NASA Class System and Enforcement

With all of this talk about classification of various cars, if they are classed right, if they should be moved etc. I got interested in how cars are classed from the beginning. Then, I saw a few blurbs in GRM about NASA's system and was wondering how it works.

It appears that NASA classes cars based on weight and hp, at least in their V8 series. So, a minimum lb/hp and the hp is checked with a chassis dyno. Furthermore, apparently they can pull a car at any time and chassis dyno it on the spot to catch cheating.

This seems like a neat system in that basically do what you like but you must remain in the safety rules and you must meet the class hp/weight restrictions.

Anyone know if this works well and how they manage, or if they manage, to have a dyno at events to police things? Obviously, I don't know much about this but found it interesting in that at least there were hard and fast formulas that could be applied to classify cars and also to eliminate cheaters.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

The Hp/Wt requirement is only for the American Iron class I believe. As to dyno availability, if you follow some of the comments on the NASA forums, it looks like the midwest does a reasonable job of having a portable dyno available, not so sure about the Virginia area, or the Texas area. Those seem to be the only 3 regions where the V8 cars run consistently. I have no idea how they are at actually testing cars, and disqualifying cars. Dyno numbers can be influenced by several variables so it would seem difficult to use those results to determine car legality.

Of course the rules also specify other things as well. There has recently been some discussion about "notched frames". Seems that some racers were installing some aftermarket suspensions pieces (legal) that required that frames be notched (not legal). You would think that would be pretty straight forward, but it seemed to depend on who you talk and when if it is OK.

NASA rules enforcement is -- in my experience with AZ -- non existent. Of course the local franchise also seems to be on hard times again as they have merged their events with another local group.

The one time I have run with NASA SE, rules inforcment seemed about SCCA normal. The HP/Weight ratio rule is also in the GTS series. Cars are weighed at the track (Roebling) to insure compliance and the rules state that a car may be dynoed at any time to verify class. Works for them..hint/hint.

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

Do you guys REALLY think that a straight-up wt/hp ratio will work?

It works for many NASA classes, because the cars and technology in their very "spec-like" classes are, well... spec. The cars have similiar characteristics...

Do you think that a 240Z and an 2nd Gen RX-7 should share wt/hp ratios? Would they be competitive with each other?

wt/hp is a great place to start the process, but you have to make adjustments for suspensions, brakes, factory transmission ratios, etc... These would be the "adders" that some have referred to.

This is how all of the new cars and reclassifications have been handled for the past year, so if you guys are suggesting the wt/hp be employed in the process, well, it already is being employed as part of the process.

wt/pwr alone, however, simply would not get the job done...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Do you guys REALLY think that a straight-up wt/hp ratio will work?

It works for many NASA classes, because the cars and technology in their very "spec-like" classes are, well... spec. The cars have similiar characteristics...

---

Exactly.
NASA uses it in classes like American Iron where every car is either a mustang or camaro. It works there.
Try it in ITB, where you have a Volvo, VW GTI, BMW 318, Audi, Honda CRX and Honda Accord running against each other and you'll get a great big mess.

Another issue is cost. With these rules you can do pretty much anything as long as you don't exceed the specified p/w ratio.
Yeah... Have fun with that.

Another issue... Dyno variances. So you get your car just right on your local dynojet, but they have a mustang dyno at the track that reads 15hp over. You're DQ'd.
Thats good stuff.

Finally, the logistics of making sure you have a dyno at every event. In order for the rules to work, since they are based on pwr/weight, you MUST have a dyno at every race. No dyno and you might as well not have a rule book at all.

Otherwise, yeah, its a great plan.

Scott, former NASA official and creator of the Honda Challenge (just so you know I'm not talking out of my ass).

The other issue I see is the HUGE philosophy shift.

In SCCA, we have a book, it is pretty specific, and we are told to follow it and police ourselves. An honor system, essentially, where the officials largely stand at the ready to hear and officiate participant generated protests.

In Pro racing (Speed Touring for example) the philosophy is 180 degrees different. It is understood from the start that you are handed rules, but it is the officials JOB to enforce them. It aint cheating unless you get caught, in other words.

Using a dyno to prove/disprove legality shifts the enforcement responsibility to the officials, and changes the basic philosophy to that of the Pro model.

No dydno at this event? A little switch under the seat and viola! 50 more hp....

I'll pass thanks....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake is right, with current electronics it would not be difficult to have a detune switch somewhere in the cockpit. These can easily be concealed by using an existing switch or rheostat.

Scott, obviously you got disillusioned about the NASA program but it works for a lot of people if for nothing else as an alternative place to set up a car without pressure. And why won't it work with various modles? Power to weight is power to weight...a somewhat level playing field. What you are missing is the fact that an SCCA ITS car with a weak motor can run GTS1 and be competitive without spending 6k on a motor.

