justifies the added weight. That is exactly the reason that exotic cages (e.g. 8 point plus) may add points.

 

I can certainly live with the current rule, but would prefer to make some concession for the added safety features, at least for the addition of a basic roll bar.

 

Greg: What about that tire issue?

[jp99gt]

Jim and Kerry,

Theoretically, the idea of Dyno testing sounds good initially, but from a practical basis, it's worse than worthless in my opinion. It may even promote cheating [snip]

So is the entire AI series a sham? That's predicated on the dyno method working. Scary thought.

[Greg G.]

Jim and Kerry,

Theoretically, the idea of Dyno testing sounds good initially, but from a practical basis, it's worse than worthless in my opinion. It may even promote cheating [snip]

So is the entire AI series a sham? That's predicated on the dyno method working. Scary thought.

 

Jim, I am referring to the TT series and whether it is feasible to use multiple dyno runs to measure the value of various internal engine mods. However, the same six concerns that I listed would also apply to using the dyno for TT in general for classing a car.

 

AI uses specific dyno rules to help ensure compliance, such as: only using AI Series certified dyno shops on a single model dyno (Dynojet model 248), requiring a dyno sheet before the first race of the season, and after the last race of the season, having spot check impounds for dyno testing with an AI official or approved technician operating the car during the test, using the highest of three test runs as the official number, disallowing any "system that would serve to alter dyno readings" such as "driver-adjustable electronic tuning and

engine timing advance devices, fuel pump output modification devices, and any other system that could alter the Dyno readings when measured for compliance purposes.", no all wheel drive vehicles, requiring specific marking of any air restrictor devices, and the ability to spot check inspect or tear down a car to look for dyno altering devices. Also, since it seems that all of the AI cars are naturally aspirated, the ability of such systems would be limited anyway.

 

TT is meant for HPDE4 drivers that want to spice things up, some of which don't want the hassle of the "race world". I don't have a budget for spot test dyno testing cars in my region, or the ability to even do it in most cases. I suppose that if an AI official was really concerned about a cheater car, they could probably put the car in a trailer, seal it, and take it for testing? They have scrutineers that have the time and resources to tear down a car if needed....I don't. Do TT drivers really want to travel hundreds of miles just to get an official dyno test, then again after adding a cam (and of course pay for it)? So, to answer your question, is the AI methodology sound, probably as close as possible when one has the ability to tear down a car looking for dyno cheater devices, air restrictors, etc. Is there still room for cheating? I would say yes, but then again, there are cheaters that get away with things in NASCAR, IRL, etc also.

[Kerry]

I guess I keep bringing this up out of frustration. With my suspension mods, lack of interior and aero mods I classed in 'U' know but I still weigh in at around 3100+ lbs and only put 265 to 270 to the wheels, competitive AI cars are 2900 lbs and around 300 to the wheels. So unless I spend seven to ten grand on a new motor all I can hope for is that no one shows up. I know this is suppose to be all in fun but Like most I get pretty competitive once I'm behind the wheel and since I can't afford to go wheel to wheel this is it. What also gets me is why do I always turn my best laps on test and tune days

[Greg G.]

Kerry,

I don't want to get too far off topic, buy your car classed into TTA (not TTU), and honestly, there is not the best use of mod points with your car. If all you got was 25 horsepower from the 11 points used for a cat back exhaust, header, progammable electronics and fuel injection systems, replacement pulleys, removal of emissions, and other internal engine mods, then you need a better tuner/mechanic to help out. My tuner can easily get you over 300 hp with a programable system (probably closer to 350+ depending on what your "other internal mods" are). I'd be happy to give you a referral. Also, if I was in your situation, I would cut out some of the less advantageous mods that you have and get down to TTB anyway (with the higher horsepower ).

 

Although the TT rules are meant to try to equalize the field, it's up to the competitor to legally use the rules (as intended), to get the car to the top of a class (by either increasing mods or decreasing mods and dropping down a class) if the competitor desires to run at the top of the class.

