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

[slowoldpoop]

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.

 

I ran nose to tail with him, too, and I agree with everything you say. The way he drives it, and the way it handles, it just SEEMS like he has 500 hp in that little beast. I had him on the straights but he ate me up in the corners. What's worse, he's moving into my class (TTB) next year! Grrr....

 

Of course, with all the turbo rules being bandied about, I might get booted out of TTB and into TTU. Then I'll have to deal with YOU! Oh, Lordy.

 

2007 should be mighty interesting. I will either be fighting for tenths of a second in TTB against Slinkard and Dedad or watching all the TTU cars go by from the back of the pack.

 

Rich

[StealthTT]

We don't dyno in the Midwest because:

 

1) Most dyno operators do not know how to tune a car safely for road racing. As anyone with a turbo car knows, you have to be much more conservative with the timing and heat. Most dyno operators in this area know how to tune for dragracing. There is a world of difference in tuning for 10 seconds versus 20 minutes.

 

2) There are not enough cars that mod to this level for roadracing especially in the Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska area. So the "tuners" are not accustomed to the different software and quirks of the different models. I've even had a very well known tuner from the San Francisco area call me to work through the quirks of the Mitsubishi 3000GT he was trying to tune.

 

3) Strap it on and make 3 pulls is typically around $125. If *any* tuning is done it's between $200-275/hour (AMS is $275). Then add a 4-6 hour tow, time off work, and hotel if it runs late. Then you'll oftentimes need to go back in and tweak it so it works on the track under race conditions. SlowOldPoop has a realtime detonation sensor that will often sound the alarm on a tune that was safe for the street.

 

4) So how do we tune? We teach ourselves. Our local group is mostly engineers of some sort or another. We use tools like wideband O2's, dataloggers, and are blessed with a stock detonation sensor on our Mitsubishis. We also conferr with 100's of other enthusiasts on forums, mailing lists, and phone/email. We can't go buy a book at Barnes & Nobles on how to hotrod our cars or open the phone book to performance shops and throw a dart at the page.

 

5) We do have 4-5 months until the first race next year. So if we have to conform we could most likely make it happen. However, several of us in the region plan major modifications with new motors, new turbo setups that haven't been attempted on our cars, and a bevy of other problems that will seriously expand our timeframe (not to mention our pesky real jobs). I know, I know, play the violin for me. Hopefully with the clout of NASA we could get a shop participant such as AMS to get us on the dyno in time.

 

Avg vs. Peak hp:

 

1) It would be tough to pick the useable rpm range of every car to find average hp. I figured the car owner would be the best person to pick that range. I was told the GPS monitor was very accurate and NASA's preferred method to figuring a car's hp. So I figured the competitor was best off supplying the number in his useable rpm range so his car didn't perform outside of his claimed average hp. But, See 2)

 

2) If you remove the points for boost controllers, timing controllers, water injection, and other things necessary to run at that power level when you present your car for re-classification, then I'll concede that peak hp would be the best option to class a vehicle as long as no other points were assessed for the necessary systems. It would be up to the competitor to use the systems to create the most useable hp within the peak hp.

 

3) NA cars can make extensive modifications bumping their hp up with little outside evidence. We all know that you can bore, stroke, and raise compression and achieve 50-100hp gains on a 350 or 5 liter. Race gas is legal, so the blocks the limit.

 

The S2000:

 

1) SlowOldPoop, you were faster in the straights, but he was much, much faster through the corners. In fact, we watched him put buslengths on other cars through the carousel at RA!! His 275 tires and suspension tuning were spot-on for the track. His left side and right side camber were probably 2 degrees different, which would help every right turn he made that day. He was just faster through the corners. Your 235 series tires and no aero were not enough to be competitive under the current rules. He's learned how to use the rules to his advantage. I've learned that's the name of the game.

 

Single versus Twin Turbos:

 

1) One turbo or two is largely based on the style of block (inline versus V style). A twin turbo configuration is just for packaging as you want the turbo as close to the combustion chamber as possible. There is no multiplying effect by adding turbos. They combine to pressurize the intake plenum the same as a single turbo. There is no gain to running two small turbos versus one large turbo of similar total cfm rating. In fact there is a weight penalty in running two.

 

 

Thank you for taking time to answer our concerns and work at making the classification fair. I'm simply trying to point out flaws so there is less crying later. After all, I want to see the MidWest region grow and I don't want the masses to think that NASA is unfairly punishing turbos. I understand you are trying to make it equal. Thank you.

 

After all, you could tell us to go pound sand.

[jweiss]

The proposed requirement for cars with aftermarket turbos to get a dyno seems fair to me. I can't think of any other way to deal equally with the huge disparity in possible power increases related to turbo upgrades.

 

If you don't want to have to dyno your car, don't change the turbo. Spend your money on the multitude of other items that will make your car competitive and have well defined effects on vehicle performance and thus points assessed, such as suspension and tire upgrades.

 

Greg - are you moving up from TTC to TTB next year? I'm thinking about prepping my car for TTC and moving up from TTB... I'll also be racing in GTS-2 next year at MMP. Hope NASA can have more than one event there next year.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[firehawkclone]

We don't dyno in the Midwest because:

 

1) Most dyno operators do not know how to tune a car safely for road racing. As anyone with a turbo car knows, you have to be much more conservative with the timing and heat. Most dyno operators in this area know how to tune for dragracing. There is a world of difference in tuning for 10 seconds versus 20 minutes.

