2020 ST/TT Car Classification Rules Revisions Proposed

[Greg G.]

On 11/13/2019 at 9:37 AM, Davidss said:

I would love to see the TTEV class have a 200tw or 100tw tire limit.

Yes, we will put a 180 TW or Toyo R888R restriction on this class.

[jldefanti]

7 hours ago, Greg G. said:

No ST4 remains unchanged at +0.6.  The reason for the higher Mod Factor for the lower Wt/HP classes is that the negative effects of FWD get amplified as power level increases.  (But the effects can be mitigated by having multi-million dollar R&D budgets to get the power to the ground while not destroying tires in the process).  

To be fair, you don't know what Volkswagen spent to develop the SEAT/Golf/Audi RS3 TCR cars. TCR is an amateur series, so I doubt VW Group spent $ MM on these mundane sedans. There probably was wind tunnel testing, but I'm not sure that costs millions...

[Ale Sensoli]

Hello All,

My name is Alessandro I'm italian and I hope to join Nasa organization next year for TT. 

I read all the comments to the Greg's proposal . For me this is an important topic also to understand how competitive and if it makes sense for me and my car  to be with NASA next year.

I'd like to focus on a couple of topics .  I hope you would accept to hear a thought from an 'external' voice also and I also hope this can help the discussion.

I know it will appear very personal but maybe this could contribute the development of the new rules.

In particular the transmission .

I have a mustang automatic. the car is 3980 lbs for 428 whp average. the only way I can compete in TT3  ( which appear to be the good class for my car if the 350R Shelby is in tt2) is with tw100 tires. ( 9.6+ 0.5)

I have an auto with torque converter. if the new rule passes I will be in TT2 way far from the class limit.  My point is ,This new rule is a little hard on heavy cars like mine ( camaro also has this auto option). I would be in the same category of a 350R and some camaro ZL1 1le ( i just mentioned the 'heavy cars..) . Also, I'm not sure that in terms of performance, a pure auto is similar and can be compare to a PDK ( which is regular used in racing) .one example: downshifting (auto is awful  ) Maybe this rule could create a problem for some cars?

the other point is : I wonder if a weight/tire size ratio can be consider in someway.

I.E. : if the car is 3000 max tire size = 265mm . if more -0.5 points

if the car is 3500 lbs max tire is 275 . if tires are bigger -0.5 points and so on( I just put some numbers to make an example. so please don't consider the single measure)

heavier cars usually requests bigger tires. maybe this could help to balance the different cars?

To be clear,

I'm not expecting to win races the first year. So it is still OK if I will be in TT2 . And I can wait to join you all.

I wish you all a great rest of the Weekend

regards,

Alex

 

[rubbertoes]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:10 AM, esr said:

 

I would like to switch to RR as I hear great things about them from guys in Utah running them up to 3 weekends. I am not too concerned about contingency prices as I don’t plan on winning races next year.

i would only say that would rather see the r7 get minus 0.5 instead of the 100tw getting plus 0.5

lets not make the engines and our wallets work any harder.

I totally agree with ESR on this. Why make the cheap guys like me already running RRs spend more money on power, etc to take advantage of this rule change. Kinda defeats the purpose right?

[Roman V.]

8 hours ago, Ale Sensoli said:

Hello All,

My name is Alessandro I'm italian and I hope to join Nasa organization next year for TT. 

I read all the comments to the Greg's proposal . For me this is an important topic also to understand how competitive and if it makes sense for me and my car  to be with NASA next year.

I'd like to focus on a couple of topics .  I hope you would accept to hear a thought from an 'external' voice also and I also hope this can help the discussion.

I know it will appear very personal but maybe this could contribute the development of the new rules.

In particular the transmission .

I have a mustang automatic. the car is 3980 lbs for 428 whp average. the only way I can compete in TT3  ( which appear to be the good class for my car if the 350R Shelby is in tt2) is with tw100 tires. ( 9.6+ 0.5)

I have an auto with torque converter. if the new rule passes I will be in TT2 way far from the class limit.  My point is ,This new rule is a little hard on heavy cars like mine ( camaro also has this auto option). I would be in the same category of a 350R and some camaro ZL1 1le ( i just mentioned the 'heavy cars..) . Also, I'm not sure that in terms of performance, a pure auto is similar and can be compare to a PDK ( which is regular used in racing) .one example: downshifting (auto is awful  ) Maybe this rule could create a problem for some cars?

the other point is : I wonder if a weight/tire size ratio can be consider in someway.

