Jump to content

2022 ST Rules Release Today!


Greg G.
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is there any explanation why ST/TT6 is suddenly penalized?

 

All competition is based on the “Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio” (section 6.3) below:

Super Touring 5 (ST5) = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 14.00:1

Super Touring 6 (ST6) = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 19.00:1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
25 minutes ago, Yani said:

Is there any explanation why ST/TT6 is suddenly penalized?

 

All competition is based on the “Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio” (section 6.3) below:

Super Touring 5 (ST5) = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 14.00:1

Super Touring 6 (ST6) = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 19.00:1

It is to encourage the move to the +1.6 tires, allow other NASA Spec tire classes to cross over still, and make it so those already on +0.6 tires don’t have to do any changes to their cars.  ST6 almost became a Spec tire class with a +1.6 tire, and it likely still will in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get clarification on the intent of TCS.  The facebook groups are blowing up with confusion and it's starting to hurt my head trying to understand the intent.

Most every modern car has TCS, and has TCS that can be changed on the fly with no way to disable it.

NASA Official facebook said TCS is allowed but can't be changed on the fly.

How will that be enforced?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tire rules are always difficult to strike the right balance and will be contentious to a certain extent.  I've been running 100TW Goodyear Eagle F1 3R tires in TT2 for the last two years.  In eliminating the 100TW modifier and not including these tires in the new modifier list, then I am effectively being bumped up from TT2 to TT1 on a significantly slower Time Trial tire.   The impact is that I'll have to switch to Hoosiers or switch to a even slower tire to remain in TT2.   

I get that there are winners and losers, but this is disappointing for folks running DOT tires between 200TW and non-DOT slicks.  What is the process to ask for the Goodyear Eagle F1 3R be considered for a modifier?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Greg,

I would like to suggest you increase the tire size allowed in st4 to 295 mm if your car is over 3500lbs.  For 2 reasons. I think some of the heavier cars run 19's because they come with them stock and have larger oem brakes. And finding tires within the 282 rule for a 19 inch rim can be challenging because there is less selection in 19 inch. You allow larger tires if your over 3000 pounds, so why not keep the scale going? Spec Z uses a 295 tire. If you car is in the 3500-3800 weight, you really burn through tires fast in the smaller widths. I know, I know, you will probably say you should be running 18's on race car, but switching over to 18's can be very expsenive,  and some of the new cars with large brakes will have to go to smaller brakes which can throw off the abs, and since the abs is suppose to be oem that can create problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

any chance to give guys with out ABS a bit of extra power 

say +0.3

also a 2,000.00 fine is nothing to the guys with super trick stuff 

how about a 6 month ban first offense.

thanks

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 12:46 PM, land Yatch racing said:

Hey Greg,

I would like to suggest you increase the tire size allowed in st4 to 295 mm if your car is over 3500lbs.  For 2 reasons. I think some of the heavier cars run 19's because they come with them stock and have larger oem brakes. And finding tires within the 282 rule for a 19 inch rim can be challenging because there is less selection in 19 inch. You allow larger tires if your over 3000 pounds, so why not keep the scale going? Spec Z uses a 295 tire. If you car is in the 3500-3800 weight, you really burn through tires fast in the smaller widths. I know, I know, you will probably say you should be running 18's on race car, but switching over to 18's can be very expsenive,  and some of the new cars with large brakes will have to go to smaller brakes which can throw off the abs, and since the abs is suppose to be oem that can create problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man all these changes but I still can’t have non-factory fender vents in ST4 :( 

I only tease, I know how much consideration of us competitors you guys take into account. 

I read the explanation on why some tires that are seemingly faster are ranked 1.6 when a seemingly slower tire is ranked 1.0, but IMO seeing multiple TT and TA series some of them just don’t make sense. Federal RSRR and Hankook RS4 being 1.0 for example though is a bit of a head scratcher to me, as they’re one of the slowest of both groupings of tires and the most budget friendly for new competitors. 

I agree with Tom’s point on tire size rule for the heavier competitors, it’ll open the class up more to heavy new cars who chose to detune and encourage some more diversity vs. these mainly BMW fields. No hate for BMW, their formula is popular for a reason, would just be cool to see more variety. 

