Adventures in PTE/TTE
11-12-2015, 08:40 PM
#501
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Total Cats: 32
This just got posted to the PTE Facebook group.
We would be looking at ST4 in '17, and maybe ST5. We don't have any solid plans right now except to go for ST4 if the ST3 changes work out this season. I doubt that we would do ST6 also in '17, but at this point, it is up in the air and possible. We do like the incremental approach, though.
Yes, starting with ST4 (well, really we started with ST3), there would be increasing restrictions and/or Modification Factors to equalize cars. The farther down the scale, the more we would have. This would likely necessarily include a vehicle model Modification Factor (table like the PT base table) that we think would be necessary once we get down in classes in order to equalize lets say a Kia Rio and an S2000, or an '83 RX-7 and a BMW M3....There must be something to account for the OEM engineering/build/aero differences in these lower classes, as we would not want to have lower classes that required someone to spend $30,000+ to modify a $4000 vehicle to be competitive. There is no decision on what level such a table would be needed, but I guess it would be at ST5 and below. Most likely, ST4 would maybe have just a few more restrictions/Mod Factors than ST3, but not a big difference.
I would think that we will have to let the ST3 and Avg HP process play out until about June to make sure there are no bugs.
Ultimately, if this all works out, we would likely eventually delete the PT classes completely, but only if we can maintain lower level classes that are cost-efficient, and that are actually easier to class, because we no longer need Dyno re-classing, internal engine mod points, points for so many different items, etc.
But, the bottom line is that I don't want the guys in PTD, PTE, PTF freaking out, because we completely understand what we need to do to make those lower level classes successful for our more budget oriented drivers. We will not end up with lower level classes that could require $150K cars to win races because of open rules. And, we will end up with classes that are competitive, consistent with the current PT unwritten philosophy that the lower you go down in class, the less it will cost to build a highly competitive vehicle, and with a classing system that is open, fair, allows for drivers to more easily class their cars, and doesn't require competitors to make big changes in their current vehicle configurations. If we cannot do all of this, then we will not switch from PT to ST."
Yes, starting with ST4 (well, really we started with ST3), there would be increasing restrictions and/or Modification Factors to equalize cars. The farther down the scale, the more we would have. This would likely necessarily include a vehicle model Modification Factor (table like the PT base table) that we think would be necessary once we get down in classes in order to equalize lets say a Kia Rio and an S2000, or an '83 RX-7 and a BMW M3....There must be something to account for the OEM engineering/build/aero differences in these lower classes, as we would not want to have lower classes that required someone to spend $30,000+ to modify a $4000 vehicle to be competitive. There is no decision on what level such a table would be needed, but I guess it would be at ST5 and below. Most likely, ST4 would maybe have just a few more restrictions/Mod Factors than ST3, but not a big difference.
I would think that we will have to let the ST3 and Avg HP process play out until about June to make sure there are no bugs.
Ultimately, if this all works out, we would likely eventually delete the PT classes completely, but only if we can maintain lower level classes that are cost-efficient, and that are actually easier to class, because we no longer need Dyno re-classing, internal engine mod points, points for so many different items, etc.
But, the bottom line is that I don't want the guys in PTD, PTE, PTF freaking out, because we completely understand what we need to do to make those lower level classes successful for our more budget oriented drivers. We will not end up with lower level classes that could require $150K cars to win races because of open rules. And, we will end up with classes that are competitive, consistent with the current PT unwritten philosophy that the lower you go down in class, the less it will cost to build a highly competitive vehicle, and with a classing system that is open, fair, allows for drivers to more easily class their cars, and doesn't require competitors to make big changes in their current vehicle configurations. If we cannot do all of this, then we will not switch from PT to ST."
Reply
0
0
11-12-2015, 09:54 PM
#502
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 241
Total Cats: 27
There's a PTE facebook group?
Is that were the proposed TT/PT B-F 2016 rules are? They aren't on the regular NASA forum yet.
Last year we had 12 days between when the TT/PT rules came out and our first event in the Texas region.
Oh and last spring I did finally sell the Sport brake setup (Calipers, Brackets, Master, Booster and Prop Valve) I bought in Dec of '13 before the '99-00 / '01-05 NB class split. I only lost $50 and shipping.
Is that were the proposed TT/PT B-F 2016 rules are? They aren't on the regular NASA forum yet.
Last year we had 12 days between when the TT/PT rules came out and our first event in the Texas region.
Oh and last spring I did finally sell the Sport brake setup (Calipers, Brackets, Master, Booster and Prop Valve) I bought in Dec of '13 before the '99-00 / '01-05 NB class split. I only lost $50 and shipping.
Reply
0
0
11-12-2015, 11:10 PM
#503
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Total Cats: 32
First sentence says not until `17 at the earliest and only for PTB/PTC.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1652757551645592/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1652757551645592/
Reply
0
0
12-02-2015, 11:55 AM
#504
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 463
Total Cats: 121
New TT rules are out. https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com...cial_Rules.pdf
My hopes of having my cake and eating it too by running the Rival S or RE071-R have been thwarted (+6 tires)
My hopes of having my cake and eating it too by running the Rival S or RE071-R have been thwarted (+6 tires)
Reply
0
0
12-02-2015, 05:21 PM
#511
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 260
Total Cats: 58
edit- never mind, forgot all new tires must be evaluated by TT director before treadwear rating stands.
Last edited by dasting; 12-02-2015 at 05:58 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-02-2015, 11:49 PM
#516
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 241
Total Cats: 27
The only points car change was +10 lbs of base weight, which also changes the weight modification factor for the P/W calculation, .05 favorably.
So instead for 145hp for 2400 lbs w/ 205 tires, it allows 146hp for 2410 lbs w/ 205 tires. (W/P 16.507)
This looks much better than the Dyno reclass of 129hp at 2415 lbs, (W/P 18.72)
Under the 2015 rules, the points car didn't change W/P, but the Dyno reclass went from 18.38 to 18.72, 0.34 change almost 2%. Not much, but a little in wrong direction.
Last edited by EricJ; 12-02-2015 at 11:59 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2015, 09:41 AM
#518
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,738
Total Cats: 319
These changes are minimal, but I am glad I have a NB1 points car over dyno-reclass.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2015, 11:13 AM
#519
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Just remember, everyone:
Originally Posted by Greg Greenbaum, April 2014
This is what happens when the rules get pushed--more written rules, more time for the competitor to transfer information, more waste of my time.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2015, 11:47 AM
#520
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 79
Total Cats: 5
For a '99, it looks like the rules changes make a points car even a little more favorable over a Dyno reclass.
The only points car change was +10 lbs of base weight, which also changes the weight modification factor for the P/W calculation, .05 favorably.
So instead for 145hp for 2400 lbs w/ 205 tires, it allows 146hp for 2410 lbs w/ 205 tires. (W/P 16.507)
This looks much better than the Dyno reclass of 129hp at 2415 lbs, (W/P 18.72)
Under the 2015 rules, the points car didn't change W/P, but the Dyno reclass went from 18.38 to 18.72, 0.34 change almost 2%. Not much, but a little in wrong direction.
The only points car change was +10 lbs of base weight, which also changes the weight modification factor for the P/W calculation, .05 favorably.
So instead for 145hp for 2400 lbs w/ 205 tires, it allows 146hp for 2410 lbs w/ 205 tires. (W/P 16.507)
This looks much better than the Dyno reclass of 129hp at 2415 lbs, (W/P 18.72)
Under the 2015 rules, the points car didn't change W/P, but the Dyno reclass went from 18.38 to 18.72, 0.34 change almost 2%. Not much, but a little in wrong direction.
Reply
0
0
