I know the pro is a misnomer (isn't improved also? ;) ) but hey is it the class title or the class racing we care about?
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=45021#45021
Printable View
I know the pro is a misnomer (isn't improved also? ;) ) but hey is it the class title or the class racing we care about?
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=45021#45021
Ack, what a freakin' mess of a ruleset! What were thes guys drinkin' when they made this stuff up? I would HATE to be a tech inspector for these guys:
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Perform...uring-rules.pdf
Best I can figure (this is spinning my head around), any built IT car would get the following "plus points":
- Tires, +7
- Weight, +6, assuming your car dry is within 200 pounds of stock curb weight
- Overbore past first factory overbore: +4
- Compression increase, +8
- Balanced engine, +3
- Replacement pulleys, +1
- Reprogrammed ECU, +6, but no points for only a reflashed ECU or +2 for non-reprogrammable reflash (I'm not clear about that either
- OEM airbox mods, +1
- Modified intake manifold (port matching), +1
- fuel pressure regulator, +2
- Header, +2
- Non OEM exhaust, +2
- Removal of cat, +1
- Lightweight clutch, +1
- R&P change, +2
- LSD, +3
- Race adjustable dampers with coilover, +7 (I'm not clear exactly which one get +12 or +7)
- Adjustable spring perches, +3
- Swaybars, +2
- Camber plates, +2
- Change rear suspension on live axles (a la RX-7), roughly +10
- Spacers if, greater than +2 inches track, +4
- Brake pads, +1
- Suspension bushings, +1
- Front strut tower bar, +1
- There's plusses for if you have to add ballast!! From +1 for 30# to +6 for 180 pounds.
- Front airdam/splitter, +2
- Incorporate rear strut bar in roll cage, +1
- Transverse dash roll tube, +1
Did I get everything? So, it appears thatmost any IT car will be bumped up three classes; in my case it would be from "PTF" meaning I would be competing against cars in stock configuration such as the Acura NSX, BMW E46 M3, Corvette C4, Ferrari 348, Mustang Cobra, Lancer Evo, Porsche 993, and so forth.
Not really Improved Touring-friendly rules...I think I'll pass, thank you. - GA
You have got to be kidding me! WTF? I had to double verify that this wasn't a joke. Is this really considered IT friendly? Argh!
Don't forget that NASA has a national spec Toyo RA1 this year. Unless the class you run in has a rule that circumvents it, you have to run the Toyo.
If you want to run at their "National Championship" race at Mid Ohio, you MUST run the Toyo.
Don't expect NASA to be "IT friendly." They have a severe complex when it comes to SCCA drivers coming to their races and whipping their "regular" folks asses. Top NASA officials have not been shy about publicly stating that they aren't all that interested in crossover drivers from SCCA.
I'm surprised the even bothered to go through all that stuff Greg mentioned to try to work SCCA cars in.
Fortunately, my ITC Civic isn't listed, but, if I had an ITC CRX HF with the modifications that are on my Civic, I'd be having to race with the Acura NSX's also. I knew there were more than several reasons why I didn't want to race NASA. If you think the tech inspectors are busy, think about the accounting firm having to add all those numbers! :o
There is no spec tire in Performance Touring, at least there won't be in the southeast. The PT rules don't spec any tire and I'm fairly sure you will be able to run whatever tire you want at nationals as well.
I'm working on getting IT cars placed more gracefully into the PT classes, hopefully it will happen soon but don't hold your breath. The performance difference between the classes is fairly large, so it's possible that ITA and ITB would be in the same class, etc.
my IT-7 would be bumped up to PTE which seems about right.
No spec tire, no spec anything for PT including to run at nationals.
I certainly never said it was IT friendly - I was saying this is what they had now as someone who had utilized the PS class previously. I think there are some advantages to gaining participation from NASA's other areas (HPDE and TT progression) - but by no means would I have said this was meant to encourage or support crossover.
That said my hope is that they would have crossover reference for other developed classes that is one to one crossover rather than adding up those points.
Don't worry Greg we can run in SR.
NASA TEXAS has a spec 7 class I'm told. Maby all of NASA has it, and no one has ask????
