nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:54 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:33 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:00 pm
Posts: 29
Redstone wrote:
focusedintntions wrote:
I had hoped that my gts2 e36 m3 would be a fun crossover to st4. But with the ruleset changing from 4 to 6 points it'll be impossible for my car to compete in this class against any properly built cars. This would definitely have to be a gts3 car to have any shot in 4. I hope 5 comes around and is sensible.

Also I would like to add we should allow canards. Seems silly that the class allows 10k suspension, 10k diff, 10k in brakes, but then some $200 canards aren't allowed b/c of "cost control". That ban essential kills the most popularly used airdamn/splitter for e36's.


who's spending 10k on a diff or brakes?



Price out a full pfc motorsport setup for an e46 or fully built diff from diffsonline. The a la cart stuff on the website is just the tip of the iceberg of what some of the guys I know have done. Not common, but allowed under current st4 rules.

_________________
Chris Davis
NASA MA GTS2 #17


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:34 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27 pm
Posts: 3
clock wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

On the left of this picture, a stack of Hankook 245/17. In the middle are my 245/17 Hoosiers, and to the right are Tom Tangs 275 Hankooks. Some takeaways 1)no, Tom does NOT have a tire advantage over me because he runs 275 . They are, fact the same size. 2) I don't care how many points you give me, its hard to give up 4" tire. Look at how small those 245 hankooks are.

The ST/TT rules always use the manufacturers stated Tire Width number when classifying a tire. We should change this to MEASURED TREAD WIDTH when assigning points. Hoosier is only the chosen tire because it grossly under-reports on its tire width, meaning we simply have a larger tire when we run it(not because of some innate superiority in the brand). You also cannot count on the stamp on the side of the tire to be accurate within the same brand! The Hoosier 245/15 is MUCH wider than the 245/17, for example. So if you penalize all hoosiers, you might be penalizing larger sizes for no reason, because their number may be closer to the true number. You just don't know unless you measure them.


Wow, that picture really shows the differences. +1 on using measured tread width over sidewall numbers. Or at least go off the published specs. According to what is listed on TireRack the Hoosier 245/17 is 9.7" tread width and the Hankook 245/17 is 9.1"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:14 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 4
I vote no on the tire change. Unless you classify a certain purple tire company in there correct size groups, not going off what's written on the sidewall. That will make it harder on tech and not be a good thing.

Leave it max 275 and call macaroni.

Like mentioned many times the heavy car was a-ok the "small" tires and did just fine waxing everyone. This class is to new, leave it be.

ABS should be open with a penalty. -.2 or -.3

Again as mentioned before BMWs have a huge advantage with the rules and the "stock 3 series" abs unit. This is easily flashed to compete with Bosch Motorsport versions for a 1/4 of the price.

One rule should be effective immediately is limiting ESR's posts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:02 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:00 pm
Posts: 16
Reposting this from the other thread. There was some good discussion around how best to measure power area to balance peaky vs. flat powerbands without making it so wide that it invites further gamesmanship.

Savington wrote:
clock wrote:
6 points is not going to do what people thinks it will. It will just open it up to more power games. I don't think that is the intention of class. I will reiterate that we should decrease the partition size. I mean its ST, we are already pretty used to complicated forms and calculators :).


As someone who has played the flat power game, I agree with this. Opening to 6 points opens up a world of possibilities for those who can easily tune their powerbands (any DBW car, any turbo car, any car with a standalone and variable valve timing). If you expand the measured power area beyond the RPM range actually used on track, the potential for powerband tweaking goes up dramatically. If I never use the 4400-490rpm range on track, but it's counted in the rules, that opens up a huge opportunity for me to artificially draw down my average power and increase my actual power.

I'll race next year no matter what, my car can easily be tweaked to fit whatever rules are decided on, but I think smaller partitions and a focus on the RPM range actually being used is a good idea. 1500rpm is too small, but 2500rpm is definitely too big - something like a 2000rpm band measured at 9 points (peak + every 250rpm on either side) might be a good middle ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:12 am
Posts: 2
Charliehayes22 wrote:
I vote no on the tire change. Unless you classify a certain purple tire company in there correct size groups, not going off what's written on the sidewall. That will make it harder on tech and not be a good thing.

Leave it max 275 and call macaroni.

Like mentioned many times the heavy car was a-ok the "small" tires and did just fine waxing everyone. This class is to new, leave it be.

ABS should be open with a penalty. -.2 or -.3

Again as mentioned before BMWs have a huge advantage with the rules and the "stock 3 series" abs unit. This is easily flashed to compete with Bosch Motorsport versions for a 1/4 of the price.

One rule should be effective immediately is limiting ESR's posts.



Yes, the heavy car ran away from the field in a 3100lb car on 245s. He went to that tire for the +0.7 which suggests that the +0.7 is too much even for a heavy car. Giving a 2500lb car on 245s the same +0.7 doesn't seem fair compared to a 3000 or 3100lb car on 275s with only a +0.3. That's a tire-to-weight advantage with a power-to-weight cherry on top.

I like the idea of using actual measured width on the tire. I'm guessing "the heavy car" went with with the 245/40R17 with a tread width of 9.7" which compares pretty favorably to my 275/35R18 tread width of 10.3". A 30mm (1.2in) drop in section width only reduced tread width by half that amount.