[Kerry]

The HP I'm making with my engine and electronic mods are consistent with all that I've read on Ford 5.0 engines. I'm only a smog pump and two cats away from street legal. Stock, my engine was only suppose to make 245 at the crank, I'm sure now I'm close to 300 at the crank so that's 55 hp gain, but I'll still take the name and number of your guy to see if he can improve on it. My programable system works with the stock computer. Its not a completely new system like Motec or Electromotive. Basicly It like a chip that you can reprogram with a key pad whenever you make a change to the engine. The only internal mod I've made is a cam swap and again it's a street legal cam nothing radical. The bottom end of my motor has over 125K on it so I'm sure to compression is down below the stock 9:1.

 

I used the TT calculator to check to see if I still would be in A and it bumped me up to U. I don't know what exactly put me over and how I could drop down to A or even B. All I've been trying to do is to take weight out of the car. I guess removing air bags, carpet and further gutting is what did it. As the car is now I believe its that quickest Mustang in TT, I've just never been able to duplicate those times at a NASA event.

[firehawkclone]

Greg i'm thinking a smaller point increase(1 or 2 points) for changing a panhard rod, instead of 4 points for adding one.

[Greg G.]

Greg i'm thinking a smaller point increase(1 or 2 points) for changing a panhard rod, instead of 4 points for adding one.

Sounds like a possibility. We'll consider your suggestion. (And welcome to the Forum).

[Greg G.]

So, as of today, 11-20-05, I have over 50 separate issues and 45 specific vehicle base classifications that we need to consider for revision in the 2006 rules. And, that doesn't include a basic review of the 2006 car models. I have a lot of good stuff in my notes, from your e-mails, and from the review of all of these forum posts made over the past year that I've just completed. The rules will definitely be much more specific than in 2005, with improved definitions to help reduce confusion.

 

If you have any more ideas, let's get them in now (but I bet it will be tough to find any that I don't already have in my notes at this point ).

[Neon2dmaX]

So, as of today, 11-20-05, I have over 50 separate issues and 45 specific vehicle base classifications that we need to consider for revision in the 2006 rules. And, that doesn't include a basic review of the 2006 car models. I have a lot of good stuff in my notes, from your e-mails, and from the review of all of these forum posts made over the past year that I've just completed. The rules will definitely be much more specific than in 2005, with improved definitions to help reduce confusion.

 

If you have any more ideas, let's get them in now (but I bet it will be tough to find any that I don't already have in my notes at this point ).

 

Greg: I thought someone else (Ted?) had mentioned this, but did not see it after a cursory review of the various proposals. In any event, it may be time to consider changing the number of points required to bump up to another class. I thought the mystery proponent had suggested a 20 point spread between classes (and if this were done, make it 20, 40, etc., not 19, 39, etc.)

 

As I see it, adding more points for mods that previously were not penalized, will result in more cars being pushed up one more class which will result in a bunching of more cars in the higher cars, and may further exacerbate the existing problem with TTU (assuming that TTU were otherwise unchanged). In contrast adding an additional 5 points to each class would mean that TTA cars would be allowed an additional 35 points before being pushed to TTU. TTB cars would be allowed an additional 30 points before being pushed into TTA; and so forth down the line.

 

Allowing additional points (whether 5 or some other number) would not require the base classes to be reviewed (other than what would be otherwise be required).

 

Ultimately, it doesn't make any real difference whether a competitor who would otherwise be running TTA ends up in TTB, except perhaps for some bragging rights. Moreover, if someone who is currently running in TTA gets pushed down to a lower class, he always has the option of adding additional mods to bump up, or simply opting into the higher class.

 

One other thought, and this might seem a little out in left field at first; consider running the lower TT classes (F, E and maybe D) with HPDE 3, especially if the program continues to expand at the rate it has. While the first objection to this proposal might point out that there is limited passing in HPDE 3, I think with proper placing on the grid, that issue could be resolved. It might also allow a competitor to break into the TT series a little quicker.

[Shawn M.]