 

2) There are not enough cars that mod to this level for roadracing especially in the Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska area. So the "tuners" are not accustomed to the different software and quirks of the different models. I've even had a very well known tuner from the San Francisco area call me to work through the quirks of the Mitsubishi 3000GT he was trying to tune.

 

3) Strap it on and make 3 pulls is typically around $125. If *any* tuning is done it's between $200-275/hour (AMS is $275). Then add a 4-6 hour tow, time off work, and hotel if it runs late. Then you'll oftentimes need to go back in and tweak it so it works on the track under race conditions. SlowOldPoop has a realtime detonation sensor that will often sound the alarm on a tune that was safe for the street.

 

4) So how do we tune? We teach ourselves. Our local group is mostly engineers of some sort or another. We use tools like wideband O2's, dataloggers, and are blessed with a stock detonation sensor on our Mitsubishis. We also conferr with 100's of other enthusiasts on forums, mailing lists, and phone/email. We can't go buy a book at Barnes & Nobles on how to hotrod our cars or open the phone book to performance shops and throw a dart at the page.

 

5) We do have 4-5 months until the first race next year. So if we have to conform we could most likely make it happen. However, several of us in the region plan major modifications with new motors, new turbo setups that haven't been attempted on our cars, and a bevy of other problems that will seriously expand our timeframe (not to mention our pesky real jobs). I know, I know, play the violin for me. Hopefully with the clout of NASA we could get a shop participant such as AMS to get us on the dyno in time.

 

Avg vs. Peak hp:

 

1) It would be tough to pick the useable rpm range of every car to find average hp. I figured the car owner would be the best person to pick that range. I was told the GPS monitor was very accurate and NASA's preferred method to figuring a car's hp. So I figured the competitor was best off supplying the number in his useable rpm range so his car didn't perform outside of his claimed average hp. But, See 2)

 

2) If you remove the points for boost controllers, timing controllers, water injection, and other things necessary to run at that power level when you present your car for re-classification, then I'll concede that peak hp would be the best option to class a vehicle as long as no other points were assessed for the necessary systems. It would be up to the competitor to use the systems to create the most useable hp within the peak hp.

 

3) NA cars can make extensive modifications bumping their hp up with little outside evidence. We all know that you can bore, stroke, and raise compression and achieve 50-100hp gains on a 350 or 5 liter. Race gas is legal, so the blocks the limit.

 

The S2000:

 

1) SlowOldPoop, you were faster in the straights, but he was much, much faster through the corners. In fact, we watched him put buslengths on other cars through the carousel at RA!! His 275 tires and suspension tuning were spot-on for the track. His left side and right side camber were probably 2 degrees different, which would help every right turn he made that day. He was just faster through the corners. Your 235 series tires and no aero were not enough to be competitive under the current rules. He's learned how to use the rules to his advantage. I've learned that's the name of the game.

 

Single versus Twin Turbos:

 

1) One turbo or two is largely based on the style of block (inline versus V style). A twin turbo configuration is just for packaging as you want the turbo as close to the combustion chamber as possible. There is no multiplying effect by adding turbos. They combine to pressurize the intake plenum the same as a single turbo. There is no gain to running two small turbos versus one large turbo of similar total cfm rating. In fact there is a weight penalty in running two.

 

 

Thank you for taking time to answer our concerns and work at making the classification fair. I'm simply trying to point out flaws so there is less crying later. After all, I want to see the MidWest region grow and I don't want the masses to think that NASA is unfairly punishing turbos. I understand you are trying to make it equal. Thank you.

 

After all, you could tell us to go pound sand.

 

You have some good points...... And I hope the new change's don't make you do alot of stuff over again!

 

But on #3 you say only NA car's are doing these mods! Please don't be so blind! Anybody could right! Oh and I do take points for those mods that nobody can see! So please don't imply anything about the 350, 5.0 guys here!

 

And the tire issue, just get more tire and take the points for them! Like my +12

 

Don't even get me started on shocks and other suspension parts! Like my "race shocks" are any better than revalved "off the shelf" shocks in a 20min run! +5 or +6 for upper a-arms Sorry Greg, I had to! I'll wax the car for you next weekend!

 

It will all work out though, I hope! I'll end up in A I know it, with the hp of a C class car

 

Cheers

[gkmccready]

.

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.

 

This doesn't work at all. 10psi with a 60-1 on an RX-7 makes a lot more power than 10psi on the stock turbo... then look at the diameter of the piping, etc... volume of the vessel matters... and on and on.

 

What class do I have to pick to escape the non-sense? Is there an SU-like TT class? TTU? TTR?

 

And you guys are crazy about the Z06s, you already penalize them more than you should based on where you let the coupes run. You shouldn't penalize a car for one good driver...

[Greg G.]

Greg - are you moving up from TTC to TTB next year? I'm thinking about prepping my car for TTC and moving up from TTB... I'll also be racing in GTS-2 next year at MMP. Hope NASA can have more than one event there next year.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

 

I really don't have any plans for next year yet. During the rules revision process, I don't keep up with how my own car will end up. I wait until everything is settled, and then decide on the best approach based on my budget and potential to be competitive. So, I'm not sure if I'll be in TTC, TTB, or TTA, or even if I'll stay with my current car.

 

There is currently only one event scheduled for Miller in '07 (on the first weekend in June). I definitely want to go there again.

