2023 Proposed ST Rules Revisions--Comment Period through 11-20-22

[daytonars4]

19 minutes ago, Kevin Harvey said:

Greg,

First, I understand the position you are in and we have had our differences on rules changes over the past 12 years.  

Second, I am also in the camp of deleting the ST2-3 >305mm tire size rule.  There is already great parity among the ST2 and ST3 fields between vehicle makes, tire brands, and tire sizes.  If anything, penalize any tire >335 in ST3 but I am a firm believer in leaving ST2 completely open.  The car weights, power levels, braking packages, aero, etc. all need a larger tire.  Not just for performance, but for longevity and cost control.  I raced on 275s for years and my tire budget was at least 3x more than when I switched to 315s.  

I agree that ST2 should be left out of the 305 tire mod situation. @Greg G. doing this to ST2 will slow them down and basically put them in the middle of the ST3 battle. It is already an issue some weekends as it is. Please leave ST2 out of it for everyone’s sake.lol

[TurboJoe]

I am fine with ST3 taking a tire mod hit for the really wide tires but the cutoff should not be a 305 when no one besides Toyo makes a 305/18. Bring the cutoff to anything over 315 so everyone already built to run Hoosiers can continue to do so.

[hispanicpanic]

Serious question for greg and others who complain to him to make more rules.  Is nasa in the business of Balance of Performance?  Is it NASA's intent to create an even field where no platform, new or old, have an inherent advantage over another?  There seems to be a case of rule/series intent amnesia.  Is st/tt designed to be an open class? Or should we just rename st4 as TTB all over again?

I know how competitors can get when they loose and blame it on something they think to be unfair within the rules.  In my opinion, its not NASA's job to balance platforms, and should never engage in anything remotely similar to a balance of performance.  New cars are going to be better in every way, technology advancement is a part of how this world works. Is it NASA's fault that you feel handicapped because you're on a cable actuated throttle body or have an ABS  system from the 90's?  No

My personal view is, the more rules that are created in TT/ST, the less it benefits the series. 

[hispanicpanic]

4 hours ago, yuba said:

You can very easily manipulate the power curve with it by closing the throttle body at higher RPM.  Make more power, close the throttle body to keep the average down, more area under the entire curve.

 

I've asked multiple times to get an official statement (not heresay from other members) as to exactly WHAT problem the cable throttle body tax is designed to address. I have heard exactly nothing. (Greg, please consider this another official request to get a statement as to what problem this modifier is intended to solve)

 

You don't need a restrictor to get a flat HP curve.  Through cam timing alone i can achieve a flat HP curve and nerf my peak HP by 40 hp.  How many cars have variable cam timing? Nearly ALL of them manufactured after 1999. Additionally, if were using average power calculations, exactly WTF does it matter if the throttle body is cable or electronic? It doesn't. 

 

IMO throttle body modifier is a balance of performance attempt at new vehicles vs old. Solves nothing of importance

Edited November 17, 2022 by hispanicpanic

[daytonars4]

25 minutes ago, hispanicpanic said:

Serious question for greg and others who complain to him to make more rules.  Is nasa in the business of Balance of Performance?  Is it NASA's intent to create an even field where no platform, new or old, have an inherent advantage over another?  There seems to be a case of rule/series intent amnesia.  Is st/tt designed to be an open class? Or should we just rename st4 as TTB all over again?

I know how competitors can get when they loose and blame it on something they think to be unfair within the rules.  In my opinion, its not NASA's job to balance platforms, and should never engage in anything remotely similar to a balance of performance.  New cars are going to be better in every way, technology advancement is a part of how this world works. Is it NASA's fault that you feel handicapped because you're on a cable actuated throttle body or have an ABS  system from the 90's?  No

My personal view is, the more rules that are created in TT/ST, the less it benefits the series. 

A few years ago we learned in my region that the rules that existed give a TCR a 2s advantage on the field. I was happy when 3 showed up to nationals and slaughtered everyone with a 1/2 finish in ST3. So I send the question back to you. Would you prefer to let that situation continue? Bc let’s be honest, when everyone gets beat that badly if you don’t change rules people quit.  

