'07 Rules Pre-release Talk--split topic from Provis.

[Greg G.]

What is the OEM curb weight on the TurboII? Can the online calculator get this added to its database for the various cars?

 

Actually, it's 2775 lbs. I think I was looking at the GSL-SE weights when I wrote the above comment about the weight differences. Either way, the Turbo II's were still fairly classed as TTE** in '06. I'm not sure if they will get a bump to TTD in '07 yet. The non-turbo RX-7's are fine where they are now.

 

Any idea when we'll know? It's probably the difference between my car landing in TTA or TTU (and associated PT/SU)... assuming I finally get it going this year.

 

We are shooting for 11-30-06 for release of TT/PT/ST/SU rules. One note for turbos--the plan is for any upgraded turbos or superchargers to be treated the same as aftermarket addition of forced induction--i.e. dyno testing and actual weight for re-classing of the vehicle.

[gkmccready]

We are shooting for 11-30-06 for release of TT/PT/ST/SU rules. One note for turbos--the plan is for any upgraded turbos or superchargers to be treated the same as aftermarket addition of forced induction--i.e. dyno testing and actual weight for re-classing of the vehicle.

 

That'll probably kill my car since it'll be woefully undertired for its power until I add some fender flares... the front tires on my stock C6 coupe are 40mm wider than my RX7s rears and I'm expecting the same rwhp!

[jrerin]

Greg,

 

Could you clarify????? Turbos....... any modification from stock??? You can keep the same size turbo and change the wheels...compressor or exhaust and the waste gate but not change the size ie a gt 35 is a gt35 and still get a significant gain in HP...... so unless you keep the original turbo stock and do not change the waste gate or waste gate actuator then you can still port or polish the turbo and get some gain????? so where are we going with this.....

 

Russ

 

P.S. Unless we pull the turbo we cannot see if we have a cheater…. It can look stock but smell different.

[slowoldpoop]

We are shooting for 11-30-06 for release of TT/PT/ST/SU rules. One note for turbos--the plan is for any upgraded turbos or superchargers to be treated the same as aftermarket addition of forced induction--i.e. dyno testing and actual weight for re-classing of the vehicle.

 

Sounds like SCCA all over again. Anything to cripple turbos.

 

So, you want me to spend $500 at AMS in Chicago (the only AWD dyno available to me) for a dyno run, plus $300 to tow it over there (gas at 9 mpg, a night in hotel, meals, etc.), and take a day off from work.

 

What's wrong with your fancy GPS calculator? Why can't you use that instead? From what I hear, it is uncannily accurate. You could, for example, require that any class-winning car carry a GPS at the next event.

 

I can see doing all this at the nationals, but for regional TTs too?

 

What happens if I show up at the next NASA event, register for TTB, and don't have a dyno sheet? Are you going to bar me? Put me in TTR? Allow anyone in TTB to protest me?

 

Rich

[StealthTT]

 

We are shooting for 11-30-06 for release of TT/PT/ST/SU rules. One note for turbos--the plan is for any upgraded turbos or superchargers to be treated the same as aftermarket addition of forced induction--i.e. dyno testing and actual weight for re-classing of the vehicle.

 

Oh boy, this opens a can of worms. First off let me tell you I appreciate all the hard work in building Time Trial racing. I appreciate having a well organized place to race. Private HPDE's can be downright scary when you're out there with unskilled drivers in control of 3000lb weapons and no instructors. In looking at the classes I think you're doing a pretty good job so far. The attention to detail in different trim levels and even euro spec versus US cars is very good. I even agree with grouping cars with similar weight to hp ratios. But average hp should be used. I don't think a dyno should be the place to measure that number. Dyno numbers are hard to get for some of us and then can easily be manipulated or even unintentionally wrong.

 

While we're discussing even playing fields, I think tire size and aero should have a bigger impact pointswise. I think there is a much bigger difference in increasing tire width then the 1 point penalty assesses. Likewise with aero. FYI, a one point assessment is what you get for an under drive pulley too. Think their equal?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Please tell me you are going to use average hp instead of peak. There is a big difference between the ways a car can make peak hp:

 

1) A naturally aspirated car making 300ft/lbs of torque at 2000rpm and able to maintain that all the way to redline.

 

2) A supercharged car making the same amount of torque and subsequent hp as the first example.

 

3) A turbocharged small displacement car making 495 peak hp at redline and maybe only half that at 3500rpm.

 

Of the three cars does anyone think they are equals?

 

Now, can the third car overcome that deficit? Yes, but at a great cost in points from an electronic boost controller and/or a timing controller.

