PA or T100 for my street V8 RX-7, rules gripes...

[dradernh]

This certainly wasn't the right place for this post... but who cares.

-Paddy

Actually, at this time it was the perfect place for it, as present Prepared class rules strike me as being out of whack, regardless of how they came to be this way. Just my 2¢.

Following is an example of the proposed COM Super class classification sheet, one I used last year at the last NHMS event as we tried to see how the new classification scheme would shake out in real life. Super C was a last minute addition with, IIRC, the break from Super B to Super C occurring at 12.5:1. This classification scheme is very similar to that used with great success by NASA for its TTU, TT1, TT2 and TT3 classes. Aside from driving talent and the ability/willingness to build to the class limit, it's generally created very competitive classes for NASA.

[Brendan]

I know exactly why Jimmy and Brendan and Fred like p classes. They have $10K 4 cylinder engines making huge 4 cylinder power. That's a hell of a combo for winning p classes. It sucks to have a car with a nice advantage and strip it away after a rule change. I think we've all gone through that at least once in some context. Some of us more than once - (fred!)

Being that a stock S14 rebuild can run $7500 depending on what you need to replace, and can sell for over $5K used, that's not much of a stretch. Both Jimmy and I are running relatively mild 2.3L engines, stock block, stock crank not really all that modified in the scheme of things. Fred's motor is definitely built more, but I don't know the complete specs... (For comparison, my car is probably running ~215whp on DSG's dyno, I've seen S14's run over 300, at the rear wheels, on a Dyno Dynamics - that's crazy 4 cyl power...!). But point taken - I built my car to a set of rules and made decisions I NEVER would have made if I knew these changes were coming...

I personally could get on board with the Super classes in one scenario. Two rules: 1. Power to weight that incorporates whp and wtq (and possibly some of the corrections doug posted above) that's it. No other adjustments for anything. 2. Mandated dyno type and run mode for classing. As long as we don't screw up the cutoffs, that should work. Let people do whatever the hell they want with everything else...

[PaddyMcP]

I personally could get on board with the Super classes in one scenario. Two rules: 1. Power to weight that incorporates whp and wtq (and possibly some of the corrections doug posted above) that's it. No other adjustments for anything. 2. Mandated dyno type and run mode for classing. As long as we don't screw up the cutoffs, that should work. Let people do whatever the hell they want with everything else...

I personally would get behind this exact ruleset concept. I know the 2014 rules guys really like those few adjustments, drivetrain, slick vs dot etc.

Brendan just for a datapoint... which ruleset would you rather -current PA, PB, PC or the one quoted above?

Also why don't you like the other small adjustments? Specifically.

We introduced the torque adjustment in Touring for 2013 and it was well worth the extra effort.

[PaddyMcP]

It's pretty tough to screw up the cutoffs. Take a sample of the current p cars and divide by 3 or 4. It's just drawing a line in the sand. There's a chance you could draw the line between two friends, but that's just hard luck. What do you mean by screw up the cutoffs?

[Brendan]

Brendan just for a datapoint... which ruleset would you rather -current PA, PB, PC or the one quoted above?

Also why don't you like the other small adjustments? Specifically.

We introduced the torque adjustment in Touring for 2013 and it was well worth the extra effort.

Me personally? I could go either way, but I still say keep it as is, but move all Forced induction cars into "A". That way you have a blend of the new set of rules (Touring) and the old that many people still like (SP, P) with a small correction to account for how far forced induction cars have come. Something for everyone.

I don't mind the Torque adjustment - I did specify "whp and wtq" above.

Tire compound - Leave it out and let people run what they want. Everybody has a compound choice, it's not a characteristic of a specific vehicle.

Tire Size - Similar to above - but I'd be okay with a restriction if it's not penalizing people for running "common" widths for a specific vehicle. If I tried to fit 335's on my M3, that would certainly be outside of "common". Anything within reason is a choice that everyone has.

FWD / RWD / AWD Correction - the theory being that an AWD car is better than RWD which is better than FWD assuming the same power to weight. The problem I have for stuff like this is, why not add a correction to penalize cars with better aerodynamics? Or penalize cars with a lower center of gravity? I think it's easier to leave it out - more rules does not necessarily mean better...

That's exactly what I mean about the cutoffs - if you draw a line in the sand and it cuts people who compete against each other apart into different classes, you now have people who've both been classed out of touring, and then classed out of running with the cars they like competing with....

