Menu NASA AZ Home Home Schedule Contact About

Go Back   NASA AZ > General > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2017, 08:42 AM
HAZE's Avatar
HAZE HAZE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
ST5/TT5 - who's in?

The rules for st5/tt5 are out, anyone plan on running in 2018?
__________________
John H.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:59 AM
Arca_ex's Avatar
Arca_ex Arca_ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 862
I was pretty interested in this class and had been looking forward to it for a long time to maybe come back out, but after the rules came out not so much.

The tire rules were made to go after the 205 Hoosier on 9" wide wheel that is really common for Miatas (I would have to buy smaller wheels, all I own are 9") and I feel like the penalty for having A-arm suspension is pretty hefty. I guess when you add power to go to ST4 and above then it's not an advantage anymore? Seems like BMW's do alright for themselves in those classes.

The chassis to have seems like it would be a 4 door McStrut BMW.



Short recap of mod factors and link to rules for anyone else reading:

https://nasaproracing.com/rules/supe...ng_5_rules.pdf

Competition Weight:
Less than:
2850 lbs = -0.1
2650 lbs = -0.2
2550 lbs = -0.3
2450 lbs = -0.4
2250 lbs = -0.5
2150 lbs = -0.6

Greater than:
3300 lbs = +0.1
3400 lbs = +0.2
3500 lbs = +0.3
3600 lbs = +0.4

Tires:
Non-R Compound with UTQG Treadwear rating 200 or greater = +0.3

Brakes:
Non-OEM, modified or relocated brake calipers/brackets
or rotor diameter = -0.2

Suspension:
Suspension design utilizing upper “A-arm” or “wishbone”
type control arms (front or rear) = -0.7

Replace, modify, or remove control arms, camber arms/links,
toe arms/links = -0.5

Add, replace, or modify a Watts link, Panhard Rod, or Torque Arm = -0.5

Non-OEM metallic and/or spherical design replacement suspension
bushing modifications on control/camber/toe arms/links,
panhard rods, watts links, and torque arms = -0.2

Non-OEM shocks/struts with an external reservoir (or piggyback)
OR with shaft diameter 40mm or greater = -0.7

Increase in track width greater than four (4) inches = -0.7


Chassis:
OEM Body Type 4-door Sedan or 5-door Wagon originally
manufactured as a Production vehicle = +0.2

One or more cage bars that penetrate the front bulkhead/firewall = -0.3

Body:
Single, Flat, Horizontal Front Splitter (no greater than 4”) = -0.5

BTM Aero (see 6.1.4) = +0.4

Modification of the OEM roof line/shape and/or
windshield/frame removal (convertibles only) = -0.4

Modification of the floor pan for exhaust clearance only and/or
the rocker panel for side exit exhaust only = -0.2

Transmission:
OEM street-legal model available paddle shift/DCT/SMG
or sequential motorcycle gearbox = -0.3

(All classes—no assessment for automatic utilizing torque converter)
Drivetrain: AWD = -0.5

FWD = +0.6

Rear-Mid or Rear engine layout (not Front-Mid) = -0.4
__________________
Aaron Hiar
Higher Media & Race Factory
1994 Mazda Miata #883 PTE/TTE
WHP East - 1:04 - TTE Record
WHP West CW - 1:07 - TTE Record
WHP West CCW - 1:06 - TTE Record
WHP Main (Pro) - 1:17
WHP Main (NASA) - 1:10
WHP Main (Safe) - 1:12
WHP Mondo - 2:13
Inde Cfg. 4 - 1:49
Inde Cfg. 5 - 2:04
Inde Cfg. 6 - 1:52
Chuck CW - 2:07 - TTE Record
Chuck CCW - 2:06
AMP - 1:53 - TTE Record
AutoClub - 2:03
P1 Circuit CW - 1:00
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2017, 12:15 PM
HAZE's Avatar
HAZE HAZE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
So the 205/50 Hoosier on a 9" wheel is over the 226mm limit? Would it work on an 8" wheel?

What if u added ballast to 2400lb so u can use 257mm? Or would that require power/$$ ?

If new wheels are the only thing you need, then that's not too much of an investment. You gotta admit that "205" tire is pretty ridiculous. I'm glad they're finally addressing the huge variance of actual widths.
__________________
John H.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2017, 09:34 PM
Arca_ex's Avatar
Arca_ex Arca_ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 862
205 on 8" is pretty much exactly the limit. It's so borderline that it needs to be tested with an "official" tool to find out.