[StealthTT]

But on #3 you say only NA car's are doing these mods! Please don't be so blind! Anybody could right! Oh and I do take points for those mods that nobody can see! So please don't imply anything about the 350, 5.0 guys here!

 

 

I don't think I implied, let alone outright said, that only NA cars are boring, stroking, or raising compression. In #3 I added that they can, so they should be dyno'ed and re-classed if they claim the points and the hp/weight ratio gain is significant. For clarification, I think any car that takes those points should complete this process as well. There can be massive gains from running higher compression, bore, or stroke facilitated with higher octane gas.

 

I meant no ill will toward the 350 or 5.0 guys. I used to own a beautiful black fox body with a rippin' 5.0 that was quite fun.

 

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

 

 

It will all work out though, I hope! I'll end up in A I know it, with the hp of a C class car

 

Cheers

 

That's what we're all trying to avoid. This is what makes a non-spec class so difficult to run. We want to compete against our equals so that it comes down to driver ability and choice of places to mod. But you have wildly different cars that respond to different mods. I don't envy the NASA classification rule makers. I only spoke up because I didn't want to see a crippling rule that would keep a lot of my friends and aquaintances from competing.

 

I'm just glad that supporting systems won't be assessed points as well. I'd hate to be in TTU with a TTB car just because I have to run timing / fuel controllers, upgraded intercoolers, and water injection to keep the car running safely at my new hp/weight ratio.

 

FYI, if you care: The mitsubishi turbo cars are designed with the turbo almost maxed out from the factory. You can raise the boost to about 16psi, but the stock turbos move out of their efficiency island and require mods to control the high temperatures. Then to compund the problem, 3000GT turbos can peak around 5000rpm, but then they fall off immediately to 10-12 psi as the cams come on until the redline of 7200rpm. The torque just falls like a rock. So you can do exhaust and intake mods and gain another 40-50hp at the peak, but there's no helping the top end. You can't add timing because the turbos are creating so much heat just to keep up. If you want anything over 320 awhp or any top end power to move your 3400-3800lb car around, you have to replace the turbos. So to be competitive in hp/weight ratio, you put the car on a serious diet and replace the turbos.

 

As I said before, I'm just glad that supporting systems won't be assessed points as well. I'd hate to be in TTU with a TTB car just because I have to run timing / fuel controllers, upgraded intercoolers, water injection, etc. to keep the car running safely.

[860TTC]

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

 

That's absolutely wrong! Your Crazy! The turbo cars are ruling the series. They have a much high hp/weight ratio with simple modifications. It takes a lot of points to get hp out of an NA car.

 

Any car that can gain lots of hp for a low amount of points is going to rule it's class. We need to bring the classes back in line similar hp/weight ratio. In last years rules we had:

Engine swap: All engine swaps must be evaluated for new base classification by

the Regional and National TT Directors on an individual basis, unless a base class for

the particular swap is listed above in 6.2 Base Classifications or in Appendix A. The

following scheme will be used as a guideline; however, additional factors such as overall

weight, suspension, and the aerodynamic characteristics of the receiving vehicle will also be

taken into account: Weight/hp ratio <7.0 TTU, <8.5 TTA, <10.0 TTB, <11.5 TTC,

<13.5 TTD, <16.5 TTE, <21.0 TTF, all others TTG. Weight is defined as curb weight, and

horsepower is the number provided by the engine manufacturer.

 

But, in reality we had 350-500 rwhp cars in TTC!! That a hp/weight ration under 8.5!!! The rules must tight up the hp/weight ratio’s in the classes to keep thing competitive.

 

We had great battles all year long in TTB where the cars that showed up all had similar hp/weight ratios. But, the high hp TTC cars were destroying us!

 

If we want to be link the SCCA all over again, we can keep the rules set up so the only way to win is to have the right car and combo to loop hole thru the rules – Like the SCCA is set up.

[slowoldpoop]

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

 

That's absolutely wrong! Your Crazy! The turbo cars are ruling the series. They have a much high hp/weight ratio with simple modifications. It takes a lot of points to get hp out of an NA car.

 

And a lot of money, which does not seem to bother some people.

Crazy? Me? That was harsh. Fact is, SCCA does not want turbo or AWD cars. It has no classes for them.

 

We need to bring the classes back in line similar hp/weight ratio. In last years rules we had: additional factors such as overall weight, suspension, and the aerodynamic characteristics of the receiving vehicle will also be taken into account: Weight/hp ratio <7.0 TTU, <8.5 TTA, <10.0 TTB, <11.5 TTC, <13.5 TTD, <16.5 TTE, <21.0 TTF, all others TTG. Weight is defined as curb weight, and horsepower is the number provided by the engine manufacturer.

 

At 3200 lb and about 300 hp, I fit perfectly into TTB.

If this is how the proposed dyno sheet rule is going to be used, then I have no quarrel with such a weight/hp rule. Provided it is applied equally, not just against turbo cars.

 

But, in reality we had 350-500 rwhp cars in TTC!! That a hp/weight ration under 8.5!!! The rules must tight up the hp/weight ratio’s in the classes to keep thing competitive. We had great battles all year long in TTB where the cars that showed up all had similar hp/weight ratios. But, the high hp TTC cars were destroying us!