Jake, before you criticize their dyno policy, read their rules governing car classifications. IMHO they have removed much if the agnst the GCR provides.

The addition of a "power switch" is certainly easy...cheaters will cheat irregardless of any rule. Just like SCCA, there will be those who run by the rules and those who feel it necessary to cheat.

I don't intend to run NASA more than one race a year as their schedule conflicts with SEDIV's most of the year. However, if I have the choice of driving 3 hours to RA or 6 hours to Kershaw, I pick RA every time. Its cheap seat time and an excellent chassis sorting opportunity.



------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

I didn't read Scott's comments as criticism of NASA. Rather, they are directed at explaining why NASA's approach wouldn't be appropriate to SCCA.

Do you favor applying NASA's approach to the SCCA? How would you handle the issues raised?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chuck baader:
Scott, obviously you got disillusioned about the NASA program but it works for a lot of people if for nothing else as an alternative place to set up a car without pressure. And why won't it work with various modles? Power to weight is power to weight...a somewhat level playing field. What you are missing is the fact that an SCCA ITS car with a weak motor can run GTS1 and be competitive without spending 6k on a motor.

Jake, before you criticize their dyno policy, read their rules governing car classifications. IMHO they have removed much if the agnst the GCR provides.

The addition of a "power switch" is certainly easy...cheaters will cheat irregardless of any rule. Just like SCCA, there will be those who run by the rules and those who feel it necessary to cheat.

I don't intend to run NASA more than one race a year as their schedule conflicts with SEDIV's most of the year. However, if I have the choice of driving 3 hours to RA or 6 hours to Kershaw, I pick RA every time. Its cheap seat time and an excellent chassis sorting opportunity.

---

Well Chuck, I am disillusioned about plenty of things as far as NASA is concerned, but this post has nothing to do with that.

The dyno thing works fine for American Iron. Every car is a 5 speed V8 with a live axle rear and mcpherson front that weighs about 2800 to 3000 lbs. In other words, its damned near a spec class as far as chassis are concerned.
You simply don't have that in ANY IT class. The reason a 85whp CRX can run with a 100whp Scirocco all day long in ITC is due to brakes, suspension, gearing, and aero. It has nothing to do with the power to weight ratio.

"IMHO they have removed much if the agnst the GCR provides."

Spend a couple of years trying to run competitively within a couple of NASA programs and you'll come to learn about a different kind of angst. The kind of angst that comes from the rules constantly changing, sometimes without you even knowing about it. You may think the GCR and the SCCA process is a pain in the ass, but just wait until you have to deal with stuff like some guy out in California changing the rules of your series without asking anybody about it. You just get an email (maybe) one day that says "blah blah blah" and suddenly <for example> you have a garage full of Hoosiers on 14" wheels that are ebay bait.

If thats what you want... Go for it.
But I'd like the SCCA to stay just the way it is thank you very much. The current IT progress and methodology for getting there is just fine by me.

[/rant off]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Catch22:
The reason a 85whp CRX can run with a 100whp Scirocco all day long in ITC..

---

[discussion sidetrack mode on]

100whp Scirocco??? Interesting... I've been dragged through the mud for months now by someone insisting that the VWs in ITC are ONLY capable of making 99hp at the flywheel...

I'd be interested in knowing the source of your information and in hearing what you know of the topic...

If, however, you "KNOW" that the CRX has 85whp, and you are assuming the VW has 100, but is in fact referring to FLYWEEL hp, then you are comparing two cars with 100 flywheel hp, assuming a 15% loss with the VW...

[/discussion sidetrack mode off]

I agree with you completely, however... wt/pwr is a GREAT place to start to get cars in the right class and establish a baseline weight, but you have to consider the other factors and make adjustments accordingly...

Again, something we on the ITAC have been doing with all of the adjustments to IT over the past 18 months or so we've been involved...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chuck baader:

Jake, before you criticize their dyno policy, read their rules governing car classifications. IMHO they have removed much if the agnst the GCR provides.

---

Chuck, re read my post. Call it critical if you like, but the point I was trying to make was that in amatuer racing, it is very difficult to ensure 100% legality. The SCCAs method is more of an honor society, where the officials are (They'll hate this next phrase!) servants to the protest process. WE are self policing. There is real shame in being caught cheating and it is considered (or it should be at least) disrespectful of your fellow competitor.

When you switch to a system where the officials are bringing dynos to enforce a power to weight game, the philosophy has shifted, and the result is one that follows the pro model. The 'enemy' becomes the officials....guys will forget that when they fool the officials they are screwing their fellow drivers. Subconsciously, many will be encouraged to be "creative". Others will THINK that the fast guys are fooling the system, follow suit, and before you know it the whole deal is a joke.