Not a huge fan of having to get retuned adjust setup and buy Hoosiers and compete against people who have already figured out the Hoosier formula for nationals but I guess it is what it is. 
 

If the plan is to go Hoosier spec for 2023 and beyond, I’d say that’s quite the price wall for new entrants to tackle and current competitors to adapt to, hopefully there’s some way to ease that blow. 
 

Just my .02, I’m looking forward to this season either way. 

Also, will the classing calculator be updated soon? With new variations of setup available I’m sure we’ll need to submit new setups through there soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/3/2021 at 10:33 AM, mslevin said:

As someone hoping to enter the series this year, it seems that the mod factor changes for tires help out those of us that don't want to run sticker Hoosiers every weekend. The thought that next year could bring a Hoosier spec tire to the series is concerning. I realize that most frontrunners may already be running Hoosiers, but that seems an easy way to explode my tire budget.

 

Michael, what about running in ST5 instead of ST4.  With no change in the Adj Wt/HP ratio, and the addition of the 1.6 tire Mod Factor, unless you have mods that are not permitted in ST5, seems like not too hard to drop classes.   We do understand that the Hoosiers are a more expensive tire budget, which is why I don't think we will see them in ST5 or ST6.  Now, if TT4 naturally moves to the 1.6 tire group, would definitely be more argument for a 1.6 Spec tire in ST4 in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/3/2021 at 10:48 AM, EB Turbo said:

This would be assuming if I have DBW that I am taking advantage of, auto blip, flat shifting, and DBW based TCS. On an H-pattern manual transmission car, unless fitted by the OEM, most to all do not have auto blip. Auto blip should be factored in to the points mod of a sequential or paddle shifted automatic transmission. There are methods of auto blipping with mechanically/cable actuated throttles. Plus I can still WOT flat shift with a mechanically/cable actuated throttle.

 If my car does not have traction control, I do not have any advantage from the DBW in regards to Traction/Stability control. I can still have traction control and a mechanically/cable actuated throttle. giving an advantage to a competitor with TCS and mechanically/cable actuated throttle over someone with no TCS and a DBW, is opposite of what you are trying to do with this mod factor. 

 Performance and Lag are quite subjective. There are alternate throttle cams available to alter the relationship between pedal and throttle movement. these can be replaced within the same to less time than someone making an ECU change. With a direct link between the throttle and pedal, the mechanically/cable actuated throttle has zero lag. Saying that the ease of adjustability is a determining factor in points modification, opens the door for many other "ease of adjustability claims" to be brought. If those claims are negated then the DBW adjustability claim should not be used. example, If my car takes 45min to make an alignment adjustment and a competitors vehicle only takes 5min to make a like change, Why should I not be given an advantage for my car being harder or more time consuming to have adjustments made?  

      

While you may not see the benefits, or choose to use any or all of them, there are significant benefits.  Second to tires, this was the most requested change in the rules over the past few years.  There were some very contentious TT driver meetings at Daytona this year regarding this subject, because had not addressed it ever. There are many drivers who feel that we did not go high enough with this Mod Factor.  There is a big difference between being able to align a car more rapidly, and being able to align a car to the nearest 1/2" versus the nearest 1/8". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/3/2021 at 10:56 AM, EB Turbo said:

 I think what is missed here is if everyone is required to run a "spec" tire. any points modifications are just a direct modification to the base class. If ST-4 is a base of 12.0:1 and everyone is forced to run the Hoosier tire, everyone automatically has to take a -1.0. This starts everyone off at a 13.0:1. If everyone is forced to run a spec tire, why would there need to be such a heavy points modification to the entire class? Either change the ST-4 to a base of 13.0:1 and no points modification, or leave it at 12.0:1 and take away any points mod because everyone will be on the same tire anyway. 

