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

[mrgsquared]

24 minutes ago, Fair said:

He's right - you can put "335s" or even 345s on anything, if you have the right skills...

We have used this "wider tires on anything" gambit for decades. Below was my 2550 pound E36 on 315mm Hoosiers in 2008

If NASA handicaps tires with 305+ sizes, it might not work out like they had hoped. Sure, the "little cars" can do better, especially if the "big cars" all leave.

Tire-to-weight ratio is what is key here. Nobody writing class rules seems to understand this, and it is BAFFLING. Physics is real, and physics matters.

And yes, even a 2600 pound FRS with 160 whp got a LOT faster (2,5 sec drop at MSR Cresson 1.7 CCW) just going from 215s to 315s...

And it now has 335s and a big stroker LS V8 - that bolts in. #WidePowerBand #BigTiresMatter

NASA Needs to remember - if they neuter the fast cars too much over this silly 305-315mm penalty, other series beckon. We have FOUR active Time Trial series in our area. I've been running TT with NASA since 2006, but I keep finding other series to run with... NASA will always hold a place in my heart, but it is hardly the only TT option.

Have a nice weekend!

"Nobody writing class rules seems to understand this, and it is BAFFLING"...

I'm pretty sure Greg is more aware of this than you think. Also remember that these rules need to fit BOTH ST and TT  

[hispanicpanic]

I think it would help if the rules committee released rational for specific rules and the problems they're trying to address with each rule change, instead of dropping it like this and leaving us to guess wtf is going on.

In engineering there's a concept called root cause analysis. It would be way easier to provide constructive feedback if we understood the intent and the problem each rule change is trying to solve.  Then we can go about figuring out the best way to address it, and the best verbiage for a ruleset. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by hispanicpanic

[Forcednduckshn]

TT5/ST5 S2000's still own many lap records around the country, and a TT5 s2000 just broke consecutive lap records at Watkins Glen and NJMP Lightning in NASANE.  Why are they being given more speed with a reduction in the a-arm penalty?

[Phloozy]

5 minutes ago, Forcednduckshn said:

TT5/ST5 S2000's still own many lap records around the country, and a TT5 s2000 just broke consecutive lap records at Watkins Glen and NJMP Lightning in NASANE.  Why are they being given more speed with a reduction in the a-arm penalty?

Also s2k just broke the record at Summit Main that was previously held by an s2k. They are also getting more than the a-arm help, they also get an additional .1 from the new throttle body change

Edited November 18, 2022 by Phloozy

[yuba]

5 minutes ago, Phloozy said:

Also s2k just broke the record at Summit Main that was previously held by an s2k. They are also getting more than the a-arm help, they also get an additional .1 from the new throttle body change

I don't know about the new car since I haven't looked yet, but Samed's car was an AP2 V2 so it wasn't getting the TB points.

[Kelse92]

3 hours ago, Greg G. said:

Hi Folks,

Looks like one of the NASA Officials locked this thread down after it went off topic and my request for civil and constructive was forgotten. 

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to review most of this yet, or some of the comments on FB, which I'll look at later tonight, but I wanted to let you know that we (NASA National) did decide that we agree with the commenters that tire size up to 315 would be more appropriate than 305.  As of now, it will be for both ST2 and ST3.  I'll have more in depth responses to all of the above later, and I'll unlock the thread now if we can go back to objective and/or positive since it looks like "civil and constructive" was too big an ask. ?

Thank you for the response to all of the feedback! I wanted to chime in though and make sure the Non-DOT category is not overlooked. Those tires are similarly much more available in a 305 variety vs a 300mm and should be considered to get a similar adjustment up as well.

[Phloozy]

@Greg G. Do you mind giving some insight into the mechanical throttle body adjustment? What are those with electronic TB doing to have an advantage over mechanical and what happened this year to increase it further? I thought last year the dyno rules were altered to stop any funny tricks?

Not so much arguing the point as much as trying to understand why it's there and what advantage I could be getting that I might not be since I have an electronically controlled throttle body.

And the last point on this. The BMW's electronic throttle body can technically be removed. If i unplug it and have the throttle body plate controlled mechanically at 100% open, would I technically be allowed to claim a mechanical throttle body? Silly I know but I can go down this route so i would like clarification.

