2022 ST1-4 and ST5&6 Rules Revisions (v16.2 and 5.2) Released

[Greg G.]

Hi Folks,

Please download a copy of the revised 2022 ST Rules that were just posted, and read the changes made that are in red font.  The revised section numbers are also listed below the table of contents. 

https://members.drivenasa.com/rules

 

Highlights of the revisions are:

1) Clarified that Traction Control programs are permitted, and traction control can be adjusted while on track.  In order to clearly allow this and be able to have technical inspection, there have been some changes in what is permitted in regard to the power configurations that the car has available.  Going forward, the highest possible power configuration available will be the one that must be used to class the car.  The wording is more specific, and there are specifics about traction control programs and the ability to obtain accurate Dyno testing; however, the end result is that it will no longer be permitted to have multiple configurations available (through ECU programs, other switching devices, etc.) and use a lower power configuration to class the car.  For example, a car cannot have ECU programs for two different power levels, say one for ST2 and another for TT3 at the same time.  It could have one for ST2 and then a lower power level for another series, but cannot have one for ST2 and another higher power level configuration for another series.  So, this will mean for some that only one configuration can be made available (present in ECU, etc.). 

2) We have updated the tire groups with the tires that were approved here on the tire group thread.

3) For ST5-6, while it is still permitted to have an OEM MK60 ABS if it came with the vehicle from the factory, it must be non-programmable and has a new Mod Factor of -0.2.  This will mostly affect BMW E46's, but also a few other marques and models.  It is not permitted for non-OEM MK60 addition/replacement in ST5-6, but is in ST4.

 

Thanks,

Greg G.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Greg G.

[mslevin]

While I won't be running in ST5-6, I am wondering: does "non-programmable" mean that the ABS cannot be adjusted on the fly by the driver/ECU/etc, or that it must be a unit that cannot be bench flashed with different "tunes" (CSL, motorsport, etc)? From my understanding there are certain units that can be flashed and other cannot. Thanks Greg.

[Greg G.]

3 minutes ago, mslevin said:

While I won't be running in ST5-6, I am wondering: does "non-programmable" mean that the ABS cannot be adjusted on the fly by the driver/ECU/etc, or that it must be a unit that cannot be bench flashed with different "tunes" (CSL, motorsport, etc)? From my understanding there are certain units that can be flashed and other cannot. Thanks Greg.

It cannot be bench flashed.  Our research indicates that the programmable MK60's only came on vehicles that are not eligible for ST5-6, at least the BMW's.  But, in case we are not correct, the additional wording is there.  Motorsport programmed ABS has no business in ST5-6.

[Stubz]

So If a competitor has a 260hp detune map and a 300hp max effort map, even if they’re both ST4, but for different tire configurations, aka when us not on Hoosiers have to switch for nationals, we will not be allowed to use the 260hp map? I think almost every car in ST4 is detuned, and I know most, if not all have their full power tune saved somewhere, even if it’s not in use. How can you police that if they just don’t submit the full power tune? 
 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Stubz

[Boozshey]

2 minutes ago, Stubz said:

So If a competitor has a 260hp detune map and a 300hp max effort map, even if they’re both ST4, but for different tire configurations, aka when us not on Hoosiers have to switch for nationals, we will not be allowed to use the 260hp map? I think almost every car in ST4 is detuned, and I know most, if not all have their full power tune saved somewhere, even if it’s not in use. How can you police that if they just don’t submit the full power tune? 
 

As far as I'm reading, It can't be on the ECU at the same time and if it is, then the higher tune is the one that needs to be claimed.  Your car can have 4000 tune files, but only 1 at a time on the ECU.  You flash the ECU to match your registration's MAX horsepower.  If you don't want to flash and hold 4000 tunes on your ECU, then your highest horsepower ECU is the one you should declare.

[Boozshey]

1 hour ago, Greg G. said:

Hi Folks,

Thanks,

Greg G.

 

Thank you for the common sense approach to traction control.  The people have been heard.  

[Greg G.]

30 minutes ago, Stubz said:

So If a competitor has a 260hp detune map and a 300hp max effort map, even if they’re both ST4, but for different tire configurations, aka when us not on Hoosiers have to switch for nationals, we will not be allowed to use the 260hp map? I think almost every car in ST4 is detuned, and I know most, if not all have their full power tune saved somewhere, even if it’s not in use. How can you police that if they just don’t submit the full power tune? 
 

It is fine to be detuned, but the extra/higher tunes need to be kept off the ECU.  We need you to be able to show us the ECU programs (which include traction control in some cases), and we need to be able to verify that you are using the highest power configuration possible to class the car.  This is to help prevent your competitors from using the lower HP configuration to class the car, and then having the ability to access the higher power on track.  Until we have mandatory data logging 100% of the time, with multiple channels, this is unfortunately the best we can do to allow for adjustable configurations like traction control.  I would prefer the data logging, but it is a very complicated issue to mandate.

