WCMA Forum

Road Racing => Race Discussion Board => Topic started by: Spec Volcanic on February 18, 2014, 09:45:09 PM

Title: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 18, 2014, 09:45:09 PM
Attached is the Preliminary Report of the WCMA’s review of its’ road race classing structure (IT, ST, GT).

The WCMA requests that all members and competitors with an interesting road racing (particularly the IT, ST, and GT classes) to review and comment on the attached report, which includes The suggestion to adopt a new classing structure for the 2015 race season.

Please submit all comments regarding or concerns with the finding in the report or the classing structure suggested to Gary Roberts @ gary.roberts@nov.com by April 18, 2014. All comments will be reviewed and discussed by the WCMA Tech committee before the submission of the final recommendation(s). We are looking forward to hearing both opposing and supporting viewpoints. While we will try to capture fed back based on the discussions on the varies forums, we strongly encourage members and competitors to discusses this topic here on the WCMA forum, and submit comments to email the above address.

Note Open wheel, Vintage, and Spec Class are NOT included is this review.   

Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: sturat77 on February 18, 2014, 10:39:43 PM
I can't seem to download the file... but when I figure it out I will give my 2¢ worth.

I'm the mean time, my first thoughts are why do we keep messing with the rule set? Only a couple years ago they were heavily revamped and ST added. Now "here we go again" is my first thought!

Perhaps some insights into the reasoning behind making changes would be useful. What are you trying to accomplish by changing classification rules?

I am not meaning to criticize something I haven't even read yet, merely looking for some background to help me (and others?) understand when we do read! :)

Thanks and I look forward to reading of  the proposed changes with an open, and informed mind!

And for the record, I am very interested as I am in the process of building another car and this could dramatically affect my plans.

Sturat
77 Acura Integra
?? Honda Civic

Thsnks
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 18, 2014, 10:48:15 PM
WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Preliminary Report

Authors: Doug Campbell and Gary Roberts

Rationale

Over the past several years the WCMA has received numerous comments regarding the current classing structure both at AGMs and via E-mail. During this time the WCMA has made changes both small and large to the rules, with little effect on the content or number of comments. Key concerns raised include;

Lack of inclusiveness
•   Certain makes and models require a minimum weight not conducive to racing
•   Certain “common” modifications are not allowed or permitted in “Entry Level” Classes

Do not reflect the current state of motorsports
•   GT Displacements
•   “Tuner Mod’s” are not permitted in “Entry Level” classes

Ability of members to travel or to attract racers from other areas.
•   Majority of class do not match any neighbouring regions

Lack of competiveness
•   Classes allow too great of a disparity between cars to create competition.
•   Too many Classes

While these concerns come with varying degrees of accuracy, it has been many years since the WMCA last did a ground up review of the rules and not just adapted or modified our existing rules.

Mandate

Review current classing rules from all neighboring regions to determine if there is an existing rules set that will meet the need of the WCMA and its members, and could be a suitable replacement of any combination, or all of IT, ST and/or GT.

Criteria

The following criteria will be used to help formulate a recommendation;
•   Must be more inclusive
•   Should not exclude any current competitors
•   Must align with areas that members could visit, or other racers could visit from.
•   Must maintain some level of affordability
•   Should be well suited to  address the issues of Modern Cars and Modifications
•   Must maintain or reduce the number classes
•   Must offer a reasonable competitive balance within classes
•   Must be viable as a long term solution.

Summary of Rules Reviewed

CACC-BC (British Columbia): GT, GTS and IP.
http://www.caccautosport.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-Race-Regs-Final.pdf

CACC-BC runs a rule set with an approach somewhat similar to the WCMA. They Run SCCA GT1,2,3, and L with 3 classes or GTS “catch-alls” (<2.0L, 2-4L and >4.0L). IP cars must meet SCCA IT prep rules, however they are reclassified by displacement (IP3 >1750CC and SM, IP2 1750-2750CC and Pro-3m, IP-1 >2750 CC and ITE, a “catch-all” that allows some additional modification not permitted in other IT classes) and min weight is Manufacturer curb weight – 100lb.
A transition to the CACC-BC rules may be easy, however, they do not meet many of the key criteria, including being more inclusive and not excluding current competitors, and offer little to no upside to the current WCMA classes.

CASC-OR (Ontario): GT http://www.casc.on.ca/sites/default/files/casc_2014_qf_gt.pdf

CASC-OR runs a GT1-6 for sprint races where type of vehicle and level of modification is not a factor in classing. Car classing is a bracket system based solely on lap time; each track has its own lap time for each class, and it is possible to be in a differently class at each track.
This does create classes that run very similar lap times, and is very inclusive, but it does not truly create a competitive balance and is not in the spirit of racing in the WCMA.

CASC-OR (Ontario): GT Challenge  http://www.casc.on.ca/sites/default/files/casc_2014_qg_gtc.pdf

For endurance races the CASC-OR runs “GT Challenge” with Classes of GT, GS, ST1, ST2, ST3 where classes are based solely on power to weight, with no adjustments due to differences in chassis or driveline layout. Classing is wide open with a few exceptions. The rules appear to be more, a set of supplemental regulations for endurance racing, than a complete classing structure.
These classes do again offer a very inclusive structure, with little to no limitations on what can be run. Using solely power to weight does put affordability at risk as all other areas of modification are fully open.  Also included in this review are other rules are primarily based on power to weight but are more complete.

ICSSC (Conference): – Multiple http://www.icscc.com/references/comp_regs_2013_complete.pdf

ICSSC runs many classes, almost all SCCA or catch all’s based on these classes. In some cases confusingly, these classes are listed both as individual classes and rolled up into one catch all (Example rule 1307: “Improved Touring A (ITA), Improved Touring B (ITB), Improved Touring C (ITC), Improved Touring S (ITS). These classes shall run under current year SCCA rules“ and rule 1325: “ITX This class shall run under current ITA, ITB, ITC, & ITS SCCA rules. (Fall 2011)”). There are some Spec classes but they are not included in this review at this time.
ICSSC would offer a nearly unlimited number of classes to pick and choose from, however there is no reason not to go directly to the SCCA for the classes, and the catches all’s do not eliminate any of the WCMA’s issues.

SCCA (Sports Car Club of America):  - GT, ST, and IT

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/2014%20GCR%20February-mobile1.pdf

The WCMA’s current classing structure is largely based on the SCCA’s GT, ST, and IT rules, on allowed modifications, and members of the WCMA should find the SCCA rules fairly familiar.  The WMCA has not always followed the SCCA’s updates, which have led to some differences, most notably the Single Inlet Restrictor rules in GT. The current issues related to inclusiveness in the WCMA are largely related to the SCCA rules on allowed modifications. The SCCA also has other classes, but most of those are targeted to a specific car or group of cars.
Following the SCCA rules exactly should level the competitive playing field, however without adding more classes, it would only compound the WCMA’s current issue with inclusiveness, and exclude some current competitors, and force GT cars to move to SIR’s.

NASA (National Auto Sport Association): – PT and ST (Performance Touring and Super Touring)
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/performance_touring_rules.pdf
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf

NASA’s PT and ST classes are designed to work together where, if desired, a competitor can progress their car slowly up through PT into ST.
PT (PTB-F) works by starting cars off in a base class with some “free” modifications, and allowing other modifications by claiming points which, as they are accumulated, move cars up to a higher PT class and eventually into ST classes. This points system, while a little complex, does allow cars to run with a wide variety of modifications, and ensures all cars can have a home in PT.  NASA has as minimum adjusted Power to weight for each class to help ensure competitive balance.
ST (ST1, ST2, ST3 and SU) classes are based power to weight ratios (higher then PT) with some adjustment. ST1-3 cars can maintain a relatively stock chassis (Frame rails, Floor pan, etc), or with an adjustment to the power to weight chassis can be modified or a full tube frame, SU is a truly unlimited class (excluding safety)
PT Example - 92-95 stock (less safety equipment) Civic weighing 2390lb on RA-1’s is in PTF, but if that same car was to upgrade Swaybars , header, exhaust, remove the cat, and add coilovers and run A6’s, it would be in PTE.
Like the SCCA, NASA also offers many other classes targeted to one car or one group of cars. (eg: Spec BMW E30 and German Touring Series) We would not recommend adopting these other classes unless competitor numbers were sufficient.


Conclusion

While some regions rule sets offer a solution to some of the WCMA’s concerns.  NASA with PT and ST is the only one to offer a suitable alterative to the current WMCA IT, ST, and GT classes that meets 100% of the criteria.
•   Must be more inclusive
o   Every car regardless of modification has a place to race.
•   Should not exclude any current competitors
o   All WCMA IT and many ST cars will find a competitive home in PT, and the balance in ST. All GT cars should find the same in ST.
•   Must align with area that members could visit, or other racers could visit from.
o   NASA runs races across the US including the NE. NASA cars should also be able to run in the CASC-OR and ICSSC, and, any CACC-BC, CASC-OR, ICSSC, or SCCA could run in the WCMA
•   Must maintain some level of affordability
o   PT maintains entry level affordability and allows development of the car over time.
•   Should be well suited to  address the issues of Modern Cars and Modifications
o   Both PT and ST allow modern cars and modifications.
•   Must maintain or reduce the number classes
o   The number of classes is reduced from 11 to 9
•   Must offer a reasonable competitive balance within classes
o   Statistically, the large number of cars and competitors running NASA rules, ensures a reasonable calculation of competitive balance within classes
•   Must be viable as a long term solution.
o   NASA is a strong organization that regularly updates and maintains their rules. There is no reason to expect this to change in the near future, and that these rules should be viable for years to come.

Recommendation

That the WCMA replace IT, ST and GT class rules with a reference to NASA’s PT and ST in the same format, as we have done with Spec Miata, for the 2015 Race Season.

Next Steps

1)   That the WCMA publicly announce this review and its’ conclusion, to all members and competitors via the Web forums. 
2)   Provide a period for members and competitors to provide written comments or concerns for review and consideration. This period should be not less than 6 weeks but should be completed no later than May 1st
3)   The WCMA Tech committee (lead by Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell) to review all submissions for consideration, and review. This period should be not less than 6 weeks or more than 8 but should be completed no later than July 1st
4)   Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell to submit a final recommendation to the WCMA upon completion of the review within 2-4 weeks (Based on the outcome of the review, the final recommendation will recommend the immediate announcement of change to the rules for 2015, or if after the submissions and input of the tech committee, a clear conclusion could not be reached, the announcement of PENDING change in the rules for 2015, to be finalized at the AGM)
5)   That the WCMA publicly announce the final review and its’ conclusion
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 18, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I can't seem to download the file... but when I figure it out I will give my 2¢ worth.

