Jump to content

The “Sorta” Non-Production Vehicles?


Racerwong
 Share

Recommended Posts

I lost the chance of having a couple newer BMW M4 GT4s running with us and I think Randy Mueller ended up running GTS at nationals because of this.  So looking to maybe get a change (fingers crossed). 
 

the M4 GT4, and maybe M2 Racing and Porsche Caymans are really street cars that are factory built.  They aren’t what we usually think of in the sense of some tube frame non-prod racecar (Think TCRs, Ginetta, etc).  Hell, even the new BMW GT3 would be on the same level as a GT4.  That doesnt make sense....
 

can these drivers lobby for exceptions and get that reviewed so they don’t get the 0.4 non-prod? There are other exceptions in the appendix so seems like it is possible.  Posting here for discussion, thanks! 

Edited by Racerwong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I agree with Eric. I have recently started racing a 2016 Cayan Clubsport and have to say that I am shocked at how hard the car is penalized in ST.  What I got by buying a clubsport was a car I didn't have to build myself (I couldn't handle doing that again ;) ) that was prettier and almost certainly safer than the one we build from a street car and with the best PDK and PDK software available and for which I already pay a penalty of either .5 or .2 depending on class (For those of you who don't know me; PDK is important to me because I drive with hand-controls - my M3 was SMG).

However the 2016 Clubsport comes with, for example;  full glass and AC, a factory limited engine (both intake and manifold) and single adjustable trophy shocks so honestly the Clubsport is heaver than I would have built if I built it myself, with a more limited engine then I would have built if I built it myself and with less modifications then I would have built if I had built it myself from a street car (those of you who knew my M3 know this to be true). So I am not sure why the car itself is so highly penalized. 

How do we lobby for this to be considered by the powers that be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FandangoDrew said:

How do we lobby for this to be considered by the powers that be? 


kind of why I made this post…. In the past, any suggestions we’re supposed to be made here.  Hoping this gets seen :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Racerwong said:


kind of why I made this post…. In the past, any suggestions we’re supposed to be made here.  Hoping this gets seen :(

I'm with ya 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

I can see it.  🤣

Funny thing is that some are arguing the other direction--not on this model, but on other models.  Yesterday, I got asked to make a class (again) for non-production cars because it is not fair to have to compete against a race car that is factory built.  As you can see in the rules, over the years, there have been various factory built non-production cars that were given a lower Mod Factor than the -0.4.  Anyone can submit a request for an individual model to be included in that list.  The request needs to include all modifications and differences that the factory version has versus the BTM and versus the OEM higher trim models.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/25/2021 at 2:49 PM, Greg G. said:

I can see it.  🤣

Funny thing is that some are arguing the other direction--not on this model, but on other models.  Yesterday, I got asked to make a class (again) for non-production cars because it is not fair to have to compete against a race car that is factory built.  As you can see in the rules, over the years, there have been various factory built non-production cars that were given a lower Mod Factor than the -0.4.  Anyone can submit a request for an individual model to be included in that list.  The request needs to include all modifications and differences that the factory version has versus the BTM and versus the OEM higher trim models.

Hi Greg..I would like to submit a request please advise where to submit to...tks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/23/2021 at 4:30 AM, CeeDubb said:

Thanks Gregg Email sent for your review!

We are going to approve the BMW M2 CS Racing model in the 6.5.3 Non-Production Vehicles Approved for “Production” Vehicle Status list with a -0.2 Mod Factor for (ST1-ST3 only).   We are still considering whether GT4 cars will be permitted in ST4 with a Mod Factor or not.

Edited by Greg G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg G. said:

We are going to approve the BMW M2 CS Racing model in the 6.5.3 Non-Production Vehicles Approved for “Production” Vehicle Status list with a -0.2 Mod Factor for (ST1-ST3 only).   We are still considering whether GT4 cars will be permitted in ST4 with a Mod Factor or not.

Now I need to find one for not an insane price 🙈😝😝😝

Edited by Greg G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg G. said:

We are going to approve the BMW M2 CS Racing model in the 6.5.3 Non-Production Vehicles Approved for “Production” Vehicle Status list with a -02 Mod Factor for (ST1-ST3 only).   We are still considering whether GT4 cars will be permitted in ST4 with a Mod Factor or not.

