Version (3.9.5)-TT Rules 2006--Released 1-11-06

[Greg G.]

TT Rules v.3.9.6 has been released on 4-17-06, and incorporates all addendums, revisions, provisional car classifications, and engine swaps through 4-17-06

OK, now that we've worked the bugs out of the beta-test rules released last week, I can release the real rules. Version 3.9.5 (1-11-06) of the NASA TT National Rules is now available for download at http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Time-Trial-Rules.pdf to replace v 3.9. Was this planned? Not really, but anytime you make such a big change to a program, you are bound to have some issues that could be improved. Actually, you can all note for the record, that we are not the "other guys". We listen to what our competitors have to say, and we don't need an act of Congress to make changes if necessary. With your help, by asking clarification questions, we have been able to find (hopefully) the last few pluggable loopholes. If we find more, we will deal with them on an individual basis, via notifications on the websites. But, we had enough stuff to update, along with the 9 or so provisional classifications that it made sense to get them down in the published rules now, before the season starts, instead of waiting for '07--less stray stuff on the websites that guys could miss.

 

We still have the same goals that we did when we started the program over two years ago--to have a fun, fair, exciting, competitive, time trial competition, in an advanced level driving arena, with no descrimination based on what make of car, or extent of modifications one has. We are just ready to accomodate many more drivers than we had back then, all across the country. So, if you are one of the competitors that is effected by these updates, I want you to know that we haven't changed our initial intent of any of these rules. We believe that we have written them so that our drivers will understand the intent more clearly, and avoid making classification errors. For those of you that were so diligent as to read the entire set of rules this past week, good job! I will now post all of the updates here, so that you don't have to try to play "hide n' seek" to find them. This is a really exciting time for this program. It is clear from all of the responses that I got this past week, that there are going to be a lot of guys itching for their first event. I was receiving about 40-50 e-mails a day.

 

We expect to have license applications in the next week, but there is really no rush, because you need to have your Regional Director sign them off to get approved. The TT calculator will hopefully be back up and running smoothly by the week of Jan 25th. And, we have the rather large project of the National TT website to tackle this month as well. Northern California and Texas will kick off the 2006 TT season for us on February 4th-5th. (using the new rules--AZ did have their first 2006 event in Dec '05). So, let's get it on!

 

Changes in TT rules v.3.9.5 (1-11-06) compared to v3.9 (1-1-06):

 

1. Table of contents updated to match changes in 6 section locations.

 

2. Car base class changes:

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo IX----"('06)" added for clarity--no class change

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo MR ('04-'05)----listing added and placed in TTB

Chevrolet Corvette C4 ('88-'96)-----base class increased to TTC

Dodge Neon SRT4 Stage 3R (w/exhaust)----listing added and placed in TTC

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII----"('03-'05)" added for clarity--no class change

Dodge Neon SRT4 ('03)----base class increased to TTE** (use update rule for LSD/ECU)

Eagle Talon 2.0L----"(FWD)" added for clarity--no class change

Eagle Talon 2.0L AWD ('90-'92)----listing added and placed in TTE*

Acura Integra 1.6L (125 hp)----base class increased to TTF*

Acura Integra 1.8L non-VTEC----base class increased to TTF*

Honda Civic 1.6L non-VTEC (106hp)----listing added and placed in TTG**

VW Scirocco 1.7L (74hp)----listing added and placed in TTH*

 

3. Spec Focus added to NASA racecar list, and classed in TTE (w/ Spec Neon)

 

4. Wt. Reduction 7)----"(other than door panels)" added to clarify that door panels are assessed in 9) and 10).

 

5. Engine/Drivetrain 11)----new wording for old programmable electronics and fuel injections systems rule----

"Reprogrammable ECU chip, reflashable computer, or aftermarket computer system that can directly control engine timing maps and/or fuel injector pulse, allowing fine tuning:

---1) at the track +6 naturally aspirated, +11 turbo/supercharged

---2) elsewhere +5 N.A., +8 turbo/ S.C. (Do not also take points for performance chip/reflash)"

 

6. Engine/Drivetrain 20)----new wording----"Aftermarket boost controller with on-track driver control +4"

 

7. Engine/Drivetrain 21)----new wording----"Aftermarket boost controller without driver control +3"

 

8. Suspension/Brakes 1)----new wording for high-end shocks----

"Any monotube, gas-charged shocks with aluminum body construction, removable body caps, a replacement shaft, or adjustment of any nature (preload or bleed) through the shaft; or, any shocks with an external reservoir or more than two ranges of adjustment +12 (springs and perches are open--0 pts.)"