I'm the mean time, my first thoughts are why do we keep messing with the rule set? Only a couple years ago they were heavily revamped and ST added. Now "here we go again" is my first thought!

Perhaps some insights into the reasoning behind making changes would be useful. What are you trying to accomplish by changing classification rules?

I am not meaning to criticize something I haven't even read yet, merely looking for some background to help me (and others?) understand when we do read! :)

Thanks and I look forward to reading of  the proposed changes with an open, and informed mind!

And for the record, I am very interested as I am in the process of building another car and this could dramatically affect my plans.

Sturat
77 Acura Integra
?? Honda Civic

Thsnks

It downloaded fine for me and some others but you are not the only one to report and issue so I have post the raw text (above) please excuse the formatting

I think you will find the Rationale and Background are covered in the document
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on February 19, 2014, 01:18:32 AM
Lack of competiveness
 Classes allow too great of a disparity between cars to create competition.
 Too many Classes


As far as this goes, IMO there are too many classes for the field of cars we see at events, and Yes, some classes are completely outdated (GT for example basically will have any current production car someone might consider building into a race car fall into GT1 due to displacement rules), so it would be logical to update classes, and possibly combine/eliminate some such as gt5/gt4 (and lump them in with gt3) which are 2 classes where you actually can't build a modern car to complete in. It would be logical also, probably more logical in fact, to clone the classes of a neighbouring region that has already solved this problem successfully.


However, the part about lack of competitiveness because there is too much of a disparity between cars to create competition, I feel that is a non issue. There is and will always be a huge difference between the skill of drivers, so even if everyone is driving the same car, setup the same way, with the same modifications, they are still going to be running different lap times.

The other thing is, if people want to be competitive, they should read the rules, pick a car that classes well, and then pick modifications to maximize the potential of that car in that class. One should not randomly build the car they want how they want, and then complain about how its not competitive or is put in some crazy class because of one modification. I feel for the guy who built his car well to the rules, and then had the rules change on him drastically, but the guy building his car after the current rules are written has no excuses why his car isn't competitive. So if you build a yugo style race car, dont complain when its not competitive in IT. And if its not competitive in IT, dont slap a big brake kit on it and end up in ST, and then complain how its even less competitive there also.

(part of the reason why people build uncompetitive cars, other then being stubborn, may be because the rules aren't written so someone new to the sport can understand them easily. A simple breakdown of how a race weekend is generally structured, and a very simple definition of classes in layman's terms would probably go a long way to clarifying things for someone building a race car for the first time. It probably wouldn't hurt to publish the last 5 years class attendance for each class. I know I heard one person commented that they built the wrong car for the wrong class because they had no clue that there wasn't actually anyone that raced in that class.)
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 19, 2014, 07:07:03 AM
Thanks for you comments Kris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: sturat77 on February 19, 2014, 08:45:27 AM
Thanks for putting all the info up!  I did get it to download on a normal computer...  and lo and behold all my questions are answered in the document!  Thanks guys, I will respond after a good read through.

Sturat
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: cloud7 on February 19, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
Thanks for the info.  I will review the NASA rules and forward my thoughts.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on February 19, 2014, 11:13:07 AM
Sounds like a great idea to me. My 944S2 is a US built car that was set up for NASA rules and shoe horning it into WCMA rules is pretty tricky. The current STO/STU rules create a strong incentive to run small displacement, but high bhp/L engines. With a power to weight ratio formula and some limits on wheel width and tires, pretty much every car should find a place to race. There are a bunch of local racers who go to the states to race under NASA and this would open it up for them to have a place to race here too. Likewise cars built here could go there and race under essentially the same rules.

I hear you Kris on the not building a car that doesn't fit the rules. We are both of the same philosophy about building vs. buying race cars in that it's always cheaper to buy one that's already done. The rules as they are now put limits on what cars people would shop for, and that eliminates a large chunk of potential cars that people would like to race. I'm trying to say, nobody is going to shop for a Corvette or a Mustang to race in STO because it will have to weigh so much. Conversely, in STU like I mentioned on Straightpipe.ca, the S2000 is the only car to have.

I understand that dynoing cars will be a cost, but I think it's well worth it to have classes that are balanced by power to weight ratio rather than bhp/L.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Streetwise guy on February 19, 2014, 12:29:21 PM
Don't know.  I like the idea of building a car to a certain rule, and the guy that does it all better gets to win.  NASA has some good ideas too, and I presume it works quite well.  The IT weight/displacement/ignore everything else about the car program we went to a few years ago sucks donkey balls, so its got to go.

I'd vote to move IT back to SCCA rules and blend GT/ST into the NASA rules.  3 IT classes, 5 or 6 Modified classes.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 19, 2014, 12:36:43 PM
Thanks for the comments Jim and Jason
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 19, 2014, 01:04:34 PM
I think there's quite a few lappers, time attackers, AXers, drifters, etc., who have cars that they would consider taking over to door to door racing. not everyone has the funds to build a new car to suit the rules, especially when the car they currently have is 99% there. a lot of these cars have mods that would put them in ST but are too light and get orphaned as a result. and run the numbers on a 5L mustang running in ST-O - it would have to weigh 4,400 lbs straight out of the box. the nasa rules seem to avoid these issues. in nasa, that same mustang can show up and run st-3 at stock weight of around 3600 lbs (I'm assuming a 400 hp car with no other modifiers) or gut it and run st-2 at 3200 lbs - he always has a class at the weight he choses to run at. as Justin says, however, you may see a reduction in emphasis of the small Japanese turbo and rotary engines which seem to work with the current rules ok, and more larger displacement American and European cars.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on February 19, 2014, 04:02:14 PM
A note on the ICSCC having catch all classes.

I believe this is done so they can run multiple run groups on a weekend as they sometimes have single race weekends (Prac/Qual/Race). With the dual group entry which is usually discounted it gives the driver twice the track time for say 50% more than a single entry. Helps out both the club organizing and the drivers.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: aavery on February 19, 2014, 04:16:59 PM
so i have gone trough the calculations, and i will fall into PTC , now we use to have 6-8 cars in stu. how man people are in PTC

 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Al36rx7 on February 19, 2014, 04:48:42 PM
As Streetwise Guy said.  Keep IT as it was.  WCMA ST/GT can be merged together using NASA ST lb/hp ratio.  In some cases, a highly modified STU engine will be much the same as a GT3 engine.  The need for an additional lower HP/Wt ratio class may be required for the STU competitors that have not built up their engines as much as others.  This could be an option in my opinion.

The thing is to do some reading about the different options before Poo-poo'ing all of them. 

However...Whatever is decided is fine...But we need to keep a stable rule set.  Continual change is not helping either.

Cheers.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on February 19, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
I'll pipe in here and explain that I really like the look of the NASA's classing. As someone who already owns a sorted drift car and is trying to figure out how it fits into WCMA racing, I have been struggling this off season with the current classing. The NASA is far more inclusive of all kinds of cars. It allows guys to run anything from a chumpcar crap box that may include an engine swap to a C4 corvette, and still fit in a class properly.

so i have gone trough the calculations, and i will fall into PTC , now we use to have 6-8 cars in stu. how man people are in PTC

If there is no one in PTC, the fix is VERY simple. Either add or remove a few parts to step up or down a class. Movement within the NASA's classes is much easier then the current system.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on February 19, 2014, 10:01:12 PM

If there is no one in PTC, the fix is VERY simple. Either add or remove a few parts to step up or down a class. Movement within the NASA's classes is much easier then the current system.

yes this much i've figured out already reading through the nasa rules. very very easy to switch classes by even just shedding weight or adding weight. looks like my Rx7 would end up in PTE if we switched to those rules. One thing i've noticed though is, unless i'm reading how it works wrong, i'm severely underpowered for the PT classes, having a power:weight class of PTF for my RX7, and a class of PTE/PTD for mods thx to being under 2800 pounds in a car that was 2650 from factory.

What I like though, is besides the little quirk with being class X in one spreadsheet and class Y in another, excluding a little oddity (imo at least) here and there with their views on certain cars or mods, is that there really doesn't seem to be a severely under prepped car by their rules with a stock vehicle, and its only if someone modifies it really really poorly for the rules, that it would end up being classed really badly.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 20, 2014, 03:48:48 AM
I'm kinda with Allen Brown here. Continual change is just as frustrating as a poor set of rules, so if we change, let's be sure we do it right.

The other aspect of this has also been mentioned. I have overheard, heard of, been involved in etc etc too many conversations with people who build cars, and then expect us to find a class to fit them into, or let them run illegally in some class. People who build cars that just do not follow class rules, but have been built because that's the way the builder wanted to build it.

OK, so maybe new rules will find a place for these cars, but my point is....read the damn rules BEFORE you start to build the car! Personally I am tired of the hissy fits in paddock and tech inspection when the Scrutineer rightly says that a car is not legal in the class the driver is trying to enter. This goes for all sorts of stuff, from tires to fuel cells, to cages.

So, if we change the rules, let's do it properly, clearly, and permanently, allowing the tech inspectors to do their jobs, and being firm about rules and classifications. We have rules, so let's stick to them, or why bother.

That's my rant for now.

Many thanks to Doug and Gary for the efforts so far....
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 20, 2014, 07:48:54 AM
Thanks for the feed back guys
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 20, 2014, 08:23:48 AM
What I like though, is besides the little quirk with being class X in one spreadsheet and class Y in another, excluding a little oddity (imo at least) here and there with their views on certain cars or mods, is that there really doesn't seem to be a severely under prepped car by their rules with a stock vehicle, and its only if someone modifies it really really poorly for the rules, that it would end up being classed really badly.

I have that a few of questions on the second tab,...
Think of the second tab as more of a safety net, most cars will be well below the max power to weight (above the weight to Power) of the class but if some how under the points system you find a way to add a lot of power (likely at the cost of all other mods), the W to P calculation in PT is the final safety net to insure competitive balance. You are always in the higher or the two calculations.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on February 20, 2014, 11:13:42 AM
I will throw in my two cents also.   

I really like the format of the stu/o.  A lot of talk that big displacement doesn't fit good in it however.   Here is my example of why.   

