Jump to content

ST/TT Rules Revision Requests 2023


Greg G.
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • National Staff

Hi Folks,

As most of you know, we take rules requests by e-mail and here all year long, and most of the rules that will change for '23 have already been incorporated into the Technical Bulletins here.  There are a few other issues we are dealing with in terms of data logging and technical compliance inspections, but for the most part, there are no plans for any big changes as we let the big tire rule changes from last year continue to settle in. 

Feel free to have discussions about any other rules change proposals or ideas for '23 on this thread, or start a new thread specifically for a given proposal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In broad terms, I think it is far better to be open to allowing nearly any popular modifications with a commensurate modifier than to just wholesale disallow use of certain parts.  
 

There are plenty of cars that can’t lose enough weight… or can’t reasonably add HP (without spending a fortune) that could benefit from other “go faster” options. 
 

I know we discussed the MK60 ABS being completely disallowed in ST/TT5-6 even though it is less expensive than most big brake kits that are only a .2 modifier.  Why not allow but add a modifier.  
 

Why exclude canards or rear diffusers when they are a very cheap aero option that can be added to any car?  
 

As far as tires go… let anything go for whatever class as long as you have the right modifiers applied.  If someone wants to throw on some wider tires and/or A7s instead of spending thousands adding 50-75HP… why not?  
 

 

 

Edited by MemphisRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I race in NASA Central in ST4 class and have a blast doing so! Thank you for all you do!

I believe that cars running a solid rear axle should be able to run a slightly better power to weight in ST. Having a solid rear axle over an independent rear suspension is obviously a negative to the cars handling. In fact you have to search pretty hard to find a vehicle with a solid rear axle that did well in Nationals when their competitors were IRS cars.

Furthermore cars with a solid rear axle tend to be cheaper to buy as well as maintain. Cheaper yet more competitive cars will result in more racers being able to afford the costs of racing. Which helps us all.

 

Thanks for the consideration, 

Dan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with rickybobby 100%.

a positive modifier for solid axle in ST4, 5, and 6 would make a lot of sense, and would increase competitiveness for a number of very cheap track cars, such as CMC or spec iron cars, to cross over into ST/TT.

 

One big proposal from me:

Increase the target weight/PWR ratio for ST5.
Why?  Most of the popular cars in ST5 are struggling to be able to make enough power or lose enough weight to run the toyo with the new +1.6 modifier. (S2000, Miata, RX8, BRZ/FRS).  All of these cars also make too much power to be allowed to drop down to ST6.  So they are stuck in the middle, and forced to continue running hoosiers, while the BMWs, turbo civics, etc can easily maximize their spec to run the toyo/maxis.
We need to make it easier for cars with 200 avg WHP to maximize to the ruleset on toyos, if we want this tire experiment to really work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tansar_Motorsports said:

I agree with rickybobby 100%.

a positive modifier for solid axle in ST4, 5, and 6 would make a lot of sense, and would increase competitiveness for a number of very cheap track cars, such as CMC or spec iron cars, to cross over into ST/TT.

Agreed. My S197 would cost a fortune to change over to Spec Iron. And I have no CMC competitors to race locally. Making these cars competitive would lower the entry cost to racing as well as maintenance costs. I’m tired of watching expensive BMWs dominate the ST4 class. Let’s make it fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tansar_Motorsports said:

 

One big proposal from me:

Increase the target weight/PWR ratio for ST5.
Why?  Most of the popular cars in ST5 are struggling to be able to make enough power or lose enough weight to run the toyo with the new +1.6 modifier. (S2000, Miata, RX8, BRZ/FRS).  All of these cars also make too much power to be allowed to drop down to ST6.  So they are stuck in the middle, and forced to continue running hoosiers, while the BMWs, turbo civics, etc can easily maximize their spec to run the toyo/maxis.
We need to make it easier for cars with 200 avg WHP to maximize to the ruleset on toyos, if we want this tire experiment to really work.

I have no problem with increasing the target weight/PWR ratio for ST5.

However, your logic for doing so may be flawed.  What I've seen is that a lower PWR car running Hoosiers is faster than a higher PWR car running RRs.  Also the Nankang AR-1 is a bit faster than the RR.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher power / RR cars did pretty well at nationals this year, but yes, I agree, the high hp/rr formula does not seem to be dominant in any way.  which is a good thing.  Maybe we actually found a good balance in the rules, where people can decide which style car they want to build. (power or grip)

For me, personally, the cost savings of RR/Maxis/Nankang over hoosier (and the longer life) makes me strongly want to go in that direction.  Without a target ratio adjustment, doing so is going to require an expensive engine build and some significant weight reduction on my RX8.  I know most 4 cylinder/non-turbo cars are in the same boat as me.

An increase of 0.5 to the target ratio (12.5 instead of 12) would go a long way to help.  For 3000 lb cars that are already maximized, this adjustment would only require the addition of approximately 125lb of ballast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about allowing fender vents and cutouts? These are inexpensive and anyone can utilize them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baked_fa5 said:

How about allowing fender vents and cutouts? These are inexpensive and anyone can utilize them. 

