redtopz

Thanks for the lecture. I don't think anybody here is trying to push an agenda. I already have an ST2 car with full aero, so how would it be helping me? And nothing here is really that complex. Allowing a hp/wt deduction in ST2 for non-aero is really no different than deducting points for heavy cars or skinny tires. This is just a discussion for how to get a T1 car or non-aero vette into a competitive race group without having to spend tons of $$.

sleeper02Z06

A lecture? Why, because you don't agree? No lecture just another persons point of view. Every time a sanction tries to level the playing field with specific rules/wieghting, be it restrictor plates, wieght, headers or whatever, it becomes complex, like it or not. You think it is not, well it is. How do you intend on wieghting hp/wt deductions for non aero cars? Shoot the arrow into a dark doorway and see what number it hits? What relevant data would be used to equalize? Get it wrong and one of the 2 sides will be crowing. And saying racers, all racers, don't have an agenda?? Well, that is like saying a spec class is, spec.......

When I decide to bring my car into a class that requires me to change the car to be competitive, that is on me. I'm not going to lobby for rules in my favor as I enter a new to me class. It is why I never jumped the fence until now. I enjoyed racing in T1 because of the things I didn't have to do, and the things that were used to keep the class level. Now in order to stay, I have to change the car. I am not in agreement with those changes so i will join another class and conform to those rules. I would not come to ST2 intending for you to slow your car or give me handouts to be competitive. It is up to me to bring the car to that level. Too many classes, and classes burdened with too many rules is following the lemmings off the cliff. It will never work properly and will eventually fail as proven by what we are seeing happen right now .

sperkins

Sleeper,
Your broad brush does paint an accurate picture of what can and does happen when rules are changed to favor others, but you obviously have no idea what we are discussing here. You sound more pissed off about your prior experiences with SCCA more than anything. The discussion about ST3 was brought up by the national ST director on the NASA forum. He is looking for input on how best to promote the (new) series.
More than likely it will not affect you one bit since you say there are other organizations that you have chosen to run with. That being said, your comments (rather belligerent comments) aren't helping anything.
Please take some time to get up to speed about the subject before going all ape ****.

sleeper02Z06

You imply I am uninformed in a thread of people acting like a spec corvette class will be affordable!!? In a thread where people say tossing wieght out of a T1 car and slapping a wing on it somehow moves it in the running with Dave Pintaric's Viper ( a VERY close friend )??!

Thank you for the attempt to read my mind but sorry it is just that, an attempt, and please stop with the personal attack. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about with regard to what I may or may not know, or that I am even "pissed". Assuming I am pissed because I have chosen to change my path is, well, assuming. I know about the new ST3 proposal, I am clear about people wanting some sort of a spec series and it is VERY clear that everyone wants a ruleset that benefits them. More classes in ANY organization that is having turnout issues with current classes is not the answer. In a good many threads on this forum and others people from both NASA and SCCA continue to discuss lack of turnout. How can adding more classes help that? Doesn't matter whether it is the National ST director or a bunch of friends working on a spec class.

I find it odd that if one doesn't agree with another, somone gets called belligerent or is accused of going apesh!t. I can assure you if I were either right now, you would know it.

I don't think any of us are happy with what is happening with T1 and have heard the same with regards to ST, and the proof is in the form of the many conversations, petitions, and letter drafting that has been going on. The fact of the matter is however, there are plenty of places to run these cars without drafting more classes and more rules in either club, something that will ultimately cut our own throats. I just don't want to see that happen anywhere.

I guess I will bow out now, since racing and winning at SCCA Nationals for almost 7 years has rendered me uninformed and belligerent. Best of luck getting everyone to handshake on how to keep too many ships afloat.

drivinhard

I seem to remember the 3 podium PTA C5's passing a T1 C5 during the nats champ race last year, but we'll ignore that...

The point of my post wasn't to dump on the T1 cars, it was in regards to cost savings (ie, the stock C5Z suspension with just T1 bars works very well at a 3120 lb comp weight) if one was looking at a low cost "spec" formula. You don't HAVE to have a T1 suspension and Penske's (all more $$) to run these cars at reasonable pace. I understand how fast a good T1 car is. We don't run 275's for any other reason than we have to.

I would hope a C5 T1 car would be faster than a PTA car in a race seeing that you can run headers, more power, open exhaust, $10k shocks, more rubber, and 4 pot front brakes.

I'm on the T1 cars side! Ignoring the spec vette portion of the thread, a simple adjustment for a stock bodied car in ST classes I don't think is unreasonable to at least take a look at, we aren't adding or taking away classes, and like scott mentioned before, there are already P/W adjustments in place for other niche makes/models. I think slotting the T1 cars into ST with an adjustment is a reasonable conversation.

Olitho

I don't want to take anything away from the three PTA podium finishers because they drove one hell of a race. I got to watch them. I was the T1 car in question, but I am not a good benchmark for what the cars are capable of by any stretch. I showed up the Wednesday night before the qualifying race and I had never even seen the track let alone been on it. My first time on the track it was pouring rain and that track is whacky in the rain. The rain line is a squiggly path of asphalt sealant avoidance. When it is pouring rain it requires knowing where those patches are because they cannot be seen. Then a couple more times on track in the wet and dry and stuff in between before the big race.

I am not the sharpest pencil in the box coupled with having some serious problems gaining comfort with that track, avoiding wrecked and spun cars and I was fodder for a whipping by PTA drivers.

jtmck

I think slotting the T1 cars into ST with an adjustment is a reasonable conversation.