I have a c6 7l corvette that I want to race but it would have to be 5000lbs...   :-(

In fact.  Not true.      7litre Vette motor is worth $20,000.00. Hmmm.
So I sell it and buy a 4.8l aluminium block.   Build a 20,000.00 build with it.   EVERYTHING allowed in the rules is in there.   

4800cc.  X .75 (2valve push rod).  3600cc.   Now times 1.15 cams. Then x new proposed .83 lbs/cc. And you end up with 3436 plus 180 for driver.

500plus hp.  Ability for huge tires, huge brakes etc. 
very competitive very fast STO car.   
3616lbs total weight. 
That's a STO build sheet.     

By contrast I bring out a mildly tuned 370z


3.7l.  Dual overhead cam 4 valve.  3700cc x .83 x1.15 cams
3532 plus 180 driver is 3712lbs.   And car makes 300rwhp

The problem isn't displacement or car fittment into class.   It is car prep and choices of the racer.   


Summary.   

I do not think STO/U should be blended with GT classes.
Our rules are not that bad.   
Please don't rush into a poor choice just for sake of change.

I hope this is coherent.     Sounded good in my head.  Lol. 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on February 20, 2014, 01:07:00 PM
Those are good examples Conroy  (we still should have a chat over the phone) of the "right" and "wrong" cars in STO. I see you used .83 as the factor, has that one been confirmed yet? Under the current rules with .88 that corvette would have to weigh 3643lbs. The stock curb weight  with the 7L engine is 3350 which means that you need to add at least 293lbs of weight to a stock car.

The 370z would need 512 lbs over the curb weight with the current .88 (300lbs with the .83 factor).

Or you could make the best choice and go with an e46 M3 with a stock 343bhp engine that would weigh 2856 (without the 180lb driver) from a starting curb weight of 3415. That would be a weight reduction of 559lbs.

With displacement determining weight, it all boils down to bhp/L with a ceiling on how big of an engine you can go before the weight becomes totally unreasonable. We all do the math anyway when we go through these exercises by dividing the weight by power to get a rough estimate of the car's performance, why not use that same math to determine classes?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on February 20, 2014, 01:36:47 PM
Justin,   Proposed .83 is unconfirmed.    And Yes,  call me.  Hahaha. 

I see merit in power to weight also, I'm just not completely convinced its right. 

My opinions.   I am open to being convinced.   



Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 20, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
i think changing the CF for ST-O to 0.8 would be a big step towards making the current set of rules for ST more workable. i note that NASA doesn't require fuel cells so i presume this change is on the table also. removing the need for fuel cells in GT would make this class more accessible to cars that don't fit in ST. perhaps implement one or both of these changes for 2014 and see what happens. if it doesn't fix it, then the NASA discussion could happen next winter?

a more aggressive change to the current system might be to add a weight class to ST and reduce the number of weight classes in GT such that they mirrored each other; ie, <2.5, 2.5-4.0, >4.0. with the appropriate CFs this would give a driver options similar to those available in the NASA ST 1/2/3 regime.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: giantkiller on February 20, 2014, 06:55:45 PM
Great discussion, Gary and Doug thank you for tabling this topic.

In am a fan of HP:Weight classes, I think as 90/10 rule it is pretty close. I have currently run a car in ST with ICSCC and run the same car in NASA as a GTS4. HP:Weight is not perfect but as a starting point it is pretty darn good. I have now been involved in 3 races where a challenge was issued and in all 3 cases the car was ruled as being legal - some people can't believe that acceleration out of a corner has more to do with speed into the corner as it does size of your motor budget. Of course nothing is perfect , even in spec racing you find cars at the front , middle and back of the grid, but like with spec racing there is always someone to race with.

A few thoughts:

We need a stable rule set to attract new enthusiastic racers, it is a huge commitment of time and money to go racing - those that are serious will build a car to a rule set and develop it over time. Allowing cars that don't meet the rules to race in a particular class tends to only push away the ones that read the rule book. Seriously if you can't read the rule book I'm not sure i want to race with you...seriously. If you have questions there are plenty of guys who have forgotten more about classes than you and I will ever learn....ask them.

Unfortunately GT racing is pretty much dead, all over North America, as an owner of a GT3 car I would love to see the class evolve somehow do where some of us could add power while others add weight to increase class size while reducing # of classes. There are still lots of mod/GT cars being built but you need 100k per year to make it competitive. I would love to see us go to a GT/O and GT/U class where we could build up some cars and have some fun.

Reduce or consolidate  the number of generic classes (move to ST/O ST/U was a good step IMO), build stable rule set, and empower racers to build up interest in classes.

What about:
GT O/U with a HP:Weight formula
ST O/U with HP :Weight
And spec classes with a minimum car count.
Once we get to say 20 cars per class you race within the class and at 20 we look at splitting.?

There are over 100 cars at a typical ICSCC triple, until we have those numbers having 2 cars per class does little to attract, retain or maximize fun of racers.

In the end Gary and Doug can't fix this for us, they can only facilitate. Change is up to US.

Anthony



Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: super70dave on February 21, 2014, 06:07:22 AM
I will have more to say on this topic however I want to address the current ST factors discussion.

The current ST Factors were based on the cars that then raced ITGT for the people in ITGT, using data from two racetracks racecity and gimli, the factors are not perfect. They were chosen based on what the competitors in ITGT asked for to make competition within that small number of cars.
The proposed factor change to STO from .85 to .83  is based on the small amount of data/lap time and car count from last seasons racing.
ST is a growing class with factors and displacement breaks that can be changed as it grows, also as new racetracks become available. Correct the current factors are not inviting to high HP high weight cars, however when created none of those cars were racing in the class.
Also none have applied to the tech committee to race in the class and have a factor changed.
As cars SHOW up and it grows it can be adjusted neatly and easily.

People say our rules are not inclusive I think under current rules all cars fit, the issue comes when people dont want to conform to the rules.

My biased rant.
Dave Gardiner #70 STU.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 21, 2014, 08:23:06 AM
thanks for all the feed back guys
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: aavery on February 21, 2014, 11:59:58 AM
i agree with dave , stu is a growing class and i know a couple of other guy that are moving to stu and other than can mover from it2-it3 to stu with little to no mods.

we have 6 car from last year add 3 more this year we have 9 cars only class thats bigger is SM dosnt make sense to change whats working

to change every class and revamp all the rules to cut from 11-9 class seems a bit over kill,

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on February 21, 2014, 12:07:37 PM
Copied from Anthony.
"Reduce or consolidate  the number of generic classes (move to ST/O ST/U was a good step IMO), build stable rule set, and empower racers to build up interest in classes.

What about:
GT O/U with a HP:Weight formula
ST O/U with HP :Weight
And spec classes with a minimum car count.
Once we get to say 20 cars per class you race within the class and at 20 we look at splitting.?"


I also like this suggestion.   AND, in one sence we already have it.   With our rule set. 

Stu for example.   
Itr integra, fully built and prepped to the rules should make a solid 200+/- rwhp.    This car with cams would have to weigh in at aprox 2250lbs with driver.    So that is 11.25hp per pound.   Do this math on a fee examples and you will see a well prepped STU car should be in this range.    Now

Take my Vette example from yesterday and have a 3550lb car with 500rwhp. And that works out to aprox 7.2hp/lb.   

I have run a few cars through this calc and 7-8lbs is where most fully prepped cars would be. 

Now If this  takes off and we have a lot of cars in these groups you could also ad a third weight class.   

But also could consider to allow or disallow in these groups based on proof of dyno and scales to allow odd ball cars that don't meet exacting criteria.

Again just opinions.     Thanks for listening. 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 21, 2014, 02:30:27 PM
Conroy...I am sure what you mean is pounds / horsepower.....not horsepower / pound
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on February 21, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Hahaha...    Ooops! 

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on February 21, 2014, 05:09:01 PM

What about:
GT O/U with a HP:Weight formula
ST O/U with HP :Weight
And spec classes with a minimum car count.
Once we get to say 20 cars per class you race within the class and at 20 we look at splitting.?"

I also like this suggestion.   AND, in one sence we already have it.   With our rule set. 

I'm sure that a workable system could be come up with, and this idea seems ok, but it doesn't satisfy the criteria laid out in the proposal. Aligning a rule set with neighboring regions makes a lot of sense to me. It opens the market to both buy and sell racecars as well as allowing racers to race in different places under the same rules. You wouldn't need to swap in a built high strung 4.8L engine into your C6 Z06 corvette race car to get essentially the same power as stock.

I like weight/power because it is inclusive. It's as affordable as you want it to be, there isn't a huge incentive to chase after high volumetric efficiency. It's flexible in that it doesn't care how the power is produced, just the output at the wheels. That lets small, big, old, and modern all race under the same formula. The organizers also don't have to chase after correction factors for modifications that have different effects on different engines. I.e., is 1.15 appropriate for all cams for all cars? Is 0.75 the right number for all pushrod engines?

:) another opinion
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on February 22, 2014, 05:13:54 PM
One of the things I dont like about our current system is you get these anomalies on the fringes and its an imperfect set of rules for classing cars similarly for car competitiveness

- you have a class modifier for weight based on displacement which is fine and dandy for majority of the cars people would race, but it doesn't work at all for the minority, and that leaves a big window for exploits. example: honda s2000's in STU would clean up in that class. you'd have a car that has 240hp from the factory being allowed to weigh <2200 lbs racing against civics. you wouldn't even have to modify the s2000 very much to dominate that class, but you'd be allowed to. Then you have high displacement cars needing crazy amounts of weight added. changing the modifier may make high displacement cars now have realistic weights, but then it means lower displacement cars now get to be retardedly light. No modifier number with the current calculation will ever solve the problem we have now.
- it favours european and japanese cars for IT/ST, and turbo cars for ST. hp/cc is king for our rules, so what do you do? You buy a car with the highest HP/L possible, which really means you should race a honda because they build engines that are 120hp/L, and you avoid anything made on this continent like the plague unless you're going GT1. ST favours turbo cars because while there are limits to NA builds, there is no limit to how much boost you can run or how big of a turbo you put on your engine. Someone someday is going to build a car to the actual limits of what ST allows, and its going to lap the field.
- You get these arbitrary class divide points which leave cars obviously wrongly classed and in a position to annihilate the field. Thus ITCS is born which seems logical, but in reality its still flawed, because you see all kinds of illogical arbitrary decisions being made for car reclassification and thus we have first gen rx7s being reclassed with 100hp from IT3, where they obviously belong, to run against FD rx7s and m3s... and you have 95 240sx's being adjusted to be allowed to weigh 2200lbs in IT2 with a 2.4L engine, but 94 240sx's with the same engine must weigh 2800lbs (who's friend owns a 95 240sx race car is my question).