[Stubz]

13 hours ago, Greg G. said:

It is fine to be detuned, but the extra/higher tunes need to be kept off the ECU.  We need you to be able to show us the ECU programs (which include traction control in some cases), and we need to be able to verify that you are using the highest power configuration possible to class the car.  This is to help prevent your competitors from using the lower HP configuration to class the car, and then having the ability to access the higher power on track.  Until we have mandatory data logging 100% of the time, with multiple channels, this is unfortunately the best we can do to allow for adjustable configurations like traction control.  I would prefer the data logging, but it is a very complicated issue to mandate.

Understood, my main issue was the latter, and were on the same page there. Hopefully it has some effect, but I’m willing to bet most competitors just either won’t submit / tell about their other power maps, since it would be nearly impossible to know. 

[daytonars4]

The new MK60 rule seems to have been created with the assumption that all MK60’s have a similar performance advantage, which is just simply not true. The MK60 which is available for 1 production year in the E46 non-M is no better than the E46-non M cars without it. That version isn’t nearly as good as the MK60 in E46 M3’s. So adding a mod for it doesn’t really make any sense from a performance perspective. This is likely also the case with some of the other vehicles with MK60’s. I believe more research needs to be put into this to identity the specific cars which have an advanced MK60 and mod those. A blanket mod like this just simply isn’t fair or effective. I have no dog in this fight since I don’t race in ST5/6. It’s just concerning to me to see these type of rule changes which aren’t fully supported by what exists. 

[arsprod]

Question about rain tires - as I read the rules, if I'm running Toyos and taking the +1.6 and it rains, I'd have to reclassify to use Hoosier wets. Is that correct? Is that reasonable, that we'd have time to submit new paperwork? Or is the assumption that we'll use RA1's now for rain? 

[Greg G.]

Here is an e-mail answer I gave to one of our ST5/TT5 drivers:

 

 

While the ST5 rules allow the use of Hoosier Wets, they do not get to take the +1.6 (or +1.0) Mod Factor(s).  So, if you are running Toyo RR's on your Car Classification Form, using Hoosier Wets would make the car non-compliant for ST5.  You can run any +1.6 group tire, and a full tread RA-1 is maybe the best of those in the rain. 

 

4) Hoosier DOT Wet tires and Goodyear Eagle RS DOT Radial WCMD shall be permitted
ONLY during an officially designated “Rain Session”.
5) Tire compound/model Modification Factors will apply as in Section 6.3.2

 

The only way to run Hoosier Wets would be to edit the Car Classification Form, since you are only permitted to have one form submitted at a time for a given car in a given class.  So, there is no deletion of a Form, you just edit the current form and submit new Dyno documentation if necessary based on the edits.  This would be permitted before the first qualifying session of an event.  It may also be permitted if the Race Director gives approval during the event, but will result in a grid re-position if before a race.

 

A competitor should only have one single ST/TT Car Classification Form and Certified Dyno
Report uploaded at any given time for each vehicle in each class. Older submissions may be
periodically deleted from the database by NASA, but only the latest submission is valid.

 

No changes may be made to the Form or to the vehicle that would affect the Form after the first

Qualifying competition session for the remainder of the event without the approval of the Race
Director. Any approved changes will result in the vehicle moving to the back of its class (or
back of the field if not gridded by class) on the pre-grid for the next race. It is at the discretion of
the Race Director whether a grid position change penalty will apply if the changes are approved
after a race, but before the next Qualifying competition session. Note, specifically, this rule will
deter most tire type, body, and weight changes once competition has started. (NASA is moving
in the direction of technical inspection with digital and barcode identification and verification,
and any changes made after competition begins will hamper this effort.)

 

 

[TimRoberts]

On 1/25/2022 at 2:12 PM, Greg G. said:

hts of the revisions are:

3) For ST5-6, while it is still permitted to have an OEM MK60 ABS if it came with the vehicle from the factory, it must be non-programmable and has a new Mod Factor of -0.2.  This will mostly affect BMW E46's, but also a few other marques and models.  It is not permitted for non-OEM MK60 addition/replacement in ST5-6, but is in ST4.

 

Thanks,

Greg G.