Phew.......OK,

Can I now get comments on the numbers I suggested?

Thanks Jim M.

drivinhard

Oli that was not a jab at you, I was actually thinking of another C5 in ST2 that I believe was a former T1 car.

We all sucked at MO last year. I have never been good at learning a track fast.

Falcon

The irony of all this is that the ST2 class was set up in the beginning (2007 season) as a direct correlation with the SCCA T1 cars as the model. Now the class for which it was based is now seen as needing mod points to be competitive.

Says a lot about how the original rules set has been exploited to the hilt.

sleeper02Z06

I see what you are saying but IMHO if I am going to play in your yard, why would I ask you to make amends for me? It is my job/goal as a competitor, if I decide to make the change, to ascend to the level of what the class is. Or play with what I can and let the cards fall where they do. I am actually one of the few left in T1 without the insanely expensive shocks and required added expense of testing them, and still do pretty good. As you state, a well setup but still basic car with a decent driver can do amazing things.

Rules creep was one of the many variables that started the SCCA Touring classes down the wrong road. It is a slippery slope that could happen again to other classes if the rulesmakers are not careful and the competitors get greedy.

As for spec being low cost, of course it is on paper. T1 bars etc. are all affordable and easily policed. But one need only look into Spec Miata to see what really happens. Just imagine that, but with our cars.

All good points, I am just trying to give some more to think about.

Joe

sperkins

I really wanted leave this alone, but you keep proving that you really don't understand what this is all about.

ST3 isn't a Spec Corvette class. That conversation ended already.

Again, ST3 isn't a Spec anything class since it will be open to any non-tube frame production car that has ever been manufactured since 1893 that can meet the pw/wt ratio.

Suggesting a non-aero adjustment is a far stretch from "wanting a ruleset that benefits them".
You've been around long enough to know that lower costs = more entrants = more contingencies = more fun.

It's not adding "more classes" when it's designed to replace one that's going away (and possibly others).

Have I said that it's not a Spec class?

All the more reason for you to get on board with what we're trying to do.

Stick around. You might change your mind.

Cobra4B

Do you have any experience running on 275s, let alone 245s? Keep on truckin' on the "Vettes have to have 315s" to be fast train

sperkins

Last time I raced against a C5 that was on 245's, I got beat - twice.

sleeper02Z06

Yup for 275's, 295's and 315's. Sorry to derail the Brian knows what other people do train. Never said Vettes have to have 315's to go fast, just that the staying power likely will not be there with a smaller tire on the same car. Ever ran a 1.19 race pace at Summit for 35-40 minutes on 275's or 245's? If you have good on ya!

WBHighwind

And boom goes the dynamite.

sleeper02Z06

No I understand fully what it is all about. You simply do not agree so go ahead and leave it alone.

redtopz

I think what SCCA is trying to do is complex. I think a small wt/hp deduction for a non-aero car is simple. How would I choose the number? Well let's see, I have a T1 car at 8.3 lbs/hp and a full aero ST2 car at 8.9 lbs/hp. They are both about equally prepped for their respective classes (non-adjustable shocks, poly bushings, stock LS6 engines) and hold track records at the local tracks in scca and nasa. The T1 car is a few seconds a lap slower than the ST2 car even with a lower wt/hp ratio. So a 0.4 or so deduction will help a T1 car run in ST2 without having to add a bunch of weight or a restrictor, but it still won't make it as fast as a full aero car and I don't think it should.

I would look at it as a nice way to get the T1 cars into ST2 regional races that don't want to hassle with restrictors and new tunes or go full blown aero right away (I personally know several people who fit this category). Then they can work on slowly developing their cars into more competitive ST2 cars or run in other race groups. It takes most people time to develop their cars due to the $$ investment and effort involved. Sure there are some people who can take their car to a pro shop and say "build me the fastest ST2 car in the country within the next month". But I think most people are like me and slowly develop their cars over time to spread out the cost.

BTW, you seem to think spec racing is a joke. But that's what you've been doing in T1 all these years and having fun. Just because you can buy a $20k engine or a $10k set of shocks doesn't mean you have to. I also had a good time with a stock crate engine and cheap shocks in T1. I am smart enough to realize that my car would be seconds off the pace of a Runoff prepped T1 car with no expenses spared. But I don't really care about that. It's just a hobby for me and I'd like to keep it fun. Some people seem to get too serious about this.

fatbillybob

So true. It's all about fun since 99% of us have day jobs that don't involve racing cars for a living. This thread is serious with complex important issues few have the power to influence. Our best chance for change with SCCA seems to have passed despite a united front of 90% of racers. Time is short and 2013 is right around the corner. Once November comes we all start getting even busier. I think the default is that we each will fall into the closest class be it NASA or SCCA and just plod along. So after reading this thread and watching the DNC I come away with a stomach ache from both. The positive thing for us
T1'ers is that we have "choice." SCCA has forced us into a unique choice where for a few bucks we can modify for many different classes yet optimize for one. I'm not going to make that choice but let my local T1 racers choose then I'll just follow. For now it's time to go fishing...

Cobra4B

No but I do hold the TTA track record at a 1:17.8 on 255 A6 scrubs.

PushinTheLimit

Jim, I would say that's a decent starting point. I still think a good aero equipped setup car has the advantage at many tracks, but that would allow some non-aero cars more of a chance to be competitive.

I still think it would be interesting if all the GTS and AI cars ran in ST together and see how it all goes... but doubt that will ever happen.