Our rules are reactionary, not proactive.

So with all that I see potential headaches and pissing people off because we are going to get these issues that arise where the rules allow for glaringly obvious choices for someone to pick a winning race car to build, and someone is going to do it.  You're going to have a guy that reads the rules and decides hey, Car X classes amazing for Class Y, and i'm allowed to do XYZ to it to make it even better. I'm going to read the crap out of the rules and build it exactly to the rules and destroy everyone (because almost no one builds their cars to maximize the rules of what's really allowed here). Then racer X shows up with his 99spec FD rx7 in IT1 with 300hp, drops its weight down to 2440lbs with driver which is what the numbers come out to for allowed weight, and does the legal mods he's allowed to do with exhaust, downpipe, and intake, and tuning it, and now you have a car that is 7.x power to weight ratio in IT1 passing current STO cars on the straights.

or maybe racer X wants to show up in STU, and decides to bring a 2L s2000 that's allowed to weigh 2180lbs in STU, and if he's a good driver, is going to coast to first place. Then what happens? I feel with our rules how I see things playing out, he'd be bumped to another class, which imo is a terrible thing to do to someone and is basically saying; thx for actually reading the rules but you built your car too good to them and for that we are punishing you (I know i'd be pretty steamed if i built my car exactly to the limit of what the rules allowed and someone made a judgement call to bump me to a class i'm now out classed in, or that no one races in. it'd be kinda like saying ur $500,000 ALMS GT1 car is too fast so now you have to race with the LMP's). Or the alternative is you have a ton of cars that have no hope of winning unless first breaks down or doesn't show up, which may drive people away from racing.


There is a lot to be said for a classing structure built more closely related to power to weight ratio. However, I wouldn't say i dislike our rules; far from it. I like about 95% of what they are and how they have played out so far, its just that 5% i dont like i see so much potential for it to create a mess down the road and can't see any way to fix that with the current set of rules. I also gotta say, i dont like everything about the NASA Rules either. It still has the same problem with way too many classes for the fields of cars we are seeing, but I do like that it is somewhat easy to jump into another class; i'm just unsure how that would actually play out in real life in our region.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 22, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
i'll see your S2000 and raise you a 2000 lb Spec Miata with a 300 hp normally-aspirated ported 13B transplant. it would own the field. i was seriously thinking of abandoning my current track car (torqued every bolt by my own hand, know every ecu pin, fixed every failure point) and running Spec Miata until i could do the swap and move to ST-U. build a car to the rules like everyone says. now i am banking on the ST-O CF change so that i can run my current car and not have to add 200 lbs. i don't necessarily want to win, but i do want to race. and to race my car has to fit into a class.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on February 22, 2014, 08:52:43 PM
Not rule wise but one of the points was to include more people and encourage people to travel between regions.

Step 1 to help this would be to not make our schedule the exact same race days as mission one of few neighbours.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 23, 2014, 03:39:30 AM
For the most part, we don't have a lot of choice when it comes to getting tracks for our races. We are not the only users of these tracks, and we usually end up with what dates the track owners want to give us. I have scheduled races for many years, and know this to be true.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on February 24, 2014, 09:33:28 AM
I thought I remember hearing at one of the drivers meetings that since Castrol was happy with us we where going to have first choice of Race dates for this season?

Also whomever is running this forum needs to get rid of all the security questions just to make a post its beyond ridiculous.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 24, 2014, 01:27:46 PM
Paddock space is always an issue, and as it is we are sharing space for several weekends, and that is not optimal, nor in my opinion safe.

There are only so many weekends in the short summer, and we also have to avoid long weekends whenever possible, leaving some breathing space between races. It is inevitable we will have date conflicts...as we are planning on 6 race weekends and a school.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on February 24, 2014, 05:02:28 PM
The comments so far on this topic have been great.  Gary R & Doug C initially alluded to why we’re once again going through this process.  Last Fall when Michael Lemanski announced he was stepping down as President, I was swamped with comments from people who have been having issues for years with WCMA’s car classifications.  Some people were quite brutal with their choice of words & phrases about our “antiquated car classifications” and that maybe WCMA should step into the 21st century.  Last Fall I once again  re-read all of CASC- Or , NASA, SCCA ( I had read them many times over the past 30 years.) and CACC rule sets.   As many of you know I have been trying for years to have us reduce the number of classes and at the same time make it easier for non-mechanically inclined “potential” competitors to find a way to compete with their favourite marquis and yet allow the very skilled & brilliant mechanically aptitude type competitors to build their own creation that fit into “existing” classes and to get rid of “catch all or what to you got on the back 40 type cars.”    With all these accusations flying about,  WCMA’s voting members had a beneficial conference call and at that time Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell stepped up to initiate this new proposal.   Please keep the dialogue going and see if we can reduce the number of classes, increase the number of cars per class to the point where you as “Class Champion” can say I finished first, ahead of 20 cars in my class and instead of 1st in my class of 2 cars. I strongly believe if we can improve the level of preparation of all cars and have an easy to understand car classifications we would have superior racing and increase the number of participants.  The competitor who finished 12th out of 20 cars would make efforts to improve the competitiveness of their car and would probably look a lot deeper at their own skill level which mostly would have improve by being amongst many better drivers in his own class during the season. Let’s see if we can stay on topic and come up with a nice clean set of rules that increase the # of competitors in each class and yet still allow competitors to come & go between other tracks in North America.  Gary Leadbetter
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 24, 2014, 07:25:55 PM
here's some very rough math for consideration:

NASA uses weight/hp = 9 or 8 or 5.5 depending on class (with no other modifiers).

Assuming a race engine putting out a very robust 100 hp/liter at the flywheel = 85 hp/liter at the wheels with 15% drivetrain loss:

hp = 85 x displacement

Substituting:

weight/displacement = 85 x (9 or 8 or 5.5) = 765 or 680 or 468

weight = displacement x (.77 or .68 or .47)

NASA CFs are .77 or .68 or .47.

WCMA uses weight = displacement x ST (1.00 or .88) or GT (1.2 to .53)

Conclusion? NASA has more favorable CFs. Further, WCMA classing becomes approximately equal to NASA at 130 hp per liter. Of course that will never happen for most of us. So, I could never be able to take a WCMA car and be competitive in NASA unless I was running GT1.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: gary on February 24, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
When we created the current IT and ST rules there was never any intent to exclude  any type of  cars. I think  we may have unknowingly done so due to the  popularity of current cars at the time. One thing we did know for sure is that they would be evolving as the years gone by, perhaps we didn't keep up. It is very hard to create rules to fit all types of cars. there are so many different combinations  of engines, ones with high torque but low Hp, ones with high Hp but low torque, low displacement, large displacement , old technology, new technology, in large cars, in small cars. I could on.  Then we have chassis/ suspension styles , unibody, tube frame,  A arm front ends, struts, solid axles,  independent rear axles of various styles.  Our rules do not give advantage  or disadvantage to styles of suspension, I noted NASA does not either. Is there a way to include this in any new rules we create?
Whatever we create I think we should make a list of pro's and con's of  all ideas we come up with( or steal from other sets of rules).
 Pro's  for wcma rules;
-with the AGM proposed rule for allowing all cars into GT classes that fit safety rules and fuel tank specs( within wheel base) as in ST classes, we can now fit almost any modern car.
-Existing race cars  do not have to change.
-current performance tires now  are equal and sometimes better than slick tires so ST cars need not change.
-similar to scca rules .
- the rules  have been stable for many years, allowing racers to  tune their  cars  within rules they know well.
Pro's for Nasa rules;
-   Hp/ weight equalizes competition.
- a points structure to calculate classing
- ability to more up or down classes based on mods done/removed.
- unprepped car can still compete.
 Con's  for wcma.
- rules outdated?
-rules assume car preparation is done to the max.
-does not align with nearby regions.
 Cons for Nasa.
- something new, high resistance to change from  some racers.
- rules not  easier to read/understand .
- extra administration to   police dyno tests and weights.
- extra expense for dyno time.

These are just a few examples.  I am sure there are more for both sides. would love to have everyone contribute positively  so we can improve.
 personally I like  our existing rules but I would like to somehow incorporate to Hp /weight ratio into our classes
and the ability to be bumped up/down based on a points system for modifications.

Thank you to Gary R and Doug C for getting the ball rolling.

Gary L
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 25, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
well, if the GT fuel cell regs are open to change, and there is a potential CF change in ST, then perhaps:

- revise GT to GT-U, GT-O and GT-S. now you have a chain of progression for racers; IT to ST to GT.
- review CFs so that the majority of cars prepped for WCMA can find a class in BC, ON and northern US, and visa versa.

if done well you've:

- reduced the number of classes;
- not had to go to a completely new set of rules;
- facilitated participation with other regions;
- made it easier for larger displacement and lower hp/displacement cars to participate.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 25, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
sorry to belabour with multiple posts. on a totally different track, but still in keeping with modifying the original rules (not that I am opposed to NASA in any way); one way to continue to use a weight/displacement system, but get closer to a weight/HP system, would be to introduce a DF for stock HP/displacement. you already have the DFs for modifications from stock, but nothing to set the stock baseline. stock HP info is readily available without having to dyno (published manufacturer HP ratings) so should just be a matter of finding workable numbers?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 25, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
Just out of curiosity, where would a 1st gen 12a RX-7 with a streetport fit in these "new" rule ideas if there wasn't a CC class?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on February 25, 2014, 02:21:31 PM
Just out of curiosity, where would a 1st gen 12a RX-7 with a streetport fit in these "new" rule ideas if there wasn't a CC class?


I quickly 2 min look has a CC as follows (I may have missed something)

A 12a RX-7 is PTG** (PTG+14) tires 205 (+1), RR (+9), intake porting on a 12a (+2), fuel pump, jets (+2), Pully (+1), LSD (+3) shock, springs, swag bar (removal) (+7), allowed body work (+1) or PTG + 40 = PTE with lots of room for improvements or run RA-1 and you have a PTF car and min weight is down 5lb to 2345
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on February 25, 2014, 03:26:26 PM
I just keep thinking that having a set of rules that are the WCMA's own.. will never properly line up with anything around us. The only reason I see to keep the current rules is because people already have cars for these rules. Otherwise it just seems that the positives far outweigh the negatives of adopting the rules of a larger neighbor (such as the NASA).