Bottom line, I think having Touring, and then leaving SP and P as is (or with smaller modifications) is the best overall compromise. If I want really tight competition (albeit more regulated) - I'll run in T90 or T100. If I want more flexibility and don't want to worry about it - I'll run in SPC or PC. I like having that option...

[PaddyMcP]

Me personally? I could go either way, but I still say keep it as is, but move all Forced induction cars into "A". That way you have a blend of the new set of rules (Touring) and the old that many people still like (SP, P) with a small correction to account for how far forced induction cars have come. Something for everyone.

I don't mind the Torque adjustment - I did specify "whp and wtq" above.

The forced induction thing is interesting. First time I've heard this concept.

Don't mind torque adjustment? Running an S14 you should love this. Very high hp number, and not so good torque. Pretty soon people understand that area under the curve is everything with a hp capped class system when you want to run at the sharp end of a competitive field.

Tire compound - Leave it out and let people run what they want. Everybody has a compound choice, it's not a characteristic of a specific vehicle.

I agree. This is the unlimited group and the cost of slicks in negligible vs dot

Tire Size - Similar to above - but I'd be okay with a restriction if it's not penalizing people for running "common" widths for a specific vehicle. If I tried to fit 335's on my M3, that would certainly be outside of "common". Anything within reason is a choice that everyone has.

Then you get into a listing of common sizes for common cars. Tough to deal with. Limit tire size or don't.

FWD / RWD / AWD Correction - the theory being that an AWD car is better than RWD which is better than FWD assuming the same power to weight. The problem I have for stuff like this is, why not add a correction to penalize cars with better aerodynamics? Or penalize cars with a lower center of gravity? I think it's easier to leave it out - more rules does not necessarily mean better...

I agree. But if guys wanted to get more accurate with classing - this is a big factor. It's important. It would be on my list of potential adjustments.

That's exactly what I mean about the cutoffs - if you draw a line in the sand and it cuts people who compete against each other apart into different classes, you now have people who've both been classed out of touring, and then classed out of running with the cars they like competing with....

But dude. You gotta start somewhere. If the cars are of the same performance - you won't have that problem. You'll be classed together. If the cars fall on line line (one car at 7.9 and the other at 8.2 when the line is 8.0 you can always add ballast for small changes or detune an engine. Detuning an engine has a bazillion benefits - cost, reliability, power under the curve...

Bottom line, I think having Touring, and then leaving SP and P as is (or with smaller modifications) is the best overall compromise. If I want really tight competition (albeit more regulated) - I'll run in T90 or T100. If I want more flexibility and don't want to worry about it - I'll run in SPC or PC. I like having that option...

Having touring and then P classes or Super classes is the complete rules package. We catch all the students and newcomers and limited mods guys in touring and then give all the heavily modded guys a place to go nuts in P/Super.

SPA, SPB, SPC is not going to be around in 2014. The question will be what the P cars want to do. Make Super or keep PA, PB, PC.

The SP guys are going to have to slot in touring (where a lot of them fit) or play in "unlimited" and run P or Super. Keeping Touring 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, SPA, SPB, SPC, PA, PB, PC was never in the cards for the long term. The board decided to keep SPA, SPB, SPC for the 2013 transition year and phase it out in 2014. If we were to run all those classes long term there is a dilution of the competition via performance overlap. It's the reason Audi is so happy to have Toyota running next weekend at LeMans. An LMP1 victory at LeMans against yourself doesn't give much satisfaction to anyone. This is what makes racing great - racing other cars. In 2014 if you run with COM you're going to earn that trophy or championship and it's going to feel reallllly good.

Hell, Audi vs Toyota at LeMans is a crap example. Look at ALMS GT - Porsche cup, Ferrari 458, Aston Martin, Viper, Corvette, BMW Z4. That is THE best sports car racing in the country at the moment.

