nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 5:33 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:27 pm
Posts: 35
aaronsti wrote:
bionicbelly wrote:
I honestly don't know, I have zero experience with de tuned cars that I know of. There is a lot t of discussion about them though, and I think it has something to do with how they can make the same power the entire width of the rpm range.


I guess I get that, but since we use average hp not peak I don’t see that being a sensible reason. Also moving the dyno plot points from 500 to 250 rpm intervals actually hurts the number for peakier power bands, so saying to counteract a flat power and for fairness I don’t see.

Admittedly I am biased because I don’t want to spend the money to be competitive in tt4 and would rather detune and fit in tt5. For instance I’m still running a 235 tire while most everyone else is running 275’s




245's "266MM actual size" are as wide as you can run in ST5. nobody will be on 275's

_________________
TTC MINI COUPE #60
NE REGION


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:09 am 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:54 am
Posts: 92
cadmad wrote:
aaronsti wrote:
bionicbelly wrote:
I honestly don't know, I have zero experience with de tuned cars that I know of. There is a lot t of discussion about them though, and I think it has something to do with how they can make the same power the entire width of the rpm range.


I guess I get that, but since we use average hp not peak I don’t see that being a sensible reason. Also moving the dyno plot points from 500 to 250 rpm intervals actually hurts the number for peakier power bands, so saying to counteract a flat power and for fairness I don’t see.

Admittedly I am biased because I don’t want to spend the money to be competitive in tt4 and would rather detune and fit in tt5. For instance I’m still running a 235 tire while most everyone else is running 275’s




245's "266MM actual size" are as wide as you can run in ST5. nobody will be on 275's


i know, thats my point. with the sti to run 275's in tt4 i would need fender flares as well as new wheels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline
Postmeister in Chief
Postmeister in Chief

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 pm
Posts: 4229
Location: Southern California & AZ
aaronsti wrote:
What’s the thought behind not wanting detuned cars? If this isn’t the right place to discuss this please let me know. Also not arguing the point, just talking

Aaron, its not just about detuned cars. It is actually more about costs and to keep the class as a replacement for D and lower C cars. Your car, as an example, does not fit those criteria in the PT rules (yes, it was possible to run on street tires with no mods, etc..., but still not a lower level C car). Your car fits fine in every class from ST4 to ST1, and for the most part, the "natural" spot is in ST4 or ST3.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:57 am
Posts: 28
Is the 265 factory HP limit based on the original engine or what is actually in the car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 27
Location: Dallas, TX - Vorshlag
I assume that the standard foam rubber rear spoiler on a Porsche 944 is a "spoiler" as far as the rules go. Which disqualifies it for using the "BTM Aero" Modification Factor (6.1.4), and would require removal of the spoiler to run a wing in TT5 (6.1.5[4]).

Is that right, or am I off base?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
Postmeister in Chief
Postmeister in Chief

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 pm
Posts: 4229
Location: Southern California & AZ
Davidss wrote:
Is the 265 factory HP limit based on the original engine or what is actually in the car?

Factory rated crank HP.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:57 am
Posts: 28
Greg G. wrote:
Davidss wrote:
Is the 265 factory HP limit based on the original engine or what is actually in the car?

Factory rated crank HP.

Can you take a chassis which originally had an engine with 300 hp and swap in a 250 hp engine?
Can you take a chassis which originally had an engine with 250 hp and swap in a 300 hp engine?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:03 am 
Offline
Postmeister in Chief
Postmeister in Chief

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 pm
Posts: 4229
Location: Southern California & AZ
Davidss wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
Davidss wrote:
Is the 265 factory HP limit based on the original engine or what is actually in the car?

Factory rated crank HP.

Can you take a chassis which originally had an engine with 300 hp and swap in a 250 hp engine?
Can you take a chassis which originally had an engine with 250 hp and swap in a 300 hp engine?

"6.1.1 Power Modification Limitations
1) Nitrous Oxide use is prohibited. Pre-existing tanks must be removed.
2) Methanol/Alcohol-water injection is not permitted.
3) Engine swaps are permitted, but the donor vehicle must be a model eligible
to compete in ST5
(section 4)."


So, the answer to both is no.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:57 am 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:53 am
Posts: 68
So looking at the rules, I realize I have to change my plans. The shock rule that adds a modifier for 40mm+ shaft diameters makes running the only suspension manufacturer that provides NASA contingency prohibitive/ impossible. Thant kind of stinks, as you can get a full AST non-remote set up for ~1500 less than an MCS set up. Even though the MCS is likely the faster set-up, the shaft diameter is smaller, thus no modifier.

Kinda wish it were based only on remote/piggyback systems but it is what it is I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:34 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Lexington, KY
I'm also not the biggest fan of the current shock rule. I think it would be better if the rule just stated the max number of adjustments allowed before the modifier kicks in (single adjustable for ST5, in my opinion) and left it at that. The current rule allows a benefit to certain cars instead of putting everyone on an equal playing field and discouraging spending.

Example:
-The 90-05 Miatas have a really short rear shock and a single adjuster is all that will fit without adding an external reservoir.
-The 2016+ Miatas have extremely long shock bodies and can package the hardware for a triple adjustable inside the shock body.

So the 90-05 gets a -.7 modifier for a double adjustable, while the 2016+ gets to run a really expensive triple adjustable with no modifier. Doesn't make sense.

_________________
Jeff Preston
TT/PTE Miata #417


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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