Rules for 2013

[offcamber09]

I've been lurking here long enough. I have not been privy to the "spreadsheet" or the official proposal, but I am in favor of an ala-carte type classing system. This off-season I will be prepping a new car for a new class to me. I have the advantage of not having to adapt a car that I had run previously- and trying to make it fit in a certain class. In the past, while running Mustangs, I was always at a horsepower disadvantage because of the handling mods or body modifications to the car would bump it to SPA or PA. I've always been a "where the rubber meets the road" guy- which leads me to my concern with the "non-power/weight related performance characteristics" and how it is factored into the overall classing. Bottom line for me is I have a plan for my next car. I know what I want to do- and I'll see where it lands class-wise. Like Paul (or maybe it was Chris) said- if you don't plan to attend all of the events, it's a moot point for a class championship. As a small business owner, I am unlikely to be able to hit all of the events.
Thank you to all those involved in the proposal and the discussion.

[Chrispy]

There are essentially 2 things that make you go faster in terms of lap times, power and grip. I think the principal was to apply a calculated number of points to anything that can give you once of those two things based on how much potential it has to reduce lap times. It may not be perfect for everyone, especially those with a ridiculous number of "little" mods, but they will figure out a solution for that I'm sure.

[blindsidefive0]

Another update -

NHMS-4 entrants...check your email

Kevin - you bring up some good points. As we discussed in our offline email, I really don't think there will be large "gaps" between performance potential at the top of each class (e.g. Super B lap records are unlikely to be more than a few seconds faster than the T100 lap records). However, there may be a wide range of entrants in Super B because of low power kit/race cars, and other cars that may have "pointed out" of Touring. Although there is the scrutineer-provided engine mod points option, a "race car" may pick up a ton of points in other areas with potentially diminishing marginal returns (ex: is an 16pt suspension really that much "better" than a 10pt suspension). Some options here (for others to comment):
- Cap points values for each category (example: 15 point max for suspension - you take points up to 15, and then any points after that are for free)
- Assign Super Class methodology corrected weight/power values to Super Car Classes (example: allow super class corrected power to weight of 13.5 to run in T90)
- Add a Super C class

Personally, I don't love the idea of adding classes unless there is a big gap between the TOP of the classes - otherwise you get overlap of performance potential which is what we have today. I think that something like capping point values (we would have to make a call as to when the marginal return of additional points for each area is minimal) and extending Super class methodology as another way to class into Touring classes could reduce the size of Super B and allow hyper-modified street cars to run in lower classes.

Now, separate issue - $$$. There will certainly be exceptions as well as some "transition costs" depending on how folks have already prepped their cars for current rules. However, on the whole, I expect the Touring classes to be significantly cheaper than running in existing SP, ST, and even SS classes. Almost no car on the spectrum is more than 1 set of tires away from either the top of the next class up (with sticky tires) or the top of the next class down (with good street tires, like the RS3). Also, after going through some scenarios with folks, I'm fairly confident that for $20k (including vehicle, modifications, and tires) a good driver can be competitive in T100...and certainly under $10k for some other classes.

[kfoote]

Now, separate issue - $$$. There will certainly be exceptions as well as some "transition costs" depending on how folks have already prepped their cars for current rules. However, on the whole, I expect the Touring classes to be significantly cheaper than running in existing SP, ST, and even SS classes. Almost no car on the spectrum is more than 1 set of tires away from either the top of the next class up (with sticky tires) or the top of the next class down (with good street tires, like the RS3). Also, after going through some scenarios with folks, I'm fairly confident that for $20k (including vehicle, modifications, and tires) a good driver can be competitive in T100...and certainly under $10k for some other classes.

This is the only rules proposal I have ever seen that looks like it will actually succeed in helping to reduce costs and make more cars competitive for less money. It is also the reason I don't like the idea of a points cap, because a car could be built to max out a single category and get significant gains, but also costing a whole lot more money to get there. The expensive parts happen after you get the points to get to your point limit for the category.

Yes, I may be pointing out flaws in the system, but I am doing so because I think it will work with a few minor issues patched up, not because I think it won't.

[Stynger]

Nick, I have some questions concerning engine swaps.