I.E. : if the car is 3000 max tire size = 265mm . if more -0.5 points

if the car is 3500 lbs max tire is 275 . if tires are bigger -0.5 points and so on( I just put some numbers to make an example. so please don't consider the single measure)

heavier cars usually requests bigger tires. maybe this could help to balance the different cars?

To be clear,

I'm not expecting to win races the first year. So it is still OK if I will be in TT2 . And I can wait to join you all.

I wish you all a great rest of the Weekend

regards,

Alex

 

Welcome! What Region are you going to be running in? For the tire sizes, you get credit in ST1-4 for running a smaller tire and not get penalized for running a larger tire.  Look on Page 14 of ST1-4 Rules.  

[cadmad]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:49 PM, cadmad said:

How about a credit for cars running tires narrower than permitted by weight? Some of us can't physically fit without taking a penalty for track width.

it's a no brainer give us +.2

[Ale Sensoli]

Hi Roman. Thanks for the reply.  I am in the bay area so I'll be joining north and south cal NASA.  Thanks for the info about tires. Still getting up to speed with all the rules. :)

 

[Roman V.]

1 hour ago, Ale Sensoli said:

Hi Roman. Thanks for the reply.  I am in the bay area so I'll be joining north and south cal NASA.  Thanks for the info about tires. Still getting up to speed with all the rules.

 

Fantastic!

[esr]

21 hours ago, rubbertoes said:

I totally agree with ESR on this. Why make the cheap guys like me already running RRs spend more money on power, etc to take advantage of this rule change. Kinda defeats the purpose right?

I totally agree with Rubbertoes

[cadmad]

On 11/11/2019 at 8:59 AM, Tansar_Motorsports said:

An electronic throttle controller (or OEM DBW throttle) can be a great way to level out an otherwise peaky HP curve for small displacement NA cars.

As dwesterwick said, there are a million ways to cheat.  Electronic throttle, electronic boost controller, OBD2 programming, etc.

I can change power on my street GTI by 30 HP by pushing the cruise control button if I want.  A visual inspection of that car would look 100% OEM.

Logging and reviewing acceleration G forces is the only reliable way. But even this will only realistically be able to catch people who are cheating by a meaningful amount.  I don't know that there is any good way to catch someone trying to cheat by 5HP.

Throwing this out there as a potential way to cost effectively police cheaters. It's not going to happen overnight and may already be in the works. I’m sure there’s a thousand ways to shoot this down and also sure the theory needs a lot of work but what’s most attractive about the theory is that timing and scoring could police accelerations rates using a program developed under the theory that alerts timing and scoring when a competitors car exceeds its maximum allowable acceleration rate.

We would need to develop a chart showing rate of acceleration / raw HP. This would take time to collect data and properly process that data into a graph that works but we are able to collect that data with GPS monitoring. The data would need to be taken from areas with flat straights. For example, a car with a raw WHP of 10:1 accelerates at a rate of 7mph over a distance of 300’ at a initial speed of 60MPH. A car with a raw WHP of 14:1 accelerates at a speed of 3.6mph over a distance of 300’ at a initial speed of 60MPH.

                Yes, there are many variables such as gearing and aerodynamics but even with all the variables the effects of them are minimal relatively speaking and may ultimately create a more level playing field. Using this theory, we would be able to reduce the amount of dyno testing or possibly, eventually eliminate dyno testing all together.

Down the road when developed add a rule at the close of the dyno testing section stating…

Except that at no time shale any competitor’s car exceed an acceleration rate greater than that listed in the maximum acceleration rate / raw power to weight table.

[Balroks]

So it's official or are we still working on edits?

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/20305/ST1-4___SU_Rules_2020--v14.1--11-20-19.pdf

[Greg G.]

Official Rules are posted. 

[rubbertoes]

Thanks for getting the new rules out before 2020, really appreciate it!

When do you suspect the car classing form will be updated so we can start accurately playing with combinations and submissions?

Thanks again!

[Ale Sensoli]

Awesome. 

Just to clarify for a new guy

Auto trasmission (with torque converter) gets -0.5? 

[rob_h]

Hi All,  Looks like I'm late to the party but I lot of us have been head's down focused on the 25.  I would like to propose the following rule, in the spirit of budget and scope creep.  In the endurance racing E2 (ST5) was super competitive all season long and we would like to prevent an arms (wheels) race.

Proposed rule:

"Center lock wheels are only permitted in ESR, ES, and GT Challenge classes. Center lock wheels are prohibited in all other classes."