 

That proves my point more than anything that has been said so far. As I said, way back in this discussion, ALL cars should submit dyno sheets. Or be dynoed at the track. And, since NASA has scales, weigh the cars, too. If dynoing everybody proves to be a hassle, then just dyno and weigh class winners. If they fail the wt/hp limit for the class, they lose their trophy and their points. If NASA can't do it at every event, they should do it at SOME events, with no advance warning. Failure to meet the wt/hp limit at any time would cause loss of points for ALL events in that class, so class winners should be prepared to face scales and a dyno test any time, anywhere, with no warning.

 

I just want a level playing field. Getting a dyno sheet on an AWD car is an expensive PITA, but we'll do it. But why are we the only ones to be singled out? I assume you have no objection to having your class-winning TTB car weighed and dynoed. Anybody who is legal should have no objection.

[Rob S.]

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

 

That's absolutely wrong! Your Crazy! The turbo cars are ruling the series. They have a much high hp/weight ratio with simple modifications. It takes a lot of points to get hp out of an NA car.

 

Any car that can gain lots of hp for a low amount of points is going to rule it's class. We need to bring the classes back in line similar hp/weight ratio. In last years rules we had:

Engine swap: All engine swaps must be evaluated for new base classification by

the Regional and National TT Directors on an individual basis, unless a base class for

the particular swap is listed above in 6.2 Base Classifications or in Appendix A. The

following scheme will be used as a guideline; however, additional factors such as overall

weight, suspension, and the aerodynamic characteristics of the receiving vehicle will also be

taken into account: Weight/hp ratio <7.0 TTU, <8.5 TTA, <10.0 TTB, <11.5 TTC,

<13.5 TTD, <16.5 TTE, <21.0 TTF, all others TTG. Weight is defined as curb weight, and

horsepower is the number provided by the engine manufacturer.

 

But, in reality we had 350-500 rwhp cars in TTC!! That a hp/weight ration under 8.5!!! The rules must tight up the hp/weight ratio’s in the classes to keep thing competitive.

 

We had great battles all year long in TTB where the cars that showed up all had similar hp/weight ratios. But, the high hp TTC cars were destroying us!

 

If we want to be link the SCCA all over again, we can keep the rules set up so the only way to win is to have the right car and combo to loop hole thru the rules – Like the SCCA is set up.

 

 

I totally agree.....you can leave the stock turbo/wastegate completely alone and add a 3" exhaust and an open air filter and gain substantial horsepower for a few points. The same mods are done to an NA engine and you may gain 5-10 hp if you're lucky. As an example I took 12 points and gained 25 hp and a turbo car in my class took 2 points and gained 40 hp. Modifications to the exhaust of a turbo engine reduce back pressure, increase VE and will also result in more manifold pressure at the same wastegate setting. Fortunately or unfortunately I know this too well as all I do all day is design turbochargers for aftermarket and race applications for a large turbo company (starts w/ a "G").

 

Rules are not easy and are very dynamic. That's why rules are constantly changed even throughout the season to make the competition "FAIR" for everyone. Everyone involved with the 2006 Rules did a great job with the knowledge and experince at the time. Races have passed, competition has grown and people have learned. With that said, the rules need to be updated and I know that Greg and his team will do a great job with everyone's best interest in mind. An yes unfortunately racing is not cheap and especially when you get into high HP cars.

 

OK.....so enough with my blabbing. My suggestions are this:

 

1. Be patient and understanding to the people updated the rules. It's not an easy task.

2. Once the rules are set, deal with them and plan your 2007 season appropriately. Good drivers figure out how to go fast with the given rules....and they always do as evident by the rules constantly changing.

3. For modifications with stock turbochargers, there should be boosted points assessed and NA points. For example: cat-back exhaust - boosted 5 points, NA 1 point (ONLY AN EXAMPLE)

4. HAVE FUN!!!

 

For what it's worth.......

 

Greg and staff - please feel free to contact me if you have any turbo related questions down the road.

[StealthTT]

 

I totally agree.....you can leave the stock turbo/wastegate completely alone and add a 3" exhaust and an open air filter and gain substantial horsepower for a few points. The same mods are done to an NA engine and you may gain 5-10 hp if you're lucky. As an example I took 12 points and gained 25 hp and a turbo car in my class took 2 points and gained 40 hp. Modifications to the exhaust of a turbo engine reduce back pressure, increase VE and will also result in more manifold pressure at the same wastegate setting.

 

As we all know not all cars respond to the same mods. A catback exhaust on my car is not a restriction until you are making 450hp or more. It's about 3 inches from the factory. Catback exhausts have only shown a 10-20hp gain on cars making under 450hp! The stock exhaust is already fairly open, so the restriction is in the turbine section of the turbos and the piping directly after the turbos before the catback exhaust. I have a very small TDO4 housing in my stock Mitsubishi turbos. It has an A/R of approximately .41. The practical max cfm is 250cfm. Also, here's a compressor flow map if you're interested:

http://www.stealth316.com/images/td04-09b-raw.gif

 

Under the current rules, you taking the 12 points was not the best choice because you only gained 25hp. Under your proposed rules it would not be smart for me to install a catback exhaust. This shows that careful choice of points to take and the resulting benefit is critical for success.

 

 

My suggestions are this:

 

1. Be patient and understanding to the people updated the rules. It's not an easy task.

2. Once the rules are set, deal with them and plan your 2007 season appropriately. Good drivers figure out how to go fast with the given rules....and they always do as evident by the rules constantly changing.