I don't know what you are saying, as most people in ST4 run on the Hoosier R7 that has no Mod Factor, not the A7 that has a -1.0 Mod Factor.  We are allowing either tire at the Champs in '22 for a few reasons.  First, it allows our drivers to not make any changes to their cars for '22 if they are on either Hoosier already, which is the majority of the class.  Second, it gives us some data for decisions for '23.  Third, we think that the -1.0 Mod Factor for A7 versus R7 is just about right, or maybe a little high to encourage the use of the R7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/4/2021 at 6:23 AM, Boozshey said:

Can we get clarification on the intent of TCS.  The facebook groups are blowing up with confusion and it's starting to hurt my head trying to understand the intent.

Most every modern car has TCS, and has TCS that can be changed on the fly with no way to disable it.

NASA Official facebook said TCS is allowed but can't be changed on the fly.

How will that be enforced?   

We are working out the wording of an update, but I think their are a few different issues here.  1) Traction control should only decrease power output (or activate brakes) under the setting of wheel slip, not by the driver just hitting a switch or rotating a dial.  So, we should NEVER see a difference in Dyno readings (HP or RPM) between TC settings as long as there is no wheel slip on the Dyno.  2) Many of our potential issues will be solved once we start data logging, and we can see various parameters on the track versus on the Dyno.  VW cheated their emissions regs by having a "Dyno mode" with TC "off" with less power than on the street.  3) There may be the ability to change TC on the fly, and the inability to easily disable it, but the question is can there be a way to prevent a driver from being able to access it (even if it is a sealed cover over the button/switch)?  And, again, our concern is not someone that has "actual" traction control, but rather a "traction control setting" that regardless of slip or wheel spin, just cuts power (as in turned to that setting after the checker as entering impound.  Or, the alternative, "traction control" being used to detune an 800 hp car down to 400 hp, and the only time the car is 400 hp is when the TC is turned on, but it can be turned off on the fly on the track.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/4/2021 at 10:04 AM, BeastZL1 said:

Tire rules are always difficult to strike the right balance and will be contentious to a certain extent.  I've been running 100TW Goodyear Eagle F1 3R tires in TT2 for the last two years.  In eliminating the 100TW modifier and not including these tires in the new modifier list, then I am effectively being bumped up from TT2 to TT1 on a significantly slower Time Trial tire.   The impact is that I'll have to switch to Hoosiers or switch to a even slower tire to remain in TT2.   

I get that there are winners and losers, but this is disappointing for folks running DOT tires between 200TW and non-DOT slicks.  What is the process to ask for the Goodyear Eagle F1 3R be considered for a modifier?  

I'm curious as to why anyone thought that a tire that is as fast or faster than the R7 was approved to run in TT2 using the +0.6 Mod Factor, when the rules stated:

(Note: Any new tire model or upward treadwear revision after 12/10/17 requires NASA approval)

It got by us when COVID hit, and we were shut down, with minimal competition in '20, and then we found out drivers were using them this past late mid-season.   So, they never were "legal" as +0.6 tires, but nobody protested them apparently.  There is no reason for us to give a Mod Factor for a tire that is as fast or faster than the R7, when the R7 doesn't have one (and no plans to give it one).  You didn't state your car specs, but are you stating that the 3R is faster than an A7, or only admitting that it is faster than an R7?  Lastly, you obviously have the option of detuning or adding ballast from your previously non-compliant setup, and continuing to use the 3R or a faster Autocross tire, or you can switch to a 1.6 or 1.0 tire, and add power or lose weight.  You and the other people who chose not to follow the tire rules last year are in a minority in regard to the thinking that a tire that is faster than an R7 should get a Mod Factor for some unclear reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/4/2021 at 1:46 PM, land Yatch racing said:

Hey Greg,

I would like to suggest you increase the tire size allowed in st4 to 295 mm if your car is over 3500lbs.  For 2 reasons. I think some of the heavier cars run 19's because they come with them stock and have larger oem brakes. And finding tires within the 282 rule for a 19 inch rim can be challenging because there is less selection in 19 inch. You allow larger tires if your over 3000 pounds, so why not keep the scale going? Spec Z uses a 295 tire. If you car is in the 3500-3800 weight, you really burn through tires fast in the smaller widths. I know, I know, you will probably say you should be running 18's on race car, but switching over to 18's can be very expsenive,  and some of the new cars with large brakes will have to go to smaller brakes which can throw off the abs, and since the abs is suppose to be oem that can create problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This may be something that we need to consider for the future with the new tire Mod Factors, but not at this time.  We would need to come up with another NASA Section Width tool.  And, yes, run 18's if you are racing 😀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 12/5/2021 at 6:26 PM, esr said:

Hi,

any chance to give guys with out ABS a bit of extra power 

say +0.3

also a 2,000.00 fine is nothing to the guys with super trick stuff 

how about a 6 month ban first offense.

thanks

 

No on the ABS.  Drivers can choose to use it or not.  Some ABS is built into the car and is crap, so would not be fair to them, especially in TT to have to take the ABS out just to get that Mod Factor. 

Just because it isn't written, doesn't mean that it can't happen.  $2000 is a good incentive to make sure that the car is compliant and that the rules are being followed.  If we find something that is clearly not only non-compliant, but impossible to imagine that the driver was not aware of it, a 6 month or more ban from NASA may occur, and has occurred in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
4 hours ago, Stubz said:

Man all these changes but I still can’t have non-factory fender vents in ST4 :( 

I only tease, I know how much consideration of us competitors you guys take into account. 

I read the explanation on why some tires that are seemingly faster are ranked 1.6 when a seemingly slower tire is ranked 1.0, but IMO seeing multiple TT and TA series some of them just don’t make sense. Federal RSRR and Hankook RS4 being 1.0 for example though is a bit of a head scratcher to me, as they’re one of the slowest of both groupings of tires and the most budget friendly for new competitors. 

I agree with Tom’s point on tire size rule for the heavier competitors, it’ll open the class up more to heavy new cars who chose to detune and encourage some more diversity vs. these mainly BMW fields. No hate for BMW, their formula is popular for a reason, would just be cool to see more variety. 

Not a huge fan of having to get retuned adjust setup and buy Hoosiers and compete against people who have already figured out the Hoosier formula for nationals but I guess it is what it is. 
 

If the plan is to go Hoosier spec for 2023 and beyond, I’d say that’s quite the price wall for new entrants to tackle and current competitors to adapt to, hopefully there’s some way to ease that blow. 
 

Just my .02, I’m looking forward to this season either way. 

Also, will the classing calculator be updated soon? With new variations of setup available I’m sure we’ll need to submit new setups through there soon. 

Hi Michael,

We had very limited data on the Federal, and we had conflicting data on the RS4.  Those two could certainly move up to the 1.6 group with some more time and data.  Tire Rack had some crazy lap times for the RS4 that had us scratching our heads based on other data. 

We are watching the Spec Hoosier issues closely.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg G. said:

Michael, what about running in ST5 instead of ST4.  With no change in the Adj Wt/HP ratio, and the addition of the 1.6 tire Mod Factor, unless you have mods that are not permitted in ST5, seems like not too hard to drop classes.   We do understand that the Hoosiers are a more expensive tire budget, which is why I don't think we will see them in ST5 or ST6.  Now, if TT4 naturally moves to the 1.6 tire group, would definitely be more argument for a 1.6 Spec tire in ST4 in the future.

It needs to be considered that it is not only the initial cost of a set of Hoosiers that is more expensive, but that also they don't allow for as many usable heat cycles for racing at least.  This is a huge deterrent for folks wanting to run a relatively open class such as ST4 (that allows for splitters, better brakes, bearings, and dampers that are all one time costs) while not wanting to step up to the much higher recurring costs of running higher HP and larger tires of the St3, St2 and St1 classes.  Perhaps if the difference between building a car for ST5 vs St4 wasn't so great, it would be easier for people to just 'drop down' to ST5, but the current direction looks as if the only remaining everyman classes for ST will 5 and 6.  I do not think that this will be good for attracting more people to Super Touring and will likely do the opposite.  While it's true that most of the folks run Hoosiers in our region (probably the biggest field of ST4 cars in the country) they do so because they want to win and we have proven that the old modifiers were likely not enough for parity.  That said, many people have started to experiment and have figured out setups that allow for the use of tires like the RR to be fast, consistent and long lasting (see the Morewood cars that just won P1 and P2 in E2 at the 25 hour).  Other folks want to run real racecars, but are happy running mid pack or so on a tire that lasts and is less expensive - knowing Michael and having spoken with him about moving into racing, I know he is one of them.  He built a car for ST4 and has been working on his driving and would like to dip his toes into ST4 without a Hoosier budget.  Please consider keeping options open in the future for ST4.  Perhaps there is a middle ground - maybe reducing the number of different choices available to simplify, while still providing some level of choice and flexibility.  Maybe limit it to the tire manufacturers that support NASA such as Hoosier, Toyo and Maxxis?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Greg G. said:

I'm curious as to why anyone thought that a tire that is as fast or faster than the R7 was approved to run in TT2 using the +0.6 Mod Factor, when the rules stated:

(Note: Any new tire model or upward treadwear revision after 12/10/17 requires NASA approval)

It got by us when COVID hit, and we were shut down, with minimal competition in '20, and then we found out drivers were using them this past late mid-season.   So, they never were "legal" as +0.6 tires, but nobody protested them apparently.  There is no reason for us to give a Mod Factor for a tire that is as fast or faster than the R7, when the R7 doesn't have one (and no plans to give it one).  You didn't state your car specs, but are you stating that the 3R is faster than an A7, or only admitting that it is faster than an R7?  Lastly, you obviously have the option of detuning or adding ballast from your previously non-compliant setup, and continuing to use the 3R or a faster Autocross tire, or you can switch to a 1.6 or 1.0 tire, and add power or lose weight.  You and the other people who chose not to follow the tire rules last year are in a minority in regard to the thinking that a tire that is faster than an R7 should get a Mod Factor for some unclear reason.

Per your date above the 3R came out in 2016, and was readily available prior to the 12/10/17 date as noted from TireRack sales history.  These cars had been taking the .6 in competition for several years when more sizes became available and I'm guessing, it started getting noticed. 

I see them on miata's now as the price point is just too good.  The military discount + goodyear CC knocks off a ton.  Do you know how many ex military or current military bought a GM zl1 1le and use these discounts on tires?  I know more then 5 that I have on speed dial.  1200 installed for 3R vs new wheels + 2400 for hoosiers?  That's a no brainer.  

~~~~

In TT, I am not aware of any competitor running R7 in a TT1/TT2/TT3 car.  That would be a serious hinderance to laptimes before incurring traffic.

As an OEM tire on the zl1 1le (gaining immense popularity) a competitor must detune ($1600 and blow their warranty), ballast heavy (they are already pigs), and If your doing all that then run A7 ($2400/set).  Now, if your going to do all that the same person would then buy a set of wheels and run 315/335 or 315/345 instead of 305/325.  With all that said, that driver just spent boooku bucks because the OEM tire was pulled out of the mod factor thus allowing the car to fit in perfectly, the same for a C7 Grand Sport in TT3 (with fat drivers or ballast) and the 3R is NO A7 on car with that much power.  I have lots of AIM data showing the 3R does not stop or accellerate like an A7.  For the purposes of TT only.

I'm guessing something happened with slower (lap time, power, less weight) cars running the 3R that caused this where the R7/A7 and 3R are more comparable because the car doesn't have the braking power, or whp to show the difference.  I will agree that lateral G the 3R is darn close.  within .2 or so laterally in the same car.  The slide is also much more controllable in the 3R over the A7 and much more so than the R7.

So let's get back to the TT1/TT2/TT3 cars that might run a 3R.  The 3R is no A7.  The data from those cars can back that up for sure.  I will say that a super light weight TT car that uses baby tires (sub 3xx) might, and I say might, be just about able to maximize the 3R where they can't produce enough Long G to get over the grip level of the 3R and thus it's "just as fast" as the A7.  But that's the outlier, not the norm.

Again, I have tons of AIM data from a bunch of zl1 1le's and drivers with several TT Track Records for NASA that can show the 3R is no A7.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
1 hour ago, Brian Clarke said:

Per your date above the 3R came out in 2016, and was readily available prior to the 12/10/17 date as noted from TireRack sales history.  These cars had been taking the .6 in competition for several years when more sizes became available and I'm guessing, it started getting noticed. 

I see them on miata's now as the price point is just too good.  The military discount + goodyear CC knocks off a ton.  Do you know how many ex military or current military bought a GM zl1 1le and use these discounts on tires?  I know more then 5 that I have on speed dial.  1200 installed for 3R vs new wheels + 2400 for hoosiers?  That's a no brainer.  