Can't make enough power if ballasting up.

Currently have 3 sets of 9" wheels. Sold off all my 8" wheels lol.
__________________
Aaron Hiar
Higher Media & Race Factory
1994 Mazda Miata #883 PTE/TTE
WHP East - 1:04 - TTE Record
WHP West CW - 1:07 - TTE Record
WHP West CCW - 1:06 - TTE Record
WHP Main (Pro) - 1:17
WHP Main (NASA) - 1:10
WHP Main (Safe) - 1:12
WHP Mondo - 2:13
Inde Cfg. 4 - 1:49
Inde Cfg. 5 - 2:04
Inde Cfg. 6 - 1:52
Chuck CW - 2:07 - TTE Record
Chuck CCW - 2:06
AMP - 1:53 - TTE Record
AutoClub - 2:03
P1 Circuit CW - 1:00
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2017, 03:47 PM
94TegLS@MSC's Avatar
94TegLS@MSC 94TegLS@MSC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: mesa
Posts: 273
Was trying convince my co-workers to jump into this class next year but after reading the rules they may not be able to and be competitive yet.

Co-worker 1: BMW E36 coupe has external reservoir coilovers going on that come with a .7 power to weight hit. Not a terrible option for TT5 but right out of the gate gets a big penalty because he has off the shelf Taiwan coilovers -__-

Co-worker 2: 90's Honda hatch gets penalized because of having double wishbone suspension. Also has camber kits which you need on a 90's Honda which is .5 power to weight hit so it's already handicapped with a 1.2 power to weight hit.

Co-worker 3: Mazda RX8 gets a double handicap with double wishbone suspension and external resevoir coilovers for a grand total of 1.5 power to weight hit.

TT5 sounded like a great option but the .7 power to weight hit for just having a car with double wishbone seems extreme. McPherson strut cars can be made to work as well with the right setup and I can see cars sweeping naionals with Mcpherson suspension, custom built single canister coilovers, total weight of 2,800 to run widest possible tire. I think some changes need to come in the future, .7 power to weight hit is huge.
__________________
Eric Kennel
#461 TTC Integra
Instructor
HPDE 4 Arizona Regional Champion

Last edited by 94TegLS@MSC; 12-29-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-29-2017, 09:12 AM
Tage's Avatar
Tage Tage is offline
NASA Arizona Regional Director
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 12,203
I think if you change your perspective, it could change the way you look at the class from "getting screwed" to leveling the playing field. Would it make people feel better if:

1. NON-external reservoir shocks getting to run more power? Granted if your co-worker bought some cheap coilovers and really isn't getting the benefit of a superior shock over "normal" shocks that is a different story.

2. Allowing double wishbone suspension with no penalty but then allowing non-double wishbone cars to run more power? I would also disagree completely with a 90's Honda "requiring" camber kits. Those cars gain massive negative camber when lowered and don't need it. I removed the camber kit from my 95 Honda Accord as I wasn't willing to take the hit before ST/TT5 was around and didn't make much difference. If he added the kit to REDUCE camber, then simply remove them for the events (once a month - big deal!) and then put them back on after the event to save on tire wear. I personally just left my car as-is with ~3 degrees negative camber (with 0" toe) and surprisingly my street tires didn't really show much inside tire wear. When I drove the car a lot on the street I would get ~20K miles. My BMW has a lot of negative camber as well and those have 12K miles now. The point is, negative camber doesn't wear the inside of the tire as much as you would think so a camber kit is NOT needed. A camber kit *is* needed to ADD additional negative camber, but double wishbone Honda's (even from the 90s) get plenty using all stock parts.

3. FWD cars definitely don't get screwed. They get a huge advantage in regards to the power to weight they get to run compared to AWD and RWD.


Suggestions to make it sound appealing:

Co-worker #1 - have him sell or trade his external reservoir shocks for good regular shocks and for all we know he might even gain some performance and no longer be "screwed".

Co-worker #2 - has an advantage out of the gates because he is FWD. Have him get rid of the camber kit and he's at pretty close to a break even deal if you want to look at it that way.

Co-worker #3 - have him do the same as #1.

Without any changes to any of their cars, I suspect if all cars were close to the limit of their power to weight, I bet the same driver would run pretty darn close to the same times. If they all did my suggestions above, I bet they would all still run the same times and all be competitive with the best in that class.