 

Should that 3rd car be outclassed just because the driver prefers a small displacement turbocharged vehicle? The weight difference is already handled in the formula. What other advantage does the 3rd car have over the first two to make up for the big disadvantage in peak versus average hp?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Next, all wheel drive dynos are expensive, hard to come by, and are subsequently always booked solid for months in the Midwest. As SlowOldPoop reported, some of us will have to travel quite a distance, take time off work, and pay for gas, food, and hotel in order to get a dyno slip. If you can do it with GPS, I don't see a reason to require a dyno slip for classification. If there's a dispute, install the GPS and weigh the car.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Then there is the question of the accuracy of those dyno slips. Different dyno's just read high or low by design. There is no correction factor for the brand/style of dyno. It is however quite easy to "massage" the numbers by applying corrections. Even just doing multiple dyno runs without ample cooling off can drop the hp numbers 5-10%!

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

In my opinion the current assessment of points for tire width is too low. I have seen the big impact that bigger shoes have on the same car's lap times. One gentleman was going at least 10mph faster (110 versus 100) through the kink at Road America with 30mm wider tires. This was a Mitsubishi 3000GT with 275 versus the stock 245, so it would be a 1 point assessment. I've seen the same result in carousels, high speed sweepers, heck, I'll just save my breath, we all know wider tires help everywhere on a track.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

There is a huge difference in the wings. You have the $800-1000 APR carbon fiber wing commonly found on a JGTC car. Then there is the less than $50 home-made gurney flap tacked on the trunk or a simple wing without a computer modeled surface as is the case with the APR. Both of those are assessed a 2 point penalty (1 if your car came with a wing stock). These wings obviously aren't performance equals, but the wickerbill would help stabilize the car somewhat at high speeds increasing it's safety. If you start adding these kinds of mods up you end up with a very expensive race car like the AMS shop EVO that won TTU at Nationals this year. I'm going to have to watch my mods very carefully so I don't end up in TTU because I can't outspend these types of competitors with the current point assessments.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks for your time if you read all this. I just want to be able to compete rather than be forced to buy a different car. I don't want my turbocharged V6 with mildly upgraded turbos (maybe around 400 peak hp) classed with a naturally aspirated or supercharged torque monster with the same weight to "peak" hp ratio, monster tires, and a $1000 wing.

 

-Mike

[slowoldpoop]

As long as you are penalizing turbo cars, what about all the others? Why not make EVERYBODY running in TT produce a dyno sheet? I ran against a wicked fast S2000 at RA, who had "only" 240 hp. Yeah, right. Sure he did. And some of those Vettes I run against are screamers. With demon internal tweaks, they put up huge horsepower, but nobody can tell what they've done just by looking. Only a dyno sheet will tell for sure.

 

So penalize everybody by making all cars produce dyno sheets.

 

I think EVERY CAR, from TTA to TTR, should produce a dyno sheet! Let's make it so expensive that only the cars with big sponsors and lots of money can afford to compete...just like SCCA.

 

Or you could drop the proposed rule. Seems to me everything is pretty fair right now.

 

The AMS Evo is moving up to TTR, so that will even out the competition in TTU.

 

The S2000 is moving up to terrorize TTB, making TTC more competitive.

 

And you constantly adjust car classifications to even things out.

 

So what's the beef?

 

Why are you doing this in the first place? Having only run two NASA events, I don't pretend to know all the insider issues, other than the AMS Evo and the S2000, who seem to have embarrassed the Big Boys. Is there something else?

 

Rich

[loudes13]

guys this just makes it fair.

 

#1 dyno time isn't that expensive, and many events have a dyno at the track.

 

Racers have to dyno too. I don't know what the cost is for being dyno'd at the track in a class where it's required???

[slowoldpoop]

guys this just makes it fair.

 

#1 dyno time isn't that expensive, and many events have a dyno at the track.

 

Racers have to dyno too. I don't know what the cost is for being dyno'd at the track in a class where it's required???

 

Not an AWD dyno. Those are EXPENSIVE! And scarce.

TT is not a race class. Allegedly, it's a low-cost way to enter racing. Or used to be.

 

Rich

[rrrracer]

Allen, the problem is that they have AWD cars... and unless Backstreet performs a major upgrade to their rig, they will not be able to dyno at the track.

 

Has the AMS car been reclassified as-is, or is it moving up to TTR because of more modificatoins?

 

Lest we not forget, Danny Popp cleaned house on the AMS car's best time by two seconds at the last Mid-O regional in his C5 Z06... and five seconds faster than my best time in the Chick Car

 

S

[RW]

There's always HPDE for those that don't like it...

[slowoldpoop]

Has the AMS car been reclassified as-is, or is it moving up to TTR because of more modificatoins?

 

I don't want to speak for AMS, but it is my understanding that they see more Evos and DSMs entering NASA events, and they don't want to compete against their own customers.