~~~~

In TT, I am not aware of any competitor running R7 in a TT1/TT2/TT3 car.  That would be a serious hinderance to laptimes before incurring traffic.

As an OEM tire on the zl1 1le (gaining immense popularity) a competitor must detune ($1600 and blow their warranty), ballast heavy (they are already pigs), and If your doing all that then run A7 ($2400/set).  Now, if your going to do all that the same person would then buy a set of wheels and run 315/335 or 315/345 instead of 305/325.  With all that said, that driver just spent boooku bucks because the OEM tire was pulled out of the mod factor thus allowing the car to fit in perfectly, the same for a C7 Grand Sport in TT3 (with fat drivers or ballast) and the 3R is NO A7 on car with that much power.  I have lots of AIM data showing the 3R does not stop or accellerate like an A7.  For the purposes of TT only.

I'm guessing something happened with slower (lap time, power, less weight) cars running the 3R that caused this where the R7/A7 and 3R are more comparable because the car doesn't have the braking power, or whp to show the difference.  I will agree that lateral G the 3R is darn close.  within .2 or so laterally in the same car.  The slide is also much more controllable in the 3R over the A7 and much more so than the R7.

So let's get back to the TT1/TT2/TT3 cars that might run a 3R.  The 3R is no A7.  The data from those cars can back that up for sure.  I will say that a super light weight TT car that uses baby tires (sub 3xx) might, and I say might, be just about able to maximize the 3R where they can't produce enough Long G to get over the grip level of the 3R and thus it's "just as fast" as the A7.  But that's the outlier, not the norm.

Again, I have tons of AIM data from a bunch of zl1 1le's and drivers with several TT Track Records for NASA that can show the 3R is no A7.

The tire might have been available on the Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE in '17, but it was not "readily available".  We can't even find anything from Goodyear on them before 2018, although Chevy does mention them as being specifically made for the Camaro in '17.  Also, if you look at the initial reviews of these tires, it makes you wonder if something didn't happen to them over the years to make them much better.  Either way, they definitely did not come onto our radar until '21, and they have no business being included with the +1.0 group of tires.  Also, there was no +0.6 Mod Factor until '20.  It was +0.3 to start in '18, and actually started as 200 TW.   It went up to +0.5 in '19.    Clearly, there were numerous new sizes and molds that were created after 12-17 and after '18.  Regardless, we are not going to give a Mod Factor to a tire that is faster than the R7 if the R7 doesn't have a Mod Factor, which it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Greg G. said:

We are working out the wording of an update, but I think their are a few different issues here.  1) Traction control should only decrease power output (or activate brakes) under the setting of wheel slip, not by the driver just hitting a switch or rotating a dial.  So, we should NEVER see a difference in Dyno readings (HP or RPM) between TC settings as long as there is no wheel slip on the Dyno.  2) Many of our potential issues will be solved once we start data logging, and we can see various parameters on the track versus on the Dyno.  VW cheated their emissions regs by having a "Dyno mode" with TC "off" with less power than on the street.  3) There may be the ability to change TC on the fly, and the inability to easily disable it, but the question is can there be a way to prevent a driver from being able to access it (even if it is a sealed cover over the button/switch)?  And, again, our concern is not someone that has "actual" traction control, but rather a "traction control setting" that regardless of slip or wheel spin, just cuts power (as in turned to that setting after the checker as entering impound.  Or, the alternative, "traction control" being used to detune an 800 hp car down to 400 hp, and the only time the car is 400 hp is when the TC is turned on, but it can be turned off on the fly on the track.  