The point of the rules is to level the playing field so that more cars can compete, vs forcing everyone to have to buy a specific car to win a specific class. Some of the rules are annoying to me as well and it's very possible they are off on some of the adjustment factors, but like anything those will be fine tuned over time to further make things more fair.
__________________
Tage Evanson
NASA Arizona - Regional Director
Tage@nasaaz.com

Join and Follow our social media accounts:
Official NASA AZ page on Facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/NASAAZ

Official NASA AZ group on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/NASAAZ/

Official NASA AZ on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/NASA_AZ

Official NASA AZ on Instagram @ https://www.instagram.com/nasa_az/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-29-2017, 01:58 PM
94TegLS@MSC's Avatar
94TegLS@MSC 94TegLS@MSC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: mesa
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tage View Post
I think if you change your perspective, it could change the way you look at the class from "getting screwed" to leveling the playing field. Would it make people feel better if:

1. NON-external reservoir shocks getting to run more power? Granted if your co-worker bought some cheap coilovers and really isn't getting the benefit of a superior shock over "normal" shocks that is a different story.

2. Allowing double wishbone suspension with no penalty but then allowing non-double wishbone cars to run more power? I would also disagree completely with a 90's Honda "requiring" camber kits. Those cars gain massive negative camber when lowered and don't need it. I removed the camber kit from my 95 Honda Accord as I wasn't willing to take the hit before ST/TT5 was around and didn't make much difference. If he added the kit to REDUCE camber, then simply remove them for the events (once a month - big deal!) and then put them back on after the event to save on tire wear. I personally just left my car as-is with ~3 degrees negative camber (with 0" toe) and surprisingly my street tires didn't really show much inside tire wear. When I drove the car a lot on the street I would get ~20K miles. My BMW has a lot of negative camber as well and those have 12K miles now. The point is, negative camber doesn't wear the inside of the tire as much as you would think so a camber kit is NOT needed. A camber kit *is* needed to ADD additional negative camber, but double wishbone Honda's (even from the 90s) get plenty using all stock parts.

3. FWD cars definitely don't get screwed. They get a huge advantage in regards to the power to weight they get to run compared to AWD and RWD.


Suggestions to make it sound appealing:

Co-worker #1 - have him sell or trade his external reservoir shocks for good regular shocks and for all we know he might even gain some performance and no longer be "screwed".

Co-worker #2 - has an advantage out of the gates because he is FWD. Have him get rid of the camber kit and he's at pretty close to a break even deal if you want to look at it that way.

Co-worker #3 - have him do the same as #1.

Without any changes to any of their cars, I suspect if all cars were close to the limit of their power to weight, I bet the same driver would run pretty darn close to the same times. If they all did my suggestions above, I bet they would all still run the same times and all be competitive with the best in that class.

The point of the rules is to level the playing field so that more cars can compete, vs forcing everyone to have to buy a specific car to win a specific class. Some of the rules are annoying to me as well and it's very possible they are off on some of the adjustment factors, but like anything those will be fine tuned over time to further make things more fair.
1. The coilovers are indeed cheap taiwan brand that we purchased with the idea of revalving them and making them something much better down the road. Even then a .7 power to weight hit for external resevoirs? Seems a bit excessive.

2. Why does there need to be any difference in power to weight for double wishbone cars to non double wishbone cars? E36's have done great at nationals for years... and again mcpherson can be made to work just as well with the right setup.

Also I still think 90's Honda's would need camber kits to be competitive in TT5. I remember talking to Simon when he ran the Integra in TTE with natural camber from being as low as possible. He ended up around 2.5 if I remember correctly and that's not enough for a 2,400lb Honda with a 225 hoosier... which you would need in TT5. I found 3.6 degrees of camber on my Integra was ideal for a 225/45/15 hoosier R7 and you're not going to be able to achieve that by just lowering the car... or you could but you would have no suspension travel left. I also needed the rear camber kit to clear a 15x8 +36 225 hoosier wheel in the rear, and that's with shaved fenders.

3. I didn't say FWD cars get screwed completely, but which FWD cars will be most common in TT5? Hondas for sure... and the power to weight bump is thrown out because of the double wishbone penalty. My point is that a .7 power to weight hit is far too great just for having double wishbone suspension.


I'm all for making an even playing field in TT for close competition but these power to weight penalties seem to be far more excessive then needed. External resevoir shocks and double wishbone suspension should not be a big .7 power to weight hit IMO. I'm sure they'll fine tune the rules to make this more even eventually but I just can't see this helping car counts the way it is.
__________________
Eric Kennel
#461 TTC Integra
Instructor
HPDE 4 Arizona Regional Champion
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-29-2017, 08:26 PM
Tage's Avatar
Tage Tage is offline
NASA Arizona Regional Director
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 12,203
There was a comment about BMWs doing well/fine at Nationals so I went and looked and IMO, it is the exact opposite!