It would be rather comical for GT4 cars to be in ST4 (I'm guessing possible with the new 1.6 tire mod) when an e36 with a body kit isn't allowed. With tire size already regulated there the restriction on kits are still rather odd. I think anyone just being objective would have to agree that if a $200k factory race car can run in ST4, surely cars with body kits should be allowed.

There are many cars in ST3 that can't even remotely make enough power to utilize the new 1.0/1.6 tire mod's. It's really only the ST2 capable cars that are able to utilize it. So if the point is actually to make it so everyone has the ability to run less expensive tires, there are many in ST3 who would need to be able to drop to ST4. And some of those cars already have kits that would not be ST4 legal. So seems like a pretty good time to reassess the fender rules so it's not just LS powered cars capable of utilizing the new tire mods.

Edited by daytonars4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the -0.2 Mod Factor is still unwarranted. This is a production vehicle, from a production line, with OEM components produced and sold with modifications to make it turn key for track use. It is not a "tub" with carbon fiber panels or a homologated race chassis. Putting the same modification factor on a fully carbon fiber body GT3 car and this car doesn't seem right. 

I appreciate the initial adjustment but I believe this needs to be looked into further. 

There are going to be a lot of these cars being bought up from teams that are using them for the M2CS Racing Cup series and it would be nice to allow them to fit in where they belong with NASA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

 

Thank you for the reply and consideration!

 

I am new to the process of applying “mod” factors as I have only raced GTS2 with NASA and the “Mod” factor is pretty much N/A.

 

As with all things and decisions I like to quantify if possible the reason for such actions.

 

It appears with ST Rules the goal is :

 

  1. The intent of these rules is to provide mandates to ensure that all Super Touring vehicles are modified within clearly established limits to strive for an even platform in which a contest of driving skill may provide the most talented drivers with great rewards. The rules shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition, without a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage.
  2. “Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio” is the ultimate equalizer between vehicles.

 

For the requested submission of the 2020 M2 CS-R as it pertains to the rules:

 

  1. Per 4.2 is based on a “Production” vehicle (as the only items added to the car to make it “non production” is safety equipment.  As you know upon any production car that is prepared W2W becomes “non production” once all safety equipment is installed and or removed (Air Bags) and is no longer approved for street used by US DOT.
  2. Per 6.2 all items added are “OEM” parts and currently available over the counter (I provided all OEM part numbers).
  3. Per 6.2.1 it is un modified.
  4. Per 6.2.2 complies with the rules
  5. 6.3 N/A as will not use the BTM Mod

 

Can you please advise if the proposed “-0.2” mod factor for the 2020 BMW M2 CS-R as compared to the “no mod” factor charged for a  2020 BMW M2 CS (I own both cars) is based on identifiable item(s)/modifications that would allow the 2020 M2 CS-R to have a quantifiable speed advantage.  Based on the above decision if the 2020 BMW M2 CS-R was to race against a 2020 BMW M2 CS (with safety equipment installed) the 2020 M2 CS-R would always lose with the same driver as the 2020 M2 CS will always have the Power to Weight advantage based on the -0.20 mod hit.

 

We would hope the intent of NASA is to encourage more support from OEM’s to develop and offer quality OEM products to racers that work within a budget and are designed to integrate and design safe products that provide as much protection as possible to limit injury/fatality to the driver.  To charge a hit (mod) against the OEM for producing a car that is safe with the same performance level as “street car” is counter to the intent we all have which is drivers safety.  We would hope all decisions would be made on data and defined uniform standards and not perceptions that a car is faster.

 

I personally feel the 2020 M2 CS-R “checks those boxes and see no competitive or quantitative advantage it has over a “W2W race prepped” street M2 CS as drive train and body is the same.

 

I respectfully request you reconsider the “non-production” -0.2 mod charged against the 2020 M2 CS-R as it will put it at a competitive disadvantage based on the Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio against any other “race prepped” M2.

