NASA ST6/TT6
#44
Miata 226 vs 257 @ 17:1
Couple questions:
So is there a consensus on where weight needs to be for the 226 to be faster than a 257 at 2451 lbs, both running 17:1? Both running R7s.
Do R7s fall off like sm7s after around 10 hey cycles?
Considering the better suspension options, do the sm7s fall off in PT/ST like they do in SM? This topic from the recent new SM shock description.
Thanks.
So is there a consensus on where weight needs to be for the 226 to be faster than a 257 at 2451 lbs, both running 17:1? Both running R7s.
Do R7s fall off like sm7s after around 10 hey cycles?
Considering the better suspension options, do the sm7s fall off in PT/ST like they do in SM? This topic from the recent new SM shock description.
Thanks.
Last edited by Dadasracecar; 08-27-2018 at 11:46 AM. Reason: Correction
#45
So is the consensus on the front aero that any small splitter is disallowed? I know that you get 4" in TT5, but if nothing's allowed in TT6 then why does the line, "functions as an airfoil ... and extends 2" or more past the outline of the immediate surrounding fascia is prohibited" even appear if all splitters are forbidden? I first read that as differentiating the larger TT5 splitter from a smaller TT6 one. It also seems odd to be allowing things molded in to "a replaced front fascia ... during the original manufacturing process" but not allowing the same piece to be built.
#46
So is the consensus on the front aero that any small splitter is disallowed? I know that you get 4" in TT5, but if nothing's allowed in TT6 then why does the line, "functions as an airfoil ... and extends 2" or more past the outline of the immediate surrounding fascia is prohibited" even appear if all splitters are forbidden? I first read that as differentiating the larger TT5 splitter from a smaller TT6 one. It also seems odd to be allowing things molded in to "a replaced front fascia ... during the original manufacturing process" but not allowing the same piece to be built.
#47
I read it as nothing is allowed except items called out in the previous section (cooling and whatnot) and appendix b. With the -1.0 modifier to rear aero the rules are clearly pushing zero aero. The iii section is calling out OEM front ends like the s2k CR, which was nerfed on the old rule set too.
#48
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,739
Total Cats: 319
Uuuggggghhhhh
https://community.drivenasa.com/topi...in=1#replyForm
I just don't see the logic behind this 18:1 proposal. How does this increase participation for 6? Not to mention the displacement rule which excludes SE30 and S944. ST6/TT6 is fucked with this rule-set.
https://community.drivenasa.com/topi...in=1#replyForm
I just don't see the logic behind this 18:1 proposal. How does this increase participation for 6? Not to mention the displacement rule which excludes SE30 and S944. ST6/TT6 is fucked with this rule-set.
#51
I dunno, doesn't seem TOO bad. I would have to add 30lbs of ballast to hit class limit, but that's after (mostly) optimizing for a class that's about to no longer exist. My ole BP05's meager 125whp would have been pretty perfect for running a little bit lighter setup. A heavy VVT 6 speed with mild power is probably going to wreck shop in this class though.
2460 / ~132avg (TTE* 136 peak) = 18.6
-.7 A-Arm = 17.9
-.3 Weight = 17.6
+.4 BTM Aero = 18
I think the 18:1 limit also puts to rest that thread of guys complaining about how their NC/FT86/RX8 street cars are too heavy / underpowered for TT5 and should be moved to TT6 because they don't want to remove their passenger seats or throw cams at their motor.
2460 / ~132avg (TTE* 136 peak) = 18.6
-.7 A-Arm = 17.9
-.3 Weight = 17.6
+.4 BTM Aero = 18
I think the 18:1 limit also puts to rest that thread of guys complaining about how their NC/FT86/RX8 street cars are too heavy / underpowered for TT5 and should be moved to TT6 because they don't want to remove their passenger seats or throw cams at their motor.
#53
That's my point. They have less of a leg to stand on now that the limit is 18:1 vs 17:1. Their argument at 17:1 was that they fit pretty damn well into TT6 and they weren't wrong. At 18:1 an NC would have to be bone stock I/H/E, so they could still fit without the exclusive ban, but it'd be a stretch.
#54
There are 3 really loud folks who didn't want to change anything on their car go from E to 6. Everybody else now gets to go slower.
I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5
Moving the class to 18:1 actually makes dyno reclass cars easier to fit into 6 without buying parts. Those reclasses were 18.5-17.5(for a 16.5 class). Now, they're potentially spot on pending some ballast here and there with no other changes.
I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5
Moving the class to 18:1 actually makes dyno reclass cars easier to fit into 6 without buying parts. Those reclasses were 18.5-17.5(for a 16.5 class). Now, they're potentially spot on pending some ballast here and there with no other changes.
Last edited by doward; 10-11-2018 at 11:23 AM.
#55
That's my point. They have less of a leg to stand on now that the limit is 18:1 vs 17:1. Their argument at 17:1 was that they fit pretty damn well into TT6 and they weren't wrong. At 18:1 an NC would have to be bone stock I/H/E, so they could still fit without the exclusive ban, but it'd be a stretch.
#59
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,739
Total Cats: 319
There are 3 really loud folks who didn't want to change anything on their car go from E to 6. Everybody else now gets to go slower.
I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5
I actually like these three official changes:
The weight break for 226mm versus 257mm NSW will remain 2400 lbs.
The A-Arm Mod Factor assessment will remain at -0.7
100 TW Tire Mod Factor assessment will be increased to +0.5
Yeah I'm not quite understanding the logic behind that one.
#60
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,739
Total Cats: 319
I've posted a reply on the NASA forum thread. I'd like to get as many people as possible to post on this thread with their feedback for ST6/TT6 for 2019.
From my perspective, I can suck it up on the higher ratio, but that displacement rule could really really hurt the class.
From my perspective, I can suck it up on the higher ratio, but that displacement rule could really really hurt the class.