 - The NASA races are filled with good battles because cars are evenly fairly matched.
 - The NASA puts a LOT of time into their rules, and adopting them means the WCMA has to spend less time doing it.
 - Cars can easily move into/out of classes by adding/removing a few parts (points).
 - You can run almost anything. Heck I just watched an LTE race where an almost stock 5L stang was battling with a suspension filled EG. The EG was ahead.

This list keeps going...

Two things that haven't been mentioned yet are:

First off, with something like the NASA rules, you will likely end up with decent class sizes in a year despite where everyone ends up right now. People will congregate, that's for sure. Say you have 7 cars is STE, and then only a few in each of the neighboring classes. No doubt that the guys on either side of STE are going to add/remove a part or two to become part of that bigger class. When someone new comes, they may find themselves in an abandon class, but it's not as big of a deal as it is in the current rules as they can easily move around. Inclusion will become easier with a set of rules that you can drop ANY car into by simply allotting it points. "You have an almost stock widebody car? That's weird. But yes, we have a place for you." lol

Secondly, not all mods on cars are equally available. An example of that is my S14 240sx. To run in STO, I need to run OEM body panels. Well since every drifter in the world destroys their OEM panels, you cant find them used. So I am forced to buy them new at a dealership (bye bye $1000). I would way rather run a fiberglass aftermarket kit and take a few points (or give up some other mod in return). Another example... take an E30 and drop a non BMW (small displacement) engine into it (as some locals have). They are out of the running immediately because of the one mod. It doesn't make the car a monster by any means, but looks like they will have to build up the rest of the car if they want to keep that engine. I get that the classing we have now was created while looking at the cars showing up race after race... but the NASA includes ALL cars... seems like that would be better.

It is likely that this all sounded way better in my head then what ended up on your computer screen, but I hope you get it... :S
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on February 25, 2014, 04:05:22 PM
Shouldn't we be trying to align our selves with our closer neighbours (ICSCC and CACC)? Not NASA as the farthest foot hold into the NorthWest that NASA has is Salt Lake/Miller which is 15+ hours from Castrol.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on February 25, 2014, 05:21:43 PM
Shouldn't we be trying to align our selves with our closer neighbours (ICSCC and CACC)? Not NASA as the farthest foot hold into the NorthWest that NASA has is Salt Lake/Miller which is 15+ hours from Castrol.

I don't disagree... But I didn't use them as examples because I'm still not a huge fan of the "catch all" classes. But lets be honest, no one should take my opinion very seriously (I'm seriously serious about this).
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: GTcalgary on February 25, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Shouldn't we be trying to align our selves with our closer neighbours (ICSCC and CACC)? Not NASA as the farthest foot hold into the NorthWest that NASA has is Salt Lake/Miller which is 15+ hours from Castrol.

Actually NASA has moved into the Pacific North West in a big way this year, so much so that ICSCC is worried about the competition. NASA events are at The Ridge, Portland, Pacific Raceways, Oregon Raceway Park so the same tracks as ICSCC (Conference).  Miller is a (rather nice) bonus and is about as far as Gimli to travel.  The Ridge, Portland, Pacific Raceways, and Oregon Raceway Park are all closer than Gimli as are are Spokane and Mission.  The SCCA is also in the PNW.  For Manitoba WCMA members, NASA tracks in Colorado, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa and Kansas are all as close to them as Calgary.  I suppose certain CACC tracks are too though mostly far to the east from Winnipeg.

http://miatavsmiata.ca/event-calendar/ (http://miatavsmiata.ca/event-calendar/)

http://www.nasanorthwest.com/schedule/calendar-2/ (http://www.nasanorthwest.com/schedule/calendar-2/)

https://www.nasaproracing.com/event (https://www.nasaproracing.com/event)


"NAPA VALLEY, CA (OCTOBER 30, 2012) The National Auto Sport Association is pleased to announce that it will be expanding its operations into the Pacific Northwest for the 2013 season. Leading the region will be longtime NASA NorCal officials Andy Tencati and Robert Kinley who will be relocating to the area to start the region in 2013.

The NASA Northwest schedule will include dates at Pacific Raceways, Portland International Raceway, The Ridge Motorsports Park, and Oregon Raceway Park. The events will feature NASA’s full offering of programs including HPDE, competition racing, and Time Trials. Other special events such as endurance races and rallycrosses may also be on the calendar depending on interest levels from local drivers.

"I am thrilled to be part of the team bringing NASA to the northwest," said Andy Tencati. "We are committed to creating the best track experience for participants at all skill levels -- with an emphasis of getting everyone on the track. This is an exciting time for NASA. In addition to offering our entire range of services, we are also planning some exciting new events for 2013 that will truly elevate motorsports in the northwest region."

"It's very exciting to help spread the NASA programs to the Pacific Northwest," said Robert Kinley.  "We are focused on building a fantastic customer experience as well as hosting top-notch events for all of ourparticipants. Stay tuned for exciting things to come."

John Lindsey, NASA’s Chief Divisional Director added that “The Pacific Northwest has always been an area where we have wanted to introduce our NASA programs to new participants in the region. We are very pleased to finally have all of the key pieces in place and we are very grateful for the warm reception we have received so far. We expect great things from Robert and Andy this year and we will do our best to support them in this important effort for us.”

For more information on the NASA Northwest Region, please visit  www.nasanorthwest.com, visit the Northwest section of www.nasaforums.com,  or e-mail  info@nasanorthwest.com
View our comprehensive news archive"
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on February 25, 2014, 10:13:10 PM
I haven't heard anybody in ICSCC really worried about NASA the last comment on the NASA thread was almost a year ago. It may draw away a couple spec miatas if they get there own run group in NASA but the rest of the cars are originally ICSCC cars just fitting into whatever class in NASA they fit in.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on February 26, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
if bc is pretty much scca, and wcma is pretty much scca, has there been much cross-pollination of cars in the past? I'm not sure there has, otherwise the topic wouldn't be on the table. so, what are the differences in rules that keep the cars from running in the two regions - that might be a place to start. or is it lack of interest, in which case aligning the rules wouldn't be a solution regardless?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on February 26, 2014, 11:49:29 AM
Hey Spec....

Thanks for that quick Class study. Interesting how that works.....
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: oldpony on February 28, 2014, 09:15:02 AM
 ;D Intensive work by the reviewers.  My view ---- NASA rules are optimum for our needs. The pros outweigh the cons.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Al36rx7 on March 01, 2014, 08:10:39 PM
Re:  Comments was made about a separate factor for a tube frame car vs a non tube frame for the ST classing.  According to NASA, all factors are exactly the same for ST1-ST3 and STR1 and STR3.  Which is why I feel since there is not the same car counts here as there is in the US, we would be best to run ST and STR as ST if there was enough support to go the direction of the NASA rule set.  Basically most of the current WCMA GT cars would continue to run in same groups as before.  Surprisingly the ST1 is much like GT1, ST2 is much like GT2, and ST3 is much like GT3.....Hmmm...there's a pattern developing.

The benefit is some (not all) of the current STU/O cars would fit into the ST group of classes.  This will increase individual class numbers and competition within each class.   
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on March 02, 2014, 08:50:48 AM
if bc is pretty much scca, and wcma is pretty much scca, has there been much cross-pollination of cars in the past? I'm not sure there has, otherwise the topic wouldn't be on the table. so, what are the differences in rules that keep the cars from running in the two regions - that might be a place to start. or is it lack of interest, in which case aligning the rules wouldn't be a solution regardless?

There are a few differences both take the SCCA IT prep rules as a starting and but use displacement to determine class, However both use different displacements for class breaks and different ways to determine displacement, also although both start with SCCA IT, both allow different modification not allowed in SCCA IT and not allow in the other region.

There have only been a few cars that have "cross-pollinationed"
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on March 02, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
Re:  Comments was made about a separate factor for a tube frame car vs a non tube frame for the ST classing.  According to NASA, all factors are exactly the same for ST1-ST3 and STR1 and STR3.  Which is why I feel since there is not the same car counts here as there is in the US, we would be best to run ST and STR as ST if there was enough support to go the direction of the NASA rule set.  Basically most of the current WCMA GT cars would continue to run in same groups as before.  Surprisingly the ST1 is much like GT1, ST2 is much like GT2, and ST3 is much like GT3.....Hmmm...there's a pattern developing.

The benefit is some (not all) of the current STU/O cars would fit into the ST group of classes.  This will increase individual class numbers and competition within each class.

Allan,
Up to and including 2013 you are correct regarding tube framed cars, however for 2014 NASA is not running a STR and all STR cars are being moved into ST and NASA is using a factor to balance tube frame and non tube frame cars. The factor is called "non-production vehicle" and -0.4 W2P for ST1+2 and -0.7 for ST3
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on March 02, 2014, 08:58:23 AM
Re:  Comments was made about a separate factor for a tube frame car vs a non tube frame for the ST classing.  According to NASA, all factors are exactly the same for ST1-ST3 and STR1 and STR3.  Which is why I feel since there is not the same car counts here as there is in the US, we would be best to run ST and STR as ST if there was enough support to go the direction of the NASA rule set.  Basically most of the current WCMA GT cars would continue to run in same groups as before.  Surprisingly the ST1 is much like GT1, ST2 is much like GT2, and ST3 is much like GT3.....Hmmm...there's a pattern developing.

The benefit is some (not all) of the current STU/O cars would fit into the ST group of classes.  This will increase individual class numbers and competition within each class.

Allan,
Up to and including 2013 you are correct regarding tube framed cars, however for 2014 NASA is not running a STR and all STR cars are being moved into ST and NASA is using a factor to balance tube frame and non tube frame cars. The factor is called "non-production vehicle" and -0.4 W2P for ST1+2 and -0.7 for ST3

Most of the STU car and maybe some of the STO cars will fit in IPB-C
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Al36rx7 on March 02, 2014, 09:12:42 PM
Re:  Comments was made about a separate factor for a tube frame car vs a non tube frame for the ST classing.  According to NASA, all factors are exactly the same for ST1-ST3 and STR1 and STR3.  Which is why I feel since there is not the same car counts here as there is in the US, we would be best to run ST and STR as ST if there was enough support to go the direction of the NASA rule set.  Basically most of the current WCMA GT cars would continue to run in same groups as before.  Surprisingly the ST1 is much like GT1, ST2 is much like GT2, and ST3 is much like GT3.....Hmmm...there's a pattern developing.