 

9. Suspension/Brakes 6)----added torsion bars----

"Non-OEM or modified coil springs, leaf springs, or torsion bars +2"

 

10. No-Point Modifications 27)----new listing for sun/moonroofs----

"Sun/moonroof removal and cover roof hole"

 

That's all folks.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Guest

[Red Tornado]

So Greg does that SA Penske's count for 12 points but a coli-over setup using no adjustable shocks is only 5 points?

 

That seems harsh considering you can do a cam and heads and add less than 12 points.

[Greg G.]

Yes, all Penske's are high performance, high quality racing shocks, and are +12. They can easily be revalved at a shop with a shock dyno, even if they have no adjustment ability. They are one of the best shocks made, and are definitely worth +7 compared to street, oil displacement, non-adjustable coilovers. There is a reason that guys are willing to pay 3-20 times as much for high end dampers/shocks than street shocks. I'm just glad that I have never driven a car with them. I imagine they are like crack .

 

Also, as another clarification of the new rule, simple street sport, off the shelf, replacement coilovers (even if they are gas charged and have a rebound adjustment--like some Tokico, Koni, Tein non-race shocks) are not to be charged +12 points (they would fall into the +7 range). Race shocks (all basically), do fall into the +12 category. This rule is just about impossible to write and catch the intended shocks, but let all of the unintended ones slide down to the +7 or +5 range. We've now captured all of the high end stuff, but some of the low end stuff would technically get caught up in the wording. It would be way too big of a hassle to try to list every model of shock that is a +12. So, we'll make the best of it. I think that it is pretty clear what our intention is. If anyone has any question about their specific set-up, please consult your Regional TT Director or me.

Edited January 13, 2006 by Guest

[Red Tornado]

Thanks for the clarity.

 

Bummer though.

 

Get's this means selling my penske's and going coil-over or T1 Kit for alot less points.

 

I actually never liked the penske's that much and believe they are a little overrated personally.

 

That makes the decision easy though.

[Greg G.]

Thanks for the clarity.

 

Bummer though.

 

Get's this means selling my penske's and going coil-over or T1 Kit for alot less points.

 

I actually never liked the penske's that much and believe they are a little overrated personally.

 

That makes the decision easy though.

 

Sorry. But, you did get what you asked for (ie. some limitation of what runs in TTU vs. the new TTR class). I'm sure someone will buy those Penske's.

Edited January 13, 2006 by Guest

[Pat L.]

Thanks for the clarity.

 

Bummer though.

 

Get's this means selling my penske's and going coil-over or T1 Kit for alot less points.

 

I actually never liked the penske's that much and believe they are a little overrated personally.

 

That makes the decision easy though.

 

Just a heads up, a lot of the T1 suspension kits will bring you the 12 point reward as well. The "other guys" have a pretty open policy with regard to shock absorbers.

 

From the touring rules:

"2. The make of shock absorber may be changed. Their

number, dimensions (e.g. perch location, tube length),

system of attachment, and attachment points shall not

be altered. Their type (tube vs. lever, etc.) shall not be

altered. The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock

absorbers is permitted. etc..."

 

Just double check before you start replacing good parts. It'd suck to be stuck with the same problem after a lot of work.

[mrc24x]

Hi Gregg,

First off, thanks for all of your work and job well done with the rules. I also appreciate you spending your time here to field questions. So here goes...Regarding the '88-96 C4 Corvette in TTC in the revised rules. I believe that there were more changes over the 12 year run of the C4 that should warrant more than the current seperation in the rules. Based on the statement in the Engine/ Drivetrain paragraph 1) "The following scheme will be used as a guigeline; however, additional factors such as overall weight, suspension.....<10.0 TTB, <11.5 TTC, <13.5 TTD, <16.5 TTE..."

 

Would the above apply directly to the model years (at least between them) of the C4 since the engine and resulting WT/HP ratio is the only major item that is different??