 

Lest we not forget, Danny Popp cleaned house on the AMS car's best time by two seconds at the last Mid-O regional in his C5 Z06... and five seconds faster than my best time in the Chick Car

S

 

Someody dyno POpp's Z06!

 

All seriousness aside, you're a tech guy. What's all this about?

Crikies, I just started with NASA, and all of a sudden you are coming down on turbo cars. Did the AMS car provoke something?

 

I know that there are a dozen or so AWD and FWD turbo DSMs and 3000GTs preparing to run TT next year across the country, in everything from TTD to TTU, because it is such a neat series, and SCCA has no place for us. Now, all of a sudden, you are trying to drive us away.

 

What gives? What did turbo cars do to provoke your wrath?

 

Rich

[firehawkclone]

There's always HPDE for those that don't like it...

 

Ditto!

 

Lets see...

 

Turbo motors, AWD, under 3000lbs and your mad

 

EDIT: Our National TT director drive a turbo car

[StealthTT]

There's always HPDE for those that don't like it...

 

That's really helpful, if it's aimed at me. I provided logical arguments against a proposed rule that is flawed to favor certain types of vehicles.

Can you refute that using peak hp will not pit equal cars in the same class?

Do you have an argument against the flaws in the assessment for tires or aero?

Was that really your best response?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've done some more poking around and I see that the rule-makers and rule-enforcers are balanced, transparent, and strive to make the classes as equal as possible. The detail in the car classification, the mid-season changes, and the motor swap classifications show the commitment to leveling the playing field.

 

That along with lots of track time is why the word of mouth has been excellent for NASA. I know of quite a few turbo awd cars that plan to run HPDE and TT next year based on this season's race reports on internet forums. We're all anxiously awaiting the new CCR so we can mod (or de-mod) to be in a competitive class.

 

Don't make a bad rule that'll keep alot of people from racing.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If anyone needs clarification, I can explain in more detail or provide some math if that's how your brain thinks. It's not my opinion that using peak hp is flawed, it's a proveable fact. As far as tires and aero, that's tougher, but there are racing simulation programs that can easily show the advantage of increasing tire width and aero with the output of laptimes and even isolation of sections of a track. Or is it safe to assume we're on the same page since no one has yet countered my arguments?

[StealthTT]

Ditto!

 

Lets see...

 

Turbo motors, AWD, under 3000lbs and your mad

 

EDIT: Our National TT director drive a turbo car

 

Turbo = less average hp at a given peak hp (as well as less torque as long as we're talking about going fast), boost leaks, melted parts from the hot turbo(s), exhaust leaks pre-turbo decrease power significantly

 

AWD = front heavy car since the tranny is in front of the front axles, awd helps accelerating out of a corner, but the front heavy location of the weight counters some of that

 

under 3000lbs = Slow old poop is probably right around 3000, but the car is very front heavy because all the weight reduction is in the cabin and hatch. As mentioned before the tranny and engine are in front of the front axles.

 

My Dodge Stealth will weigh in at about 3400 with roll cage and planned weight reduction mods. Once again a ton of that weight is in front of the front axles.

 

Average hp to weight ratio is fair. Peak hp to weight is not. Do you need the math shown?

[firehawkclone]

Ditto!

 

Lets see...

 

Turbo motors, AWD, under 3000lbs and your mad

 

EDIT: Our National TT director drive a turbo car

 

Turbo = less average hp at a given peak hp (as well as less torque as long as we're talking about going fast), boost leaks, melted parts from the hot turbo(s), exhaust leaks pre-turbo decrease power significantly

 

AWD = front heavy car since the tranny is in front of the front axles, awd helps accelerating out of a corner, but the front heavy location of the weight counters some of that

 

under 3000lbs = Slow old poop is probably right around 3000, but the car is very front heavy because all the weight reduction is in the cabin and hatch. As mentioned before the tranny and engine are in front of the front axles.

 

My Dodge Stealth will weigh in at about 3400 with roll cage and planned weight reduction mods. Once again a ton of that weight is in front of the front axles.

 

Average hp to weight ratio is fair. Peak hp to weight is not. Do you need the math shown?

 

Motors, I could sit here and tell you eveything that is wrong with my 60 year old designd motor too, you picked your car! FYI my motors hp starts to drop off when yours starts making it! About half way down the straight away

 

AWD, well its still AWD isn't it! Again you picked that car!

 

And I feel your pain on being nose heavy!

 

Tires, well I don't think RA1's and V710's should be different points value's. Becuase most of us run them till they are done, and the RA1's are faster when old. But the rules have to be wrote in such way to limit the guys with a budget!

 

Aero, sometime it works and sometime it don't! You won't know until it goes to a windtunnel!

 

As I all ways say, Sometime you get lucky with a mod on your car!

 

I'm not trying to start something with you, this is just the way I see it!