 

 

On 1/26/2022 at 7:08 AM, daytonars4 said:

The new MK60 rule seems to have been created with the assumption that all MK60’s have a similar performance advantage, which is just simply not true. The MK60 which is available for 1 production year in the E46 non-M is no better than the E46-non M cars without it. That version isn’t nearly as good as the MK60 in E46 M3’s. So adding a mod for it doesn’t really make any sense from a performance perspective. This is likely also the case with some of the other vehicles with MK60’s. I believe more research needs to be put into this to identity the specific cars which have an advanced MK60 and mod those. A blanket mod like this just simply isn’t fair or effective. I have no dog in this fight since I don’t race in ST5/6. It’s just concerning to me to see these type of rule changes which aren’t fully supported by what exists. 

Greg,

For the sake of utmost clarity- Can you confirm that any E46 non-m that happens to have been delivered OEM with a mk60 ABS unit (like my 2002 330i) now carries a -0.2 penalty across the board? I can't say I love this, but I'll take it on the chin and keep going. 

Having raced this car a couple years now I say that my ABS unit isn't magical in any way. I always turn off the traction and stability control, and often have to "drive around" the ABS intrusion in certain cornering/braking situations. I certainly don't feel like it gives me a -0.2 advantage!

[Greg G.]

On 2/1/2022 at 3:45 PM, TimRoberts said:

 

Greg,

For the sake of utmost clarity- Can you confirm that any E46 non-m that happens to have been delivered OEM with a mk60 ABS unit (like my 2002 330i) now carries a -0.2 penalty across the board? I can't say I love this, but I'll take it on the chin and keep going. 

Having raced this car a couple years now I say that my ABS unit isn't magical in any way. I always turn off the traction and stability control, and often have to "drive around" the ABS intrusion in certain cornering/braking situations. I certainly don't feel like it gives me a -0.2 advantage!

Hi Tim,

Yes, you are correct that any vehicle that comes OEM with the MK60 ABS does take the -0.2 assessment (unless it is proven disabled).   And no other vehicles may use the MK60.

[slammed200]

Greg, 

Is NASA open to allowing same OEM - ABS systems within the 0.2 modifier that is being assigned to the MK60 in ST5/6?

 

Example - RX8 ABS in a NC Miata, both Mazda

 

Justin

[Greg G.]

On 2/22/2022 at 8:47 AM, slammed200 said:

Greg, 

Is NASA open to allowing same OEM - ABS systems within the 0.2 modifier that is being assigned to the MK60 in ST5/6?

 

Example - RX8 ABS in a NC Miata, both Mazda

 

Justin

Justin, the short answer is no.  It was one of the options discussed and it was not decided not to permit ABS swapping.

[ChuggLifeRacing]

Greg,

I understand the intent of the rule to not have multiple maps ON THE ECU -- Get it, no cheating....

So how are we going to do that? My ECU is running ECUtek which has that ability....but I am not a dealer, I don't have access to the software ad hoc...my region does not...I know Eric Wong does not have that software...So how are we going to enforce this? As a competitor you are asking me to be in charge of being able to alert people that this is what I am doing, but these software companies don't all play the same or let us have the same access to the software?

Thoughts? 
Right now I have  ST4 tune   -- ST3 Tune  // ST4 w/Toyo tune 
Yet I can not load or unload that software because I am not a licensed dealer or tuner for this software, if I want to be....I have to spend thousands... 

I feel like the answer to this has to be using Live Data capture for those who are suspected to be cheating...

[Dunzcon]

Where can find the process to ask for a rule clarification? I had some issues with and mod that has been on my car for years. I was sited the rule but with my knowledge of the unibody chassis and  their form and pieces and parts official technical terms I feel there needs to be some more clarity. 

 

 

 

[Greg G.]

On 3/7/2022 at 6:48 AM, Dunzcon said:

Where can find the process to ask for a rule clarification? I had some issues with and mod that has been on my car for years. I was sited the rule but with my knowledge of the unibody chassis and  their form and pieces and parts official technical terms I feel there needs to be some more clarity. 

 

 

 

One of two ways--send an e-mail to the National Director, or post your question on a new thread here on the NASA Community.

[Greg G.]

On 3/3/2022 at 9:38 AM, ChuggLifeRacing said:

Greg,

I understand the intent of the rule to not have multiple maps ON THE ECU -- Get it, no cheating....

So how are we going to do that? My ECU is running ECUtek which has that ability....but I am not a dealer, I don't have access to the software ad hoc...my region does not...I know Eric Wong does not have that software...So how are we going to enforce this? As a competitor you are asking me to be in charge of being able to alert people that this is what I am doing, but these software companies don't all play the same or let us have the same access to the software?

Thoughts? 
Right now I have  ST4 tune   -- ST3 Tune  // ST4 w/Toyo tune 
Yet I can not load or unload that software because I am not a licensed dealer or tuner for this software, if I want to be....I have to spend thousands... 

I feel like the answer to this has to be using Live Data capture for those who are suspected to be cheating...