 

The following HP and WT/HP numbers are from NASA VVC information:

 

Year HP WT/HP ENGINE

'84 205 17.28 L83 Crossfire Injection

 

'85 230 15.40 L98 TPI

'86 240 14.22

'87 245 13.85

'88 245 13.59

'89 245 13.59

'90 245 13.32

'91 245 13.32

 

'92 300 10.74 LT1

'93 300 11.03

'94 300 11.03

'95 300 10.83

'96 300 10.18 *all 6spds were 330 hp LT4

 

I realize this post is long (sorry) but I believe most people think all C4's are the same. I seperated the above into what I would consider mostly equal groups. The early TPI cars (85-86) can easily use the update rule to

produce the same performance as the '87-91 cars. But the way the rules are now the '88-91 cars could add headers and a 3' straight pipes and still be down 30 HP to the LT1 cars.

 

I know you can't dig into all of the models and changes for every car but hopefully this information will be useful.

Thanks for listening,

Matt Carlyle

Future TT Regular

[Red Tornado]

The T1 vette kit uses stock type shocks that are revalved so I am fine.

The penske's will sell no problem.

 

I have my 34 points to max out TTU all figured out.

[Greg G.]

Hi Greg,

First off, thanks for all of your work and job well done with the rules. I also appreciate you spending your time here to field questions. So here goes...Regarding the '88-96 C4 Corvette in TTC in the revised rules. I believe that there were more changes over the 12 year run of the C4 that should warrant more than the current seperation in the rules. Matt Carlyle

Future TT Regular

Matt, I'm checking on this. I believe that your numbers are correct. This is a difficult situation, though, because if we move the '85-'91's to TTD**, they only have enough points to get the exhaust mods you mentioned and still be 30 hp in the hole (the update/backdate rule no longer applies if they are in a lower class). And if we move them to TTD*, they have 8 more points to get the 30 hp, but it seems that for that engine, 8 points will probably yield more than 30 hp (at least the 8 that I would choose). So, the car would now have an advantage over the '92+ models. So, I'll get back to you on this.

[Greg G.]

OK, Matt, it's approved. '85-'91 C4's in TTD*.

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=44044#44044

[mrc24x]

Sounds good Greg. Thanks for the quick response. See you in the Spring

[Falcon]

Not that I'd go to the cost of doing it, but why is an "added dry sump oil system" such a penalty (20 points)? That alone would move a car into another class, what is the big performance advantage in a dry sump?

[Greg G.]

Not that I'd go to the cost of doing it, but why is an "added dry sump oil system" such a penalty (20 points)? That alone would move a car into another class, what is the big performance advantage in a dry sump?

Originally, we were just going to add it to the list of mods that puts a car into TTR. The dry sump is one of the items that allows a 400 hp engine to be built into an 800 hp engine. And, also it is illegal in most of the race classes that would fall into TTA down. But, we decided to put the 650 hp limit on TTU instead, and let the guys put in a dry sump for "protection of the engine" if they wanted.

 

The problem is that it's good for more than just keeping a high hp engine lubricated. It also, decreases friction on the crankshaft, removes the oilpan which can allow a driver to drop the engine almost all the way to the ground, completely changing the roll center of the car, place the oil tank anywhere in the car needed to help balance the chassis, and in general allows a modified engine to rev higher. So, it gets a lot of points to discourage their use in the TTA-TTF classes.

[Falcon]

Not that I'd go to the cost of doing it, but why is an "added dry sump oil system" such a penalty (20 points)? That alone would move a car into another class, what is the big performance advantage in a dry sump?

Originally, we were just going to add it to the list of mods that puts a car into TTR. The dry sump is one of the items that allows a 400 hp engine to be built into an 800 hp engine. And, also it is illegal in most of the race classes that would fall into TTA down. But, we decided to put the 650 hp limit on TTU instead, and let the guys put in a dry sump for "protection of the engine" if they wanted.

 

The problem is that it's good for more than just keeping a high hp engine lubricated. It also, decreases friction on the crankshaft, removes the oilpan which can allow a driver to drop the engine almost all the way to the ground, completely changing the roll center of the car, place the oil tank anywhere in the car needed to help balance the chassis, and in general allows a modified engine to rev higher. So, it gets a lot of points to discourage their use in the TTA-TTF classes.

 

Oh!

