NASA penalizes all rear engines.......
12-20-2013, 06:26 AM
#107
Race Car
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Smith and Sawtelle are very good but they are not the fastest from the east coast. The fastest ST2 car on the east coast is the one that won Nationals in 2012. Granted it was a default win, it was also not driven by its fastest driver either.
I would bet it's as fast as the Pfadt car or faster. I can't say for sure if it's legal but at mid ohio they regularly have impound.
12-20-2013, 07:58 AM
#108
Burning Brakes
Ok, from my perspective.........10yr NASA ST Director, 5yr GTS racer, 4x Championship ST Director, National Champion.
There is no alignment between GTS and ST. GTS guys are passionate about the German marquis and not making changes to the rules, even if they might be better in the long run. The GTS rules are largely based on driver input with great pressure to keep them open.
ST rules are largely based on the National Directors input after hundreds and hundreds of hours over the last 10 years. ST has more of a "what if" type pressure, worrying about the class buster and what could be running if imagination and cost collide.
It's clear for many reasons the two virtually identical classes are not going to collide. It's unfortunate because around the country the participation level in GTS and ST varies greatly. In the East we happen to have very strong ST and GTS groups with Mid Ohio events having 25 cars in each class so splitting the cars is not a big issue. In other areas they're not so lucky so the split waters down the competition. Another factor is the PRC/POC group out west who capture most of the GTS4/5-ST1/2 cars who could be part of the core NASA group. And I have heard talk about running that group out east which could really kill the GTS/ST contingency.
So the only thing I still fail to understand and have yet to have explained directly by GG is why the Rear Engine penalty. Lot's of year over year comparisons but no direct explanation. I see v8.4 reduces the it which helps, but it sure smells like the Porsche tax, just like SCCA.
There is no alignment between GTS and ST. GTS guys are passionate about the German marquis and not making changes to the rules, even if they might be better in the long run. The GTS rules are largely based on driver input with great pressure to keep them open.
ST rules are largely based on the National Directors input after hundreds and hundreds of hours over the last 10 years. ST has more of a "what if" type pressure, worrying about the class buster and what could be running if imagination and cost collide.
It's clear for many reasons the two virtually identical classes are not going to collide. It's unfortunate because around the country the participation level in GTS and ST varies greatly. In the East we happen to have very strong ST and GTS groups with Mid Ohio events having 25 cars in each class so splitting the cars is not a big issue. In other areas they're not so lucky so the split waters down the competition. Another factor is the PRC/POC group out west who capture most of the GTS4/5-ST1/2 cars who could be part of the core NASA group. And I have heard talk about running that group out east which could really kill the GTS/ST contingency.
So the only thing I still fail to understand and have yet to have explained directly by GG is why the Rear Engine penalty. Lot's of year over year comparisons but no direct explanation. I see v8.4 reduces the it which helps, but it sure smells like the Porsche tax, just like SCCA.
12-20-2013, 09:51 AM
#109
Race Car
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Their premise is that 911's can race at lighter weights than other modern competition. Not many cars can get down to a 2600 lb race weight like JR Gordon and some others have. The cars that can are older and boxy cars that will have an aero disadvantage compared to the 911. So the claim is that everyone else has a disadvantage to the 911 in some way. There is no accounting for the disadvantages of the 911 relative to the other cars.
What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs. The dead giveaway is no penalty for 911's in GTS, where most all of the BMW's are older and boxy and would be at a bigger disadvantage than the Corvette's, Vipers in ST. Most of the 911's still run GTS anyways.... Double giveaway. And as mentioned, the Lotus race cars can run that light, and have good aero, 3 strikes. They call it rear engine because they are being tactful in singling out the 911.
Maybe they are convincing themselves not to allow the 911 to potentially be dominant in two classes (ST and GTS). I mean cup cars are potent if you can handle them. But based on the rant from GG about Porsche owners being snobs and talking down about other makes, there are some chips on shoulders in SoCal.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
But that's what it boils down to. The directors do not like at least some Porsche guys and do not want the 911's to win in ST. So they penalize the ones most likely to win in ST. Those are the targets. The rest were collateral damage until we pitched a fit. I'm thinking about going ST1 to ruin those plans. I have torque so I don't need so much weight loss.
What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs. The dead giveaway is no penalty for 911's in GTS, where most all of the BMW's are older and boxy and would be at a bigger disadvantage than the Corvette's, Vipers in ST. Most of the 911's still run GTS anyways.... Double giveaway. And as mentioned, the Lotus race cars can run that light, and have good aero, 3 strikes. They call it rear engine because they are being tactful in singling out the 911.