I would agree with this - especially considering there are many cars from say GTS or GLTC where this is allowed, but because of the restrictions, cannot compete with NASA Super Touring.  Along similar lines, the penalty for running a splitter also precludes others for wanting to run ST5 (you can run a $1500+ wing for no points, but a plywood splitter will cost you?) Can't say many understand the logic for these examples.  What ends up happening is that top cars end up spending more on grey area front end aero mods to avoid the splitter penalty and the lesser budget teams/privateers suffer.  Free the vents and splitters and they will come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FINALLY!!!!!!! This needs to happen my VW GTI is getting smoked in GTS3 All bc of a few minor mods. It’s getting really discouraging racing out of class. The GTS class is just to baller. I love the NASA family and want to continue racing with them. But if I’m preparing every month just to lose and race in the back what’s the point where’s the incentive. St4 is where this car needs to be, might not be a front runner but atleast I’d have a CHANCE to finish mid pack or hey just be in sight of the pack. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well written rule proposal change ,

With the above forementioned changes, I would be interested in the move from GTS2 to ST4

Barry Smith

NASANE

GTS2 #567

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mrgsquared said:

Hello @Greg G. - I have attached a ST4 Allowance Request for the 2023 season. The ST4 class on the east coast has really struggled to gain traction unlike some of the regions farther west. These requests involve helping consolidate some of the classes so that there are LESS CLASSES, and MORE RACING. Please see attached.

ST4_ForumRequest_v1.pdf 415.09 kB · 31 downloads

People have been proposing sensible adjustments to the ST4 rules for a while to help expand the class in the East but the mentality seems to be “We don’t care, change your car to fit the class.” It’s been a few years now and we can see that approach doesn’t work here. Guess in the East people build their cars then find a place they are allowed to race it. People aren’t building cars coming from the DE ranks based on these very limited ST4 rules. It’s exactly why ST4 is dead in Midatlantic and NE where people tend to build “cool cars” and worry about classing later. Until there’s some type of acknowledgment by leadership that you have to cater the classes to the racers rather than expecting the racers to cater their cars to the class with mod bans, it will continue to struggle out here.
 

Aside from the A tire and max width parts, ST4 really should more closely mimic ST3. If you look at many of the top ST4 cars, they are pretty damn similar to the top ST3 builds anyway. Most of the Corvettes and E46 M’s I’ve seen in ST4 are about $500-$1,000 worth of longer splitter away from being competitive ST3 cars. I understand that the theory was that ST4 was going to be lower budget. But when the most expensive components such as suspension, diff, and wing are “do what you want” you really aren’t limiting costs in a material way with the existing ruleset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest allowing NP01-Evo spec cars to compete in ST2/TT2 in 2023 instead of ST1/TT1. The car counts are not big despite the push by NASA and Sebeco. Allowing it to compete in additional classes where the car is actually competitive could increase demand and field counts. In 2022 its was allowed in ST1/TT1 if ran in spec trim but the cars run times which are typically slower than current ST2/TT2 times.  Being able to supersize additional classes gives a lot more track time and helps justify the weekend cost for what is supposed to be NASA's race car. This also raises TT/ST field numbers which helps competitors get more contingency opportunities in those classes. Some regions run NP and ST separate, and in those regions a competitor could be able to run 3 classes in 1 single trim. Attached is a breakdown of 3 Sunday results where there were TT2 and NP fields. Nationals, Hyperfest, and Sonoma. I think it shows clearly the NP should be allowed in ST2/TT2 if ran in current spec. I went thru practice, qualifying, and race sessions to find fastest times. This is also lets it compete with the Rush SR which is gaining a solid following now, and is already allowed in ST2/TT2 with no mods factors on spec tire.

NP01 TT2 Comparison.xlsx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, daytonars4 said:

People have been proposing sensible adjustments to the ST4 rules for a while to help expand the class in the East but the mentality seems to be “We don’t care, change your car to fit the class.”

Well I am hoping that we can come to a point where we can review these requests and ideally implement them in 2023, collect data on them to see if the factors are indeed enough, and then make adjustments as needed. Just like with marketing, it's all about testing to see if something strategically thrown at the wall sticks. If we see record entry numbers for the class, and no one car in ST4 is wiping the floor with the others, then we know it worked. The less classes and the more racing we have will be better for the NASA organization as a whole.

Edited by mrgsquared
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sequential gearboxes should not be specifically denied from ST5, instead it should have a weight penalty just like every other modifier. I run 16:1 power to weight and forced into ST4. If you look at NASA driven cars in ST4 they are outpacing pro drivers on same track with my car. Pro driven lap times are not going to be beaten by us mere mortals.

Edited by Bryan Heitman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2022 at 6:57 AM, Bryan Heitman said:

Sequential gearboxes should not be specifically denied from ST5, instead it should have a weight penalty just like every other modifier. I run 16:1 power to weight and forced into ST4. If you look at NASA driven cars in ST4 they are outpacing pro drivers on same track with my car. Pro driven lap times are not going to be beaten by us mere mortals.

