nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Thu May 24, 2018 5:04 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 414 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 42  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:24 pm
Posts: 3
Greg G. wrote:
tcdesign wrote:
Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars.

-tony colicchio
TC Design

Yep. Agreed


Also agree!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:29 pm 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:40 am
Posts: 88
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
BlackCivic343 wrote:
So we are moving all the w2p down? TTB was 10.5:1 and FWD was a mod factor of 1. Now it is 12:1 and .6...yeesh. I was setting my car up to be a competitive B car but now it seems I will be a tweener car again. Not Mid TT3 and too much for TT4. Well hopefully I can get there with ballast.

1) ALL ST (1-4) and TT1-4 classes will use the Avg. HP calculation for Dyno tech inspections for compliance with the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio.

For PTB it would be peak horsepower not average, have you done the calculation using your average HP?

_________________
Mike Weber
NASA Great Lakes TT Series Leader


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:32 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:28 am
Posts: 4
mweber wrote:
BlackCivic343 wrote:
So we are moving all the w2p down? TTB was 10.5:1 and FWD was a mod factor of 1. Now it is 12:1 and .6...yeesh. I was setting my car up to be a competitive B car but now it seems I will be a tweener car again. Not Mid TT3 and too much for TT4. Well hopefully I can get there with ballast.

1) ALL ST (1-4) and TT1-4 classes will use the Avg. HP calculation for Dyno tech inspections for compliance with the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio.

For PTB it would be peak horsepower not average, have you done the calculation using your average HP?



It's going to be close, I will wait for everything to be finalized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:04 pm 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:37 pm
Posts: 498
Location: Orlando FL
Arca_ex wrote:
To everyone complaining about the dynos, if you were a points car, and didn't have a dyno, you were likely not competitive anyways.

Points cars are still subject to an adjusted power to weight limit, subject to dyno protests, subject to doing dyno runs in impound etc etc.

Pretty much nothing is changing except if you were a points car that was so far away from the adjusted power to weight limit that you never bothered to dyno the car.

Personally I like it. If I have to do it and be subject to things like that, everyone else should too.


Your cap mathematically when using points is usually a significant amount higher then what you get handed with a dyno reclass

_________________
Ian
TTC Mini 2009 TTC National Champion
ST3/TT3 S2000


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:09 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 13
Location: Cleveland
Daniel Pyziak wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
tcdesign wrote:
Greg, Regarding #7, There are a significant amount of BMW E36/46 race cars, via GTS 2/3, that have cage tie-in's to the rear subframe to help with known subframe issues. Might need to think about how to not exclude these cars.

-tony colicchio
TC Design

Yep. Agreed


Also agree!


I support a rule set allowing inclusion, but I hope we aren't talking about allowing a modification for certain cars and not others. If we allow for some, it should be allowed for all.

_________________
Rick
Great Lakes TTC #318
S2000


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:45 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:12 pm
Posts: 2
I would also like to comment on the new PW/WT for the letter classes that are staying. It seems that the new proposed numbers are going to have a huge effect on all of the people that will be staying in those classes for next year and so on. I would have to guess that most people are going to have to either 1, lower their HP by a decent amount to stay in class, or 2, have no choice but to spend more money to move up to the next class if they want to be competitive. I LOVE the idea of ST/TT4, but it doesn't seem fair to penalize the lower classes in all of this. A lot of people have spent a lot of time and money to make their car as fast as possible within the class they are in, so instead of penalizing them by either making their cars slower, or having to spend more money and time to do more upgrades to move up, why not get rid of PT/TTC all together? All of the current B cars are probably making the move to ST3, all of the C cars are probably making the move to ST/TT4, and all of the lower ranks can stay as is. The base class system seems to work pretty well for the current PW/WT limits that are already in place so why force everyone to make their cars slower just to stay in class? Just my 2 cents!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:53 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:49 am
Posts: 7
Location: Ohio
I think it's a good start. I'm glad there are some mod factors to discourage some crazy tires and aero mods.

My biggest feedback is not a lot of special exceptions for specific cars. We all have our challenges with our chosen chassis. I know I will struggle to get to the power to weight ratio without a huge outlay of cash for a ticking time bomb of an engine. But it's something I chose to live with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:07 pm 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:57 pm
Posts: 442
Location: Concord NC
My only input is regarding the power averaging formula. I like the fairness of it, but it is a PITA. Too much data, a single rpm dropout can ruin a pull, and none of my customers could do the calculations themselves this year

I'm all for averaging, just needs to be easier for your customers. Most dyno shops won't be as helpful as I am (being a Nasa guy myself)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:29 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:42 pm
Posts: 7
Other than the requirement to provide a dyno sheet if you are dyno classed I don't see a meaningful difference between the two within the context of the discussion here.

My only comment is that if you change the WT:PW for PTD/E/F please try to do it with high confidence that the post "ST" rules will be close to the same as the revised ratios so minimal changes will be needed. Rule changes aren't good for keeping people around.

If we go to average w:p can the 2001+ Miatas rejoin the rest of their friends with a non-* base class? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:12 am 
Offline
Postmeister in Chief
Postmeister in Chief

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 pm
Posts: 4229
Location: Southern California & AZ
fxracer1 wrote:
I would also like to comment on the new PW/WT for the letter classes that are staying. It seems that the new proposed numbers are going to have a huge effect on all of the people that will be staying in those classes for next year and so on. I would have to guess that most people are going to have to either 1, lower their HP by a decent amount to stay in class, or 2, have no choice but to spend more money to move up to the next class if they want to be competitive. I LOVE the idea of ST/TT4, but it doesn't seem fair to penalize the lower classes in all of this. A lot of people have spent a lot of time and money to make their car as fast as possible within the class they are in, so instead of penalizing them by either making their cars slower, or having to spend more money and time to do more upgrades to move up, why not get rid of PT/TTC all together? All of the current B cars are probably making the move to ST3, all of the C cars are probably making the move to ST/TT4, and all of the lower ranks can stay as is. The base class system seems to work pretty well for the current PW/WT limits that are already in place so why force everyone to make their cars slower just to stay in class? Just my 2 cents!!!


I believe you are incorrect. The combination of the Avg HP calculation, and the much different weight table in ST versus PT, would put most of the top current C cars at 14-14.5:1 (similar for most of the B cars with a few V8 exceptions). Most of the top D cars are already at 15:1 using the PT formula, and most of the top E cars are at 17:1.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 414 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 42  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