[Grant Ellis]

1 hour ago, daytonars4 said:

I agree that ST2 should be left out of the 305 tire mod situation. @Greg G. doing this to ST2 will slow them down and basically put them in the middle of the ST3 battle. It is already an issue some weekends as it is. Please leave ST2 out of it for everyone’s sake.lol

So I am happy you want TT2 to be left alone but kinda feel like you are trying to toss TT3 out as “rules for thee, but not for me”. 
The correct response is DON’T change  the rule to help a sponsor and mess up a class that is growing and every weekend in Central, Mid Atlantic and Texas and you see a wide variety of platforms on podiums???

[RacecarCamp]

Would love to get rid of drop floor penalty in ST5/6 as it's more safety issue to get big guys in small cars.  If someone wants to cut and reweld a floor to move a small person down a half an inch, I don't see much performance gained there but it hurts our ST5/6 small cars more than it helps even out any playing field. 

[Emag]

I’m sorry to beat a dead horse here with the 305 tire limit.  Would a greater bonus for 275 and under suffice to fulfill the same goal?  Especially in ST2 where everyone seemingly runs tires larger than 315 already? 

The current ST2 field would prefer to avoid making unnecessary changes as this -0.3 penalty would require almost everyone to add ballast or reduce power.  

A related point is that higher horsepower / torque / weight combinations benefit more from the added grip of larger tires than low power / weight combinations.  I experience this frequently racing in multiple classes (ST2/3) with the same car.  Removal of existing weight bonuses at 3301+ would help to balance this advantage across ST3 which is currently most effected.

[CTSVR]

13 minutes ago, Emag said:

I’m sorry to beat a dead horse here with the 305 tire limit.  Would a greater bonus for 275 and under suffice to fulfill the same goal?  Especially in ST2 where everyone seemingly runs tires larger than 315 already? 

The current ST2 field would prefer to avoid making unnecessary changes as this -0.3 penalty would require almost everyone to add ballast or reduce power.  

A related point is that higher horsepower / torque / weight combinations benefit more from the added grip of larger tires than low power / weight combinations.  I experience this frequently racing in multiple classes (ST2/3) with the same car.  Removal of existing weight bonuses at 3301+ would help to balance this advantage across ST3 which is currently most effected.

I’d prefer the weight factor not be adjusted, as the way my car is set up, I am at >3600, as well as limited to a 275 due to the body/suspension design of my platform, and I certainly am not on the top step of the podium every weekend. I agree that increasing the 282/266 mod factor would accomplish the same goal, unless the goal is the slow down the class and/or drive people to Toyos. 

[RCarmichael77]

6 hours ago, flier129 said:

What's the main rationale of the ST/TT5 base ratio change? 

Exactly - what's the reasoning behind this? I haven't seen anyone struggling to get down to 14 ... if anything, it seems most people are already using the existing tire rules to offsett a lower RAW W/HP, now they have to add more ballast, detune, or ???

[Stubz]

I’m glad to see the ST4 aero open up a tad, will definitely increase cross participation and fatten up the field!

I’m with a lot of these guys on the opinion that fat cars need more help, it’s been proven over and over that the corner speed differential is too high to overcome the time gained while cornering and braking, a 262 to 282 tire bump isn’t enough to make that back up with a little extra HP. I know tire sizes are a sensitive subject with the size check tooling being created already, but what’s the point of a .6 mod for a 262 and .3 for 282? There should just be no reward for the tire size, as everyone is going to run the widest they can for their weight anyways, especially now that widebody type fenders are allowed. The extra .3 reward the 262 tire gives to sub 3000lb cars just swings the balance further in the light car direction. 
 

We all want closer, more competitive, more fun racing. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Stubz

[Bryan Heitman]

I want narrower tires but I'm not allowed.

[daytonars4]

5 hours ago, Grant Ellis said:

So I am happy you want TT2 to be left alone but kinda feel like you are trying to toss TT3 out as “rules for thee, but not for me”. 
The correct response is DON’T change  the rule to help a sponsor and mess up a class that is growing and every weekend in Central, Mid Atlantic and Texas and you see a wide variety of platforms on podiums???

I think if you read my prior comments I explained the issue in ST3 in my region. It’s been a problem for years. The reason I say leave ST2 alone is purely Bc everyone there is already on a 305+ tire anyway. So it’s basically pointless and slowing the whole field down. Mod at 315mm makes sense Bc that’s what the Hoosier is. The new mod as written is kind of worthless Bc now the cars in ST3 on the 335/345 will just end up adding more weight and offsetting most of the .3 mod anyway.