Locally NASA will ackowledge the Spec 7 cars, but when it comes to a national sort of event, the Texas rules will apply. The rules in SoPac and Texas are vastly different. The Texas cars are somewhere betware our Pro 7 and our Spec 7 class. Not much chance our cars could compete on the same track.Quote:
NASA TEXAS has a spec 7 class I'm told. Maby all of NASA has it, and no one has ask????
The new PT classing was never intended to be IT friendly.
The old PS classes were to be IT friendly.
However their were in general not very many IT cars that race in PS in NASA so rather than have the NASA version of IT, they decided to go out on a limb and create an entirely new class structure.
The basis of points for mods comes from their autocross and time trial rules. It does have some nice advantages in that you have choices in being prepared to limit of the rules and you have place to race just about any car at almost any level of prep. So if you want to race a car an "underprepared" IT car it probably will be in a class lower than a "fully prepraed" IT car. For example my 944 spec prepared car is underprepared for ITS, but has a couple non ITS legal mods. (minor stuff really). However I calcuated the points in PT and my car would move up only ONE class from PTE to PTD.
Nice in many ways, but I do agree that policing the thing may be a nightmare.
Interstingly Porsche owners club has run for many years with a similar Points for mods based system. They also grew this system out of time trials. I fully expect that these rules and point values will change as cars begin to be prepared for the classing and more is learned.
I do thing that this is an intersting take on racing and best thing is that you can now take just about ANY car and potentially race with some reasonble chance of success in varing prep levels similar to Showroom stock, IT, Production and even GT. Also you have the option to choose if you want to spend points building out a motor or removing weight. You can do either one or both and then be classed accordingly.
Good points Joe. It is nice to be able to run an essentially stock car with the safety equipment and have a shot of being competitive. I have to admit when I printed it out though, my eyes became very large and was confused on some of the sections.
Quote:
Locally NASA will ackowledge the Spec 7 cars, but when it comes to a national sort of event, the Texas rules will apply. The rules in SoPac and Texas are vastly different. The Texas cars are somewhere betware our Pro 7 and our Spec 7 class. Not much chance our cars could compete on the same track.
[/b]
You hit the nail on the head!
I started racing my srx7 in Texas and the spec7 rules are the same for NASA TX and SCCA. It really worked out well as you have a choice to race with whoever wants to give you the best track time for the money.
The rules can be found at txspec7 *Dot*org
Quote:
Don't forget that NASA has a national spec Toyo RA1 this year. Unless the class you run in has a rule that circumvents it, you have to run the Toyo.
If you want to run at their "National Championship" race at Mid Ohio, you MUST run the Toyo.
Don't expect NASA to be "IT friendly." They have a severe complex when it comes to SCCA drivers coming to their races and whipping their "regular" folks asses. Top NASA officials have not been shy about publicly stating that they aren't all that interested in crossover drivers from SCCA.
I'm surprised the even bothered to go through all that stuff Greg mentioned to try to work SCCA cars in.
[/b]
Look, I know you are not a fan of NASA but come on, let's keep the mis-information to a minimum huh?
For your information, NASA has been doing everything they can to make sure that they have as much scca crossover as they can get. If you remember, NASA is a BUSINESS. Crossover means more money for the organization and the region. It wouldn't be too smart to exclude a sizeable section of the racing public.
Please point out the public statements that NASA isn't interested in crossover please.
Jason Holland
NASA SE SM Director
As an actual NASA PS3 entrant, I was pretty bent about the new category and have keyboard-shaped dents in my forehead from trying to fill out that form. (It is an evolution of a swiped IRS worksheet, I think.)
I understand the concept of easing the transition from TT to road racing but I have a suspicion that, particularly if this catches on and people get serious about running PT (like at a "national championship" event?), it's going to become pretty clear why nobody has done this kind of thing for a heads-up racing category before.
NASA is going to need some serious review of policy and practices to support this thing. For example, I've been told that each entrant is supposed to provide a current spec sheet with EACH race entry, so they can be kept on file and available to others for review. (If I have no idea what Billy Bob is supposed to have done to his Pinto, how do I know if he's legal or not?)
It's also conceivable that I could make ONE modification that bumps me into a higher class, part way through the season (EDIT - or even change tire brands!). The solution recommended to me was to artificially declare my minimum weight, such that i get put in the class I'll ultimately want to gain season points in. (Remember, that we are trying to qualify for the Nationals, right?)