-Paddy

[McMahonRacing]

Just a word of caution ..... a Super Class modeled after NASA isn't going to work either ..... I'm presently in ST2 ( FFR Cobra, hence my sensitivity toward kit car discussions ) and on the number ( 8.02 on an 8.0 index ), there are other cars that are off the number ( 8.6 or higher, almost in ST3 @ 9.0 ) that are still faster ..... WHY, choice of body style and the additional fudge factors added just don't work .... bottom line I am a mid/bottom of the pack car in the NE, maybe if I build a new motor to better maximize the rules ( torque is free and you need allot to move a barn door ) @ a cost of about $10K or simply pray for rain or run stickers for ea. race in any case making up the 4-6 sec differential is going to be very tough & expensive ......... this is reality

If I read the NHMS # 1 results right the T classes were at a 6 -17 sec differential from high to low w/ the majority being in the 6-7 sec range, sounds close at first glance, but try making up that 6 sec. as no one will ever know for sure if it is the car or is it the driver, the concept in nice but it still has holes and those holes will only become more prominent in in any sort of Super classing .....

The reality of it is there are far too many variables to properly calculate a classing system, any classing system has to have a reality factor ( additional weight or throttle body restrictions or fuel restrictions, etc ) added to keep the classing structure working and it has to be live not an end of the year w/ a vote deal ...... again, just another opinion and something to ponder

[PaddyMcP]

Just a word of caution ..... a Super Class modeled after NASA isn't going to work either ..... I'm presently in ST2 ( FFR Cobra, hence my sensitivity toward kit car discussions ) and on the number ( 8.02 on an 8.0 index ), there are other cars that are off the number ( 8.6 or higher, almost in ST3 @ 9.0 ) that are still faster ..... WHY, choice of body style and the additional fudge factors added just don't work .... bottom line I am a mid/bottom of the pack car in the NE, maybe if I build a new motor to better maximize the rules ( torque is free and you need allot to move a barn door ) @ a cost of about $10K or simply pray for rain or run stickers for ea. race in any case making up the 4-6 sec differential is going to be very tough & expensive ......... this is reality

This is what I hear you saying..."my car isn't competitive in st2 because of body style, aero, torque and the adjustment factors don't work."

How is the PA working more accurately than Super without those adjustments?

Look at the 2 philosophies side by side and tell me how PA, PB, PC is more accurate and solves your problem.

Prepared class adjustments:
Cylinder count
Forced induction +1 class

Super class adjustments:
Actual measured power
Race weight
Slick vs DOT
Drivetrain layout
Tire size
Body style

If I read the NHMS # 1 results right the T classes were at a 6 -17 sec differential from high to low w/ the majority being in the 6-7 sec range, sounds close at first glance, but try making up that 6 sec. as no one will ever know for sure if it is the car or is it the driver, the concept in nice but it still has holes and those holes will only become more prominent in in any sort of Super classing .....

You need to re read everything. Touring is a completely different concept than super. 2 totally different sandboxes. One would not pre determine the future success of another.

The reality of it is there are far too many variables to properly calculate a classing system, any classing system has to have a reality factor ( additional weight or throttle body restrictions or fuel restrictions, etc ) added to keep the classing structure working and it has to be live not an end of the year w/ a vote deal ...... again, just another opinion and something to ponder

Weight is the single biggest component in the proposal for making the PA, PB, PC guys run in a tighter pack. FYI it is completely overlooked in the current COMSCC Prepared class structure. This one change alone would greatly improve the classing.

What I don't understand from the post Pat, is that you say ST2 isn't accurate and then shoot down the more accurate system. And the word accurate doesn't necessarily mean "right" it means amount of adjustments and factors used to determine a class. If NASA ran PA, PB, PC instead of ST last weekend would you have finished any differently? Would it have been a more even playing field?

Would you rather have PA over Super A because it's simpler and wide open (and you like that atmosphere)? Or because you think it's more accurate way of classing cars and keeping the field close?

-Paddy

[brucesallen]

The Super classes proposal is Great! Present Prepared is a laugh and only worked when we had so few cars it didn't matter.Next year all the SP cars (including kit cars) will have a choice of running in Touring or Super so we will have more Supers than we now have in P.

[McMahonRacing]

"" This is what I hear you saying..."my car isn't competitive in st2 because of body style, aero, torque and the adjustment factors don't work." ""

Yes, for everything they have done it just doesn't work, not a big deal I am on track racing and having fun anyway.

"" How is the PA working more accurately than Super without those adjustments? ""

Honestly, PA doesn't work either .. the thing here is the amount of work, $$ and maintenance needed to get the system up working and keep it properly maintained ( adjustment / factors have to be real & timely, not an end of year vote and would need to vary by track ) unfortunately, I just don't see that this exists at a "club" level.