Greg: I thought someone else (Ted?) had mentioned this, but did not see it after a cursory review of the various proposals. In any event, it may be time to consider changing the number of points required to bump up to another class. I thought the mystery proponent had suggested a 20 point spread between classes (and if this were done, make it 20, 40, etc., not 19, 39, etc.)

 

 

I completely agree with you here. Saved me the trouble of typing it up myself.

 

 

One other thought, and this might seem a little out in left field at first; consider running the lower TT classes (F, E and maybe D) with HPDE 3, especially if the program continues to expand at the rate it has. While the first objection to this proposal might point out that there is limited passing in HPDE 3, I think with proper placing on the grid, that issue could be resolved. It might also allow a competitor to break into the TT series a little quicker.

 

 

Why are you going to punish the D-H class drivers?? Limited passing? Just because the cars dont go as fast doesnt make them less qualified drivers to be allowed unlimited passing in TT. I can assure you, if this slick move happens, D-H class drivers simply wont show. (Or is that your plan?) Seems very self serving and yes, could it be a more left field idea?

[Greg G.]

 

One other thought, and this might seem a little out in left field at first; consider running the lower TT classes (F, E and maybe D) with HPDE 3, especially if the program continues to expand at the rate it has. While the first objection to this proposal might point out that there is limited passing in HPDE 3, I think with proper placing on the grid, that issue could be resolved. It might also allow a competitor to break into the TT series a little quicker.

 

 

Limited passing? Just because the cars dont go as fast doesnt make them less qualified drivers to be allowed unlimited passing in TT. I can assure you, if this slick move happens, D-H class drivers simply wont show.

 

Don't worry Shawn, this one will not be happening. Only our most advanced drivers are allowed to run in TT, and all TT drivers will be running in an open passing group. If we ever had enough drivers to make up two TT groups (ie. about 70-80 per event), then we could split up the faster and slower groups.

 

You guys need to remember that these TT rules are a little like a Rubic's cube. If you make one move, you often are then obligated to make a dozen more to match it. It is not a coincidence that there are 5 points given for R-compound tires, and that there are cars with double asterix base classes (10 points) that bump up to the next class if they hit 15 points. Switching to a 20 point bump in classes would then require the "triple asterix" base class, which would then require a reassessment of just about every car on the grid. When we added more mod points last year, we also added the TTU class. This prevented compression in the TTA class, but gave us a better spread over the TTE, TTD, TTC and TTB classes. While some cars were upclassed last year (mostly by one or two asterix's), others were downclassed. Now, it looks like we will probably be splitting the TTU class between purpose built high hp cars (? TTR) and homologated street cars. So, if anything, there is a little bit of room to allow an "upclass drift" if we add more mod points again. I had two TTA cars this year that would probably be better off in TTU (street) anyway--right guys

 

Here's another idea--we keep the TTH base class to help with classing, but TTH will never be a competing class? I'm tempted to say the same thing about TTG, but I know I'll get attacked

[Pat L.]

Greg i'm thinking a smaller point increase(1 or 2 points) for changing a panhard rod, instead of 4 points for adding one.

Sounds like a possibility. We'll consider your suggestion. (And welcome to the Forum).

 

Don't most aftermarket panhard rods have either spherical or poly ends? So wouldn't you have to add a point or three for those? Unless a specific rule is written in "changed panhard rod, +1/2". The current rule regarding adding a panhard, in my mind, applies to mustangs. So some more specific rules regarding changing trailing arms (mustand and camaro) and torque arms (camaro) would probably be in order. We're covered in case somebody adds a wattslink to a mustang: "relocated suspension mount points, +8". What about tubular k-members or "subframes" (German) that do not relocate control arm mounts?

 

And Greg, I plan on staying in TTA for next year... I still have like 12 points

 

Firehawkclone, good to see some Bakersfield folk running around, I thought I was alone

[FastSaleen]

Jim and Kerry,

Theoretically, the idea of Dyno testing sounds good initially, but from a practical basis, it's worse than worthless in my opinion. It may even promote cheating [snip]

So is the entire AI series a sham? That's predicated on the dyno method working. Scary thought.