Thanks

[ProtestM3]

28 minutes ago, Kelse92 said:

Thank you for the response to all of the feedback! I wanted to chime in though and make sure the Non-DOT category is not overlooked. Those tires are similarly much more available in a 305 variety vs a 300mm and should be considered to get a similar adjustment up as well.

I’m also someone who doesn’t want the Non Dot tires to get overlooked and they need to get the same 10mm adjustment up as DOT just got. After all a 305 pirelli is smaller than a 295 Hoosier.

[Tansar_Motorsports]

on a non-tire related topic...

IMO, it would make sense to apply the 0.3 solid rear axle benefit to all classes, not just ST4-6.

 

I know what Greg is going to say:  ST1-3 allow suspension geometry changes, so you can convert to IRS if you want.

But lets be realistic, no-one is doing that.  you would just buy a different car instead.

 

Cars that this would benefit:  Older mustangs / Camaros, stock cars, TA2 cars, Panoz, SCCA GT1/2/3/L/A cars, etc.
None of these have ever won consistently in ST.  And none of them are going to convert their cars to IRS.
Give them the 0.3 benefit, and you will see increased crossover from SCCA/trans-am racers.

 

Full transparency:  I have never owned a solid rear axle vehicle, but stock cars are a very intriguing option for a low cost/reliable/fast platform.  But I could never justify making that purchase unless I thought there was a chance I could be ST/TT competitive.

[ZC6126]

14 hours ago, JStutler said:

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. 
 

Considering the a-arm penalty will stick around, I find it fair to at most only penalize the end of the car which uses a-arms. (My other end utilizes 'McPherson strut'.)  

Also: As a driver of a Gen 1 'Subaru BRZ' we cannot take advantage of the 'magic' related to the DBW throttle body from my understanding. The chassis is already at a pretty severe power deficit in class (similar to Mazda RX8 or 2016+ MX5's) and any reduction in hp across any portion of our power-band to accommodate a 'lower average HP' or to 'draw a favorable power curve' would only be detrimental to our performance and simply become backwards progress. This is the primary reason I initially lobbied against the 'mechanical throttle body' +0.2 bonus for 2022 to begin with for TT5/ST5. Adding to the bonus is only adding insult to injury to cars that utilize DBW TB and fall shy on power naturally. 

1. The mechanical throttle body bonus advocates 'flat-line tuning' and 'tuning of the power-band' for a favorable average hp for those who can afford the benefits.

2. I am generously handing out free (+0.3) bonuses to my competition who uses a 'mechanical throttle' body when my chassis will be using the DBW throttle body in the exact same fashion. 

3. The chassis is at an even further disadvantage now that my competitors cars using the 'electric servo' DBW TBs are able to 'manipulate' their power curve and 'flat-line tune' the top end to produce favorable HP averages, considering they have the spare power to execute the tuning tactic. 

(Q: NASA, what is the current ruling surrounding 'flat-line tuning' anyways for TT/ST classes?)

 

[Grant Ellis]

3 hours ago, Fair said:

He's right - you can put "335s" or even 345s on anything, if you have the right skills...

We have used this "wider tires on anything" gambit for decades. Below was my 2550 pound E36 on 315mm Hoosiers in 2008

If NASA handicaps tires with 305+ sizes, it might not work out like they had hoped. Sure, the "little cars" can do better, especially if the "big cars" all leave.

Tire-to-weight ratio is what is key here. Nobody writing class rules seems to understand this, and it is BAFFLING. Physics is real, and physics matters.

And yes, even a 2600 pound FRS with 160 whp got a LOT faster (2,5 sec drop at MSR Cresson 1.7 CCW) just going from 215s to 315s...

And it now has 335s and a big stroker LS V8 - that bolts in. #WidePowerBand #BigTiresMatter

NASA Needs to remember - if they neuter the fast cars too much over this silly 305-315mm penalty, other series beckon. We have FOUR active Time Trial series in our area. I've been running TT with NASA since 2006, but I keep finding other series to run with... NASA will always hold a place in my heart, but it is hardly the only TT option.

Have a nice weekend!

Right there with you my friend!!

[JStutler]

1 hour ago, ZC6126 said:

Considering the a-arm penalty will stick around, I find it fair to at most only penalize the end of the car which uses a-arms. (My other end utilizes 'McPherson strut'.)  

