Race Prep Miata race-only chat.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

NASA ST6/TT6

 
Old 08-16-2018, 01:29 PM
  #41  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 489
Total Cats: 24
Default

Telemetry is now allowed in the ST rule book. That was something I wanted to play with, but couldn't do under PT rules.

Last edited by FatKao; 08-16-2018 at 01:46 PM. Reason: Took out a bunch of stuff that would be illegal.
FatKao is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:19 PM
  #42  
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (3)
 
emilio700's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Total Cats: 1,808
Default

Originally Posted by FatKao View Post
So in theory a 6-speed with the 4.77 and a high enough rev limit to not run out of gear in 6th could be good? Assuming you don't end up with super shitty shift points all over the place.
We ran that combo at 2014 Runoffs Laguna Seca in our STL car, NB1 with B6. Gearing was spot on for that relatively slow track.
__________________


www.facebook.com/SuperMiata

949RACING.COM Home of the 6UL wheel

.27 SNR
emilio700 is offline  
Old 08-18-2018, 01:09 PM
  #43  
afm
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 841
Total Cats: 302
Default

Originally Posted by emilio700 View Post
NB1 with B6


afm is offline  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:44 PM
  #44  
Newb
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 4
Total Cats: 0
Default Miata 226 vs 257 @ 17:1

Couple questions:

So is there a consensus on where weight needs to be for the 226 to be faster than a 257 at 2451 lbs, both running 17:1? Both running R7s.

Do R7s fall off like sm7s after around 10 hey cycles?

Considering the better suspension options, do the sm7s fall off in PT/ST like they do in SM? This topic from the recent new SM shock description.

Thanks.

Last edited by Dadasracecar; 08-27-2018 at 11:46 AM. Reason: Correction
Dadasracecar is offline  
Old 08-31-2018, 08:28 AM
  #45  
Newb
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1
Total Cats: 0
Default

So is the consensus on the front aero that any small splitter is disallowed? I know that you get 4" in TT5, but if nothing's allowed in TT6 then why does the line, "functions as an airfoil ... and extends 2" or more past the outline of the immediate surrounding fascia is prohibited" even appear if all splitters are forbidden? I first read that as differentiating the larger TT5 splitter from a smaller TT6 one. It also seems odd to be allowing things molded in to "a replaced front fascia ... during the original manufacturing process" but not allowing the same piece to be built.
RJStanford is offline  
Old 09-01-2018, 07:39 AM
  #46  
Newb
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 4
Total Cats: 0
Default

Originally Posted by RJStanford View Post
So is the consensus on the front aero that any small splitter is disallowed? I know that you get 4" in TT5, but if nothing's allowed in TT6 then why does the line, "functions as an airfoil ... and extends 2" or more past the outline of the immediate surrounding fascia is prohibited" even appear if all splitters are forbidden? I first read that as differentiating the larger TT5 splitter from a smaller TT6 one. It also seems odd to be allowing things molded in to "a replaced front fascia ... during the original manufacturing process" but not allowing the same piece to be built.
wait. So is my $45 eBay splitter disallowed?
Dadasracecar is offline  
Old 09-02-2018, 12:58 PM
  #47  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sac
Posts: 329
Total Cats: 35
Default

I read it as nothing is allowed except items called out in the previous section (cooling and whatnot) and appendix b. With the -1.0 modifier to rear aero the rules are clearly pushing zero aero. The iii section is calling out OEM front ends like the s2k CR, which was nerfed on the old rule set too.
cabowabo is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:03 AM
  #48  
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,448
Total Cats: 174
Default

Uuuggggghhhhh

https://community.drivenasa.com/topi...in=1#replyForm

I just don't see the logic behind this 18:1 proposal. How does this increase participation for 6? Not to mention the displacement rule which excludes SE30 and S944. ST6/TT6 is fucked with this rule-set.
flier129 is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:07 AM
  #49  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 489
Total Cats: 24
Default

The cost of SpecE46 is looking like less of an issue every day.
FatKao is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:24 AM
  #50  
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 292
Total Cats: -175
Default

So the short story for me is;

my low powered TTE car that weights 2415 could lose weight pending my dyno results?
I/h/e/timing wheel
blkmkiii is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:45 AM
  #51  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sac
Posts: 329
Total Cats: 35
Default

I dunno, doesn't seem TOO bad. I would have to add 30lbs of ballast to hit class limit, but that's after (mostly) optimizing for a class that's about to no longer exist. My ole BP05's meager 125whp would have been pretty perfect for running a little bit lighter setup. A heavy VVT 6 speed with mild power is probably going to wreck shop in this class though.

