nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:19 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 284 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:55 pm 
Offline
Postmeister in Chief
Postmeister in Chief

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 pm
Posts: 4229
Location: Southern California & AZ
Please place your comments here regarding the proposal to decrease the Adjusted Wt/Hp Ratio for ST2 to 7.5:1 (from 8.0:1 currently) for 2016 and beyond. Please stay on point, and only use this thread for discussion of this one issue. For those of you that participate in other series, please state whether this increases or decreases your ability to run in ST2 in the future.

Thanks.

_________________
Greg Greenbaum
National TT, PT, & ST Director
Nat. Medical Director
greg@nasa-tt.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:05 pm 
Offline
Postmeister
Postmeister

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:44 am
Posts: 1353
Location: Mooresville, NC
Oooh, oooh, me first, me first.'

Anyway....


I think ST2 should be at 7.5. With ST1 at 5.5 and ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero), 7.5 is the perfect medium.

Does it make it harder for me to magically switch between ST2 and ST3 with a keystroke of the laptop? Yes it does, but I am ok with that. I will run my max tune on my stock long block with my lighter weight and pray that I don't kill the motor.

Why would I be in favor of this as an ST3 podium car? Easy, it helps the midpack ST2 guys with their straight line talent adjustment. There needs to be a bit more separation in power levels to help them get out of the way. :lol:

_________________
Kevin
$T2/$T3 C5Z06 #01
2015 ST2 EC Champ, 2017 TT3 EC Champ
David Farmer Racing, G-LOC Brakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:44 am 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 438
brkntrxn wrote:
ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).


I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?

_________________
Chris
'99 C5 Cpe
Instructor/TT3/$T3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:12 am 
Offline
Postmeister
Postmeister

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:44 am
Posts: 1353
Location: Mooresville, NC
braknl8 wrote:
brkntrxn wrote:
ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).


I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?



I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.

_________________
Kevin
$T2/$T3 C5Z06 #01
2015 ST2 EC Champ, 2017 TT3 EC Champ
David Farmer Racing, G-LOC Brakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:35 am 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:32 am
Posts: 424
7.5 makes sense as it would align the "2" classification with another series and allow competitors to (more easily) cross-over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:52 am 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 438
brkntrxn wrote:

I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.


But what if it's not about cross over? Why now, when the market has gotten to ~10k for initial purchase, would you slam the door on one of the best bang/buck chassis (I feel like I'm preaching to an AWOL choir here) out there...when it's now affordable? I can understand the guys that have aero'd up moving to st2 but I'm not sure I get closing the door on new participation in the lower of the st class. I'm sure there are still folks getting into the sport....and I'm not for creating 4000 classes and 3000 different tire modifiers to please everyone but .....that seems a little strong. I may be the minority.

_________________
Chris
'99 C5 Cpe
Instructor/TT3/$T3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:54 pm 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:50 am
Posts: 94
brkntrxn wrote:
braknl8 wrote:
brkntrxn wrote:
ST3 at 9.4 (aero, no one podiums non-aero).


I may get myself flamed right out of this thread but I think that has a little to do with the current hit for aero. I think there are still a couple of tracks that a properly set up "slick" car, driven well, could do ok. What about a more realistic spread for aero/non-aero, like 9.0/9.6...OR more realistic and preventing existing cars from having to change, leave aero at 9.4 and drop non-aero to 8.8:1? Completely unrealistic?



I don't think there should be an aero/non-aero allowance in ST at all. 2015 will be the third year for ST3. It is mature enough that no one is trying to "cross over" from the demise of PTA and therefore should not be part of the rules any more.


I'm still trying to come up with the money to build my damn car for TT3... not all of us are "done" building up. I entered a total of one event in 2013+2014 because my entire budget went into car mods. THANKS NASA

That being said, this is not the topic of the thread. (my opinion is that all aero cars should be put immediately into ST2 and it should stay at 8.0, though - that would help keep costs down and still make ST2 and ST3 more distinct - maybe even make ST3's ratio higher so that the heavy muscle cars and low power 4 cylinders can more easily make pwr/wt)

_________________
Troy Brown
2004 Z06
#9 TT3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:20 pm 
Offline
Postmeister General
Postmeister General

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:04 pm
Posts: 2506
Location: Sterling, IL
I would also vote for 7.5 for ST2. Big tired, big aero ST2 cars may actually be slower down the long straights of Road America/Atlanta than an non-aero, smaller tired ST3 car without a bit more separation in go juice. 7.5 would be good to keep the interclass racing down.

I also agree that aero should be worth more than 15-20HP in ST3. I will likely be starting next year sans aero to dial in the mechanical grip of the car well, but I realize that aero is inevitable to compete. If I could be competitive, I think I'd rather save the money, and enjoy a little more slip angle in my driving :D .

_________________
Eric Kuhns#99

Great Lakes ST Director

ST2/3 FrankenFortyFour


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:50 pm 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 533
Just keep in mind moving to 7.5 will make it even more of an American V8/V10 battle. At 3,000 pounds you will need 400hp which is not easily attainable in a BMW or Porsche (especially non cup). While it makes sense from a separation stand point it will make it harder to attract anything but V8 built cars.

Maybe drop the slick penalty for ST1/2 and leave the same for 3 to create a bigger gap between classes.

_________________
Alex
SpecE46 #43


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:49 pm 
Offline
Postmeister General
Postmeister General

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 2421
troyguitar wrote:
maybe even make ST3's ratio higher so that the heavy muscle cars and low power 4 cylinders can more easily make pwr/wt)


Yes, with street tires to, right?

7.5 (or more) makes a lot of sense. There's a smallish gap from 8 to 9/9.4, and an enormous gap from 5.5 to 8 (400 hp and 581 hp for a 3200 lb car)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 284 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group