Also: As a driver of a Gen 1 'Subaru BRZ' we cannot take advantage of the 'magic' related to the DBW throttle body from my understanding. The chassis is already at a pretty severe power deficit in class (similar to Mazda RX8 or 2016+ MX5's) and any reduction in hp across any portion of our power-band to accommodate a 'lower average HP' or to 'draw a favorable power curve' would only be detrimental to our performance and simply become backwards progress. This is the primary reason I initially lobbied against the 'mechanical throttle body' +0.2 bonus for 2022 to begin with for TT5/ST5. Adding to the bonus is only adding insult to injury to cars that utilize DBW TB and fall shy on power naturally. 

1. The mechanical throttle body bonus advocates 'flat-line tuning' and 'tuning of the power-band' for a favorable average hp for those who can afford the benefits.

2. I am generously handing out free (+0.3) bonuses to my competition who uses a 'mechanical throttle' body when my chassis will be using the DBW throttle body in the exact same fashion. 

3. The chassis is at an even further disadvantage now that my competitors cars using the 'electric servo' DBW TBs are able to 'manipulate' their power curve and 'flat-line tune' the top end to produce favorable HP averages, considering they have the spare power to execute the tuning tactic. 

(Q: NASA, what is the current ruling surrounding 'flat-line tuning' anyways for TT/ST classes?)

 

Like I said, I agree with you that the A-Arm penalty should be per axle. My point of contention was the number you chose. 
I do find it hard to see though where the GRS/BRZ needs a ton of help when you have drivers like Nick Dugdale and Jordan Hill blasting track records all over the place. For example Nick ran a very fast 2:18.0 at NCM in March, on cycled Hoosiers no less. This is a big track with long straights. Jordan ran something a 1:33.4 at Autobahn in October which is a very serious time.  Its not like the platform is languishing because others have different options. 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by JStutler

[TimRoberts]

I'm only here to discuss the ST/TT5 changes...

1) I am NOT in favor of the 14.5:1 change.  I agree that this does help some platforms maximize their W/P ratio, but ONLY if they are trying to use a +1.6 tire (RR, RC-1, etc).   It has been proven that parity is there for the +1.6 tires to compete with Hoosier R7 and the forthcoming Yoko AO55. If a car can't meet weight or power to maximize the ratio with a 1.6 tire then there are alternate tire options to get them there. I don't want to add ballast to my car because the 86-twin chassis are stuck in the middle. So was I, and I figured out how to make it work. This leads me to point 2-

2) Adjust the A-arm penalty for each axle, -.3 per axle seems fair. This keeps the S2k with a similar to 2022 penalty level and helps the 86-twins chassis by reducing their penalty. Maybe this further negates the need for a change to the 14.5-1 W/P ratio?

3) I still don't understand why the Mk60 ABS deserves a -.2 penalty even if it was originally equipped in the car. I can't reprogram it and I'm not allowed to swap it to the M-sport version, so then why the penalty?

 

[Jon G Racer]

This tire width rule change would single handedly destroy the very healthy ST2 class in the Northeast region! The front runner is already on 315s square (so no penalty for him) while the rest of us would get penalized for running a wider rear tire. I've already spoken to most of my fellow regional competitors and it would make no sense for any of us to continue to compete in ST2 with an even further handicap.  

Greg, I implore you to peruse our ST2 results for the past 3 years so that you can see how this rule change will not have any positive effect on BOP within the class.  Our region is very competitive with national level drivers, this should be an excellent sampling of data.

Jonathan Giahn

Edited November 19, 2022 by Jon G Racer

[hispanicpanic]

11 hours ago, rsotak said:

So how were the aero penalties established for st4?  It seems like the penalties may not be enough at -0.3 for the benefit that each piece will give.  Seems like it should start out higher to not overdo hall the current cars in the class.

 

Also the removal of the mechanical throttle body bonus for FI cars seems a little strange.  What benefit do FI cars have over NA in this arena?  Why would supercharged cars be treated the same as turbo cars when the ability to control boost isn’t the same

Do you have data showing a dive plane or canard is worth 9 whole horsepower? Or 18 horsepower when combined?

 

[Grant Ellis]

20 minutes ago, hispanicpanic said:

Do you have data showing a dive plane or canard is worth 9 whole horsepower? Or 18 horsepower when combined?