I agree with you Bryan.  Sequential should be allowed in ST5 with a penalty just like the DCT.  Our MX-5 Cups are 2-4 seconds a lap slower than the front running ST4 cars with the same driver.  We have tested it.  

Edited by joejenie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

How exactly does it make sense to allow $19,000 transmissions in a class where the average car costs about $25,000? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it's not $19k.  more like $13k.  Second, what does price have to do with this?  Isn't this about trying to get similar performance?  Have you guys done testing at all comparing the MX-5 Cup with sequential?  Or is this all conjecture?  Best thing to do would be to get a front running ST-5 car built to the edge of the rules and get the same driver to drive it vs the MX-5 Cup and see where it lands.  I would be happy to put up the MX-5 Cup if there is another ST-5 front runner in the Phoenix area and we can do the testing at our track.  Happy to supply track and 1 of the cars.  

At the end of the day, would like to race the MX-5 Cup somewhere besides IMSA.  Worse case we will keep doing some club races with it I guess.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Joe for offering to do this testing, that's very generous of you. Greg do you have anyone in Joe's region who could help out with this testing? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
On 11/6/2022 at 6:55 AM, Bryan Heitman said:

Thank you Joe for offering to do this testing, that's very generous of you. Greg do you have anyone in Joe's region who could help out with this testing? 

 

Unless you are testing a MX-5 Cup car with and without the sequential, with the same driver, I'm not really sure that you are getting any useful data.  I'm going to guess that Mazda already has this data. 

BTW, the price I found was $19K for a new box.  And price has a lot to do with it since ST5/6 are the only builder classes we have that can be run on a budget.   We will discuss this in our revisions meeting, but any Mod Factor would be so high to discourage the use, that the car would probably not be able to make the Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard back from Flis which builds these cars.

It sounds like you should just keep us in ST4 but to keep our costs down allow us to run the homologated slick tire no more than 225 width. It's a 215 homologated tire. The 225 hoosier is slowing us down on straights.

 

"Approximately 2 sec improvement lap average is what we see Sadev-vs-Stock gearbox. 
 
Thanks, 
 

Todd Flis

Managing Partner "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My request is to get rid of the .2 mod factor for electric throttle bodies. Not really sure what this rule is supposed to address, but my Main reasoning being, 1) If i wanted a flat hp curve, I can just retard my cam timing and boom its flat.  I can nerf peak power by 40 hp on a honda k series using cam timing alone. 2)  I read something about people bitching about advanced traction control systems.... which is weird.  Not all cars have advanced TC systems, and further more, TC is really just abs but in the opposite direction.  We're not taxing modern advanced abs systems over non abs or the shitty 90's abs..... so this seems to be a pretty big logical inconsistency. I don't feel as if this rule adds any value to the series or provides a more fair playing field.

 

Another thing that i would like the rules committee to seriously consider is the restriction on aero devices for st3/4.  Reason being, using wider wheels/tires quickly puts us outside of the OEM fender envelope and most platforms have really good aftermarket support for bumpers/fenders. Unfortunately the way the rules are written, most kits (and in some platforms all kits) would be illegal in st3/4.  Universal fender flares are probably some of the ugliest things i've ever seen, and i'd like to be able to use something off the shelf without infringing on the rules.   I understand the intent of this rule is to keep the allowable downforce generated under a certain level, but my experience in engineering and aerodynamics tells me that these elements add little (at best) to the downforce capabilities of a car. I think the aero rules are well written in their restriction of underbody, splitter, and wing limits... Otherwise its rule fluff that adds more frustration than it does benefit the series or level the playing field. 

Side note: It seems the rules committee is getting rather rule happy in recent years with modification factors.  It was my understanding that the st/tt classes were originally created to be a more open rule set with hp/weight being the driving force.   It is my observation that as of the last few years this is no longer the case. I'd really rather not see nasa turn into the SCCA spiderweb of rules, and request the rules committee go back to a more open mindset in classes. We'll never be able to legislate parity on old platforms vs new, and the pursuit of rules to do so (even with a whiny bitchy public), will only result in a dilution of the spirit of the series. IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Club Codes and Regulations:

15.2 Fire System calls out a size for SERO 2000, with Life Line having the 2020 would a 2.25 liter minimum apply and need the rules to be updated to call out the new 2020? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this has been shot down in previous years, but every season that passes these cars become older and more obsolete.  
 

The Fox Mustang and E36/E46 subframe connectors should be allowed without penalty.  Front strut tower reinforcements are allowed without penalty, and improve rigidity / performance more than the rear subframe connectors.  It’s merely a reliability / safety modification for these cars.  Specifically for ST3-ST2-ST1, at these power levels it’s a requirement from a reliability standpoint.  The competition in these classes is often newer, purpose built sports cars that require no reinforcements at all.  
 

-Eric Magnussen, NE Region #330 BMW M3 ST3/ST2

Edited by Emag
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...