As @Emag mentioned, really one of the biggest issues is the bonus weight mod. It basically rewards modern cars that happen to be bigger and heavier. They have more tech and come from the factory with bigger tires. Yet according to ST rules they are disadvantaged and need help. Makes no sense. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by daytonars4

[davidfarmer]

is the data logging an "tune pulling" rule that was in the August Bulletin going into the rules?  None of my local officials know anything about it, but it was posted .

 

Also, I don't see anything about tunes "looking OEM".  You banned my 3 year old tune for not "looking OEM".   Make sure you get that in writing, I still have the email if you need it.

 

I agree with someone about that mechanical-throttle cars shouldn't get a break....the entire point of the averaging system is to balance all tunes regardless of how you make them.  

 

Mixing printed tire size and "template" sizing is ridiculous, consistency should be maintained one way or the other.   

 

 

 

 

[mrgsquared]

34 minutes ago, Stubz said:

I’m glad to see the ST4 aero open up a tad, will definitely increase cross participation and fatten up the field!

I’m with a lot of these guys on the opinion that fat cars need more help, it’s been proven over and over that the corner speed differential is too high to overcome the time gained while cornering and braking, a 262 to 282 tire bump isn’t enough to make that back up with a little extra HP. I know tire sizes are a sensitive subject with the size check tooling being created already, but what’s the point of a .6 mod for a 262 and .3 for 282? There should just be no reward for the tire size, as everyone is going to run the widest they can for their weight anyways, especially now that widebody type fenders are allowed. The extra .3 reward the 262 tire gives to sub 3000lb cars just swings the balance further in the light car direction. 
 

We all want closer, more competitive, more fun racing. 

Hey Stubz - we will definitely need further clarification on this update from @Greg G.. My previous understanding was that under 3000 lbs, youre in the 266mm bracket. Over 3000, youre in the 267-282 bracket, unless you want to get a break running 266. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by mrgsquared

[Fair]

The penalty for over 305mm in ST2/ST3 + TT is ridiculous. This is how the heavier cars have parity with the lighter cars in those classes... just like power-to-weight does, "tire-to-weight" ratios are there to help mitigate the added weight of these big cars.



Here are just a handful of cars that come with and/or can fit larger tires under OEM fenders:

C4 Corvette - can fit 315/335mm tires
C5 Corvette - 315mm tires fit stock fenders
C6 Narrow body - can fit 315mm tires
C6 Z06/GS/ZR1 - Come with 335mm rears and can fit 335F/345R tires
C7 GS/Z06 - Come with 335 rears and can fit 315F/335R
S197 Mustang (2005-14) - can fit 315mm tires
S550 Mustang - can fit 315mm tires
4th gen F-body - can fit 315mm tires
5th gen & 6th gen Camaro - can fit 315mm tires

These are just a few of the "big" cars that not only can fit wider than 305mm tires, but NEED wider than 305mm tires o be competitive with BMWs and other much lighter cars in ST2/ST3 +TT.

I ran TT3 in 2013-14 on 315mm tires under the stock fenders of my 2011 GT, below left. We switched in mid 2014 to a 335/345mm setup and - dropped time, lengthened our "tire temp" window beyond one lap, and lengthened tire life - for almost zero extra tire cost (paid for flares - once). And dropped lap time, to keep up with the lighter cars...

I've built or competed in literally every one of these chassis as well as V8 swapped BMWs and the V8 BMW is always lighter than any of the above with the same prep level, so they can get by with narrower tires.



Just built this flared 2010 Mustang for a customer to run ST2, with 18x13/335mm fronts and 18x14/345mm rears. Now I get to tell him he has to pay for +200 pounds of ballast or neuter the engine output, or both. Yay. And the white one (ST3 entry) was lined up for the same flares and wheels... not anymore!

I even put big tires on lighter cars, whenever humanly possible, and never regret that move. This change is very very very much NOT WANTED!

 

 

[ZC6126]

Greg,

 

In regards to the new TT5 class revisions surrounding the a-arm penalty,

After noticing only a small change to the a-arm penalty (from -0.7 to -0.5) I would like to instead suggest charging a separate (-0.3) split penalty per end (Front / Rear) utilizing the a-arm design within the suspension. 