 

LET'S JUST WAIT TILL THE RULES COME OUT!

[John Graber]

Did anyone really think the rules would be very simple and easy to manage and interpret? Unfortunately, as more cars come into TT we see areas of needed improvement that need to be addressed. It will never be perfect, but we hope to make it as fair as possible for everyone. There are definitely some cars that are missclassed, and there are definitely areas within the rules where a few points or a few upgrade combinations provide exponential gains. Hopefully we can address those in a fair way.

If you look at the top class times around the Country you will see an average of 2-3 seconds per lap from class to class. Considering you get 19 points to stay in your class it's tough to claim a point here or a point there really makes that much of an impact.

 

My interpretation is that the goal of TT isn't necessarily to allow cheap stock cars to compete. It's to allow cars of all types and designs to have an avenue to compete. The goal is to make it fair for everyone and that means constantly tweaking the rules to keep the playing field level.

 

As for the AWD issues and dyno's it's a tough issue. If you don't have one you'd be placed in TTU. Even though it's only a "regional event" there are lots of competitors who want to win and it isn't fair to them to not have a level playing field. GPS is a good solution, but very costly and time consuming to monitor. Maybe we can draw enough AWD cars to put them in their own class!

 

The bottom line is the system will continue to evolve. Everyone's constructive input helps the system to get better. Please continue to provide feedback, but understand each item is reviewed from many different angles before it is fully interpreted and acted upon. It takes a lot of evidence and experience to really appreciate what has gone into the TT program. If you are not winning it may not be a rules issue.

 

DISCLAIMER: These are just my views and do not reflect those of the National organization or the National TT Director.

 

John

[slink]

that s2000 at road america has 205 hp and 142 torque (13.7 w-hp ratio) at the wheels just had it dyno 2 days before road america. a add on supercharger would be nice with 308hp at the wheels @2742 lbs with out driver 8.90 w-hp ratio

[RW]

That's really helpful, if it's aimed at me. I provided logical arguments against a proposed rule that is flawed to favor certain types of vehicles.

Can you refute that using peak hp will not pit equal cars in the same class?

Do you have an argument against the flaws in the assessment for tires or aero?

Was that really your best response?

 

 

You only see rules that are flawed if they go against you...as do most people. I suggest finding a way to make it work in your favor (like most people) or find a different car. There will always be people that bitch about the way things are rather than doing something about it. There are cars that are more suited towards the "general" TT rules than others. For example, Pat L. has an Audi in TTA that absolutely kicks my a$$ into the next millenium and I'm running a mustang with points maxed out. That being said, I don't feel like running out and buying an Audi, so I work on beating the cars I am competitive with. Enough rambling...blah blah blah.

[Greg G.]

I spent an hour writing a detailed response to some of the more inciting (not insightful) as well as the thoughtful comments on here, but, of course, when I tried to submit it, I lost the whole thing. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to spend on detailed explanations (or defense as it seems from some posts--but I should know that's how it goes by this point) on these complex issues now. If I spend too much time here, the rules will not be ready by the end of the month. So, I'll briefly address a few issues:

 

1) Nobody is trying to "cripple" or punish turbo cars or their owners. I drive a turbo car, and I guarantee anyone that is in the TTB class, that you want us to change these rules. If we don't, I (and probably others) will bring out TTB cars that will make the top TTA Z06's wonder why they just got pulled on the back straight by a Neon, WRX, Probe, MX-5, etc. There is too much possible power gain to be had when upgrading to a larger turbo, or modifying a turbo (bored housing with larger compressor wheels, etc), that is impossible to "predict" on a large scale basis in order to fairly assign a point value for the modification. 7 points is clearly not enough (even when you add in the ECU, fuel injector, wastegate actuator, and boost controller (if nec.) points. Depending on the engine displacement, strength of the OEM internal components, and size of the aftermarket turbo, there is a huge variation in the power gains possible (on the order of 25 hp to 500 hp). Now, factor in that some of the lowest base classed turbo cars are lighter weight (classed lower because their OEM power is not great), and you have a set-up for some giant killers to be born. Now, if we assign 20, 30, or 40 points for upgrading the turbo, I'm sure that many of you will be even more unhappy. As well, it would really be just a best guess at the average gains obtained by the largest number of cars. That would not prevent a car from still sneaking up from the lower ranks with an amazing power/wt ratio, and, it would certainly result in many cars being unfairly assessed too many points.