2006 & 2007 - what is funny is Greg in his SRT4 won and was the only FWD/strut car which had quite the advantage over all other cars. But... that car wouldn't be legal for TT5 and possibly not even TT4 under todays rules so at the first two years, I can say that no strut car would have won TT5.

2008 - All wins with double wishbone. 2nd and 3rd in TTC (again, not TT5 legal cars). A 3rd place finish in TTD. TTE was dominated by double wishbone cars. The closest BMW was over 6 seconds behind.

2009 - In TTD there actually was 2 BMWs on the podium with 1 the winner but I think this was primarily due to the fact that there are so many straights at MMP. Also, the winner and likely all the TTD cars would NOT be legal for TT5, they would be in TT4.

2010 - TTD winner was a BMW M3 but again, that would be a TT4 car today so it doesn't apply to the TT5 rules debate/discussion. In TTE, 100% of the cars are double wishbone with the exception of 6th/last place which is a BMW.

2011 - TTC had a BMW M3 winning the class but, again that would likely be TT4 today. In TTD 3rd place and last place was a BMW. In TTE, next to last place was a BMW. For another comparison in TTF, last place was a strut car as well.

2012 - TTB-TTE 100% double wishbone cars on the podium. All of the BMWs finished in last place in their respective class.

2013 - All DWB cars winning. Two BMWs on the podium (2nd in TTC, 3rd in TTD but over 3 seconds closer than the winner)

2014 - double wishbone cars dominated TTB-TTE. The best the BMWs did was a 2nd in TTC (which again would be TT4) or 3rd place in TTD (which could be a TT4 or maybe a TT5 car).

2015 - TTB-TTF dominated by DWB cars. In TTC 2nd and 3rd were BMWs but still over 2 seconds behind.

2016 - All DWB cars with the exception of TTC had a BMW in 3rd place and TTD the best finishing BMW/strut car was 4th place and about 4 seconds slower than the winner.

2017 - too few cars to really compare but any class with more than 1 competitor was a DWB car winning.


Is the .7 hit too big? Possibly but what will happen is now more cars have a shot at winning and those with a strut car don't need to upclass or sell their car to have a shot at winning. I don't think this is a bad move.

In regards to the camber kit, does your co-worker have it because he wanted to add additional negative camber to his street car or did he do it to preserve tires? Is he willing to change his alignment before and after each event? You see where I am going with this one to save him some "penalty points" right? I agree with you that a camber kit is required to get the "ideal" alignment for the ideal tires but we're also talking about TT5!!! This is suppose to be one of the slowest lowest cost classes to run in. I do feel there is a place for a class like this with lots of restrictions so that you don't have to have ultra expensive shocks, camber kit, best tires, etc. Cars with very few mods and very modest power can play in this class and be competitive without having to spend a ton of money and mods to prep it. For guys who like to throw mods on their cars and tinker there are plenty of places to play (i.e. TT4 and higher). The good news is the higher you go the less restrictions there are. Have them come to TT2 or TT1 and there aren't any silly aero or shock rules! Or heck, run TTU and they can do just about ANYTHING they want. Everyone talks about how TTU is unobtainable to win yet because everyone thinks that, I see lots of people in regular cars actually do well in that class (both locally and nationally).
__________________
Tage Evanson
NASA Arizona - Regional Director
Tage@nasaaz.com

Join and Follow our social media accounts:
Official NASA AZ page on Facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/NASAAZ

Official NASA AZ group on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/NASAAZ/

Official NASA AZ on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/NASA_AZ

Official NASA AZ on Instagram @ https://www.instagram.com/nasa_az/
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-30-2017, 02:57 PM
Arca_ex's Avatar
Arca_ex Arca_ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 862
I just don't get how the suspension is advantageous in ST5 but not advantageous in ST 1-4.
__________________
Aaron Hiar
Higher Media & Race Factory
1994 Mazda Miata #883 PTE/TTE
WHP East - 1:04 - TTE Record
WHP West CW - 1:07 - TTE Record
WHP West CCW - 1:06 - TTE Record
WHP Main (Pro) - 1:17
WHP Main (NASA) - 1:10
WHP Main (Safe) - 1:12
WHP Mondo - 2:13
Inde Cfg. 4 - 1:49
Inde Cfg. 5 - 2:04
Inde Cfg. 6 - 1:52
Chuck CW - 2:07 - TTE Record
Chuck CCW - 2:06
AMP - 1:53 - TTE Record
AutoClub - 2:03
P1 Circuit CW - 1:00
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-30-2017, 06:34 PM
94TegLS@MSC's Avatar
94TegLS@MSC 94TegLS@MSC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: mesa
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tage View Post
There was a comment about BMWs doing well/fine at Nationals so I went and looked and IMO, it is the exact opposite!