 

Great point Jim!!!! That is why all AI dyno sheets must be from the same type of Dyno. If the dyno has been calibrated properly, everyone should have accurate readings on the sheets - no matter where they get it done.

[zuperdave]

Specific vehicle request:

 

Honda Civic VX (D15Z1, +/- 92 HP) base class one lower than current: ungroup the VX from the other SOHC Civics (Si, DX, CRX, etc.). I think that would make the Civic VX starting class TTG instead of the current TTF.

 

With an engine swap and suspension mods, that car will still have a good chance of winding up in TTD (it might even accrue enough points to get bumped to TTC if it starts in TTF).

 

Thanks

[firehawkclone]

Greg i'm thinking a smaller point increase(1 or 2 points) for changing a panhard rod, instead of 4 points for adding one.

Sounds like a possibility. We'll consider your suggestion. (And welcome to the Forum).

 

Don't most aftermarket panhard rods have either spherical or poly ends? So wouldn't you have to add a point or three for those? Unless a specific rule is written in "changed panhard rod, +1/2". The current rule regarding adding a panhard, in my mind, applies to mustangs. So some more specific rules regarding changing trailing arms (mustand and camaro) and torque arms (camaro) would probably be in order. We're covered in case somebody adds a wattslink to a mustang: "relocated suspension mount points, +8". What about tubular k-members or "subframes" (German) that do not relocate control arm mounts?

 

And Greg, I plan on staying in TTA for next year... I still have like 12 points

Firehawkclone, good to see some Bakersfield folk running around, I thought I was alone

 

Howdy Pat, I didn't know you were from b-town either until last week. Love your car buddy. I was hoping you were going to stay in B, it would be fun trying to keep up with you(im 4sec slower) if i end up in B after winter mods!

 

On fbodys the PHB is a good safety upgrade, the stocker likes to bend in RR.

[Pat L.]

Howdy Pat, I didn't know you were from b-town either until last week. Love your car buddy. I was hoping you were going to stay in B, it would be fun trying to keep up with you(im 4sec slower) if i end up in B after winter mods!

 

On fbodys the PHB is a good safety upgrade, the stocker likes to bend in RR.

 

Good point, the factory PH is a crappy, stamped piece that should be replaced if the car gets larger, stickier tires and is making decent power. Reference Nick Steel (CMC/AI racer) I think he's had to reinforce the panhard mount on his cars after breaking them. Maybe Greg can make an exception on that modification since it's for reliability purposes? I would venture to say that an adjustable Global West replacement with spherical ends would warrant some sort of point increase... only fair

 

I'm a little ways out of TTB now, but I'm hoping you get the car running hard to represent the non existent F-body contingent

[Markus]

First of all, I appreciate all of the hard work on the TT classifications. I know it must be a huge pain trying to fairly juggle so many variables.

 

So I feel almost guilty asking...any anticipated release date for the new rules?

 

My car is on the edge between two classes under the old rules and I'm trying to plan what (if anything) I'll change over winter. I'm going to try resisting taking out my credit card until this is resolved.

 

THANKS!!

 

- Mark

[Carl Byck]

As a point of reference, I have a TTE car that carries a 10 point performance penalty plus 72 points(82 total), that is bumped via the point system to TTU (the calculator says TTA btw). I have found that there are three to four cars on any given day that can win TTU, mine included. Based on that, other than the purpose built cars I do not see the need for another class. I did not consider lower classes running slicks when I mentioned it previously. In light of this, "NON-DOT" which includes alot of Hoosier tires that are not true slicks (but may be as fast, or faster than bias ply slicks) cannot be grounds for sending somebody to the top class. In my instance there is not a DOT tire available to fit my wheels. If such a rule existed, it would preclude me from all other classes, I would not have a choice of a DOT tire. Other wheels are not an option because the tires are too tall, and will not fit other than at a ride height taller than stock Thank you to everyone for participating in this, and to all the officials for their hard work.

 

 

Just to be sure, if I managed to get my points total down to 74 would I be allowed in TTA ? (guessing no ) Carl Byck #77 TTU RX7