 

So, something is going to change to try and get these cars fairly classed before we have big problems with them in '07. BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with AMS or the Evo. It could have something to do with a (100% legal) TTA/PTA Audi, though, or an SRT4 that is bound to come out as a TTB class killer with 100-130 more usable hp than when in TTC. But, it's not about a particular car or driver. It's about continuing with our philosophy of trying to equalize the playing field for ALL. Is it our fault that many drivers are choosing to drive AWD cars with upgraded turbos, that are very difficult to ensure compliance (or even class fairly to begin with). No, but we still stive to class them fairly, and give their competitors some assurance that we are able to monitor them. Every change we have made to try to equalize these cars hasn't seemed to have hamstringed them yet. The GPS units provided a nice tool in helping to verify compliance, but unless every car in TT has one, and we change the entire structure of NASA TT to class cars based on their maximum acceleration and deceleration, they are not optimal for use to class cars. I do expect for us to continue to use them to help verify compliance, and possibly expand their use on a more regular basis for higher level cars operating under new '07 rules.

 

So, I'll open up Pandora's box, and ask you bright folks with upgraded turbos how many points you think that particular upgrade is worth as a fair assessment (and how much hp you got from it).

 

2)

But average hp should be used. I don't think a dyno should be the place to measure that number.

 

Ok, I have to ask. Where exactly would you propose that we do measure average hp? Average hp would have to be measured on a dyno as well, wouldn't it? Since there are almost 700 model groups of cars that are classed based on maximum hp and tq values, how would you propose that those 5000+ cars get classed, since "average hp" is not a readily available value for ANY of them. I agree that taking an average of torque (or hp) values across the usable power band for a vehicle is a more accurate reflection of its power capabilities. However, it is not logistically possible under our paradigm. I think that the GTS and USTCC race series came a little closer to reality by using the wt/ (hp + tq)/2 ratio for cars with higher tq than hp numbers, but much more than that is beyond the scope of our ability to verify compliance anyway. I would expect for that formula, or a similar variant to be used for the classing of our new high level classes. Also, remember that in this discussion of hp and tq, there are multiple issues that muddy the waters once we put the motors into a car. Transmission, final drive gearing, tire size, LSD, and tire grip all play big factors in determining what is really "usable" power. In racing, TQ has more value than in TT if one is able to slow the momentum of a chasing car that can only run between 7k and 10k rpm. Whereas, with open track, if a car is geared correctly to be able to run between its limited high rpm range the entire track, there is little to no deficit from not having big torque numbers.

 

3) $500 for a few dyno pulls to get a baseline is ridiculous. It costs about $35-$100 for a 2wd on the West Coast, and $80-$125 for an AWD. Also, I can't believe that the large majority of cars that have aftermarket turbos weren't dyno tuned. The dyno numbers are for a baseline for classing. Compliance with those numbers is the participant's job. In fact, if a participant submits a dyno sheet, but feels the numbers are low, he/she can always ask for the car's classing to be based on a higher number to ensure a safety margin to prevent DQ.

 

4)

Now, can the third car overcome that deficit? Yes, but at a great cost in points from an electronic boost controller and/or a timing controller.

Actually, once a car is classed based on it's actual dyno numbers and weight, there are no points assigned for engine or weight reduction mods. The car must be re-assessed if additional mods are made, but once someone is at the point of modifying a car with upgraded turbo (or added turbo/supercharger for that matter), we just look at the final product for real power values--no points for those mods.

 

5) I'm sure that some of the shops that sponsor drivers in our series will help out with getting cars dyno'd in a reasonable timeframe (at a reasonable cost). Your regional TT Director (or I) should be able to help you arrange this if there is a problem. For now, the timeframe is what, about 4-5 months for the drivers in the North/Mid-West before they hit the track again?

 

6) The points for tire width and type, and aero/wings will be changing (significantly would be my bet). I'm sure I'll hear more complaints about this one than this little turbo issue Remember, we are trying to Equalize things. Cars running with 295's (for no points) in a class mostly with cars with 225-235's is not fair unless the base classing has adequately assessed those OEM larger tire sizes. We are working out the details on this, but I expect this to be the biggest change in terms of affecting the most number of participants (positively or negatively). Ultimately, I think that the large majority will see it as a very positive move for the series.

 

7) We don't want to require that everyone have a dyno sheet. It would be nice if nobody required a dyno sheet. But, in light of the current situation with some engine swaps and all aftermarket forced induction vehicles, it seems very necessary. Well, I guess the question is whether or not it is truly necessary to have the actual dyno sheet. Or, whether the participant can just name the number limits for the car. I think that for PT, we need the sheets (even though cheating a dyno isn't terribly hard with a turbo car--we need the permanent record for comparison with future testing under close eye that would be difficult to cheat). And, while I'm not so concerned that drivers would cheat without the sheets in tt, I am concerned that the drivers won't have accurate numbers. And, if they do well, they will get protested and end up getting dyno'd anyway. Those with AWD's could end up getting their cars "sealed" and having to dyno soon after an event. Is it possible to cheat a dyno--sure. However, the participant is cheating himself, because if he is asked to dyno and fails and/or fails GPS monitoring for the numbers given, he will be DQ'd with loss of points, etc, and nobody wants to see that.