The benefit is some (not all) of the current STU/O cars would fit into the ST group of classes.  This will increase individual class numbers and competition within each class.

Allan,
Up to and including 2013 you are correct regarding tube framed cars, however for 2014 NASA is not running a STR and all STR cars are being moved into ST and NASA is using a factor to balance tube frame and non tube frame cars. The factor is called "non-production vehicle" and -0.4 W2P for ST1+2 and -0.7 for ST3

Most of the STU car and maybe some of the STO cars will fit in IPB-C

Garry,
I guess then most STO cars and maybe some of the STU would fit in ST. 

But in general, this will help car counts and competition within the classes, whether ST or IP.  Yes, I was looking at the 2013 ruleset I had previously downloaded.   
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on March 06, 2014, 01:09:55 PM
I agree Anthony.

We need to focus on local folks to build our numbers, but we also need to focus on why the numbers are low. Again, I think it is partly to do with track issues. RCMP failing for several years before finally biting the dust, and the first season of Castrol being more or less an experiment. An attitude builds, ie: no viable race venues in Alberta, and it takes a while for reality to change that perception.

I believe that regardless of rule changes, the track has to be acceptable to all, not just folks like me with an antique race car that you can buy if you save up enough empty beer cans (not that many), but also for the folks with the GT3 Cup cars, the high end open wheelers etc. I think that in a few years, when both the Badlands and the Rockyview tracks become operational, we will see car counts jump due to the lengths and layouts of these new facilities.

Castrol is a tight, short track which will always have some walls, and limited run-off on some corners. Limited Paddock space doesn't help. On a personal note.....I don't even get into 4th gear at Castrol ! I miss the front straights at RCMP and the Airport Indy. I am not down on Castrol, although after last summer I have every right to be. It will evolve into a good facility, but not overnight.

I am not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't update rules to make us more compliant with other sanctioning bodies, but let's be sure we are not treating a symptom, and not digging deep enough to see what the issue truly is. Changing the rules is also not going to change things overnight.

There are lots of local folks about. The school this year already has 40 students. Let's focus on getting some of those to actually come racing....find out what we need to do to bring in the new blood. As far as these new folks go, they probably have very little idea of the car class issues we are dealing with now, so that is unlikely to be an impediment. The more we can do to promote the sport locally, and provide assistance, schools, and follow up, the more chance we have of converting some of these students into racers. I believe it takes more than just saying "see ya' later" at the end of a school, and hoping for the best. Personal follow-up and assistance maybe. That could change things if not overnight, at least even this season.

Part of it is clearly a simplification of the rules. Simpler rules make it easier for the newbie to get on the track...less work on the car, less $$$ to get there. Simpler and consistent rules will tempt out-of-province folks, but let's be serious. We are likely never going to get legions of US cars making the trek to the frozen North. Some, maybe, but the reality is that there are so many great circuits close by to most folks down there, a trek to Castrol is not wildly appetizing..... Part of it is follow-up. I like the idea of having the NASCC "How To Go Racing 101" seminar. Stuff like that.

So, let's get the rules cleaned up. Let's get the word out, and let's get those other two tracks done before I get so old, you guys won't let me race with you anymore !

Just a quick question. Is NASA sanctioned by FIA?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: super70dave on March 06, 2014, 06:07:54 PM
Why not one comment from Manitoba. Hmmmmm
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on March 06, 2014, 07:50:57 PM
HI Brooke,

ACCUS  is the US equivalent to ASN CANADA FIA - The groups affiliated with ACCUS are Grand Am, IMSA, IndyCar, NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and USAC & their Karting association.

NASA is not part of ACCUS.   This is why there is an issue with respect to licensing, etc.

Gary
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: ChrisS on March 08, 2014, 08:59:19 AM
Here's why I like this proposal:
- I think the NASA classes fit the inclusive / tuner mindset that our racers and wider motorsport community is looking for.
- It will be a stable rule set.
- Somebody else maintains them.  This means less work for our volunteers, and that new cars and developments are more quickly accounted for in the rules.  NASA has a much larger sample size to make rule decisions on.  For example we don't know if a Sentra should be lighter in IT2 or if Gary just drives slow ;)
- Since our region would match a nation-wide rule set it becomes easier to buy or sell race cars.  What to easily and cost-effectively get into racing?  Go buy a race car from anywhere in North America.  It's also easier to justify that investment when the car could be resold to people outside of Alberta and Manitoba.  Obviously we'd rather nobody stopped racing, but life happens!
- It opens the option for travel (buy/build something that fits an SCCA class and you can race *anywhere*).

Disclaimer: I'm not impacted by this proposal as I race in the Spec Miata class.  Which coincidentally is matches the SCCA and NASA classes.  And also coincidentally has a large number of new competitors.

Aside:

Chrisw,
I'm curious to hear your opinion as a new-comer.  You say that NASCC's 'Getting Started' page wasn't helpful.  What would you have liked to see there?

Chris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on March 09, 2014, 11:40:56 AM
As someone who intends to be racing in 2015 I suppose my views would be of those who you are hoping to attract. Regardless of who's rules end up being used it would seem to make sense for many already previously stated reasons to adopt the ruleset of larger sanctioning body outright, rather than have rules unique to the region. Why have them really close to SCCA's but not quite the same? Obviously those of you who have been racing would have a more informed viewpoint than myself. After reviewing the rulesets myself I find that for the stated goals that you are hoping to accomplish that hands down the best fit would be to adopt NASA's rules.

1. They are more inclusive and flexible, which I think should be the main focus ,so as to attract more racers.
2. It should save a lot of work
3. Regionally I think it makes enough sense and NASA only seems to become more popular, and they tend to best represent the amateur racer in my opinion, which would best serve us I expect.

As for myself, it would certainly help with my aspirations. I have 2006 Mustang GT that was raced as a NASA CMC2 car primarily at buttonwillow from 2006 until 2011. I bought it in 2012 after spending a weekend at Miller Motorsports Park in a BOSS 302 and then an FR500S. I was never so happy in my life, and decided that I wanted to find a way to race as an amateur. I have been slowed due to financial restrictions, but it's going happen sooner or later. It's a nice well sorted car and would currently fit into ST-O but I expect it would be rather uncompetitve being a rather large displacement yet low power car with a stock 4.6l 3V. I personally don't care about being competitive, I could come in last all the time and will probably be the happiest guy out there. However what I would like to do is slowly upgrade/mod the car every year and NASA's rules make that much easier. I don't want to have to put in a fuel cell right away because I want to put in a cold air intake which would immediately require me to move into GT. I just want to come out and have fun and upgrade my car over time, NASA seems to be onboard with that mindset and I think that mentality would help interest more people to join. 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Roy Wallace Racing on March 09, 2014, 08:50:40 PM
I would like to offer my opinion regarding the GT classes.
I am currently preparing my super late model to race in GT1 at Castrol. Has any thought been given to providing a home for these cars like the SCCA has done with the GTA class in the southern USA?
It would be nice to have a class that would maintain "stock car" rules and preparation and not have to directly compete against Trans Am type cars that have an advantage within the GT rules as they are currently written.
 I understand nothing motivates discussion like strong car counts, and this will certainly take time to accomplish. Perhaps the stock car class is something that will develop in the next few years. There are a large number of cars just sitting in this province because there is no longer a place for them to race.
Cheers

RW

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on March 11, 2014, 06:56:11 AM
Good morning!  First of all it's good to hear so many passionate competitors and the majority of the comments are in the right direction to improve amateur sports car competition in the WCMA territory.  However, this topic was suppose to be focused on looking into the future of which direction competitors may wish to direct the amateur sports car community with respect to classifying competition vehicles.  Last fall WCMA received a number of contacts via various sources telling us WCMA's car classification was not keeping pace with it's peers  in other territories in Canada and in United States and there are a number of competitors who have race cars in the States but can not figure where they fit into the the WCMA system. They said they could determine where to put a 1.2 litre British car from the 1960s but a not an off shelf Porsche GT3 or a Shelby Mustang or Viper ACR or a Corvette Z0 or  BMW M3.  To complicate matters for the past 10 years we have been trying to deal with highly modified or highly altered production sedans that just do not fit perfectly into any particular class and the competitors are frustrated at running at the back of one class or another. There are so many different variations of cars from similar manufacturers and so many after market tuner kits that is has been become very difficult to create a common & equal Playing field. The ITJ class has been very popular and I'm sure many of these competitors may eventually wish move to another class. The Spec Miata class  is a fabulous concept and the BMW Pro 3 & 944 type classes are popular in the State but we do not have the population to support all these "so called restricted or one design type competition classes. The modified sports car or sports sedans is nothing new for car classifications were a hot issue in the 1950s and 1960s and there were hot verbal conversation, back then  face to face in club houses or at the many, many racing track that were scattered across in Canada and United States in the 50s, 60s & very early 70s.  Yes, even back in the early 1960s the wealthy drivers like Penkse & Hobarth would show up with their expensive off the shelf Porsche RS60s or 61s or Jaguar SS. For the next 3 to 4 decades as tracks disappeared & the majority of the competitors were usually very mechanically inclined and they built good , fast competition cars. Today we're seeing a resurgence on race tracks ( closed circuits) around the world and many of the active lapping session drivers want to go racing.  So what car racing class do their off the shelf fast cars fit into. WCMA's and others do not have classes that accommodate these cars. SOme groups like NASA started out with 1 or 2 classes and because of pressure they now have dozens of classes.  WCMA can not do this for we have a very small population.  We still have a far higher per capital number of races compared to virtually every where else in NA but still we cannot have 30 classes for 40 cars.

WCMA's executive would like to build the sport, make it more competitive and more fun,  and we realized we had to address the future of the sport.  Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell agreed to initiate this latest topic: review what our peers are doing and to try to come to consensus on an acceptable format for future car classifications within the Prairie Provinces and Territories.