 

Respectfully,

C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

I have opinions on this subject. As a long time budget oriented builder and racer I feel that it's incredibly difficult to compete against turn key built factory race cars. I can't argue with the simple statement these specific cars (M235-M2 CS-R, Cayman, Audi R8GT4, and M4GT4 specifically) are in fact very similar to street cars (why glass windows?! Why!?)

However I can comment thru my experience dealing with the cars and their owners in development for the series they were initially designed for, that they get extensive testing and development that simply isn't and will not be available to your average club participant. I have witnessed engineers overnighting parts, remoting in during testing to observe telemetry and optimize software parameters to adjust performance plus or minus to game the BOP rules, and change engine/tc/abs maps almost on the fly (I know this is prohibited in actual competition but the tools are there and used when testing).

I don't know that 2nd and 3rd hand owners of these cars recognize this because they don't enjoy the level of support these cars do in first season of competition in their respective series (SRO mostly). If one were to buy one new from the factory as 1st owner you may not even enjoy these benefits depending on yours or your shops relationship with the teams campaigning, or the engineers responsible for these adjustments.

So to some the point is on paper they simply aren't "better" then another car in the same hp/wt category. But I know that the tools available to the average club racer are nowhere near what's been put into these cars (including development feedback by the best GT drivers in the world). Jeff Westphal is never going to drive my 95 BMW and tell my engineers what to do with alignment, ride height, rebound settings, tire pressures, engine/throttle/trans/TC mapping, etc.

And lets not forget the most important factor is ultimately reliability. These factory built cars stand a far greater chance of winning championships because they are undeniably better built, and more reliable then garage built cars. Further more these cars are pulled off the factory lineup before even seam sealer is applied, no undercoating, and yes I can send my chassis off for acid dipping and some do, and it's allowed.

In my opinion the cars are better pound for pound, dollar for dollar. And drivers that can start off in these platforms certainly enjoy an average performance advantage out of the box (as is often proven by 2nd year novices defeating 5 year veterans in the championship more often then not). Should they be penalized, I feel -.2 to -.4 isn't unreasonable for these platforms to overcome. It may impact them on raw lap times, but everywhere else (end of the race, end of the season, rain) they more then make up for it so I don't think it's out of the question.

And as always these rules are always in flux, perhaps not through out a single competition season (this gets tricky with all the different regions overlapping the calendar year). It's important to share these thoughts and concerns, they are heard and considered regardless of how much they may be debated. Maybe a penalty is appropriate, maybe it isn't, it does take data aggregate to better understand. Compete, show results and data to prove your point, it can only help!

Edited by Matt G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

@Ceedubb

I like your arguments, I feel they are represented well and define this exact concern.

However I don't think we can prove without a doubt the street car converted will defeat the factory built car. Gathering this data per my comment is impractical (cost prohibitive). But can you be certain the software mapping is the same? Or perhaps it could be made the same relatively simply? Can you strip seam sealer and undercoating (maybe the M2 CS-R actually has seam sealer and undercoating?) or perhaps that is easily accounted for in balast hp/wt adjustments within the rules allowance. And they can be stripped from the theoretical street car as well.

Sometimes the more I argue these points in my head over the years, the more it sounds like simply penalizing spending money which isn't technically the point, but at some level racing rules are effectively doing just that directly or indirectly.

Edit for context: After some discussion. In another series trim these factory cars should be competitive with their equivalent ST3/ST4 cars. Aero and damper advantage NASA ST rules allows is typically an advantage over the spec series the Cayman and M2 compete in... I had not previously considered starting with the factory competition car and possibly improving it for NASA ST

Edited by Matt G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Matt G.
I feel like you are missing the point.

The question is not whether a $100k 10:1 M2 CSR is faster than a typical 10:1 home built race car.

The question is, if I had lots of money, and I wanted to race an M2, under the current rules, I would be better off buying a street car and then spending $100k on transforming it into an M2 CSR clone, rather than just buying the M2 CSR directly.

Same concept goes for most GT4 cars.

With enough money, you could do custom programmed ABS and traction control, hire a pro driver and race engineers to do your chassis setup, etc.