 

Or you could drop the proposed rule. Seems to me everything is pretty fair right now....And you constantly adjust car classifications to even things out. So what's the beef?

I would say that everything was legal, but not necessarily "fair" in TTA last year--but again, it could have been any class. Most of our other classes had very close lap times with the fastest cars/drivers. This did not go unnoticed, and it is clearly one of the biggest loopholes in the TT rules regarding power increases. I don't want TT turning into TTO (Turbo Time Only).

Class adjustments are inappropriate when it is a specific car with a specific modification that is underclassed. This specific modification yields such wide variations in gains, that it is impossible to fairly assess points en mass.

 

Sorry, that's all I have time for right now. But, feel free to continue a Constructive discussion. Everyone's input is appreciated as long as it is presented in a contructive format. That doesn't mean that we will agree with your analysis or suggestions, but we do read this stuff, and we are willing to make changes when necessary without an act of Congress. As well, we do appreciate our new drivers that are choosing to try our style of competition.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Guest

[IGZOSTD]

So am I reading this right . once the dyno has been compleated , I do not recieve points for all the modifacations to the engine , and same for the weight . that would mean only points for areo , brakes and suspension.correct me if I'm wrong . the dyno and total wt. + driver .

[Greg G.]

If your car requires dyno testing because of an engine swap, then the dyno testing, weighing, and classing of the vehicle takes place after you are finished modding the car, and ready for competition. Since all of the engine mod and weight reduction assessments have effectively been accounted for in the re-classing, there are no points assessments for these items. Unless you make further modifications to the power plant or car's weight, retesting is only necessary if requested by a NASA TT official for compliance purposes.

[slowoldpoop]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve with my criticisms. I guess we'll have to wait until the rules come out to see how bad turbo cars get screwed. Still, I woud like to repeat:

 

1. It costs a ton in the Midwest to get a car onto an AWD dyno. This is an unfair penalty against AWD cars.

 

2. If you dyno turbo cars, then every car in those classes should be dynoed, too. Non-turbo cars can be modded to the hilt in ways nobody can detect without a tear-down.

 

3. If you invoke this dyno rule, you risk turning away many DSM and 3000GT turbo cars that were planning to compete next year. NASA is trying to grow, not turn into another dying SCCA. This rule is counter-productive for growth in TT.

 

4. Such a rule should only be applicable at the Nationals, and can be enforced with GPS (as it was this year). In fact, GPS is the only fair and equitable solution.

 

and a new objection...

 

5. Putting a car without a dyno sheet into TTU is a little extreme. How about just a bump up one class?

 

Rich

[GooRoo]

Hey Rich, this is Andy, the one with the black RX-7.

 

I just wanted to say that I can verify 100% that Slinkard's S2000 does not have the power you think it does... In the third session Sunday at RA I waited for him and followed him around for a lap or two, just for fun. I would literally go to 5th gear (my highest and too tall for track use) short shifting 3rd/4th by 2-3000 rpm down the straights and still have no problem keeping up with him at half my max boost. Now, you get to the corners and I would have to brake and turn at/near my limit to stay with him... He throws that car into the corners and it sticks! I actually have some good footage of it I can post sometime when I get it captured.

 

Slinkard is an exceptional driver... his car is well sorted... he has a lot of experience setting up cars. If his car didn't break at nationals my guess is that he would have at least one national TT championship. The more turns in the track, the closer his times are to mine because my power edge doesn't matter as much.

 

The NASA guys have an exceptionally difficult problem trying to class the hundreds of cars and all the billions of mods that there are to try to keep it competitive. They are only going to be able to lay out the rules, see how it goes, and modify as necessary. If you need all the cars to be the same, run a spec series where they specify everything (spec miata)... oh wait, the truth is that even there the difference in cars can be huge.

 

You and I both have the same problem... we have cars that we've already modified fairly extensively that we are trying to bring into the NASA system. We are going to have mods that aren't worth the points, because they have to assign them based on *potential* for improvement, and the decision to de-mod is rough. My water injection system was installed *only* to make sure my motor is safe, yet I'm docked a bunch of points for it because someone could use it to run high boost/power. Some things you are just going to have to eat for monetary reasons.

 

If you want the car to be competitive the mindset you have to have is to take the car and make it fit the rules, not the other way around. Go over every mod and see if the points could be better spent elsewhere. Some things you may not have a choice, like a turbo setup that you've already bought, and some places you may choose to do mods that cost you points but don't make you go any faster. It's all up to you.

 

Lets wait for the rules, ask them clarifications/updates where necessary, and go about modifying the car to our best advantage!

[Greg G.]