Maybe they are convincing themselves not to allow the 911 to potentially be dominant in two classes (ST and GTS). I mean cup cars are potent if you can handle them. But based on the rant from GG about Porsche owners being snobs and talking down about other makes, there are some chips on shoulders in SoCal.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
But that's what it boils down to. The directors do not like at least some Porsche guys and do not want the 911's to win in ST. So they penalize the ones most likely to win in ST. Those are the targets. The rest were collateral damage until we pitched a fit. I'm thinking about going ST1 to ruin those plans. I have torque so I don't need so much weight loss.
12-20-2013, 11:41 AM
#110
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Ok, from my perspective......... Another factor is the PRC/POC group out west who capture most of the GTS4/5-ST1/2 cars who could be part of the core NASA group. And I have heard talk about running that group out east which could really kill the GTS/ST contingency.
12-20-2013, 11:52 AM
#111
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
[QUOTE=wanna911;10991359] What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. QUOTE]
Porsche's could win all 3 ST categories next year despite the new restrictions. Our fastest modified cup cars run with 440+ rwhp @ 3080 lbs. (multiplier of 7.01) and would run much lighter in ST1.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. QUOTE]
Porsche's could win all 3 ST categories next year despite the new restrictions. Our fastest modified cup cars run with 440+ rwhp @ 3080 lbs. (multiplier of 7.01) and would run much lighter in ST1.
12-20-2013, 12:36 PM
#112
AutoX
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West coast
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding scca, the corvettes just took huge hits in T1, T2, and GT2. The repercussions of a corvette winning in 2013 with a professional shop building the car and a pro driver.
You have been very helpful to me over the years. John was even giving me tips for the national races this year 
. I didn't start track days until I was 40 and I've only had my race license 3 years. I'm competitive, but definitely no where near the best driver. I'm the only ST2 car in Norcal which is why my car stands out with track records. Sonoma should be a tough race. I have a feeling it will be even more challenging than Miller this year.
12-20-2013, 12:46 PM
#113
Race Car
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
[QUOTE=jrgordonsenior;10991666]
I'd be impressed to see a 996/997 in ST2 affected by the rules win and dominate lap times in a 996 on either coast. Racing is racing though and the best car doesn't always win, as you and Bill among others have shown us. ST1 had 3 cars last year, and all of them were about equal to slower than a lot of ST2, so it will take more than winning vs that to try and draw a conclusion. I don't know how strong ST3 is over there, but over here, it's going to be furocious.
I usually use GTC or Imsa challenge as a consistent litmus test for performance measures and based on what I see, it's going to be a huge uphill battle for a 996 or 996 Cup affected by the rules to run the times the cars are running here.
Just my opinion though, but I do my research. I hope to see some more Porsche's on top of the ST/TT podiums though. I still don't think it proves any platform advantage for the 911 either way though.
What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. QUOTE]
Porsche's could win all 3 ST categories next year despite the new restrictions. Our fastest modified cup cars run with 440+ rwhp @ 3080 lbs. (multiplier of 7.01) and would run much lighter in ST1.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. QUOTE]
Porsche's could win all 3 ST categories next year despite the new restrictions. Our fastest modified cup cars run with 440+ rwhp @ 3080 lbs. (multiplier of 7.01) and would run much lighter in ST1.
I usually use GTC or Imsa challenge as a consistent litmus test for performance measures and based on what I see, it's going to be a huge uphill battle for a 996 or 996 Cup affected by the rules to run the times the cars are running here.
Just my opinion though, but I do my research. I hope to see some more Porsche's on top of the ST/TT podiums though. I still don't think it proves any platform advantage for the 911 either way though.
12-20-2013, 01:29 PM
#114
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
The first part is not true, but thanks for the compliment. I might have had a shot at winning but choked when my car lost abs without my knowledge going into T1. I must have had more adrenaline pumping to my right leg in that brake zone and locked the rears instantly getting the car sideways at 140. You have been very helpful to me over the years. John was even giving me tips for the national races this year . I didn't start track days until I was 40 and I've only had my race license 3 years. I'm competitive, but definitely no where near the best driver. I'm the only ST2 car in Norcal which is why my car stands out with track records. Sonoma should be a tough race. I have a feeling it will be even more challenging than Miller this year.
You have been very helpful to me over the years. John was even giving me tips for the national races this year . I didn't start track days until I was 40 and I've only had my race license 3 years. I'm competitive, but definitely no where near the best driver. I'm the only ST2 car in Norcal which is why my car stands out with track records. Sonoma should be a tough race. I have a feeling it will be even more challenging than Miller this year.
12-20-2013, 02:12 PM
#115
Rennlist Member
Now, that nationals are coming to laguna, we will see!
Im going to try to figure out how to run my car in T1 too next year. dont like idea of bolting on lots of weight though...... but, it would be worth it to be apart of the nationals circus for sure!
Last edited by mark kibort; 12-20-2013 at 02:31 PM.