3. For modifications with stock turbochargers, there should be boosted points assessed and NA points. For example: cat-back exhaust - boosted 5 points, NA 1 point (ONLY AN EXAMPLE)

4. HAVE FUN!!!

 

1. I don't envy their job and kudos for doing such a great job! Once I heard of this rule, I presented information that they might not have considered. I didn't want to wait for unfair rules to be set based on the lack of info. No one knows everything.

 

2. I agree. As I said earlier, pay careful attention to the choice of where points are used versus the laptime reduction. However, if the rules are so slanted against one type of car, it is very disheartening and expensive to work at overcoming the unfair rules.

 

3. If only it was that simple. Every car is different. Looking at this from an engineering standpoint, the only fair way I see to do this:

a) Mandatory dyno sheet for classification for every competitor (NA, Super-, or Turbocharged).

b) The car may be spot-checked with a dyno or GPS at any time to check for compliance.

c) The top 3 finishers in each region should be checked for compliance.

 

Note: If any competitor cheats all his points should be removed back to the last time that season he was dyno-ed and certified as legal in the class.

 

Note2: As I've said in previous posts, the new weight to hp classification should include all mods necessary to achieve those power levels, which would include, but not limited to: timing/fuel controllers, water injection, intercoolers and pipes, any exhaust component, wastegates, air filter and piping, etc.

 

4. All you can do is your best and that should be good enough, but unfortunately this is a competitive event exacerbated with adrenaline. It's easy to say the rules aren't fair, blame the other guy for cheating, or blame the timing and scoring for making mistakes. It takes a classy guy to reflect on what could've been done better for car prep, choosing the best place to take the points, chassis setup, and the driving.

 

Offtopic:

Fortunately or unfortunately I know this too well as all I do all day is design turbochargers for aftermarket and race applications for a large turbo company (starts w/ a "G").

 

How about some turbos that work on 1.5 liters for twins on a 3.0 road racing? I've been eyeing a pair of GT28RS's, but I don't think I want that much cfm. I don't want the added lag if I don't need the cfm. How about 340hp from 2500rpm to 7800rpm? ha ha ha ha ha....no seriously.

[bbyevo]

I like the dyno sheet classification idea best of all. How it plays out in the real world may remain to be seen. I would be happy to get a dyno sheet before the season to ensure a more level playing field, and there isn't an AWD dyno within at least 150 miles of me. Yes, dyno TUNING is usually several hundred dollars and hour, but all you need to do is a couple pulls to get a sheet for competition. If you pay more than $150 for that, well...

 

After running TTA for half of the season, it seems to me that tires (and possibly aero) make more of an impact than power. At Putnam I had no problem running with another Evo modded nearly identically to mine - until he threw on the 285/18 V710's. He was two seconds a lap faster than me on my 255/17's after that.

 

The biggest issue in TT to me is not how to class the cars, but how to compete against purpose built race cars with big money behind them. I drove my car to and from every event last year, and that dual functionality costs me seconds per lap. I love the TT format, but won't be gutting my car and remortgaging the house to be competitive. That's my choice and I can live with it. The downside is that I am quite competitive, and never having a shot at a win might get old after a while. So in the meantime I will continue to have fun, learn, and watch some amazing drivers from the best seat you can get anywhere.

[Fujiwara]

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.

 

Dear Mr Greenbaum,

 

Many talks I have with others working car on new NASA Time Attack rulings. Weights divided by engine output is good ruling for setting up racing groups. Mr 860TTC is very correct. To be fair to other racers, all competitors should be grouped by ratios calculated, not just certain faster turbo-inducted cars. Simpler is very good as not many rules to argue about different output gains on all cars for same change in engine parts. Many Time Attacks away from the United States of America have very few rules. Weight divided by engine output, and limiting rulings on aerodynamic packages. All other changes are open to everyone. Judges looking at cars is very easy to see all cheatings without many many rules that causes head hurt.

 

Weight/hp ratio <7.0 TTU, <8.5 TTA, <10.0 TTB, <11.5 TTC, <13.5 TTD, <16.5 TTE, <21.0 TTF, all others TTG. Weight is defined as curb weight, and horsepower is the number provided by the engine manufacturer.

 

I like ruling above very much. My beloved GTO has many lightness of 1251 Kg and largest race turbo. Race turbos not as many believe for largest engine output and bragging to fancy ladies at night, instead making race turbos largest makes many less heat, making engines last many times more races. Doing mathematics to Imperial pounds with engine outputs I have 9.1 weights/output with very old Japanese Race-car. I have many hopes of doing very good with new rulings in TTA or TTB. How many NASA Time Attack racers of west coast United States of America of in groupings?

 

 

Many thank-you's and very soon I see you on racetrack,

Mr. Fujiwara

[Fujiwara]

Very late at night to many sleepiness, and numeric for United States of America as listed incorrect. Must use numeric from chassis dynometers, no use engine dynometers or numeric listed from factories.

[Speedtoys]

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

---

And this was an unknown factor when you decided to race an AWD car? Did the rarity of AWD dyno's suddenly become a datapoint, or did you know this before? You and I have shared this topic before in person..pick the class you wanna race by the budget required, then the car. Not the car and then feel left out because its the wrong one with the mods you wanna use on it.

 

 

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.

---

You take your $$, and protest it then. Wanna know what kills most spec classes? People who feel afraid to protest. Thats why a Spec Miata in some other racing organizations suddenly costs $10k more than it used to, because nobody used the protest mechanism to keep things on an even keel.

 

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.

---

I agree..but another racing org. tried hard to please everyone, and it turned into an alphabet soup. How do you please _everyone_ in _every_ manner of chassis and maintain legality? You cant.