Adam, unfortunately, we do not have a mechanism to proceed with mandatory data logging at this time.  I do agree with you that mandatory data logging would be a great solution.  However, your situation is exactly the current problem---someone who has access to more power on track potentially with the flip of a switch, a built in program that switches to a different configuration depending on other variables, like 4 wheel speed, etc.  The only way that we could allow for items like motorsport traction control that is coming on more vehicles and does change power levels, is to require the use of the highest power configuration available for classing.  So, this means that competitors that have chosen to use aftermarket programs with multiple configurations, need to figure this out.   If you have any ideas on mandating data logging or some other method of preventing someone with your ECU programming from using the higher HP configuration when supposed to be using the lower HP configuration, let us know.

[daytonars4]

18 hours ago, Greg G. said:

Adam, unfortunately, we do not have a mechanism to proceed with mandatory data logging at this time.  I do agree with you that mandatory data logging would be a great solution.  However, your situation is exactly the current problem---someone who has access to more power on track potentially with the flip of a switch, a built in program that switches to a different configuration depending on other variables, like 4 wheel speed, etc.  The only way that we could allow for items like motorsport traction control that is coming on more vehicles and does change power levels, is to require the use of the highest power configuration available for classing.  So, this means that competitors that have chosen to use aftermarket programs with multiple configurations, need to figure this out.   If you have any ideas on mandating data logging or some other method of preventing someone with your ECU programming from using the higher HP configuration when supposed to be using the lower HP configuration, let us know.

    I don’t think Adam is questioning the capability or potential abuse by a cheating competitor. The problem is it’s a rule without much guidance on how enforcing it can be accomplished. Adam is, I think, the only person in my region in ST3/4 running that ecu. The rest of us don’t have any idea of the capability of his ecu or how to check the tunes on it. So basically it’s a rule that requires a potential cheating competitor to admit that he has the ability to cheat? And show us how to check it?
    Some of these modern cars have factory ecu’s that cut power due to traction control when it’s on a dyno unless it’s in dyno mode. Are regional directors supposed to be an expert on every car/ecu? Are there guidelines on how to get these cars running even factory ecu’s into dyno mode? My region is one of the few that actually has a dyno every weekend along with us voluntarily using AIM data. (Data which will likely become less viable with the introduction of these new massive tire mods which skews acceleration data.) I’m just not sure how this rule works on the enforcement side.

[Greg G.]

6 hours ago, daytonars4 said:

    I don’t think Adam is questioning the capability or potential abuse by a cheating competitor. The problem is it’s a rule without much guidance on how enforcing it can be accomplished. Adam is, I think, the only person in my region in ST3/4 running that ecu. The rest of us don’t have any idea of the capability of his ecu or how to check the tunes on it. So basically it’s a rule that requires a potential cheating competitor to admit that he has the ability to cheat? And show us how to check it?
    Some of these modern cars have factory ecu’s that cut power due to traction control when it’s on a dyno unless it’s in dyno mode. Are regional directors supposed to be an expert on every car/ecu? Are there guidelines on how to get these cars running even factory ecu’s into dyno mode? My region is one of the few that actually has a dyno every weekend along with us voluntarily using AIM data. (Data which will likely become less viable with the introduction of these new massive tire mods which skews acceleration data.) I’m just not sure how this rule works on the enforcement side.

Yes, it is the competitors responsibility to know what they are running and how it works.  If a competitor is driving a Porsche that requires a piwis to Dyno it, they better know that.  If someone has an aftermarket tune or ECU, then they better know how to get the car accurately Dyno'd.  They also better know how to access and turn over the configuration programming.  It's not okay for a competitor to just purchase a potential cheater tune and then claim, "I have no idea how it works, how to access it, how to show the official what it is."  Obviously, with all of the options available, there is no single NASA Official who will be able to know how all of these work.  We do have numerous sources for a lot of them, but not in every region.  At some point, the competitor needs to take the responsibility of what their tuner is doing, or go back to an unmodified OEM tune.  So, when non-compliance is found, it should be dealt with harshly.  And, NASA is always listening to input on better ways to ensure compliance.  This is a very tough subject with all of the technology out there.  I'm sure there may even be drivers out there who are unknowingly running configurations that are not compliant with the rules thanks to their "tuner", but that is on them when it is found.  I do think that ultimately, data logging is the only way to stop the cheaters, or at least slow them down significantly.  Thankfully, I also think that the very large majority of our drivers are not willing to break the rules, even if they think they could get away with it. We will continue to use GPS, and while we will have to be more aware of Wt/HP ratios when comparing cars with GPS, we will still have enough samples to do so.  We have been fairly successful in finding the outliers with GPS, but again, we really want to know is what happening with the engine on the track versus on the dyno.