And it's commendable that he saw this and took advantage of it. That's just smart set-up using the rules as written. It doesn't mean that the rules as written level the playing field as well as they could.

I don't know what the implications would be for "higher" ST classes, but maybe remove the power adjustment factors for tire width in ST4 and implement a simple scale establishing minimum weight by tire width:

10" 3000lbs
9" 2700lbs
8" 2400lbs

As for tech... Drivers stack your tires, measure the total height and divide by 4, report the average width, and set your min weight by tire. If someone questions or protests, do it again in impound. No, it's not as quick and easy as going by the misleading designation on the sidewall, but it is faster and easier than loading a car on the dyno for compliance pulls. Just an idea...


Yes on the ABS. Maybe open it up to some low-cost option for everyone with a penalty for everyone with ABS (OEM and modified).

_________________
Brian Thornton
NASA NorCal
2003 Nissan 350Z - ST4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:35 pm
Posts: 34
Charliehayes22 wrote:
One rule should be effective immediately is limiting ESR's posts.


:lol: :lol: :lol: +1 to that immediate rule.


Here's to hoping 2018 rules for all classes will be posted soon!

_________________
Marcus Luttrell - '99 Miata - TTE # 92


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: redwood city, california
too late Charlie,

I already got enough smart guys involved to out number you!
So see you guys next year.
Mission accomplished!
Happy New Year EVERYONE.

Charliehayes22 wrote:
I vote no on the tire change. Unless you classify a certain purple tire company in there correct size groups, not going off what's written on the sidewall. That will make it harder on tech and not be a good thing.

Leave it max 275 and call macaroni.

Like mentioned many times the heavy car was a-ok the "small" tires and did just fine waxing everyone. This class is to new, leave it be.

ABS should be open with a penalty. -.2 or -.3

Again as mentioned before BMWs have a huge advantage with the rules and the "stock 3 series" abs unit. This is easily flashed to compete with Bosch Motorsport versions for a 1/4 of the price.

One rule should be effective immediately is limiting ESR's posts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:56 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:26 am
Posts: 25
Charliehayes22 wrote:
I vote no on the tire change. Unless you classify a certain purple tire company in there correct size groups, not going off what's written on the sidewall. That will make it harder on tech and not be a good thing.

Leave it max 275 and call macaroni.

Like mentioned many times the heavy car was a-ok the "small" tires and did just fine waxing everyone. This class is to new, leave it be.

ABS should be open with a penalty. -.2 or -.3

Again as mentioned before BMWs have a huge advantage with the rules and the "stock 3 series" abs unit. This is easily flashed to compete with Bosch Motorsport versions for a 1/4 of the price.

One rule should be effective immediately is limiting ESR's posts.


Yes. Can we please leave the tire rules alone at least for the time being? Changing 275 to an arbitrary limit such as 3000/ 3100 car will just promote building heavy, high HP cars. The middle weights (2700 - 2999) be disadvantaged unless a modifier was given, similar to how the rule is now... The lightweights, I don't think it matters all that much - see posts from those who know what they are talking about (Savington/Andrew). The rules as currently written provide a better balance/choice.

Greg - can you also provide more insight into a 6 pt dyno measurement? Looks like most would agree that adding a couple more points over a typical RPM range would be better than expanding the RPM range from which measurements were taken. Perhaps that was the original intention and we were making assumptions?

Jon B
NorCal ST4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 2:49 pm
Posts: 506
Location: Scotts Valley, CA
Lots of talk on here about people gaming a 6 point system. I wish we could all easily just go back to cable throttles and this would be a lot easier :).

To avoid people artificially lowering the bottom 1 or 2 points on a 6 point system, we simply write a rule that makes those points invalid if they deviate over a certain amount from the next higher point. The Honda's running in the class probably have the steepest natural curve? So we look at some data to make sure cars like this are not throwing out points, and we are good?

People seam to be forgetting about the penalty to shift, can be a tenth or more per shift. If we don't measure more points, and people continue to build motors that can run over a 4000 RPM flat curve, and never have to shift, it will become a must in the class. This is already the case in ST3, do we want this in ST4?

And BTW (Tony lol), this is not to hate on people that built great cars under the current rules, this is to help keep costs down in the class for the future to truly make this class great!

_________________
-Brian Lock
NASA NorCal ST/SU Group Leader
Valkyrie Autosport, Ltd.
http://www.valkyrieas.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:22 pm
Posts: 20
Congratulations to Dave, Austin and Jon!
It was great to see a first year class have 14 competitors in so many different makes of cars.
There was a big difference in quality and prep level of cars at this event.
Clearly the Vette, Miata and S2000 came with fully prepared cars.
I think the rest of us weren't prepared, at least I know my car was not built to the max of the rules. It was still pretty much a PTD car with Hoosiers, air dam and wing.
The fact that Dave can get the vette to handle so well at that weight with a 245 tire is impressive.
To see a 4 cyl car and a V8 car be competitive with each other tells me that the format does not need alot of tweaking.
The 3rd to 9th place cars had similar lap times. Albeit way off the pace of the leaders.
I can't wait to race in this class again. In my opinion it is the class to be in right now.
Hopefully I will make the trek to Infineon a few times next year to race with the NorCal group.

See ya!

_________________
2015 WSC GTS1 Champ
2014 WSC 944Spec Champ
2010 National GTS1 Champ
2009 National 944Spec Champ


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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