[claykos]

Speaking of Corvettes, if the Z06 is A* and a regular C5 is B, then there is a 27 point difference between these 2 cars. With 27 points one could take a C5, change heads and cam (easy ~450-500hp), add the GM T1 suspension kit (springs, bushings, bars, shocks) and put on V710s. Now this is a whole lot more car than a stock Z06 and doesn't really seem fair to the guys with Z06s...

[Greg G.]

I believe that you are correct. It does look like the C5 is classed by at least one * too low. I'm basing this off of it's stock stature, not what can be done with mods. Stock, it has a wt/hp ratio of 9.2 (better than AI legal 9.5), and better than some of the TTB* and TTB** cars.

 

I'd be interested to hear from any C5 guys as to why we shoudn't give it an * (TTB*). And, for you new guys, no, this isn't "rules by community vote". I just want to have both sides of an issue clear, before making decisions. And, in this case, if there are any C5 guys, out there that want to speak up, now is the time.

[claykos]

Two more quick followups:

 

1. Does the Z06 guy who upgrades everything on his car that makes it a Z06 over a C5 get to start at C5 base class? (like the mustang cobra/mustang GT example in the rules)

 

2. If a C5 starts in B, that means it CANNOT go to TTR, right?. But a Z06 can because it starts in A. That means that if I built a Z06 with 35+ points of mods, I'm TTR, but I can build the EXACT same car out of a 2000 Fixed Roof Coupe and be TTU (or actually TTA as it stands now with base class B). I guess this sort of goes along with question 1...and if the answer to question one is yes, then would it be possible to have a TTR Z06 (without 650hp, or dog box)? Because the modded Z06 would technically have base class B or B* (however it ends up).

 

I know base classes are not based on modifying, but it just seems odd that you could have 2 identical cars, just with a different badge ending up 2 classes apart.

[Greg G.]

Two more quick followups:

1. Does the Z06 guy who upgrades everything on his car that makes it a Z06 over a C5 get to start at C5 base class? (like the mustang cobra/mustang GT example in the rules)

 

2. If a C5 starts in B, that means it CANNOT go to TTR, right?. But a Z06 can because it starts in A. That means that if I built a Z06 with 35+ points of mods, I'm TTR, but I can build the EXACT same car out of a 2000 Fixed Roof Coupe and be TTU (or actually TTA as it stands now with base class B). I guess this sort of goes along with question 1...and if the answer to question one is yes, then would it be possible to have a TTR Z06 (without 650hp, or dog box)? Because the modded Z06 would technically have base class B or B* (however it ends up).

 

I know base classes are not based on modifying, but it just seems odd that you could have 2 identical cars, just with a different badge ending up 2 classes apart.

 

1. If it is possible to do that, then yes. Are the chassis, floorpan, and bodies the same to allow this--only certain matched years of Z06 to C5? I'm not sure.

 

2. Yes, TTB can't go to TTR by points alone. We need to classify most cars by what they can do stock, not what a creative person can do to get around the rules. OK, Clay, you can stop giving the Z06 guys funny ideas Hey, wait, you are burning yourself since if they went to TTR you wouldn't have to deal with them. But now, since you are helping them out, there will be more of them in TTU to put a hurtin on you. Are you trading in the FFR for a Z06?

[Falcon]

2. ....but I can build the EXACT same car out of a 2000 Fixed Roof Coupe...

 

Just to pick a nit, the 2000 FRC has a different windshield (~5# heavier), and a ~25-30# heavier exhaust system than the Z06. Also, the transmission is different. The shocks are different, too, but if a T1 kit is insalled that defference gets washed out with those parts..

 

IMHO, the solution to even out the disparity between the Z06 and the C5, is to reduce the penalty points on the base Z06 so that it starts with 0 in the TTA class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[claykos]

Ya, I knew that the exhaust and gear ratios were different. And now that you mention it, I vaguely remember the windshield being thinner on the Z06.

 

As far as I know, the differences are,

 

Springs, sway bars, shocks, bushings

Brake Pads

Exhaust

Gearing

Heads/Cam/Intake

 

Maybe I'm forgetting something...

[firehawkclone]

I'm in the same boat as the z06/c5 difference's. My 95 formula has to run against a 98/02 formula *(+7) I can't even think of 7 points that would make up for a better car......though i can update!

 

Motor/w 50 to 80hp, + higher rpm range!

Diff

clutch & cylinder

brakes

springs(stiffer)

 

I'll just have to out drive it