12-20-2013, 02:23 PM
#116
Rennlist Member
Their premise is that 911's can race at lighter weights than other modern competition. Not many cars can get down to a 2600 lb race weight like JR Gordon and some others have. The cars that can are older and boxy cars that will have an aero disadvantage compared to the 911. So the claim is that everyone else has a disadvantage to the 911 in some way. There is no accounting for the disadvantages of the 911 relative to the other cars.
What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs. The dead giveaway is no penalty for 911's in GTS, where most all of the BMW's are older and boxy and would be at a bigger disadvantage than the Corvette's, Vipers in ST. Most of the 911's still run GTS anyways.... Double giveaway. And as mentioned, the Lotus race cars can run that light, and have good aero, 3 strikes. They call it rear engine because they are being tactful in singling out the 911.
Maybe they are convincing themselves not to allow the 911 to potentially be dominant in two classes (ST and GTS). I mean cup cars are potent if you can handle them. But based on the rant from GG about Porsche owners being snobs and talking down about other makes, there are some chips on shoulders in SoCal.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
But that's what it boils down to. The directors do not like at least some Porsche guys and do not want the 911's to win in ST. So they penalize the ones most likely to win in ST. Those are the targets. The rest were collateral damage until we pitched a fit. I'm thinking about going ST1 to ruin those plans. I have torque so I don't need so much weight loss.
What it boils down to though is that Corvettes cannot race at 2600 lbs. The dead giveaway is no penalty for 911's in GTS, where most all of the BMW's are older and boxy and would be at a bigger disadvantage than the Corvette's, Vipers in ST. Most of the 911's still run GTS anyways.... Double giveaway. And as mentioned, the Lotus race cars can run that light, and have good aero, 3 strikes. They call it rear engine because they are being tactful in singling out the 911.
Maybe they are convincing themselves not to allow the 911 to potentially be dominant in two classes (ST and GTS). I mean cup cars are potent if you can handle them. But based on the rant from GG about Porsche owners being snobs and talking down about other makes, there are some chips on shoulders in SoCal.
It is not the 911's fault that because the Corvette's and Vipers have bigger frames that can fit much bigger tires in front, fit bigger displacement NA engines in a front - mid engine position for better weight distribution with FAR more torque and have a much wider footprint. Despite all of those things, NASA has declared the 911 the one with the advantage in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
But that's what it boils down to. The directors do not like at least some Porsche guys and do not want the 911's to win in ST. So they penalize the ones most likely to win in ST. Those are the targets. The rest were collateral damage until we pitched a fit. I'm thinking about going ST1 to ruin those plans. I have torque so I don't need so much weight loss.
After addressing that, you have good points regarding balance and tire size. car width directly effects grip potential, and tires do that as well, but it takes a lot of width and balance changes to make up for absolute weight. 2600lb 911 has so many advantages over a 3300lb vet in areas of handling and breaking. tires can only make up so much, and so does width of the chassis and balance.
Just look at when there was parity in WCGT. the vets were 3100bs and the 911 cup cars were 2900lbs Power was close to 430rwhp for the porsches and vets were near 500rwhp. tire sizes were 275 and 305 and the cup cars were 245 and 305. There was parity!!!!! we should learn from these real life examples.
AND, as a big factor for truth in the comparison, there was parity with the driver abilities as well.
12-20-2013, 02:29 PM
#117
Rennlist Member
+1 Mark. A friend told me about this forum and how the new nasa rules pissed some people off. I can understand that and on first glance it does seem unfair. But once you dig a little deeper it's apparent that it has no affect on porsches or corvettes moving into 2014. The net result is a benefit to lightweight cars other than porsches. One example is the lotus at ST2 nationals who was already running toward the front. Another benefit for the light weight cars is the additional bonus for running smaller tires. My car is at least 600 lbs heavier than John Gordon's and combined with dot tires, that hurts over the duration of the race. He's reeled me in and beat me when we've raced together but it's fun racing with him. NASA actually did a great job with the ST rules keeping the cars running evenly IMO. I'd like to see more German cars move to ST next year. It's lonely in Norcal all by myself! BTW, I've seen it mentioned that the p-cars have a low percentage of wins and lap records, but remember they are a very small percentage of the ST class. It's completely dominated by vettes because that's the only place we can race our cars. We don't get a special class like GTS or AI. There is no POC for vettes (COC? ). All we have is ST.
I'm actually going to run SCCA next year for the runoffs at Laguna in either T1 or GT2 so my setup will be diminished by those rules. Interestingly, in GT2 they are making the vettes run on DOT tires while the cup cars get to keep running slicks. Plus I can't get my car within 200 lbs of the minimum weight on my budget (ie. no carbon parts). In T1 I would have to run at 3300 lbs with a 60 mm restrictor on an LS6. That's going to be slower than ST2 especially with the limited aero. But I'm looking forward to 2014 on the West Coast! Can't complain about 2 national championship series right on our home tracks.