I agree that cheaters are cheaters, but I think that the whole mental process that competetors go through is very complex for some, and it is easy to fall into the wrong result.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Banzai240:100whp Scirocco??? Interesting... I've been dragged through the mud for months now by someone insisting that the VWs in ITC are ONLY capable of making 99hp at the flywheel...

---

Just couldn't let it go, could you Darin? So much for our agreement to drop that issue! :roll:

Interesting that you've got time to stir the pot, but you don't seem to have time to respond to requests for information!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake, sorry if I misunderstood your position. Under their rules, however, you still self police. If an official feels a car is too strong, that car can be required to go to a dyno and verify horsepower. It can also be protested by another compeitior. You are not bringing dynos to the track (at least I don't think so) but requiring a test prior to the next event much the same way we (SCCA) will note something in the log book requiring action before the next event.

Scott, obviously American Iron works, as does the GTS series...these two I am fimiliar with. However, maybe I'm just stupid but I feel classification according to hp/weight is what SCCA had done since the beginning. You like it in SCCA but not NASA? The results are the same. In SCCA cars are classified by their poetntial performance then adjusted (how is that Darin) based on actual performance. NASA allows the competitor to build horsepower or loose weight to the class standard. Both work the same yet are different.

I certainly won't race NASA over SCCA or BMWCCA but some of the ideas come from the "let's make it better" perspective. It works for many drivers and we can both learn from each other.

But wait, a hell of a lot of people have a house full of SCCA 14" wheels and tires that are e-bay bait...need some?

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Just couldn't let it go, could you Darin? So much for our agreement to drop that issue! :roll:

---

I have dropped it... I don't give a rip about the VW here, I'm interested in getting the statements concerning the "85whp CRX" qualified... The two cars are vitually idendical in weight... If ther is REALLY a 15hp difference between the two, I'd like to know...

Wouldn't you???

As for responding to you "requests"... There is NO answer that I can give you that you won't turn around and use against me at some point, and the answers really aren't that tough to figure out anyhow... Besides, NOTHING has really happened yet, and none of us (you included), really know how things are going to work out next season... We'll see how the "theories" work out and go from there...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Darin,

Both you and I, as well as everyone else that reads this forum, know that you could have asked for the information you're after w/o editorializing your comment.

You've shown (me at least), that you can't be taken at your word. We had discussed the ITC VW hp issue off line, and we both agreed to drop it. But I'm sure your selective memory has forgotten that.

Not sure why you're afraid to tell us what you see as the bottom of the performance envelope for the various classes.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You've shown (me at least), that you can't be taken at your word. We had discussed the ITC VW hp issue off line, and we both agreed to drop it. But I'm sure your selective memory has forgotten that.

Not sure why you're afraid to tell us what you see as the bottom of the performance envelope for the various classes.

---

Whatever Bill... I hadn't realized that I had brought it up again, but shame on me for wanting more info... Also hadn't realized that I was even discussing this with you, but apparently now I am again...

I'm not "afraid" of anything concerning IT, the SCCA, or the rules around here... To my knowledge, there is no defined "bottom" of any particular class. I suppose that could be defined as Kirk suggested... "too fast for the next lower class..." All of this is a little new... PCAs are NOT EVEN Instituted yet, and we have made a lot of moves based on some new processes, and people want to see what is going to happen with that before making a bunch more moves based on the process. Is there something really WRONG in your mind with that??

As for responding to "your" questions... again, this type of BS is exactly why I have been avoiding doing so... I have no chance of saying anything that you are going to be happy hearing, so why bother. You're expecting perfection in an inperfect system that has little chance of ever being perfect...

Finally, the VW issue WAS dropped, and still would be, if you had just let it be. If someone has information, I want to hear it so we can have a better idea of the situation. All I did was ask to hear more info if he had it... If you don't like the way I asked, that's your problem... not mine.

Oh, by the way, pretty much EVERYTHING I've suggested might happen with IT over the past year has happened... So so much for your "can't take him at his word", BS... I've been as straight as I can be with the information I have available. If you need more than that, I just don't know what to tell you...

So, to try to rephrase my previous sidetracking of this conversation in a manner condusive to Mr. Miller:

"85rwhp for the CRX and 100rwhp for the VW? Hmmmm... that's intersting. I'd be interesting in knowing the source for your numbers, because that doesn't make any sense, considering the cars are within 45lbs of each other... The VW should walk all over the CRX with that kind of power advantage, regardless of the brakes or handling. Please contact me so we can discuss this further, as I'd like to better understand the situation..."

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quote:

---

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Banzai240:Every class has an \"envelope of performance\", hopefully within which each car in the class \"should\" fit. Some will be toward the upper end, and some toward the lower. Sorry Bill, but that's just the way racing works.</font>

---

Sorry Darin, how could I be so silly as to think 'envelope of performance' meant there were upper and lower bounds.