So may I propose a couple "what if's" for the sake of helping understand the intent further:

I know Corvettes, so I only want to use them as an example:
C5 Corvette has to press the TC button every time the car starts to disable it.  There is no "save" function of the last used TC setting.  Therefore, every time they start their car they would need to break any proposed "seal" in order to disable TC.  If a session is red flagged, and they turn their car off on track, they would then again have to press the button when the session begins again.  Thus breaking the seal after a session has begun or an even "bigger picture" the race day has begun.
C7 Corvette has controls on the steering wheel.  I don't believe any seal will stick to their wheel.  Let's face it, we know their wheel is going to be spit shined with armorall. it will most likely fall off due to use of the steering wheel during competition.  Both drivers of the C5 and C7 are gridded up, it begins to rain, they decide it would be safer to have a more helpful nanny, so the C5 leaves his TC on (just starts the car) and the C7 decides to switch to a "rain" mode.  Under this proposal this wouldn't be allowed, but again, there would be zero way of detecting/enforcing it.  Therefore I believe the rule set needs to be really broad, which a catchall at the end.

I understand the dilemma, rules are made because someone cried or someone did something someone felt they weren't allowed to do.  But sometimes rules become to complicated and may need to be reset.

It seems rather than trying to strangle technology NASA begins to embrace it.  Rather than restrict traction control technology, allow people to use it in whatever capacity as long as any setting that can be selected doesn't break their declared power/weight (not sure how it would be dyno'd on some production cars).  At the event there would need to be a restriction on the number of dyno pulls to detect or it just becomes which hunt.  Lets say a person has 12 traction control modes.  Dyno operator may choose a max of 3 to detect power levels.  If they all check out good, they are good to go.  If they want to check 3 more later, then that would have to be at the discretion of the race director under a future protest, record set, finishing place in event... But I'd caution a which hunt.  If it's a control system like the C5 has then they will only ever be able to make a dyno pull with TC off or the car will lose it's mind.  These are those conditions that can't be accounted for and why restricting TC sound good on paper, but doesn't work properly in reality.  Way too many variables.

This only leads down another rabbit hole.  What happens to the guys who are able to be tested with different TC settings active.  So now a C5 guy can game the system in a different mode, while the dyno will only be able to be utilized with TC off, the other modes would essentially be off limits with no way to ever dyno test them.  Or as your said, a forensic analysis of their file.

I don't know where this leaves me, but it still seems as if I understand the intent, but until it can really be worked through, it's shelved pending a much higher understanding of several modes of TC that are offered in both production cars along with aftermarket ECU's. 

On a different subject, I'd really like to know the stats on car with drive by wire vs mechanical throttle bodies that have registered for an event.  I'm willing to bet mechanical throttle bodies are in the minority, but yet cry the loudest to get their way.  If majority rules as in the ST4 national tire selection, why is the minority ruling for mechanical throttle bodies.

 

Edited by Boozshey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Greg G. said:

No on the ABS.  Drivers can choose to use it or not.  Some ABS is built into the car and is crap, so would not be fair to them, especially in TT to have to take the ABS out just to get that Mod Factor. 

Just because it isn't written, doesn't mean that it can't happen.  $2000 is a good incentive to make sure that the car is compliant and that the rules are being followed.  If we find something that is clearly not only non-compliant, but impossible to imagine that the driver was not aware of it, a 6 month or more ban from NASA may occur, and has occurred in the past.

Thanks for the reply

you are correct my car is one of those with a crap abs system so I yanked it out.

we know a good abs system is worth a good chunk of lap time.

so what I hear you saying is pony up the cash and get the allowed bmw abs system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

Regarding a ST4 Hoosier spec tire for 2023, I agree with the points NorcalTT makes above about keeping the tire options open, and in particular, the no-mod factor choices. Requiring a Hoosier tire budget does seem detrimental to the spirit of increasing ST4 participation while some regions (e.g., AZ) are actively trying to grow the class.

In the case of the E36 platform, which many of us run, it has a native competition weight and HP output that fits nicely with the non-mod factor tires. This avoids having to spend additional $$$$ to lighten up or chase more HP.  The cars are fun and competitive as they are and I’ve not heard anyone talk of ballasting up to drop a class.  While R7s are the default tire choice, some of us have found the Hankook C51, with minor setup and driving style changes, to be just about on par with the R7.  The cost difference between a set of the two just about covers entry fees and fuel for a regional weekend.  As such, I would like to see the Hankook remain as a Hoosier alternative.  There may be other alternatives that emerge as well.