2460 / ~132avg (TTE* 136 peak) = 18.6
-.7 A-Arm = 17.9
-.3 Weight = 17.6
+.4 BTM Aero = 18

I think the 18:1 limit also puts to rest that thread of guys complaining about how their NC/FT86/RX8 street cars are too heavy / underpowered for TT5 and should be moved to TT6 because they don't want to remove their passenger seats or throw cams at their motor.
cabowabo is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:53 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,475
Total Cats: 71
Default

Except NCs are specifically banned from ST6.
x_25 is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:57 AM
  #53  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sac
Posts: 329
Total Cats: 35
Default

Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Except NCs are specifically banned from ST6.
That's my point. They have less of a leg to stand on now that the limit is 18:1 vs 17:1. Their argument at 17:1 was that they fit pretty damn well into TT6 and they weren't wrong. At 18:1 an NC would have to be bone stock I/H/E, so they could still fit without the exclusive ban, but it'd be a stretch.
cabowabo is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:09 AM
  #54  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,094
Total Cats: 377
Default

There are 3 really loud folks who didn't want to change anything on their car go from E to 6. Everybody else now gets to go slower.

I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5

Moving the class to 18:1 actually makes dyno reclass cars easier to fit into 6 without buying parts. Those reclasses were 18.5-17.5(for a 16.5 class). Now, they're potentially spot on pending some ballast here and there with no other changes.

Last edited by doward; 10-11-2018 at 11:23 AM.
doward is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:23 AM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,475
Total Cats: 71
Default

Originally Posted by cabowabo View Post
That's my point. They have less of a leg to stand on now that the limit is 18:1 vs 17:1. Their argument at 17:1 was that they fit pretty damn well into TT6 and they weren't wrong. At 18:1 an NC would have to be bone stock I/H/E, so they could still fit without the exclusive ban, but it'd be a stretch.
Ahha, I misread.
x_25 is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:28 AM
  #56  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sac
Posts: 329
Total Cats: 35
Default

Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Ahha, I misread.
My writing is typically as clear as mud, no worries
cabowabo is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:59 PM
  #57  
Elite Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,163
Total Cats: 38
Default

I don't think the changes are bad for Miata's.

I do think they are bad for the class though. Specifically excluding e30s and Porsche 944s (as well as others) will only hurt the class, participation numbers wise.
Efini~FC3S is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:05 PM
  #58  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sac
Posts: 329
Total Cats: 35
Default

Originally Posted by Efini~FC3S View Post
I don't think the changes are bad for Miata's.

I do think they are bad for the class though. Specifically excluding e30s and Porsche 944s (as well as others) will only hurt the class, participation numbers wise.
Yeah I'm not quite understanding the logic behind that one.
cabowabo is offline  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:07 PM
  #59  
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,448
Total Cats: 174
Default

Originally Posted by doward View Post
There are 3 really loud folks who didn't want to change anything on their car go from E to 6. Everybody else now gets to go slower.

I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5
I read those rules, but was too angered by the exclusion and going slower bit to digest them.





Originally Posted by cabowabo View Post
Originally Posted by Efini~FC3S View Post
I don't think the changes are bad for Miata's.

I do think they are bad for the class though. Specifically excluding e30s and Porsche 944s (as well as others) will only hurt the class, participation numbers wise.
Yeah I'm not quite understanding the logic behind that one.
I'm with you guys on this. What.The.****?!
flier129 is offline  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:14 AM
  #60  
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,448
Total Cats: 174
Default

I've posted a reply on the NASA forum thread. I'd like to get as many people as possible to post on this thread with their feedback for ST6/TT6 for 2019.

From my perspective, I can suck it up on the higher ratio, but that displacement rule could really really hurt the class.
flier129 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: NASA ST6/TT6


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.