Hmm.
K
Kirk,Quote:
I understand the concept of easing the transition from TT to road racing but I have a suspicion that, particularly if this catches on and people get serious about running PT (like at a "national championship" event?), it's going to become pretty clear why nobody has done this kind of thing for a heads-up racing category before.
NASA is going to need some serious review of policy and practices to support this thing. For example, I've been told that each entrant is supposed to provide a current spec sheet with EACH race entry, so they can be kept on file and available to others for review. (If I have no idea what Billy Bob is supposed to have done to his Pinto, how do I know if he's legal or not?)
K
[/b]
You don't think people would LIE (i.e. be less than truthful) about mods that you can't see (engine, diffs, etc.), do you? :023: :cavallo:
When I first read this, I thought it was a spoof...but then I realized it was REAL! :119:
Boy, I'd like to be a fly on the wall of the "tech shed" at the NASA "national championships". :rolleyes:
MC
Wow, still shocked at the rapid class change. Several weeks ago I was contemplating whether I should run some Pro Sedan events to qualify for the NASA Nationals. Now, the class is retired and replaced by a new Work in progress program.
If one can criticize the SCCA organization as slow and inflexible, how would one characterize NASA?
Anyways, probably a smart move from NASA since the PS class wasn't going anywhere.
Joe Craven
Hmmm, 3 cars and what classes to race them?
Excellent observeation there, Joe. The guys who created Honda Challenge in NASA VA will tell you that they have a new appreciation for the up-side of an ossified rules-changing process like IT struggled with for decades. There is a happy medium between "too flexible" and "stuck" and I really hope that we are able to maintain it with the current ITAC structure in IT.
I suspect that NASA is going to continue to overcompensate for SCCA's perceived weaknesses by taking "giving the customer what he wants" WAY too far, before either realizing the risks of that route, or evolving its own generation of entrenched old-timers. :)
K
Over heard at an upcomming NASA race. Reporter talking to an SCCA racer.
What a frickin' joke! Do these guys have any idea what they're doing???Quote:
So Mr. Pooch, did they at least kiss you?[/b]
BTW, the way I read their rules, I could take a 1st gen. RX7, drop in a bridge-port or peripheral-port motor (+8), thrown on a set of Toyos (+5), a header (+1), remove the cat (+1), new air box w/ K&N (+1) and run a tuned exhaust system(+2), and as long as nothing else was taken out of the car, could run it in the base class.
To the rotary guys out there, how much HP can you make out of a brige-ported 12A w/ the stock carb?
Gotta love that one!!!Quote:
The intent of the rules and safety considerations will be the overriding factors in making such decisions, as opposed to a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage.[/b]
There are several ways to look at it all.
For solely myself, I see it as I lost an easy crossover classing in NASA (not really I have another one) - OK IT drivers lost an easy crossover classing (not really none ever came to any races to make use of the classing) - OK so nothing at all was lost in PS closing.
So what does PT mean to IT? I guess when I think about it - not much - very few had any interest in NASA in general or PS in particular. Starting to wonder why I started the thread at all, especially before reading more than just the news release...
OK so now it is just dead space in IT forums.
Another view could be had that if say you are going to a new track and there is NASA event a few weeks before might be a good way for some W2W seat time. So unless your IT car happens to fall in a challenge or spec class - PT is where you would register.
Another view is a population largely ignored by current organizations. DEs/Track days/FATT whatever you want to call it - has a lot of people who, perhaps largely through lack of their own research, don't get racing as a driver vs driver sport. A lot of them view it as being about the car and tuning. They can't say that no one will give them any place to race anymore. PT could easily be put forth as the car vs car sport. Really this is all club level stuff anyway. Maybe someone doesn't want to compete based on whether or not they are the better driver that can only be determined by completely optimized car preparation under a set of rules that requires 16 page threads to determine if the optimum will be legal in the shed or not.
Some might just want to run what they brung in a place where they won't get ran over in SU or ITE. I mean after a few years going to DEs there are a lot of cars that simply are no longer streetable some don't even need to add the cage - just add a kill switch and fire bottle and they are set as any of us to be on track. And they want to race the car as they have prepared it without ever picking up a rule book previous to that point. They may well not be competitive because their points add up wrong and they put things on that cost points but didn't give enough benefit. So they will learn the short comings - but hey they wanted to race, they were given a place to race and maybe the experience will make them a better entrant into joining another class.