 

In my opinion, "non-production" modifiers should only apply when you are using a platform that would be otherwise impossible to duplicate within the rules. (TCR cars, etc)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

It is difficult for NASA to verify that these vehicles do not have electronic programming that is not available to the non-factory cars, including ABS and traction control, even if they technically have the "same ECU/DME", that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-factory grassroots competitor has the same access to the programming that the factory does.   Ultimately, as Matt stated, real life data ends up driving our rules revisions over time.  As an example, the older 996 and 997 Porsche GT3 Cup cars (in ST1 & 2) and Viper Comp Coupe lost the -0.2 Mod Factor a few years ago, when advances in engineering and design of OEMs and data showed that that Mod Factor was no longer appropriate.  Bringing a minority of factory built cars into a class with majority home garage and aftermarket garage built cars without any BOP for the factory potentials that we cannot really verify 100% will not increase the number of competitors in the class.  So, for now, we will keep the -0.2 Mod Factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

Since you and Matt posted some questions directly to me and assumed the M2 CS-R falls into some of your generalizations lets proceed:

 

“However, I don't think we can prove without a doubt the street car converted will defeat the factory built car. Gathering this data per my comment is impractical (cost prohibitive). But can you be certain the software mapping is the same? “

I feel the software that I would utilize, and map would be better that what is currently offered as it will have to be detuned and EPIC would use their vast knowledge and experience to provide a unique program for my specific application with a power/torque cure precise to my racing.  This product as know is available to all and is superior.

ABS-can easily be race programed by 3DM Suspension to the unique characteristics requested.

 https://3dmmotorsport.com/blogs/mk60-standalone-abs

And is available to all.

As far as traction control, I don’t know about others, but I turn it off on all cars I have and do not use it.,.so no real advantage there.

 

Or perhaps it could be made the same relatively simply? Can you strip seam sealer and undercoating (maybe the M2 CS-R actually has seam sealer and undercoating?) or perhaps that is easily accounted for in balast hp/wt adjustments within the rules allowance. And they can be stripped from the theoretical street car as well.

I not sure where you are going with this as you are really discussing the minimal weight of seam sealer and undercoating as an advantage.  One carbon fiber hood would easily compensate for this.  FYI the M2CS Racing comes with a steel hood the M2 CS “street car” come with a carbon fiber hood. But all of this is irrelevant for the M2 CS-R as I must detune for Power to weight anyways.

And lets not forget the most important factor is ultimately reliability. These factory built cars stand a far greater chance of winning championships because they are undeniably better built, and more reliable then garage built cars.

Assuming you are referring to the M2CS-R as one of these factory-built cars you state its UNDENIABLY BETTER BUILT as a general statement without any facts and I have to disprove your vague statement?  Based on this you state this is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR for a mod hit?  Really what parts on the M2 CS-R make it so much more reliable than the street car? You know I emailed you the list of parts for both cars and most parts are identical and all other parts can be purchased over the counter from BMW or Bimmerword.  In fact, Bimmerworld has some parts better than what is offered from the OEM on the M2CS-R.  I guess all that factory testing doesn’t always give you the best most reliable product.

It is difficult for NASA to verify that these vehicles do not have electronic programming that is not available to the non-factory cars, including ABS and traction control, even if they technically have the "same ECU/DME", that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-factory grassroots competitor has the same access to the programming that the factory does.

Of course, the grass roots competitor does not have the access to the factory support but your point is a “red herring” as you attempt to put doubt and state an item that cannot be quantifiably determined but argue 1) the M2CS-R has such programming (without proof) and 2) you believe it has a quantifiably advantage because of what you have seen over the years unrelated to this specific car.  As stated ealier there are multiple vendors for programming that are not OEM and provide servcie to National Winners in all racing bodies.

Sometimes the more I argue these points in my head over the years, the more it sounds like simply penalizing spending money which isn't technically the point, but at some level racing rules are effectively doing just that directly or indirectly.

Your history and generations do not relate specifically to the M2 CS-R and are mostly allegations and assumption not based on the science or facts leads you to determinations that are not with the intent of the ST Rules what state The rules shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition, without a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage.  

   Ultimately, as Matt stated, real life data ends up driving our rules revisions over time…...Bringing a minority of factory built cars into a class with majority home garage and aftermarket garage built cars without any BOP for the factory potentials that we cannot really verify 100% will not increase the number of competitors in the class.  So, for now, we will keep the -0.2 Mod Factor. 