They suggested we all review the rules of a number of other groups: CASC-OR, ICSCC, CACC, NASA & SCCA or stay with the existing rules and some how fit in all these modern off the shelf street cars that are very worthy race cars. We're a very tiny populated area compared to Ontario, California & New York so we have to be careful when planning where we want our rules to go for 2015 & beyond. There is a possibility that Alberta could have 3 tracks by 2017 or 2018.
May I recommend that we keep this particular topic to the focus of reviewing all our peers rules and provide direction towards  future car classifications.   It has become apparent many competitors have many other valid issues, such as websites' content,how expensive car racing is and how frustrating it is getting on to this forum to voice your opinion, or the ease of getting into the sport, no one to talk to about their particular issues.
If competitors have other issues they would like to voice their concerns about or share their thoughts with fellow competitors please start another new topic.  WCMA's forum is a soap box to improve amateur sport car racing in the Prairie Provinces and the Territories.
If you would like to volunteer your time to build motorsports please work with your local sports car club.  This sport is driven by the local sports car clubs and their many dedicated volunteers. These clubs are the centre of like minded individuals.  Thank you and let's hope we can refocus on future car classifications. This is a very complex issue.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on March 13, 2014, 04:37:47 AM
Chrisw,
I'm curious to hear your opinion as a new-comer.  You say that NASCC's 'Getting Started' page wasn't helpful.  What would you have liked to see there?

I will try to respond to this in another thread when I have some time.

Back to the rules! I will bring up this issue...

"Alternate engines may be used, given that the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g. Acura engine installed into a Honda auto)." In the STO rules, I believe there is the same stipulation for brakes to be from the same manufacturer, although I can't find it in the 2011 rules (the only ones linked to the NASCC site).

This makes little sense to me anymore. With all the different engine swaps out there, this ONLY limits cars and forces those that are already swapped differently to jump up to GT right away. I drive an S14 with an S15 engine in it. I am REALLY lucky that I didn't instead go with an engine from a different manufacturer, no matter how small the displacement... An example of such a car was a Toyota Carolla that was recently for sale out of BC. The car had a KA swapped into it because that's what the previous owner could afford/get at the time. The car was useless except in drift thanks to this rule. It barely has 100hp (on a good day) and is forced into GT.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on March 13, 2014, 06:36:31 AM
CHRIS - That is a good example of why we initiated this topic.  What overall car classification system would work best for the WCMA competitors.  In the short term the WCMA rules do not work for some competitors and for others it  works great either by them buying the perfect car that fits the rules or by design where the competitor built the car to fit exactly into their desired class.

This topic is to give the competitors the opportunity to set in motion the potential for a car classification system that  would make it fair  to the majority of competitors. We will always have competitors who will show up with something that does not fit.

This topic is about what type of future  car classification that would work well for a small population sports car racing community with the potential by 2017 or 2018 of having 3 tracks in Alberta, plus 2 in BC and Gimli in Manitoba.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on March 13, 2014, 03:34:52 PM
SOme groups like NASA started out with 1 or 2 classes and because of pressure they now have dozens of classes.  WCMA can not do this for we have a very small population.  We still have a far higher per capital number of races compared to virtually every where else in NA but still we cannot have 30 classes for 40 cars.

I dont think there is one person that wants more classes, or at least i hope there is not. the goal should be to reduce the classes.


Anyway, I do not think this is a decision we should decide on in the next few months. Going off half cocked is a great way to have to revisit this problem in a few years yet again. There is no real need to have a rule change for the 2015 season if it means we have to rush the discussion. I think this topic should be revisited after people have a few months to casually digest the idea of major class rule changes
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: sturat77 on March 18, 2014, 09:57:15 AM
Here are a few thoughts:

1.  No matter what the rule set, I think its safe to say every race organizing body will find a class for a car to race if someone shows up with a car.  As long as it is safe and meets all their safety criteria, a home will be found for that car.

2.  No matter what the rule set, some competitors will maximize their cars to that rule set and some wont.  You will ALWAYS have disparity between the fastest and the slowest cars in a given class.  Always.

I have raced my Integra in its current configuration for 11 seasons.  It has raced with at least 7 different groups (WCMA, NASA, SCCA, ISSCC?,CSCC,VCR Indy, EDM Indy...) and in that time it has been classified in at least 11 different classes. 

At every race track I have been to, I have been welcomed with open arms and they have found a class for me to race in.  Did I win, was I competitive?  Sometimes yes, but most times no.  Do I win and am I competitive at my home track with the rule set my car is built to conform to - yes! 

My point is that our classing rules are not exclusionary, thay are as open as any organizing body out there.  If you build it, you can play.   You may not be competitive and win, but dont blame the rules, blame yourself.

If the rules change, there will be those that read the new rules, adjust their cars to fit and to be a fast as they can within those rules.  And there will be those that dont.  There will be a disparity between fast and slow cars within each class, as there always has been.  (Just as an aside, I always thought reading the rules, figuring out how to make the car incrimentally faster and still stay legal was part of the racing game?  Its the thinking part of racing, the mind game.)

My only hope is that we dont have to revisit this topic again because the guy who put a cage in his 2002 Daihatsu is pissed off because, even though we have "inclusionary" rules and he has a class to run in, his Daihatsu isnt competitive and he's always in last place.

Those are my random thoughts.

Stu Geddes
Acura Integra STU #77

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 18, 2014, 10:40:47 AM
under WCMA regs, how would you class a 3000 lb car with a 5L engine swap and no fuel cell (ie, a 302 in a fox-body mustang)?

no fuel cell means no GT. engine swap means no IT. it is too light to race ST-O. you would have to break a rule to make it fit. he might be able to race once like this, but would eventually have to add a lot of weight, spend a lot of $ for a fuel cell, or put the old engine back in. Or not race because the rules make it difficult and/or expensive to participate.

the same car could run in NASA no problem.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on March 18, 2014, 02:49:43 PM
I think that nails it for me. NASA's classification system makes it real easy to class virtually any car. It also allows people to make modifications that they would prefer to do and you can easily figure out if the car changes classes by adding on the extra points. It allows you to set up a car to your own preferences as long as you meet the safety requirements and still results in fair classing.

Posts that are against the idea of adopting NASA's classification system seem to have a common theme of lets not change for the sake of change, which is very important, even as an aspiring outsider I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. I'm just curious what specificily are any problems you see with NASA's system as I believe that adopting their ruleset would actually result in not having to make any more significant changes in the future. Leaving the WCMA with a stable ruleset and I really believe it will also get many more people into the sport because it really seems to be an inviting and inclusive system. 

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 20, 2014, 08:20:16 AM
well, the caveat with my previous post is that the one instance i have presented (heavily modified engine, light car, no fuel cell) is the only area that i can see where WCMA regs can't find a class for you. i think that this affects quite a few potential competitors, however.

however, if what i have hear *alluded* to is true, then:

- removal of fuel cell requirement in GT will solve this problem, as the car could find a home in GT (may not be competitive as displacement isn't necessarily an indicator of power, but that is not the point; finding a class you are legal in is the point); or

- reduction of the ST-O class factor to 0.80 will allow the car to run without having to add weight. using my previous example, a 3000 lb car with 5 L engine x .75 DF for two valves and .88 CF = 3300 lbs or 300 lb ballast (note that NASA allows max 250 lbs ballast as safety starts to become a concern - we aren't racing pickup trucks) ... but ... at .80 CF he is back to 3000 lbs and no ballast.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 20, 2014, 08:45:13 AM
just to expand on my 'potential competitors' comment above. i think that the focus should be on developing more local racers, and not so much on attracting racers from other jurisdictions. really, if you are in BC and want a break from Mission, are you going to drive to Castrol or are you going to drive to one of five or six closer, better tracks in Oregon and Washington State?

there are currently plenty of AXers, DEers, Drifters, etc., in Alberta. these guys already have cars and are currently thinking "man, i hate waiting for the guy in front of me to wave me by; i want to pass". you should make it as easy as possible for them to transition these cars (heavily modified engines, light car, no fuel cell) into road racing. i would suggest that there are a heck of a lot more of them than there are individuals with no previous exposure to motorsports that decide cold that they want to road race, find the WCMA regs, and build a car to suit (and they have to build as there is nothing to buy except perhaps spec miata from the USA). finally, these DEers, Axers, Drifters, etc., are already at the track; very easy to access, advertise, and lure over to the dark side.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on March 20, 2014, 03:09:44 PM
My point is that our classing rules are not exclusionary, thay are as open as any organizing body out there.  If you build it, you can play.   You may not be competitive and win, but dont blame the rules, blame yourself.

You can play? That should read you can lap. If you force a car into a class where is is completely outclassed... it might as well be lapping. And if that is the attitude, you will not have those people stick around. You can't expect people to repeatedly come out to "race" when they are completely out classed... and there is no need for it. In this way, the current rules ARE exclusionary.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 21, 2014, 10:51:08 AM
i guess that's where i differ. as a beginner, a competitive car ain't gonna help me. i think there is a difference between 'legal' (ie, meet all the requirements for the class) and 'competitive' (ie, be fast in that class). i doubt you'll get a lot of traction with folks if asking for a set of rules that make your car 'competitive' right out of the box; that's where you have to step up and find whatever advantage in the rules you can (and in the current case with wcma thats a small displacement japanese car). on the other hand, it sure would be nice to slap a cage in a car and be 'legal' for a class without having to drop another $2k on a fuel cell (only to run in a GT class with no other cars in it) or find 300 lbs of steel to bolt into the passenger seat (and have your car behave unpredictably because it isnt designed to be driven to the limit with such a load).
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on March 21, 2014, 01:13:29 PM
Do not get into the situation where you are creating classes all over the place to fit cars that people decide they want to build. Discipline. Set classes, and people must build to those classes.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on March 21, 2014, 02:29:13 PM
By my understanding if NASA's classification system were to be adopted it would result in two less classes than there are under the current WCMA system, not more. It's just that the classes would be more representative of the types of cars that are currently being run and would also easily fit many cars that would like to participate, like myself.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on March 22, 2014, 07:50:24 AM
Fewer classes would be great, our goal, but how do we it so many disparate cars into a single class without there being a large gap between "top" and "bottom" of the class...
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on March 22, 2014, 07:58:21 AM
here is some highlights from what I see happening.  based on discussions,  and the voices in my head!

NASA 2 less classes is not nearly enough less to even consider major change because of 2 less classes

NASA   focus for cars changes from maximizing engine building and power, to maximizing handling.   both cost a lot of money   (racing is not cheap)
NASA   puts emphasis on ANY car regardless of engine and chassis will fit into a class some where
NASA   power to weight base for classing.

I am  truly 60/40 against NASA    here is why.