 

There you go! Asking for actual data??‍♂️

[hispanicpanic]

3 minutes ago, Grant Ellis said:

There you go! Asking for actual data??‍♂️

Is that a bad thing? Isn't it better than licking your finger and sticking it to the wind?

[Grant Ellis]

47 minutes ago, hispanicpanic said:

Is that a bad thing? Isn't it better than licking your finger and sticking it to the wind?

No, I was being facetious?

to quote Louis G, “If you don’t have data, all you have is opinion”!

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:30 AM, Tykrane30 said:

Question here
"Tire size printed greater than 305 (ST2, ST3 Only)                                    = -0.3"

Any particular reason to cut this limit to 305? Any data behind it?
That width makes this rule difficult to maximize a zero point section width tire in all common wheel sizes run in ST2/3.
Most ST2/3 competitors are probably running an 18" wheel (there might be some on 17s and 19s).

Most of the common tire manufacturers Hoosier, Yokohama, Goodyear, Hankook don't make a 305R18 tire. Toyo is the only brand that makes a 305R18. So there are no zero point tires that provide an ability to maximize this zero point section width rule for many ST2/3 competitors
Does a 315 section width limit not make more sense since it is widely available throughout manufacturer brands?

Yes, it does make more sense.

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:40 AM, HLF said:

ST/TT4 - Jus tot clarify my understanding: if I are not taking the OEM aero mod because I have the current spec TT4 splitter, and I add canards, do I take an additional -.3 mod? 

Yes.  If you are not taking BTM Aero, you can add any of those mods for the Mod Factor listed.  If you are taking BTM Aero, none of these new Mod Factors would apply.

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:52 AM, ChuggLifeRacing said:

For Nasa Champs, do we expect a Spec R7 tire for ST4 like it was done for 2022? 

No.  We are not planning to Spec a tire in any ST or TT class for the 2022 Champs.

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:07 AM, rsotak said:

So for ST4 tire width still based on weight or can any weight car run the 275mm as long as they take the -0.3 penalty?

It is still based on weight in ST4. 

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:10 AM, skanev said:

Is the "and" here intentional? Does the mod factor only apply to fenders that are both vented and "wide body"? I'm assuming you meant an "or".

 

Personally, I do think that wide, non-vented fenders shouldn't carry the mod factor -- they're just bringing narrower-chassis cars to parity with what others (like an E46 M3) have OEM. But that's been discussed, and I doubt is the intent of the rule.

 

Svilen Kanev, #122 ST4 NorCal (with "wide body" fenders)

Neither fender venting nor wide body fenders are permitted in ST4, so sure, we can say "and/or" if it makes it easier to understand.   Thx.

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:08 AM, Bryan Heitman said:

M2 CS racing without modifier and can run non-DOT. Why the disparity in treatment between the mx5 cup car and the m2 cs racing? Arguably the CS racing is more exotic race car than the mx5 and double the price.

The MX-5 Cup has a -0.0 Mod Factor and is permitted in ST4.  The M2 CS is permitted in ST1-3.  If you want to run the MX-5 Cup in ST1-3, you can run non-DOT tires. 

[Greg G.]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:13 AM, daytonars4 said:

@Greg G. I’m curious what data was used to determine that an M2CS factory car should not even get the .2 mod. In Midatlantic we probably have one of the most developed M2’s in the country. The racing has seemed extremely balanced with the e46’s with them having a very mild acceleration advantage. The M2 has a top 3 laptime of the season at VIR, only the Camaro’s have been faster. So what dictated that the second fastest car in the field should reduce weight for 2023? I don’t have an opinion either way, just curious what thought process went into this. A bone stock M2 isn’t very fast, so I would agree there no mod is needed. But an M2 with upgraded suspension and aero doesn’t need any help from the 2022 version of rules. 
 

Also not sure if it’s being noticed, but a -.3 mod for over 305mm is really only -.1 or -.2. The added weight just forces anyone into the next tier of weight mod for a weight bonus of .1 or .2 depending. Which is why overall it’s weird to be giving cars bonuses if they are on 335 and 345mm tires.  

We put the burden on the requesting competitor to prove that the M2 CS factory car had nothing on it that could not be replicated by a grassroots competitor starting with the production vehicle.   It appears that is the case based on what we were able to confirm.  If you or anyone else has verified information to the contrary, and there are BMW proprietary modifications not on the market that cannot be replicated, we would look at reversing this.