1)    I have showed via email mechanically the cross reference on all major parts for the two cars (M2 CS and M2 CS-R) and have identified the similarities of both cars mechanically.

2)    I have provided to you the ECU/DME and abs modification that can be done to both cars to make both more competitive from well know vendors.

3)    I have stated that there are parts available from other non-OEM vendors that make superior products for both cars (Forgeline, MCS, AP Racing, Active Autowerks, Drive Shaft Shop, carbon fiber vendors..etc)

 

Edited by CeeDubb
personal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CeeDubb I think you pretty much identified how this will play out. The M2CS-R owners need to show up to races in 2022, get spanked as I suspect  is the most likely outcome and then lobby for the .2 mod to be dropped in 2023. After which I suspect they still won’t be front running cars in ST without further development. The factory aero on the M2/M235 program were never meant to dominate an open aero class like ST. More of an enduro type car. On the flip side, the TCR’s which are actually well developed sprint capable cars, got the benefit of being under penalized until the rules caught up. So enjoyed crushing the field for 1-2 seasons. Just how the cookie crumbles.

But you also have to try to understand from NASA’s perspective. They get a bunch of current racers whining that ALL factory cars have an unfair advantage against them. So for them to agree to even cut that mod in half before the M2’s really enter competition is a reasonable compromise. What is that, like 100lbs due to the mod? In the grand scheme of things it’s not the end of the world. As heavy as M2’s are they probably even get that back with the weight bonus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 1/11/2022 at 7:00 PM, CeeDubb said:

Hi Greg,

Since you and Matt posted some questions directly to me and assumed the M2 CS-R falls into some of your generalizations lets proceed:

 

“However, I don't think we can prove without a doubt the street car converted will defeat the factory built car. Gathering this data per my comment is impractical (cost prohibitive). But can you be certain the software mapping is the same? “

I feel the software that I would utilize, and map would be better that what is currently offered as it will have to be detuned and EPIC would use their vast knowledge and experience to provide a unique program for my specific application with a power/torque cure precise to my racing.  This product as know is available to all and is superior.

ABS-can easily be race programed by 3DM Suspension to the unique characteristics requested.

 https://3dmmotorsport.com/blogs/mk60-standalone-abs

And is available to all.

As far as traction control, I don’t know about others, but I turn it off on all cars I have and do not use it.,.so no real advantage there.

 

Or perhaps it could be made the same relatively simply? Can you strip seam sealer and undercoating (maybe the M2 CS-R actually has seam sealer and undercoating?) or perhaps that is easily accounted for in balast hp/wt adjustments within the rules allowance. And they can be stripped from the theoretical street car as well.

I not sure where you are going with this as you are really discussing the minimal weight of seam sealer and undercoating as an advantage.  One carbon fiber hood would easily compensate for this.  FYI the M2CS Racing comes with a steel hood the M2 CS “street car” come with a carbon fiber hood. But all of this is irrelevant for the M2 CS-R as I must detune for Power to weight anyways.

And lets not forget the most important factor is ultimately reliability. These factory built cars stand a far greater chance of winning championships because they are undeniably better built, and more reliable then garage built cars.

Assuming you are referring to the M2CS-R as one of these factory-built cars you state its UNDENIABLY BETTER BUILT as a general statement without any facts and I have to disprove your vague statement?  Based on this you state this is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR for a mod hit?  Really what parts on the M2 CS-R make it so much more reliable than the street car? You know I emailed you the list of parts for both cars and most parts are identical and all other parts can be purchased over the counter from BMW or Bimmerword.  In fact, Bimmerworld has some parts better than what is offered from the OEM on the M2CS-R.  I guess all that factory testing doesn’t always give you the best most reliable product.

It is difficult for NASA to verify that these vehicles do not have electronic programming that is not available to the non-factory cars, including ABS and traction control, even if they technically have the "same ECU/DME", that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-factory grassroots competitor has the same access to the programming that the factory does.