Still, I woud like to repeat:

1. It costs a ton in the Midwest to get a car onto an AWD dyno. This is an unfair penalty against AWD cars. Rich

 

And, I repeat, do you guys actually build cars with an aftermarket turbo (and therefore ECU, fuel injectors, etc) and not dyno tune them? Don't you have a dyno sheet for them? I guess if you have a built-in wide band 02 sensor, you can street tune them, but most of the turbo cars that I know of that have aftermarket turbos were tuned on a chassis (or engine) dyno. As well, I'm sure we can help get reasonable rates for the AWD guys, especially if we threw in a little PR for the shop.

 

2. If you dyno turbo cars, then every car in those classes should be dynoed, too. Non-turbo cars can be modded to the hilt in ways nobody can detect without a tear-down.

We aren't going to dyno all turbo cars--only those that have altered the turbo itself (not just alterations in boost/wga/fuel/maps etc.). And, we have, and will continue to dyno plenty of non-turbo cars as the need arises for compliance purposes.

 

3. If you invoke this dyno rule, you risk turning away many DSM and 3000GT turbo cars that were planning to compete next year. NASA is trying to grow, not turn into another dying SCCA. This rule is counter-productive for growth in TT.

And if we don't change the rule, we risk turning away hundreds more non-turbo cars (and OEM turbo cars) that want to compete on a level playing field. Any rule that helps equalize the classes is pro-active, and will ultimately help the growth of NASA TT. You are correct that we need a balance between burdonsome rules and fairness, which is why we have decided not to go to a 100% dyno test classing structure like the GTS race series (at least for the cars in TTA and below).

 

4. Such a rule should only be applicable at the Nationals, and can be enforced with GPS (as it was this year). In fact, GPS is the only fair and equitable solution.

Since you are new, I suppose that you don't realize how serious some of our Regional Championship competitions are. I haven't read your answer to my Pandora's Box question yet. Once again, how many points would you assess for an upgraded turbo (and how much power increase did you personally see on your car)? If there is a Supra that gains 300 hp, and a WRX that gains 75 hp, do you really think it's fair for them to be assessed the same number of points (in the Regional competition as well)? If you don't care about the Regional Competition being fair, then why do you care if these upgraded turbo cars without dyno testing get bumped to TTU?

 

and a new objection...

 

5. Putting a car without a dyno sheet into TTU is a little extreme. How about just a bump up one class?

Bump one class from where--the class the car would be in with no points for the aftermarket turbo? So, you think that the aftermarket (larger) turbo is only worth 20 points then? Perhaps you are right for many cars, but what about the twin turbos--bump them two, three classes? What about a single turbo car that gains over 100 hp (mine certainly could), and starts in a lower class like TTF? That car will likely move up 2-3 classes based on dyno testing and actual wt/power ratio. What about lightweight cars like the turbo Miatas? I suppose we could have a fall-back points number other than just a move to TTU, but it would have to be so high that nobody would want to use it instead of getting appropriately classed by dyno/weighing. And, let's say it was 40 points for single turbos, and 60 points for twin turbos--that would most likely move most of those cars to TTU anyway.

 

(This is not directed at Rich or anyone in particular--more of a rhetorical ramble--I'm sure there are others out there that agree with Rich on this issue)---With all of the time we turbo owners have to spend keeping these turbo cars running, tuned, and safe, are some of you seriously telling me that it's that difficult to get the car dyno'd (once)? My car gets dyno'd probably 2-3 times a year just due to maintenance issues. Or, is the major problem that some of you don't want the car appropriately assessed for it's power level? 400 whp for a car weighing less than 3000 pounds is very unlikely to be appropriate for TTB, unless it has square tires--just checking.......

[slowoldpoop]

Still, I woud like to repeat:

1. It costs a ton in the Midwest to get a car onto an AWD dyno. This is an unfair penalty against AWD cars. Rich

 

And, I repeat, do you guys actually build cars with an aftermarket turbo (and therefore ECU, fuel injectors, etc) and not dyno tune them? Don't you have a dyno sheet for them? I guess if you have a built-in wide band 02 sensor, you can street tune them, but most of the turbo cars that I know of that have aftermarket turbos were tuned on a chassis (or engine) dyno. As well, I'm sure we can help get reasonable rates for the AWD guys, especially if we threw in a little PR for the shop.

 

We tried to get the car into AMS for a dyno tune, but it was a two-month wait and $400 per hour. So we street tune with the O2 sensor. AWD dynos are hard to find around here.

 

2. If you dyno turbo cars, then every car in those classes should be dynoed, too. Non-turbo cars can be modded to the hilt in ways nobody can detect without a tear-down.

We aren't going to dyno all turbo cars--only those that have altered the turbo itself (not just alterations in boost/wga/fuel/maps etc.). And, we have, and will continue to dyno plenty of non-turbo cars as the need arises for compliance purposes.