Look at the 2 philosophies side by side and tell me how PA, PB, PC is more accurate and solves your problem.

Actually, I don't have a problem given the tone of the responses I got last year during the rules proposal I finally got off my duff and made a long planned move, I may be at a COM event but it is very doubtful I will run a TT so as not to mess w/ the others who may being trying to "win", for now I am just trying to offer some real world feedback ( ie: NASA it is not as perfect as one would think, nor is PA, nor is Super ) at least from what I have seen.

"" Weight is the single biggest component in the proposal for making the PA, PB, PC guys run in a tighter pack. FYI it is completely overlooked in the current COMSCC Prepared class structure. This one change alone would greatly improve the classing. ""

This is not a be all end all deal either, I added 80lbs - car is now 2 sec/lap faster than before @ NJMP, sometimes it actually helps when put in the right place ..... for Preppard, I doubt anyone would be thrilled about pulling power to make class, given it is the nature of the tinkerer to go faster, not slower.

"" What I don't understand from the post Pat, is that you say ST2 isn't accurate and then shoot down the more accurate system. And the word accurate doesn't necessarily mean "right" it means amount of adjustments and factors used to determine a class. If NASA ran PA, PB, PC instead of ST last weekend would you have finished any differently? Would it have been a more even playing field? ""

Trust me I am not saying PA is the answer it has plenty of flaws, just as many as the news rules do ..... PA was just kinda a fun class w/ no rules, I liked chasing the fast guy then finally getting to his level and moving to the next, we all have our rabbits .... for me, from day # 1 I have sorted the results by time just to see where I was & if I did any better regardless of what I was running against, how many of the prepared guys feel the same ( simply put did I beat my rabbit ) and then add in "track advantage" and all things just go out the window as could be seen last yr @ say WGI ( and backed up by current NASA results ) ..... I would suspect if you took all the prepared cars, broke them up w/ the same time spread in Touiring ( 6 - 17 sec, w/ the majority being in the 6-8 sec. range ) then just let them have it, it might actually attract some folks, COM has the timing system in place might as well use it.

Would you rather have PA over Super A because it's simpler and wide open (and you like that atmosphere)? Or because you think it's more accurate way of classing cars and keeping the field close?

As I have elluded to it doesn't matter much to me anymore and the ruling of the majority is just that, just try to be aware that the system has it's flaws ... accuracy only works if you can capture all the factors, apply realistic factors, make timely adjustments and adjust to track design/alyout.

[PaddyMcP]

So you think it's a step sideways? Fair enough. There is a group trying to make things better - not perfect.

Adding 80lbs and going 2 seconds quicker... sounds like you've got some testing control issues. That's just physics my man. I don't care where you put the weight you are going slower under consistent conditions. You could shove it up the driver's ass - you'd still go slower

[McMahonRacing]

Understand, not so much against change but it has to be improved or we don't go fwd., details are great spell them all out we will still find away around them as it is all in intrepetation.

You might think but, when physics meats reality things do no always go as one might think ..... would be better yet if you actually knew what the 80 lbs did to the balance, spring rates & handling ...... remember, one thing can offset another .... ex: straight line aero drag offset by corner speed can what make a car slower or faster, huummmmm I wonder

[breakaway500]

"Adding 80lbs and going 2 seconds quicker... sounds like you've got some testing control issues. That's just physics my man. I don't care where you put the weight you are going slower under consistent conditions."

Remove 80 lbs of aerodynamic panels/downforce wings etc. and you will go slower. I have learned a lot about the importance of downforce and wind resistance since owning the Atom,which is like a cheese grater to the wind.

[eastcoastbumps]

"Adding 80lbs and going 2 seconds quicker... sounds like you've got some testing control issues. That's just physics my man. I don't care where you put the weight you are going slower under consistent conditions."

Remove 80 lbs of aerodynamic panels/downforce wings etc. and you will go slower. I have learned a lot about the importance of downforce and wind resistance since owning the Atom,which is like a cheese grater to the wind.

Pat was clearly talking about ballast. Obviously if you remove 80lbs in aero you'll go slower.
-Paddy

[dradernh]

...if you remove 80lbs in aero you'll go slower.

Heck, if you have 80# of aero, you'll probably go slower.