Everyone I've spoken to believes that center lock wheels are allowed in the current rules.  While not an issue for ST or TT, it will can become one for those of us racing enduro.  I'm nto certain if this rule belongs here as the source rule set for E2, or in the enduro rule book.

[Greg G.]

On 12/9/2019 at 9:45 PM, Ale Sensoli said:

Awesome. 

Just to clarify for a new guy

Auto trasmission (with torque converter) gets -0.5? 

No.

ST5-6:
Transmission:
OEM street-legal model available paddle shift/DCT/SMG
or sequential motorcycle gearbox = -0.3

 

ST1-4:
Transmission:
ST1 & ST2: Dog-ring/straight-cut gears (non-synchromesh),
and/or sequential/paddle shift/semi-automatic = -0.2
ST3 & ST4: OEM dual clutch (ex. DCT, DSG, PDK),
Dog-ring/straight-cut gears = -0.5
ST3 & ST4: Other OEM street-legal model available paddle shift
(ex. SMG), or sequential motorcycle gearbox = -0.3
ST3 & ST4: All other sequential/semi-automatic = -1.0

If there are paddle shifters, then -0.3.  New technology in automatic transmissions has now made the presence of a torque converter irrelevant.  We are not going to start calling out every possible vehicle model as to whether or not it has that new technology, as it will likely rapidly spread.

[Ale Sensoli]

Copy that. 

So -0.3 in st3

-0.2 in tt2 and tt1

Correct?

[Greg G.]

17 minutes ago, Ale Sensoli said:

Copy that. 

So -0.3 in st3

-0.2 in tt2 and tt1

Correct?

If it has paddle shift.  If not, then zero.

[esr]

18 hours ago, Greg G. said:

If it has paddle shift.  If not, then zero.

I see st3 st4 straight cut gears = - 0.5

Does that mean upgrades to an after market dog Box?

if not so where does an h pattern dog box fall?

[Greg G.]

49 minutes ago, esr said:

I see st3 st4 straight cut gears = - 0.5

Does that mean upgrades to an after market dog Box?

if not so where does an h pattern dog box fall?

Yes, -0.5.  This was decreased this year from -0.6 in ST3 and -1.0 in ST4.

[racer_tom]

On 12/7/2019 at 9:36 AM, Greg G. said:

Official Rules are posted. 

Am I missing something, or are the new rules not linked properly from the ST rules page? https://supertouring.nasaseries.com/forms-rules/

The links I try still go to the August 1, 2019 versions. How does one find the revised file for ST5-6?

[Roman V.]

1 minute ago, racer_tom said:

Am I missing something, or are the new rules not linked properly from the ST rules page? https://supertouring.nasaseries.com/forms-rules/

The links I try still go to the August 1, 2019 versions. How does one find the revised file for ST5-6?

Latest rules are here: https://nasaproracing.com/rules

We will update ST website next week.

 

[50Corvette]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:55 PM, srproductions said:

Multilink suspensions that utilize an A arm shape already take the penalty; IE: BRZ/FRS

I think a penalty per drive axle holds merit.  This would help cars like the BRZ/FRS be more competitive.  

For transparency, I drive an S2000 and this would not impact me but would help equalize the class.  

S.Rizvi
#732 Honda S2000

What ever happened to this? There is a lot of interest in changing the A-Arm rule but it has not been addressed.

Having to add .7 for having rear 'A-Arms' in my BRZ when I have Macpherson fronts is extreme.

I would like to know as well why is this an st5/st6 rule.

 

[endless.pain]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:55 PM, srproductions said:

Multilink suspensions that utilize an A arm shape already take the penalty; IE: BRZ/FRS

I think a penalty per drive axle holds merit.  This would help cars like the BRZ/FRS be more competitive.  

For transparency, I drive an S2000 and this would not impact me but would help equalize the class.  

S.Rizvi
#732 Honda S2000

What ever happen to this? Seems there is enough interest to change this rule but have not seen it being addressed.

Having to add .7 to the sheet because my BRZ has an 'A-Arm' in the rear while utilizing Macpherson at the fronts is a bit extreme.

Edgar

[endless.pain]

On 11/6/2019 at 5:56 PM, rherold9 said:

Would also like to see something like this implemented. Also a question on why the rule is exclusive just to ST5/6?

Would like to know this as well. If 'A-arms' are such an advantage worth .7, why is it only penalized in ST5/ST6?