After speaking with multiple TT5 drivers we have concluded that this is a very fair approach which would effectively yield a penalty only to the end's of the car using the 'a-arms'. 

Example: (A Honda S2000 would incur (2) -0.3 penalties for both ends (F/R) utilizing the a-arm design which would tally a -0.6 in total penalty. Whereas the Subaru BRZ/86 with a 'McPherson' front suspension design would only incur (1) -0.3 penalty for the a-arms present in the rear.) 

Thanks. 

 

[Abe M]

16 minutes ago, ZC6126 said:

Greg,

 

In regards to the new TT5 class revisions surrounding the a-arm penalty,

After noticing only a small change to the a-arm penalty (from -0.7 to -0.5) I would like to instead suggest charging a separate (-0.3) split penalty per end (Front / Rear) utilizing the a-arm design within the suspension. 

After speaking with multiple TT5 drivers we have concluded that this is a very fair approach which would effectively yield a penalty only to the end's of the car using the 'a-arms'. 

Example: (A Honda S2000 would incur (2) -0.3 penalties for both ends (F/R) utilizing the a-arm design which would tally a -0.6 in total penalty. Whereas the Subaru BRZ/86 with a 'McPherson' front suspension design would only incur (1) -0.3 penalty for the a-arms present in the rear.) 

Thanks. 

 

I would like to see the same. 

[Kelse92]

In regards to ST4 aero, would hood vents above 1/8” as the current rule sits also be able to take the -0.3 or could those be considered to be added?

Edited November 18, 2022 by Kelse92

[JStutler]

29 minutes ago, ZC6126 said:

Greg,

 

In regards to the new TT5 class revisions surrounding the a-arm penalty,

After noticing only a small change to the a-arm penalty (from -0.7 to -0.5) I would like to instead suggest charging a separate (-0.3) split penalty per end (Front / Rear) utilizing the a-arm design within the suspension. 

After speaking with multiple TT5 drivers we have concluded that this is a very fair approach which would effectively yield a penalty only to the end's of the car using the 'a-arms'. 

Example: (A Honda S2000 would incur (2) -0.3 penalties for both ends (F/R) utilizing the a-arm design which would tally a -0.6 in total penalty. Whereas the Subaru BRZ/86 with a 'McPherson' front suspension design would only incur (1) -0.3 penalty for the a-arms present in the rear.) 

Thanks. 

I’ve not seen anyone suggesting 0.6 total for cars with A-Arms at both ends. Especially given that the very fast BMWs pick up another 0.1 with the new TB modifier.  
Essentially you are lobbying for the TOYOBARU twins which are proven very fast to get a bump vs everyone else.

I do agree that per axle is a good idea, but not at 0.3 per. 
 

[dwesterwick]

I'm biased because I have a 3800 lb Mustang in TT3, but I have to echo what others are saying about the proposed 305+ tire penalty.

Regarding the argument for increasing the breakpoint to 315, that seems reasonable to me (assuming this mod factor is going to exist) based on tire availability. Others have beaten this argument to death, so I'll stay out of the specifics of that discussion.

Aside from the 305 vs. 315 argument, I agree with what a few others have said about heavier cars not just benefiting from larger tires but actually NEEDING larger tires to be competitive. On a warm day, I'm overheating 335mm A7's well before the end of a 15-min TT session. I can only imagine how sketchy that has to be at the end of a 30+ min sprint race. I could switch to R7's and not overheat, but then they wouldn't be warm in the first 1-2 hot laps, and that's a huge penalty to pay for TT3+ cars that are hitting traffic in 1-2 laps.

I've tried a range of tire sizes at ~3800 lb comp weight, and there is an exponential loss in grip as they get narrower, especially in braking. The -0.3 penalty will only slightly inconvenience my main competition, 3100-3400 lb Corvettes, but there's no way I can run a 30mm (or more) smaller tire without a noticeable loss in performance.