 

That is good to hear. Some of those Z06es need to be monitored.

 

3. If you invoke this dyno rule, you risk turning away many DSM and 3000GT turbo cars that were planning to compete next year. NASA is trying to grow, not turn into another dying SCCA. This rule is counter-productive for growth in TT.

And if we don't change the rule, we risk turning away hundreds more non-turbo cars (and OEM turbo cars) that want to compete on a level playing field. Any rule that helps equalize the classes is pro-active, and will ultimately help the growth of NASA TT. You are correct that we need a balance between burdonsome rules and fairness, which is why we have decided not to go to a 100% dyno test classing structure like the GTS race series (at least for the cars in TTA and below).

 

I agree, it is a problem. However, when this gets around the DSM and 3000GT forums, you can bet there will be a lot of people reconsidering their entry into NASA racing.

 

4. Such a rule should only be applicable at the Nationals, and can be enforced with GPS (as it was this year). In fact, GPS is the only fair and equitable solution.

Since you are new, I suppose that you don't realize how serious some of our Regional Championship competitions are. I haven't read your answer to my Pandora's Box question yet. Once again, how many points would you assess for an upgraded turbo (and how much power increase did you personally see on your car)? If there is a Supra that gains 300 hp, and a WRX that gains 75 hp, do you really think it's fair for them to be assessed the same number of points (in the Regional competition as well)? If you don't care about the Regional Competition being fair, then why do you care if these upgraded turbo cars without dyno testing get bumped to TTU?

 

I am beginning to learn how serious people take all this. I got into this stuff regarding TT as a stepping stone to race classes--that is, an inexpensive way to get experience passing in traffic (and being passed), make the necessary mods for the race class, take the NASA driving course, and move up to a race class later on. I never intended to stay in TT. But I see that there are people who will spend billions of dollars to win that pretty little gold-colored medal you hand out for a class win.

 

Reviewing the CCR, I see that we get assessed points for an upgraded turbo (7), chip/computer system (11), boost controller (3), intercooler (2) and water injection (6), or a total of 28 points. All of these are involved in a turbo upgrade. I have all but water injection, for example. Maybe one solution would be to lump all these mods into a single "turbo upgrade" mod, and invoke an automatic two-class jump (30 points), starting from the base classification. Then, any additional points for suspension, brakes, etc. get added on from there.

 

Alternatively, hp = boost. It might be possible to set a limit on the amount of boost. For example, you could set a limit of 14 psi in TTC, 18 psi in TTB, 25 psi in TTA and unlimited boost in TTU. This could be regulated with sealed blowoff valves. This would work for DSM and 3000GT cars. I don't know how other turbo cars react to boost settings.

 

and a new objection...

 

5. Putting a car without a dyno sheet into TTU is a little extreme. How about just a bump up one class?

Bump one class from where--the class the car would be in with no points for the aftermarket turbo? So, you think that the aftermarket (larger) turbo is only worth 20 points then? Perhaps you are right for many cars, but what about the twin turbos--bump them two, three classes? What about a single turbo car that gains over 100 hp (mine certainly could), and starts in a lower class like TTF? That car will likely move up 2-3 classes based on dyno testing and actual wt/power ratio. What about lightweight cars like the turbo Miatas? I suppose we could have a fall-back points number other than just a move to TTU, but it would have to be so high that nobody would want to use it instead of getting appropriately classed by dyno/weighing. And, let's say it was 40 points for single turbos, and 60 points for twin turbos--that would most likely move most of those cars to TTU anyway.

 

(This is not directed at Rich or anyone in particular--more of a rhetorical ramble--I'm sure there are others out there that agree with Rich on this issue)---With all of the time we turbo owners have to spend keeping these turbo cars running, tuned, and safe, are some of you seriously telling me that it's that difficult to get the car dyno'd (once)? My car gets dyno'd probably 2-3 times a year just due to maintenance issues. Or, is the major problem that some of you don't want the car appropriately assessed for it's power level? 400 whp for a car weighing less than 3000 pounds is very unlikely to be appropriate for TTB, unless it has square tires--just checking.......

 

AMS tells me my 3000-3200 lb car is making about 300-325 hp, based on the mods I have now. In other words, about the same as a Corvette. I wish it was making 400 hp!

 

Getting up into the Big Numbers requires a huge budget, because of all the issues involved, not the least of which is blowing motors at high boost. I would prefer to keep running in TTB with the car the way it is. From what I saw at RA, I will have plenty of close competition against evenly matched cars. On Saturday, for example, the lap time difference between me, the 2nd place Corvette, and the S2000 in TTC (who will be in TTB next year) was 0.3 seconds.

 

Once again, I see no need to invoke this rule.