 

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.

---

Neat idea..its a good balance. But who knows..

 

 

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?

---

How about a method that upclasses an 'unregulated' car mid season based on how badly it's just kicking everyones ass? Or older racing rules of the day where you had podium based weight penalties.

 

 

Greg..if I had to mention one thing, it is that yes, upgrading turbos can add sick HP, but it would require SICK internal modifications that are regulated cleanly in points, and can be EASILY protested. If say a DSM or 3S is making an easily viewable 200Hp over stock and can survive a 20min sprint..bet your dollars its time to protest internal modifications if not on the list already.

 

Turbos without supporting mods doesnt race well, there's a boneyard of such experiments on many mailing lists..its not as simple as bolting on a God Fearing turbo and upping fuel pressure 5lbs...no matter what the street kiddies say, it dont work on a track.

 

Rich [Yes, he's an old fart ]

Edited November 6, 2006 by Guest

[Speedtoys]

We want to compete against our equals so that it comes down to driver ability and choice of places to mod.

 

You can give that fantasy up right now. Thats what spec racing is -for-.

 

 

$2500 RX7, and you have a spec racer that costs less than your tire budget in TT, and its ALL driver and understanding the chassis.

 

 

..thats just one example. Theres spec miata, CMC...list goes on.

 

If we go down the route of 'equals' we will have to end up with 40 classes for 40 chassis.

 

 

I dunno, if you wanna race, step up to PT, TT is good fun, but it cant be fair for everyone all of the time by any means, I dont want Greg's job..that's for sure.

 

But..what do you do when someone has just wiped everyone's ass, and because he's AWD (and not 2wd selectable like Toyotas) you cant impound him? Last winter's dyno sheet has no way of being relevant to what he did for this track where he knows there's no AWD dyno...

 

Remember by Spec Tuner idea on the list??

[slowoldpoop]

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

---

And this was an unknown factor when you decided to race an AWD car? Did the rarity of AWD dyno's suddenly become a datapoint, or did you know this before?

 

No, but the rules changed. I could get along without a dyno until now by street tuning. NOW, I am forced to spend a ton to get a dyno slip, and nobody else is. Just turbo cars.

 

I like the idea of wt/hp classing for TT cars that seems to have emerged from this discussion. That way, EVERYBODY gets dynoed and the playing field is level. I don't think it requires a change in the rules either. Just enforce the wt/hp numbers mentioned somewhere above for the various classes by weighing and dynoing class winners.

 

By the bye, I am not blowing away everybody in my class because I am an AWD turbo. As I pointed out somewhere above, the difference in lap times among the top three cars in TTB was 0.3 seconds-me in the Eclipse, a corvette, and the S2000 that will be in TTB next year.

 

Rich

[mavisky]

I'm looking into moving into the TT series with my car in the coming years and I think the rules being proposed can be fair if implemented evenly across the board. Bear with me here as my thoughts wander typically as I type.

 

Hp

 

I agree with Rich that dyno testing can be rather expensive as I myself have tuned my car 100% on the road but if it's a necessity to race then I can understand it so long as all cars in my class are to be tested as well. For instance I fully accept that my tiny brake upgrade gets penalized as much as a 6 piston set of 14" stoptech's and that's life, same as my mild turbo upgrade costs me a bunch of points even though it's impossible to make more than 400hp at max on this turbo.

 

The idea of a "turbo swap" upgrade point assesment is a good idea and one I could be in favor of, but what I'd rather see is a system like the weights system. A system where you could choose to add points based upon the parts you'd purchased or take the results of your change over stock manufacturer's hp claims. Now I know that we're talking about hp at the wheels on the dyno vs. hp at the crank in the claims, but if the numbers are set right and applied across all makes and models it could work well.

 

I believe that NASA has done a very good job in setting up the various base classes for each car and I think that using a hp/wt ratio would keep the competitiveness very even in the straightaways. The trick will be in applying enough points to the "turbo upgrade" to make it comparable with the dyno tested and scale verified hp/wt ratio.

 

Tires

I too agree that the tire issue may need adjusted as some cars can fit some seriously wide rubber without incurring that many more points than they currently have. I for one understand the importance of large rubber contact patches and in my build will be doing all I can to maximize this particular area even with the points it'll gain me.

 

Overall

I think us turbo guys want to see a good explanation of exactly where this is going as the first mention of this post seemed like someone trying to rope in performance of our cars. Noone likes de-modding their toy to stay competitive in their respective class, but sometimes that's the way it goes. We'd just like to make sure that we're not the only ones who may face this reality should it come to it. As a frequent racer in SCCA Solo, I often find myself upset with their archaic classes and sincerely wish we had a NASA X group in my area to play in before I get out to the track.

 

Thanks for taking the time to get on here and discuss the reasonings behind these rule changes Greg, this level of feedback from those at the top of the foodchain are what make NASA such a good environment and I can't wait to become a more active member within this organization.

[IGZOSTD]

I cant' understand the thoughts of some of you . A Turbo car being at a disadvantage , What Mag. have you been reading . I run a N/A V8 , and the new rules hurt me just as bad as anybody . You have to work hard and spend money to play in this arena . Like they say we do have spec racing . I would bet that TT has more $ thrown at it tan most of the racing classes . There will always be the guy's that can out spend you .Face it . I know that Greg and all the people involved to clear up the rules issues, will do the best they can . Don't keep throwing your personal problem's ahead of the hole TTprogram . These people work hard to give us a great program .