I get the argument that large, modern cars have an advantage because of their high power and (typically) broad powerbands on straights. However, there are two factors involved in that. I think having a broad powerband is irrelevant to the tire-size mod because (with enough money) you can build/swap/tune your powertrain to achieve a comparable powerband scaled for your power/weight target. There are already plenty of swapped and/or detuned cars proving this, and there is a pretty detailed dyno certification process to address powerband manipulation. If that needs to be revised, it should be a separate discussion unrelated to tire size. The main issue is power/drag, and that's where the heavier cars get an advantage. For that reason, I'm fine with making an adjustment. However, I think it should be something along the lines of one of the following:

1. Keep the -0.3 penalty, but increase the breakpoint to 315mm. Along with this change, reduce the weight breakpoints above 3600 lb to have a 100-lb spread (like the earlier breakpoints) instead of a 150-lb spread. That way, cars in the low-mid 3000-lb range will still be penalized to address the power/drag disparity, but very heavy cars can still be (somewhat) competitive.
2. Drop the new 305+ mod factor but change the weight bonuses above 3300 lb to be every 150 lb instead of every 100 lb. This similarly addresses the power/drag disparity but I imagine certain cars will still have a slight advantage.
3. Keep it simple and drop the new 305+ mod factor or at least significantly reduce the penalty (preferably along with increasing the breakpoint to 315mm)

Otherwise, I think this rule disproportionately hurts >3600 lb cars. The concept of adding another tire-size factor is fine because it's consistent with the existing rules, but I think this proposal needs to be revised.

[dwesterwick]

Aside from the novel I wrote about the 305+ mod factor above, I do like how there is now a solid-axle bonus. However, I'm disappointed it's not included in ST3+. Is there a reason it shouldn't be other than the general idea of reducing rule complexity in ST1-3? I'd think the disadvantages of a solid axle will be at least as noticeable in faster classes where cars tend to be more traction-limited.

What was the reasoning for adding this change to ST4-6? What makes that group unique from ST1-3?

As I said above, I admit that I'm biased, but I'd certainly like to see that bonus extended to faster classes, even at a reduced bonus for ST1-3.

[hispanicpanic]

6 hours ago, daytonars4 said:

A few years ago we learned in my region that the rules that existed give a TCR a 2s advantage on the field. I was happy when 3 showed up to nationals and slaughtered everyone with a 1/2 finish in ST3. So I send the question back to you. Would you prefer to let that situation continue? Bc let’s be honest, when everyone gets beat that badly if you don’t change rules people quit.  

To be blunt, the other cars on grid probably weren't all that great. TCR cars are built to the limit of OEM suspension geometry and chassis hardpoints. 

 

Hand any losing car on grid in your example to a team of OEM engineers, and they'll make any platform a front runner. That's all your example proves. I guess we can start outlawing professionally engineered builds?   

You'd be surprised how many seconds (yes, more than 1) you can drop with proper chassis simulation software, without making any significant changes to the build. If you're intrigued, you should be.  Danny Nowlan makes a great chassis simulation software thats easy to jump into if you're at all interested.

Edited November 18, 2022 by hispanicpanic

[daytonars4]

1 minute ago, hispanicpanic said:

To be blunt, the other cars on grid probably weren't all that great. TCR cars are built to the limit of OEM suspension geometry and chassis hardpoints. 

 

Hand any losing car on grid in your example to a team of OEM engineers, and they'll make any platform a front runner. That's all your example proves. I guess we can start outlawing professionally engineered builds? If I'm a professional engineer with motorsport experience, am i no longer able to build cars? 

Not sure what else to say. There are flaws in the ST ruleset that give some cars too large of an advantage on the field. Giving a modern car on 335 or 345’s while also letting them get bonus power for being heavy is absurd. That’s what the 2022 rules allow. So this has nothing to do with car development. It’s an issue with the rules being flawed and giving bonuses where they aren’t needed. Now if someone has a 3600lb car on a 275 tire then sure, they need help. But once that car is on 335 or 345 square, the help should end. That’s enough tire to offset the extra weight. A 992 GT3RS (DRS disabled) would get a power bonus for being heavy. That’s absurd. 

[Stubz]

3 hours ago, mrgsquared said:

Hey Stubz - we will definitely need further clarification on this update from @Greg G.. My previous understanding was that under 3000 lbs, youre in the 266mm bracket. Over 3000, youre in the 267-282 bracket, unless you want to get a break running 266. 

Your understanding is correct, however if you’re in the 266mm bracket you receive an extra .3 mod factor. It’s just another boost for lighter cars, or an extra penalty for heavier cars.

No heavy car is going to limit their tire size even further for that extra .3

It’s as someone stated above, tire to weight is important for class balance.