Of course, the grass roots competitor does not have the access to the factory support but your point is a “red herring” as you attempt to put doubt and state an item that cannot be quantifiably determined but argue 1) the M2CS-R has such programming (without proof) and 2) you believe it has a quantifiably advantage because of what you have seen over the years unrelated to this specific car.  As stated ealier there are multiple vendors for programming that are not OEM and provide servcie to National Winners in all racing bodies.

Sometimes the more I argue these points in my head over the years, the more it sounds like simply penalizing spending money which isn't technically the point, but at some level racing rules are effectively doing just that directly or indirectly.

Your history and generations do not relate specifically to the M2 CS-R and are mostly allegations and assumption not based on the science or facts leads you to determinations that are not with the intent of the ST Rules what state The rules shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition, without a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage.  

   Ultimately, as Matt stated, real life data ends up driving our rules revisions over time…...Bringing a minority of factory built cars into a class with majority home garage and aftermarket garage built cars without any BOP for the factory potentials that we cannot really verify 100% will not increase the number of competitors in the class.  So, for now, we will keep the -0.2 Mod Factor. 

1)    I have showed via email mechanically the cross reference on all major parts for the two cars (M2 CS and M2 CS-R) and have identified the similarities of both cars mechanically.

2)    I have provided to you the ECU/DME and abs modification that can be done to both cars to make both more competitive from well know vendors.

3)    I have stated that there are parts available from other non-OEM vendors that make superior products for both cars (Forgeline, MCS, AP Racing, Active Autowerks, Drive Shaft Shop, carbon fiber vendors..etc)

4)    Based on your determination you CANNOT REALLY VERIFY FACTORY POTENTIALS and because you as the arbiter of NASA for which you represent and determine as the Judge and Jury the M2CS-R must be hit with a MOD.  Respectfully you have found the car GUILITY without providing the facts because you “feel” a certain way.

5)    It appears the only way the convicted M2CS-R to get a pardon from its sentence of mod hit is to lose races and pray for the mercy and pled to the NASA god for such relief in a year or two.

Actually, this determination came from the vice president of NASA. And I highly suggest you tread lightly on the personal attacks. Also, what are we talking about for a 3400 pound car in ST3, 7 hp difference?

Edited by Greg G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gregg,

I am responding to the reasons provided by you as you stated you were the one to submit such request to.  Matt G. also commented and made general statements.   I am also responding to line by line reply's to this specific car as it relates to its submission and not to generalizations of other cars and history of other cars.  I continue to direct the conversation back to this submission.  When given a reason for the "we" determination I responded and replied and would expect a reply specifically to the item or items in question and not divert the conversation to other general topics and/or make the person submitting the request "defensive". 

Please understand YOUR reply as the final voice: 

"Bringing a minority of factory built cars into a class with majority home garage and aftermarket garage built cars without any BOP for the factory potentials that we cannot really verify 100% will not increase the number of competitors in the class.  So, for now, we will keep the -0.2 Mod Factor"

You know a statement by you "factory potential that we cannot really verify 100%" is a general statement and leaves the submitter an inability to prove/disprove you.  The only recourse is to provide the foundation for which the car's were produced and comparison to its "street" version.  I feel I have done that and when posed specific concerns by you I have replied with answer.  Upon the answers to your concerns such as ECU, Traction Control, ABS...etc there has not been a follow-up reply other than to take the conversation to general topics and "I/we feel a certain way".

This conversation was supposed to be on the submission of this car and somehow moved to many other cars, thoughts and feelings. As a racer and logical person I do not work off of feelings but facts.  When we move from the facts to feelings people get hurt and start to assume that it has become a "personal attack". 

I have made my point and you have made yours as all can see.  I do not agree with your conclusion but based on your replies have come to understand your intentions.

Cheers!

Edited by CeeDubb
personal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Clayton,

When you make statements like this, you will lose our attention in regard to the subject material:

"4)    Based on your determination you CANNOT REALLY VERIFY FACTORY POTENTIALS and because you as the arbiter of NASA for which you represent and determine as the Judge and Jury the M2CS-R must be hit with a MOD.  Respectfully you have found the car GUILITY without providing the facts because you “feel” a certain way.

5)    It appears the only way the convicted M2CS-R to get a pardon from its sentence of mod hit is to lose races and pray for the mercy and pled to the NASA god for such relief in a year or two.