I personaly like the idea of scaling and dynoing the top three at random . You guys with AWD , thats another issue . but I think you need to step up to the plate and get the dyno sheets . Brake pads cost this much .

I just hope they don't go points mad on the tire's

[slowoldpoop]

I cant' understand the thoughts of some of you . A Turbo car being at a disadvantage , What Mag. have you been reading . I run a N/A V8 , and the new rules hurt me just as bad as anybody . You have to work hard and spend money to play in this arena . Like they say we do have spec racing . I would bet that TT has more $ thrown at it tan most of the racing classes . There will always be the guy's that can out spend you .Face it . I know that Greg and all the people involved to clear up the rules issues, will do the best they can . Don't keep throwing your personal problem's ahead of the hole TTprogram . These people work hard to give us a great program .

I personaly like the idea of scaling and dynoing the top three at random . You guys with AWD , thats another issue . but I think you need to step up to the plate and get the dyno sheets . Brake pads cost this much .

I just hope they don't go points mad on the tire's

 

Our only real objection is the requirement that turbo cars must get a dyno sheet when nobody else has to. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept for you and everyone else to grasp.

 

You NA guys could have a billion dollars worth of NASCAR mods in that V8 engine of yours (what's a NASCAR engine these days? 680 hp?), and nobody says YOU have to get dynoed.

 

Look at it this way: Suppose NASA said all the guys running Ford motors have to bring a dyno sheet, but the Chevy guys don't have to. I bet you wouldn't like it any more than we do.

 

All we ask is: if you force tubos to get dynoed, then dyno all the class winners, too. It works for everybody that way, including you. If somebody in your class turns up with a Roush NASCAR motor and wins the class, you don't even have to protest--he'll be dynoed automatically and DQed for being over the power/wt limit.

[Greg G.]

I just hope they don't go points mad on the tire's

 

Oops. Tires are going to cost much closer to their "true" value--but it will affect everyone equally. Research is being done on all 675+ model groups to determine the current OEM tire sizes (using update/backdate) to make any necessary adjustments in base classes for the new rules. That's all I'm saying about that one for now, but guess how long I've spent looking up all of those tire sizes (and still have about 200+ to go )

 

Huge factors that many of you are forgetting about in your discussions of a simple wt/hp ratio as "the solution" to equity include:

 

Overall weight-- is an extremely important factor, regardless of what type of car it is. If two cars have a 9:1 wt/power ratio, and one weighs 4000 pounds and the other weighs 2000 pounds....guess what happens when they compete straight up regardless of just about everything else?

 

 

AWD vs. RWD. vs FWD-- This one can be debated for a long time, but the bottom line is that having your only drive wheels also being your turning wheels is a distinct disadvantage. And, in general, if cars were of identical weight and body style, and had whp that was identical, AWD is an advantage over RWD in most circumstances (I said most, not all ).

 

Body type-- There is a big advantage to having a wide body, low roll center sports car, rather than a 4 door boxy sedan. As well, engine location and overall OEM vehicle balance are important factors that make certain cars ideal for conversion to track vehicles. Others, with long wheel bases, narrow track widths, and crappy front/rear balance are at a real disadvantage right off the bat (gotta love the SRT4 and its 67/33% front/rear balance ).

 

OEM Aero-- Having a Corvette with one of the best OEM drag coefficients (or Exige with it's great dc and downforce), or other similar cars with OEM aero advantages can make a big difference if all other factors were the same between two vehicles.

 

 

So, while it may be true that if someone had $250,000+ to spend and fairly open rules to modify with, they could try to make their CTS-V as fast as a Viper (ala WCGT), but that doesn't hold true under our circumstances in TTA to TTF. That is why the wt/hp ratios that I've seen getting quoted and thrown around here like gospel are ONLY A GUIDELINE that we used in '06, as it states in the rules. So, all of these ideas to dyno the top three cars and ensure their wt/hp ratios are equal, or just class cars based on wt/hp ratio, etc. will not yield an equal field. And some cars with a 9:1 wt/hp ratio, that are extremely tricked out racecars, will still end up classifying outside of TTA.

 

The good news is that we are thinking about all of this stuff (and have been for years in our base classifications), and will hopefully have some novel solutions for everyone.

 

For those of you that don't know, we had some good success using GPS to monitor the AWD cars at the Championships in place of having a readily available AWD dyno. However, all of those cars had been dyno'd by their owners prior to the event to make sure that they were going to be compliant.

 

Ok, carry-on......

[Greg G.]

You NA guys could have a billion dollars worth of NASCAR mods in that V8 engine of yours (what's a NASCAR engine these days? 680 hp?), and nobody says YOU have to get dynoed.

 

All we ask is: if you force tubos to get dynoed, then dyno all the class winners, too. It works for everybody that way, including you. If somebody in your class turns up with a Roush NASCAR motor and wins the class, you don't even have to protest--he'll be dynoed automatically and DQed for being over the power/wt limit.