I'll use the Miata 1.6 - 1.8 swap as an example. We have a few in the club.

Can I use the 10-20% increase in displacement (4 points) then add any mods like headers, exhaust, non stock cat, ECU, cold air etc? (probably not)
Or, can I give Tom a Dyno number and get an assessment number and not have to claim headers, exhaust, non stock cat, ECU cold air etc because that is what made the dyno numbers?
Or, can I use the stock 1.8 numbers from the car list, give to Tom, get an assessment number and add header, exhaust, non stock cat, ECU, cold air etc?

[Georgethefierce]

After running the latest classing on my sheet it looks like a Super C class may be needed (or my car is a unicorn and if that's the case ignore it)

If I did everything correctly (and that's no guarantee) my W/P number is around 13....and is quite a ways off the upper (lower?) limit of SB. I assume that most low powered formula type cars would fall into the same general category? (FV, F500 for example). Anyone know what the Formula cars grade out to?

[C5toSM]

After running the latest classing on my sheet it looks like a Super C class may be needed (or my car is a unicorn and if that's the case ignore it)

If I did everything correctly (and that's no guarantee) my W/P number is around 13....and is quite a ways off the upper (lower?) limit of SB. I assume that most low powered formula type cars would fall into the same general category? (FV, F500 for example). Anyone know what the Formula cars grade out to?

Nate and I figured that the Frankenspec would be in Super B with a corrected p/w ratio of 14.66.

John

[Georgethefierce]

quickly doing FV they come out around 16 or so.

[962porsche]

my diasio would also be classed in super B . Power to Weight ratio of 8.84
how ever the clamed HP and TORK in my suzuki work shop manual is at the counter shaft . now the gearing of the rearend and sprockets will change the tork out put at the rear wheels . so because i change my gearing from track to track how in the hell do i ajust for that tork rating ?

[Chrispy]

My super class p/w would be 14.33. However I currently can squeeze into the top of T100 even on the super fat tires.

my diasio would also be classed in super B . Power to Weight ratio of 8.84
how ever the clamed HP and TORK in my suzuki work shop manual is at the counter shaft . now the gearing of the rearend and sprockets will change the tork out put at the rear wheels . so because i change my gearing from track to track how in the hell do i ajust for that tork rating ?

Gearing is your problem. Take the crank HP/Torque and calculate a standard driveline loss.

[962porsche]

being able to change out the gearing quickly is a big plus ! i just will use the numbers from my tallest set of gears and that gives me the lowest tork numbers . took me out of super A and into super B

[McMahonRacing]

Just a note to all those in SB, I have pointed this out a couple times and am just cuiours ....... unless, I made an error my car falls into SB w/ the little motor, you have all been around long enough ....... so please in all honesty answer this question:

Do you really think it would be fair to have me in your class ?

Thanks
Pat

[Grippy]

Doesn't 8.5lb/hp seem kind of high for the top of the lowerst Super class?
I would be in SB with 15.1:1,
Or T100 with 94.6 points bring on the Z06's!

[dradernh]

This system is very familiar - didn't even need to get that headachey feeling by going through all that mod stuff: do not pass 'Go' and, at 11.7:1, go straight to SB.

Kudos to Nick & the McPs for taking this on - maybe we can play 'Shake it Up' at the lunchtime meeting on Saturday?

[blindsidefive0]

Theoretically, the cutoff for Super B is high because if you have more than 100 touring class points, you are rocking a very well prepped car...or a mildly prepped modern super car.

The cars that slip through the cracks are things like spec racers, the dwarf car, FV, etc. IF there are a good number of these cars that warrant another look at the Super classes, we will do that. However, after creating some mock results, the top Super B car at WGI this year ran a 2:07 with the top T100 car running a high 2:08. At South Oval it would have been 1:12 in Super B AND T100. That's less than a 2s gap at WGI and 0s at NHMS between those 2 classes, meaning the addition of another class would be redundant from a performance potential perspective. However, we will look at mock results for NHMS-4 and the season to determine if too many cars are falling between the cracks (un-classable in Touring, too slow for Super B)...which is a different problem...and consider implementing one of the possible solutions.