Also as a member I take offence to your statement, "Also, what are we talking about for a 3400 pound car in ST3 7hp difference?"."

Up until this point, you did a rather amazing job at stating your point and bringing what appear to be very solid arguments.  I can understand your frustration as you do have many very good points, and ultimately may prevail in your request.  However, it is very hyperbolic and you make things personal when you start making statements that point toward people rather than what you did previously with your fact based arguments.  Although my dog may agree with you that I'm a god, I'm pretty sure nobody else in the world, including myself, would. So, the statement you made is clearly a personal attack and it is offensive.  It implies that I think that I'm a "NASA god", and that I require competitors to plead for my mercy.  Now, it takes a lot more than a few words from someone who doesn't even know me to actually offend me, but I'm also not going to put up with that type of behavior towards any NASA official or driver.  In fact, it is a violation of the CCR:

23.1 Participant Conduct - Expectations
It is expected that every participant [Ref: (1.4.4)] and driver (entrant) at a NASA sanctioned event will conduct themselves according to the highest standards of behavior and sportsmanship, particularly in their relationship with other drivers and Officials, and in a manner that shall not be detrimental to the reputation of NASA, its series, or other drivers. This rule also pertains to actions away from the track, such as posting comments on social media or forums that are in violations of this rule.

So, I asked you to tread lightly.  That's all.   I would also ask you not to take a one paragraph statement that I write, and cut out the last two lines and lose the rest of the context.

In regard to the actual subject matter, nobody has stolen any HP from you.  The rules state that your vehicle is a non-Production vehicle.  This requires a -0.4 Mod Factor.  Done--so, essentially 14HP.  NASA has recognized over the years, some vehicles that fit into this category are not on the same footing as others, and we have tried to help balance performance by giving back some of that negative Mod Factor under specific conditions as listed.  We have done that with the car you are concerned about.  And, when I say "we", I mean NASA.  I personally agree with many if not most of your factual based points.  But, there were long discussions and debates with the NASA executives, and this was the conclusion for now.  I'm the one that gets to let you know.  Can it change? Sure.  Has NASA been burned by being too liberal in similar situations to this in the past--perhaps a few times.  Just as there are secrets in the tire industry that are beyond our control, we have found "secrets" in factory built cars in the past that maybe even the competitor didn't know about, or perhaps did and forgot to inform us when asking for a reclassification.  

I'm sure that NASA will be having more internal discussions about this subject, so it's not dead yet, but I don't expect anything to change anytime soon on this.

 
Edited by Greg G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the clarity of the process and I assure you I will keep the discussion factual moving forward.

Very respectfully,

C.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 12:04 PM, Greg G. said:

It is difficult for NASA to verify that these vehicles do not have electronic programming that is not available to the non-factory cars, including ABS and traction control, even if they technically have the "same ECU/DME", that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-factory grassroots competitor has the same access to the programming that the factory does.   Ultimately, as Matt stated, real life data ends up driving our rules revisions over time.  As an example, the older 996 and 997 Porsche GT3 Cup cars (in ST1 & 2) and Viper Comp Coupe lost the -0.2 Mod Factor a few years ago, when advances in engineering and design of OEMs and data showed that that Mod Factor was no longer appropriate.  Bringing a minority of factory built cars into a class with majority home garage and aftermarket garage built cars without any BOP for the factory potentials that we cannot really verify 100% will not increase the number of competitors in the class.  So, for now, we will keep the -0.2 Mod Factor. 

Definitely backwards for me to argue as I run a Viper Comp Coupe...

But, there's no way it shouldn't receive the -0.2 Mod Factor. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 1/18/2022 at 7:11 AM, Anderson Motorsports said:

Definitely backwards for me to argue as I run a Viper Comp Coupe...

But, there's no way it shouldn't receive the -0.2 Mod Factor. haha

We would be happy to entertain the request for the reinstatement of the -0.2 Mod Factor for your car.  🤔   😀

If I remember correctly, it uses stock ABS, stock transmission, upgraded suspension but not relocated suspension, and although the body is changed, mostly it was increased power and safety equipment that was added.  They are great cars, but I don't see that they are better than a mildly modified fresh Vette right off the showroom floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...