If possible, let's keep choices for no-mod tires at regional events (at least).  Having a Hoosier spec tire for Nationals is probably sensible since those who are going to participate likely have been running Hoosiers all season anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still a bit curious on what problem is going to be solved or improved by using a spec tire for st4? Or a bit of reasoning of why its a good idea to move in that direction?

Is it to make more competitive racing?

Or is it to limit arguments of different tires effects on performance?

Or is there another reason, we don't know about yet?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2021 at 6:21 AM, Brian Clarke said:

Per your date above the 3R came out in 2016, and was readily available prior to the 12/10/17 date as noted from TireRack sales history.  These cars had been taking the .6 in competition for several years when more sizes became available and I'm guessing, it started getting noticed. 

I see them on miata's now as the price point is just too good.  The military discount + goodyear CC knocks off a ton.  Do you know how many ex military or current military bought a GM zl1 1le and use these discounts on tires?  I know more then 5 that I have on speed dial.  1200 installed for 3R vs new wheels + 2400 for hoosiers?  That's a no brainer.  

~~~~

In TT, I am not aware of any competitor running R7 in a TT1/TT2/TT3 car.  That would be a serious hinderance to laptimes before incurring traffic.

As an OEM tire on the zl1 1le (gaining immense popularity) a competitor must detune ($1600 and blow their warranty), ballast heavy (they are already pigs), and If your doing all that then run A7 ($2400/set).  Now, if your going to do all that the same person would then buy a set of wheels and run 315/335 or 315/345 instead of 305/325.  With all that said, that driver just spent boooku bucks because the OEM tire was pulled out of the mod factor thus allowing the car to fit in perfectly, the same for a C7 Grand Sport in TT3 (with fat drivers or ballast) and the 3R is NO A7 on car with that much power.  I have lots of AIM data showing the 3R does not stop or accellerate like an A7.  For the purposes of TT only.

I'm guessing something happened with slower (lap time, power, less weight) cars running the 3R that caused this where the R7/A7 and 3R are more comparable because the car doesn't have the braking power, or whp to show the difference.  I will agree that lateral G the 3R is darn close.  within .2 or so laterally in the same car.  The slide is also much more controllable in the 3R over the A7 and much more so than the R7.

So let's get back to the TT1/TT2/TT3 cars that might run a 3R.  The 3R is no A7.  The data from those cars can back that up for sure.  I will say that a super light weight TT car that uses baby tires (sub 3xx) might, and I say might, be just about able to maximize the 3R where they can't produce enough Long G to get over the grip level of the 3R and thus it's "just as fast" as the A7.  But that's the outlier, not the norm.

Again, I have tons of AIM data from a bunch of zl1 1le's and drivers with several TT Track Records for NASA that can show the 3R is no A7.

I agree 100% with Brian's well written response.  Thanks, Brian!  I would just like to add, that it doesn't appear that TT was heavily considered in determining the factors.  The Toyo RR will allow +138 avg rwhp more than the Goodyear 3R (4050 lbs, TT2), which is slower than the Hoosier A7.  It basically makes the Goodyear 3R totally noncompetitive.  I prefer NASA TT over the SCCA TT, but this reclassification will limit my participation in NASA TT in 2022. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeastZL1 said:

I agree 100% with Brian's well written response.  Thanks, Brian!  I would just like to add, that it doesn't appear that TT was heavily considered in determining the factors.  The Toyo RR will allow +138 avg rwhp more than the Goodyear 3R (4050 lbs, TT2), which is slower than the Hoosier A7.  It basically makes the Goodyear 3R totally noncompetitive.  I prefer NASA TT over the SCCA TT, but this reclassification will limit my participation in NASA TT in 2022. 

Gonna miss you bud  (O wait. look at that Max 2 car in my driveway)  SCCA National Tour looking way more appealing given I had planned to run the 3R on the Subaru and already have quite a few of them.

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...