 

Actually, we did use the dyno at the Championships to help determine if there was any evidence that a car had more modifications than were listed. We found no issues that required us to request an engine tear-down (although we could have). And, we will continue to use less invasive methods of testing for compliance (we have instruments to test compression, borescopes, and other goodies we can use at the Championships). Regionally, TT Directors have the same power, and there are often dynos at the tracks. But, as was mentioned earlier, someone is going to have to pay for those dyno tests. NASA paid for them at the Championships, but regionally, it will more likely have to be done as a protest/bond issue if it is more than a rare necessity. We have NOT had problems with cheaters in NASA TT except on a very rare occasion since its inception. I'm only aware of one driver that was harshly disciplined (no longer with us) for apparent cheating. So, your scenario of someone getting 680 hp (NASCAR engines are over 800 hp BTW), and it not being obvious is pretty far-fetched. Yes, it's possible that there are some people that are so low as to cheat a few points on internal engine mods with an NA engine, but usually in the past, those "types" of people choose to race instead of TT (and I hope they continue to do so--in another organization).

 

Once again, NASA does not want to prevent basic HPDE4 guys from jumping into TT easily. Requiring a dyno sheet on every car would do exactly that. There are plenty of near stock cars that run with us on a regional basis still. So, we are trying to require the least amount of participants to do the least amount of "extra" baseline testing to get the cars classed appropriately. We seem to have done a pretty good job of this so far. The outstanding issues that "screw up" the system are engine swaps (already under dyno rules for some of them not easy to fairly classify), aftermarket turbos, and hybrid motors with aftermarket or swapped heads. Now, if we can get 1000+ of you guys to compete on a regular basis (run the entire full regional series in each region--big enough to have their own run groups), then maybe it would be more appropriate to "dyno everybody". But, the idea of losing some "potential" cars that have never competed with us, versus losing many more actual cars that do compete with us (or those that we entice monthly to compete with us instead of running HPDE4), over the issue of a single dyno test, seems silly to me. As well, it has already been stated that nobody else is providing a place for these aftermarket turbo AWD cars to compete, so it will be the owners choice to play where there is a game that allows them, or not. There are obvious reasons that other organizations have avoided these cars. Well, we're not "afraid" of them, but we are going to attempt to class them fairly, or they can keep doing HPDE's. The only way for us/me to class them fairly, is to know what kind of power they are making.

 

Lastly, in regard to the comment that in order to get the power from an aftermarket turbo, one needs to do internal mods also to prevent dead motors, that may be true for over 400-450 hp, but it isn't true with many of the newer turbo engines that have been built tougher by the manufacturers to try and ensure that these cars will last over 100K miles on the streets. There are plenty of SRT4's, Evo's, WRX's, STi/STI's, Cobalts running (racing/tracking) with way over 350 hp with stock internals without issues. I could easily get 400 fwhp out of my stock internals with a bigger turbo. Now, if only they could have made the tranny's stonger

[slowoldpoop]

As well, it has already been stated that nobody else is providing a place for these aftermarket turbo AWD cars to compete, so it will be the owners choice to play where there is a game that allows them, or not. There are obvious reasons that other organizations have avoided these cars. Well, we're not "afraid" of them, but we are going to attempt to class them fairly, or they can keep doing HPDE's. The only way for us/me to class them fairly, is to know what kind of power they are making.

 

 

After all this discussion, I am relieved to know that you understand the situation and probably will not come down too hard on turbo cars. As I pointed out above, the difference between the top two TTB cars and a TTC car moving into TTB next year was 0.3 sec at Road America, so we three -- an AWD car, a Vette and an S2000--are equally matched under your current system.

 

You had us turbo guys going there for a while, though, because we did not understand the reasoning behind the rule. Thanks for the complete explanation.

 

We are with child in anticipation of the new rules. As is everyone else.

 

Rich

[IGZOSTD]

Thanks Greg , I know that there is a ton of things to look at . We appreciate all your hard work to keep all this as equal as possible. N/A and carb . ,going from a 289 to a 302 yes I guess it is a swap , I have to provide the dyno sheet . Thats the rule and I'll be happy to provide the information needed . I hope there isn't more than a one class bump though, as the new class rec. for Sears Point in TTC is almost 1/2 sec faster than TTB. After all my motorcycle racing I thought 1/2 sec was LARGE , these guys killed the old rec. by about 2.4 sec. Congradulations .

[944-Spec#94]

Greg & the gang,

I look at this yesterday. I don't TT or even race in PT, but I found this discussion interesting. I have some experience with turbo cars (944 Turbos) and here is my take.

 

In any turbo car boost = hp. So more boost = more hp. Sure it is complex if you want to double the stock boost and still have the motor last, but in general boost = hp.

 

So why not create boost schedule for the turbo cars. Not clearly it cannot be based on absolute boost pressure as the range on stock cars are too varried. However make it based on % increase in boost.

 

ie 10% increase in on stock unmodded turbo = 10pts (you guys figure that actual points)

20% incrase = 20 pts.

 

Modded turbo or non stock turbo = automatic 20 points then add on boost points.

 

So run the stock turbo with 10% boost increase = 10 points

Run a fancy wiz bang super efficient turbo at 10% boost over stock = 20pts for the turbo and 10 points for boost. total of 30 points

 

Run 100% over stock boost and get like 50 points or something.

 

The only thing that make a turbo motor different from an NA motor is boost. If you add a chip in turbo car, but don't add any boost well the power gains will simial to an NA car. Now your stock turbo could run out of steam at 75% of you peak RPM. So therefore you add a fancy efficent turbo so that you can hold stock boost to redline. We you'd be at an advantage so you take zero for boost, but xx points for modding or changing the turbo.

 

It is an idea that removes the need to dyno turbo cars as I assume anyone not running stock boost know how much boost they are running.