Then there is always the full opportunity for someone who really knows their car model to totally arbitrage the points and do the things that for thier own car provide a lot more benefit than the generic points cover.
I guess in the end - the class is good for NASA I think and good for those that wouldn't have had any place else to race or are pig headed and want to run the mods they want legal or not. Now that I have read all of it though - I guess it isn't really IT forum related and is OT.
I kinda like it. I mean, once you have everything taken care of, your hair is all gone from figuring out which of the 15 different suspension options you should take points for.....it'll allow racing between quite a variety of cars.
It makes it nice for us without our cars prepped to the IT max. Since I have the stock motor internals (no dollars for a fancy motor build), my car gets spanked right nicely in the ITS world (I run a 240SX in ITS). I'd probably be a class down in the PT world from a good portion of the IT cars out there. I was just going to run the SE-R series (since they allow IT prepped 240's in it)...but maybe now I can find some closer racing in PT. No love, however, for the Enduros!!!
I noticed, tho, that there's no subtraction of points for a SIR!! :lol:
Oh, and Greg - did you notice that the spherical rear bushings/bearings (no, I'm not taking the bait on that argument) actually get a different point count. So you pay if you use them....seems fair.
joe
So, Ed, what you're saying is that it's a great place for someone that wants to go racing and has done very litttle, or no homework. Fair enough.
Up to this point, I really could not race NASA, at least not with any ease. SCCA, even the distant events, were still closer, and honestly, are a known entity. Generally well run, with good safety and insurance, and so on. So really, NASA had little draw, esp as when I researched it, it was obvious that the class I would wind up in was one that they really didn't care much about, and finding the exact information was difficult. They pretty much said, "Sure we'll have a spot for you". great but.......
Now all that is different. NASA could be an alternative, as they are much more local. But with that classing structure, I'm not sure if there is any point, esp if I need a second tire program. Jury is still out however. What are the noise limits for, say Lime Rock?
For myself I am much less happy with PT, PS was perfect my car went between directly but I also only had two races with three entrants all year. Usually it was just me and a well driven but underprepared 323.
Yes NASA racing has been essentially unavailable to the NE, nothing other than a simple fact.
All events I have been to have been well run and safe, insurance is good as far as I know. Not nearly the number of volunteers but still well run and safe. NASA was the known entity I was afraid what going to an SCCA event was going to be like!
NASA is where I spent three years on track with very little chance of car contact (I can't think of any contact in an HPDE in 3 years from GA to Maine) and it is their programs that brought me up to being able to race. If not for NASA I wouldn't be racing which is something I wanted to do my whole life but the SCCA process was never put in front of me plainly and I had no clue how accessible club racing was before I pursued it with NASA then dug for the SCCA scoop. (Many years ago I went to several driving events with companies in FL that were all SCCA racers and while they were fun - never was it made clear by any of them how simple or easy it would have been to move into club racing.)
Yeah I see now I could have started a long time ago - but I didn't know until after I was involved with NASA and looked into SCCA with purpose. NASA is the group that took me in and made it clear and made it happen. So as an organization I can't knock them and if they close an unattended class (albeit the best one for me) and start something new and different (which I see the same problems most have posted with it) for a different group of people with different interest than mine and it will take somebody else who wants to race but has no clue and hasn't been attracted deep enough into SCCA to know how easy it is - then good for them. SCCA IT suits me very well but I wouldn't have ever known that 4 years ago finishing my Masters or 8 years ago even though I was running on track with schools in FL ran by SCCA club racers.
LRP is going to be lousy - I want to run all NASA-NE events to help the group that helped me (NASA contact brought me into contact with also doing PDA track days since they attended each others events for a lont time already) but LRP probably won't be possible for me it is going to be highly muffled and the last PDA event I went to I got kicked off with the race car. I might see if it is doable but will probably instruct the HPDE and take my STI out in the DE instead.
The rest of the tracks should be no issue as none of them have the limited number of unmuffled days and other issues LRP has.