Bill #78 C5 Corvette
). All we have is ST. I'm actually going to run SCCA next year for the runoffs at Laguna in either T1 or GT2 so my setup will be diminished by those rules. Interestingly, in GT2 they are making the vettes run on DOT tires while the cup cars get to keep running slicks. Plus I can't get my car within 200 lbs of the minimum weight on my budget (ie. no carbon parts). In T1 I would have to run at 3300 lbs with a 60 mm restrictor on an LS6. That's going to be slower than ST2 especially with the limited aero. But I'm looking forward to 2014 on the West Coast! Can't complain about 2 national championship series right on our home tracks.
Bill #78 C5 Corvette
what does your LS6 make again with headers, cam and some ecu changes? (or do you have more mods)
Im asking because im sizing up if my car can run, and not run with a bunch of weight (at 3000lbs now)
thx
12-20-2013, 04:08 PM
#118
Race Car
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I back the bold statement. he is running 1:31s at laguna and 1:40s at sears. (oh, and 1:49 at t-hill without hill) this is faster than most anyone has run in Speed WC GT and he has done it with only 380rwhp and dots. Now, I still think he has more HP than he says he does, but after racing against him at Sears, his car is defintely fast and he drives it well. I suspect it has a little more power than quoted, but much less than the WCGT racers of the mid 2000s. as soon as some corvette in SCCA back east runs a 2:18 at Road America in ST2, you might have an arguement that Bill might not have won the nationals.
Now, that nationals are coming to laguna, we will see!
Im going to try to figure out how to run my car in T1 too next year. dont like idea of bolting on lots of weight though...... but, it would be worth it to be apart of the nationals circus for sure!
Now, that nationals are coming to laguna, we will see!
Im going to try to figure out how to run my car in T1 too next year. dont like idea of bolting on lots of weight though...... but, it would be worth it to be apart of the nationals circus for sure!
It will beat almost every ST1 car in the country.
Danny Popp and Andrew Aquilante are I would say widely considered the two fastest Corvette drivers in the country (at least on the east coast). Aquilante ran a 2:15 in a T1 Corvette at the Runoffs at Road America this year with no wing on it. Then put a wing on for GT2 and crushed that field too and cruised home to victory. I will also note that ST2 is faster than T1. In fact at many tracks, PTA was as fast as T1 and ST3 will be as fast or faster once people get a hold on the setups. ST/TT3 is almost in the 1:29's at Road Atlanta (1:30.1)
I stand by my statement. I know Bill is a tremendous driver based on times, but my point is that there are equally if not more impressive times coming from Corvette's on this coast. Anointing someone the best should take some research.
Some of the Corvette's I compete against are 2600's or less. If the Corvette guys put in the effort to get the weight down, you will see where the advantage will come in.
12-20-2013, 11:10 PM
#119
would have been a great finish.torque, is not an issue here. if you have close gear ratios and are always in the max hp range (which newer 911s can achieve) there is NO torque advantage providing the two cars in question have the same HP/weight ratio. NONE! (as a note to why: same HP/weigtht, will equal same torque/weight at the rear tires acting on the pavement at any same vehicle speed .... .this is fact)
After addressing that, you have good points regarding balance and tire size. car width directly effects grip potential, and tires do that as well, but it takes a lot of width and balance changes to make up for absolute weight. 2600lb 911 has so many advantages over a 3300lb vet in areas of handling and breaking. tires can only make up so much, and so does width of the chassis and balance.
Just look at when there was parity in WCGT. the vets were 3100bs and the 911 cup cars were 2900lbs Power was close to 430rwhp for the porsches and vets were near 500rwhp. tire sizes were 275 and 305 and the cup cars were 245 and 305. There was parity!!!!! we should learn from these real life examples.
AND, as a big factor for truth in the comparison, there was parity with the driver abilities as well.
After addressing that, you have good points regarding balance and tire size. car width directly effects grip potential, and tires do that as well, but it takes a lot of width and balance changes to make up for absolute weight. 2600lb 911 has so many advantages over a 3300lb vet in areas of handling and breaking. tires can only make up so much, and so does width of the chassis and balance.
Just look at when there was parity in WCGT. the vets were 3100bs and the 911 cup cars were 2900lbs Power was close to 430rwhp for the porsches and vets were near 500rwhp. tire sizes were 275 and 305 and the cup cars were 245 and 305. There was parity!!!!! we should learn from these real life examples.
AND, as a big factor for truth in the comparison, there was parity with the driver abilities as well.
12-20-2013, 11:39 PM
#120
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