You are a piece of work though, I'll give you that. You'll take shots at me and then tell me it's my problem if I don't like them. And then you'll claim innocence about bringing it up. There's an old saying that goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." You won't fool me again Darin.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Does that mean I don't have to read anymore long winded diatrabes? Cool....

Mr Jordan...back to the spreadsheet...or the garage...or the car....don't let Mr Miller taunt you...just keep doing what you're doing.

Mr Millar, leave Mr Jordan alone, try not to bicker, and get the Prod car ready for more racing.

OK??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Getting back on topic here...

I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Bruce Shafer, BMW E-36 owner, for stepping up and being one of the few people to go to the effort of sending the CRB and ITAC some REAL data to work with...

He sent, as promised, a copy of an actual dyno run, with all pertinent information, and has given the CRB and ITAC some actual data to work with.

You can't use dyno data solely to make these decisions, but at some point, you gather enough information to allow rational people to find the truth that lies in the middle somewhere...

Mr. Shafer, thanks for setting this type of example. Let's hope this kind of cooperation continues...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 14, 2004).]

Wow. I had no idea the little example that popped to the top of my head would (re)start such a pissing match. Sorry about that guys.

Darin,
I have some "real" info for you but won't post it publicly because its not all mine to publicly share. Its nothing earth shattering, and wouldn't be a huge surprise to anyone who watched this year's ITC ARRC race. But what certain cars make HP wise in ITC is widely known around here and not really hidden. The numbers shared are matching up to whats happening on the track as well (and are a big reason this years ITC race was such a damned good one). Email me at "unchecked22 at hotmail dot com" if you are interested.

Chuck,
Again, you're talking about spec classes or similar cars/chassis. The pwr/weight thing works for that type stuff. We are not in disagreement there.
And nobody is FORCING you to sell your 14" wheels. SCCA says you can still use them if you want to.
It can be a little different with NASA. Just trust me on this. I've been the recipient of unsolicited, unrequested, unwanted rule change emails from California. I USED to think the SCCA process was a pain in the ass. Now... not so much.

BTW - If SCCA continues to get its shit straight in IT (another big thanks to Darin and the crew), NASA racing is in big trouble. Their most popular series have capitalized on cars that SCCA either didn't class or grossly misclassed (which was the SOLE driving force behind the Honda Challenge, now NASA's most popular series). These things they are-a changing. We'll see how things shake out in a few years.

[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited November 14, 2004).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Catch22:
Darin,
I have some "real" info for you but won't post it publicly because its not all mine to publicly share. Its nothing earth shattering, and wouldn't be a huge surprise to anyone who watched this year's ITC ARRC race. But what certain cars make HP wise in ITC is widely known around here and not really hidden. The numbers shared are matching up to whats happening on the track as well (and are a big reason this years ITC race was such a damned good one). Email me at "unchecked22 at hotmail dot com" if you are interested.

---

Anything sent to the ITAC on a personal level, or officially to the CRB and ITAC, is considered confidential and only used amongst those with which it was originally shared... In other words, we keep it to ourselves out of respect for those sending it...

I would love to see whatever you have that would help us make more informed decisions...

Send the info to Banzai240 "AT" Yahoo "Dot" com

I appreciate the effort...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Scott, this will be my last comment on the subject as I try to resist pissing contests also. Did you ever think that NASA is a good feeder series to SCCA just as BMWCCA is? Both other series allow a lower level (hence less expensive) of preperation than SCCA. Racers can start smaller, and if they feel they can be competitive with the SCCA guys they can move up much the same way we did through SOLO 1 to Club Racing. Each organization has its place in the marketplace and is successful for many reasons. I really don't feel they dilute the SCCA enries as there are quite a few cross-over racers from both other venues.

I feel SCCA is certainly on the right track specifically with the feedback Darin and others are providing about the process. I applaud their efforts because the SCCA no longer stands for Secret Sports Car Club! Darin attempts to discuss issues with the vocal minority have given all of us useful insite into the process.

The NASA rules making process may or may not leave something to be desires..but I'll make my own decision, thanks.

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

"The NASA rules making process may or may not leave something to be desires..but I'll make my own decision, thanks."

Well Chuck, thats exactly what I'm telling you to do. If you read carefully, I never said anything about the NASA system of doing things being "bad." I'm just warning you to be careful what you wish for, thats all.

You simply pick your poison. The politics and slow movement of the SCCA system can be frustrating, but for better or for worse it keeps the rules pretty stable.
The NASA system has no such Member Driven, Committee Reviewed, Board Approved red tape. This is sometimes a good thing, but sometimes it is a very very bad thing.

As I said before, take your pick. You can have either or both. Whatever.
But having dealt extensively with both, I'll take SCCA.