2006 & 2007 - what is funny is Greg in his SRT4 won and was the only FWD/strut car which had quite the advantage over all other cars. But... that car wouldn't be legal for TT5 and possibly not even TT4 under todays rules so at the first two years, I can say that no strut car would have won TT5.

2008 - All wins with double wishbone. 2nd and 3rd in TTC (again, not TT5 legal cars). A 3rd place finish in TTD. TTE was dominated by double wishbone cars. The closest BMW was over 6 seconds behind.

2009 - In TTD there actually was 2 BMWs on the podium with 1 the winner but I think this was primarily due to the fact that there are so many straights at MMP. Also, the winner and likely all the TTD cars would NOT be legal for TT5, they would be in TT4.

2010 - TTD winner was a BMW M3 but again, that would be a TT4 car today so it doesn't apply to the TT5 rules debate/discussion. In TTE, 100% of the cars are double wishbone with the exception of 6th/last place which is a BMW.

2011 - TTC had a BMW M3 winning the class but, again that would likely be TT4 today. In TTD 3rd place and last place was a BMW. In TTE, next to last place was a BMW. For another comparison in TTF, last place was a strut car as well.

2012 - TTB-TTE 100% double wishbone cars on the podium. All of the BMWs finished in last place in their respective class.

2013 - All DWB cars winning. Two BMWs on the podium (2nd in TTC, 3rd in TTD but over 3 seconds closer than the winner)

2014 - double wishbone cars dominated TTB-TTE. The best the BMWs did was a 2nd in TTC (which again would be TT4) or 3rd place in TTD (which could be a TT4 or maybe a TT5 car).

2015 - TTB-TTF dominated by DWB cars. In TTC 2nd and 3rd were BMWs but still over 2 seconds behind.

2016 - All DWB cars with the exception of TTC had a BMW in 3rd place and TTD the best finishing BMW/strut car was 4th place and about 4 seconds slower than the winner.

2017 - too few cars to really compare but any class with more than 1 competitor was a DWB car winning.


Is the .7 hit too big? Possibly but what will happen is now more cars have a shot at winning and those with a strut car don't need to upclass or sell their car to have a shot at winning. I don't think this is a bad move.

In regards to the camber kit, does your co-worker have it because he wanted to add additional negative camber to his street car or did he do it to preserve tires? Is he willing to change his alignment before and after each event? You see where I am going with this one to save him some "penalty points" right? I agree with you that a camber kit is required to get the "ideal" alignment for the ideal tires but we're also talking about TT5!!! This is suppose to be one of the slowest lowest cost classes to run in. I do feel there is a place for a class like this with lots of restrictions so that you don't have to have ultra expensive shocks, camber kit, best tires, etc. Cars with very few mods and very modest power can play in this class and be competitive without having to spend a ton of money and mods to prep it. For guys who like to throw mods on their cars and tinker there are plenty of places to play (i.e. TT4 and higher). The good news is the higher you go the less restrictions there are. Have them come to TT2 or TT1 and there aren't any silly aero or shock rules! Or heck, run TTU and they can do just about ANYTHING they want. Everyone talks about how TTU is unobtainable to win yet because everyone thinks that, I see lots of people in regular cars actually do well in that class (both locally and nationally).
I might have to do some fact checking on your nationals results lol! When I was at buttonwillow 2016 if I remember correctly we had a clean AZ sweep in TT3 with 3 E36 M3's. Obviously those are not TT5 cars but the point is that McPherson cars can be made to work really well. Is double wishbone a bit better still? Yes I think so but I still believe .7 power to weight is too big and will discourage double wishbone competitors a bit.

No doubt my friends could modify their cars to fit better inline with the rules but it's just more money in a class that's supposed to be low cost. I'll keep bugging them to man up and get out there
__________________
Eric Kennel
#461 TTC Integra
Instructor
HPDE 4 Arizona Regional Champion
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2008 NASA AZ