-I am not sure its smart for a Miata with a twin turbo charged 7 litre LS6 to be allowed to race in the top class with no fuel cell
-I am not sure it is smart for a Miata and a full body challenger srt to race door to door for a class win.   1800lb car vs 4000lb car in same class...
-some cars that are currently VERY competitive in WCMA will become not...   sorry guys I have to name names here.    example.  first gen rx7's   notoriously do not handle or brake great.   NASA rules favor great nimble handling cars.  because to be fast in NASA with equal power to weight ratio you must be able to out run the other cars in the corners and pass under braking.   
-I think that NASA rules will solve a few of the problems discussed, like a 5l mustang or a 6l Camaro, but it will create a whole realm of other problems that might simple not be worth the hassle.   

the big advantage of NASA imo would be
-engine swaps allowed
-mismatched chassis vs engine manufacture
-no exclusion of competitor


and the only one I really, really like, is NO EXCLUSION   

however I would think that we could solve that within  our own unique rule set without starting from scratch. 

Conroy
 

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 22, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
i can understand not wanting to do away with fuel cells in the fast classes, and not wanting to get too agressive with class factors. another solution might be to cap additional weight requirements; ie:

"Regardless of weight calculations, no vehicle shall be required to weigh more than 100 lbs over manufactured weight"   or

"Regardless of weight calculations, maximum required ballast will be 200 lbs"

otherwise, if you want fewer classes, make fewer classes. i don't know much about IT, and you can't have any fewer classes in ST, but what about GT? create a GT-U and a GT-O and be done with it. mirror the ST classes so racers can easily transition. that kills four classes right there. there's so few people racing in GT right now that you won't get a lot of complaints.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on March 22, 2014, 12:56:12 PM
I'm of the opinion we're starting to see some good comments and competitors are seriously looking at the overall big picture and not the size of their ________ and _______.  We're heading in the right direction.  Please don't forget to have a look at some our other peer groups. Doug and Gary R.  suggested we all review the rules of a number of other groups: CASC-OR, ICSCC, CACC, NASA & SCCA.

Winter will soon be gone and we will be back competing and lapping at Castrol Raceway.  Castrol's owners spent a great deal of money, time and worked very hard last year for us to get a season of racing competed in 2013.  2014 will be even a better year.  We are so very fortunate to have a closed circuit paved race track in Alberta.  I know many are hoping we may have 2 to 3 tracks by 2017 & beyond. However, Castrol is here now and it is a challenging course for many competitors. Laps times will fall as the season goes on and confidence of drivers will increase and we will see some car/drivers move up the speed charts.

"If" we see another track then the competitiveness of some cars may vary from track to track. So please keep this in mind. If you look through CASC-OR they have had to address this issue. 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Roy Wallace Racing on March 22, 2014, 04:07:09 PM
I have been following comments in this thread with great interest.
I am puzzled by some comments suggesting that some GT classes waive fuel cell requirements, and would like to share a story if I may.
Last year, I saw the white Honda drag his stock tank around the track and finally stop right in front of our pit stall to have it INSTANTLY drain at least five gallons of fuel onto the ground, creating a huge cleanup. We were quite lucky there was no fire. Have any of you seen how big a fire five gallons of fuel can make, especially when it is spread over a large area?
If that car had a fuel cell, it very likely would have never fallen out of the car in the first place. If it somehow did, it would have never allowed more than a dribble of fuel to come out, as the foam prevents a large slosh of fuel, should the bladder be breached.
I feel every car that races on any track should have a fuel cell, regardless of the "speed" of the class.
That Honda was going 2 mph in the pits, but could have caused a HUGE fire, right where lots more fuel was being stored.
I always hear club members saying "safety first, we are club racers" Isn't a mandatory fuel cell the first line in safety? At the very least, these cars should have reinforced tank mounting structures.

I understand the differences between tube chassis "real" race cars and a stock street car with fuel injection. There are already enough of these stock tank classes, I do not feel we should be adding more of them.

Thanks for entertaining my opinion.

RWR



Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on March 23, 2014, 11:51:30 AM
As many folks have pointed out, our rules seem to make it hard for drivers from other regions/sanctioning bodies to come here to compete. Well, I just finished a conversation with the ICSCC Licencing Director regarding getting my ICSCC Road Race Licence, and he pointed out that "...Technically we don't have reciprocity with WCMA"

Point is, we are not alone out there with "restrictive" rules.

( Just got another email....ICSCC just accepted my WCMA licence)
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on March 24, 2014, 05:40:03 AM
HI Brooke,

Over the years, a number of WCMA drivers and before WCMA, Prairie Region under CASC have competed in ICSCC events and vice versa.  Many of us who competed at Westwood , BC never had a issue, but then again a number of us  Albertans  had ASN Professional License or a CASC Professional Competition licenses.

ICSCC ran a lot of their Conference events at Westwood.


Good hear. They run very good events.

Gary
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on March 24, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
Is there any news on the 2014 technical regulations? The season is approaching quickly. All I really want to know is the STO displacement and correction factors.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on March 24, 2014, 11:00:12 AM
I have been following comments in this thread with great interest.
I am puzzled by some comments suggesting that some GT classes waive fuel cell requirements, and would like to share a story if I may.
Last year, I saw the white Honda drag his stock tank around the track and finally stop right in front of our pit stall to have it INSTANTLY drain at least five gallons of fuel onto the ground, creating a huge cleanup. We were quite lucky there was no fire. Have any of you seen how big a fire five gallons of fuel can make, especially when it is spread over a large area?
If that car had a fuel cell, it very likely would have never fallen out of the car in the first place. If it somehow did, it would have never allowed more than a dribble of fuel to come out, as the foam prevents a large slosh of fuel, should the bladder be breached.
I feel every car that races on any track should have a fuel cell, regardless of the "speed" of the class.
That Honda was going 2 mph in the pits, but could have caused a HUGE fire, right where lots more fuel was being stored.
I always hear club members saying "safety first, we are club racers" Isn't a mandatory fuel cell the first line in safety? At the very least, these cars should have reinforced tank mounting structures.

I understand the differences between tube chassis "real" race cars and a stock street car with fuel injection. There are already enough of these stock tank classes, I do not feel we should be adding more of them.

Thanks for entertaining my opinion.

RWR

Just stop right there. A fuel cell is not necessary for all classes. leave that rule for GT cars. Fuel tanks do not just magically fall out of cars, flat out no we should not change the rules requiring fuel cells because one guy dragged his tank. Even if you want to talk rear end hits, Modern cars have the tank situated in the middle of the vehicle as well; pretty safe location. Even the 80s cars we see on the track in decreasing number with the tank hanging out the back is still safe in a real end collision, safe enough that people weren't dying firey deaths on the street. What I do for a living is stare at accidents all day every day. I've seen some extremely hard hit vehicles, thousands upon thousands of vehicles. some blasted so hard in the back they are bucketed at the windshield. some pushed so far in it made it feet into the car. I have never seen a fuel tank compromised. Why would we require fuel cells for all classes based on someone's feelings of what is safe or not, regardless of the facts?

You know what would be really safe? purpose built race cars not built in your shed. Might as well ban people building their own race car if you want to go down the raod that everyone needs a fuel cell, because the real problem is not that cars are dnagerous from the factory, but that people are building cars in their shed and altering vehicles in a way that may or may compromise their safety. Your example, the tank was gettoed in place i believe with 1 strap or something like that not even held on right. It was not installed the way the factory had it installed and secured. It not being a fuel cell had absolutely nothing to do with that incident. That is like saying we should have nascar style hubs installed mandatory on every car because ocasionally someone doesn't torque thier lugs properly and a wheel comes off in a race with the oem style hub/studs. Lets put the blame where blame is due, and its not the factory tank that was the problem in that, it was the guy who put the car together.

This is amateur racing. Its try and keep costs to a minimum before things are expensive enough we might as well just skip building our own cars, and save some money and buy SCCA ford spec racers or open wheel cars, or one of the other dedicated purpose built manufacturered race cars that are proven, and ban all the home brew shed cars that are so popular.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on March 24, 2014, 11:29:01 AM
ZHAO,

Nice post. Good points.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on March 24, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
so, if the rules make it difficult for me to transition my current track car (in which I have lots of $, is safe, not too old, not rusty) and the rules favour high output, small displacement Japanese cars, and everyone tells me to build to the rules, guess what? the rules kinda encourage me to go buy a rusty Honda (or, more likely, mazda) with dated brakes, the older the better in order to keep costs down (all the money in my current car may as well be gone - you never recoup that kind of investment). can't get it safetied for street use? no problem, racing will let me run it at twice the legal speed limit 2" from a concrete wall. how many straps to hold the gas tank in? as many as the rules ask for I guess (actually, rules don't have much to say about fuel tanks, only fuel cells). and if the tank falls out? dunno. GT cars have fuel cells, but they're running on the same track at the same time as cars that don't have fuel cells, so it all seems moot to me?

nasa doesn't require fuel cells in any of their classes I don't think ...
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: giantkiller on March 24, 2014, 02:02:22 PM
As many folks have pointed out, our rules seem to make it hard for drivers from other regions/sanctioning bodies to come here to compete. Well, I just finished a conversation with the ICSCC Licencing Director regarding getting my ICSCC Road Race Licence, and he pointed out that "...Technically we don't have reciprocity with WCMA"

Point is, we are not alone out there with "restrictive" rules.

( Just got another email....ICSCC just accepted my WCMA licence)

He is technically correct. ICSCC is a "conference of sports cars clubs" hence the name. As a result they are made of a number of smaller WCMA type clubs such as IRDC, NWMS (spokane),  Cascade and SCCBC. In that regard we really don't have reciprocity. There is something that exists with SCCBC which allows them to recognize each other.

However in their rules they do have a provision for accepting non ICSCC licenses, much as other sanctioning bodies do, in the case of "conference" they accept SCCA, NASCC, BMWCCA, and ASN/FIA.

The only catch with racing on your WCMA member affiliate license is that you cannot run as an area racer and will not be eligible for championship points, for that you will need to join a member club and and get your area license.

Non area races all have car numbers starting with a 7XX.

I have only had minor questions racing with my WCMA license across North America.

While I don't think the licensing thing is a huge issue for us right now it is something which makes it difficult for other regions to travel here, with so many tracks and a 10+ race weekends on the schedule it is unlikely that US or even BC folks would travel here. I think we should focus our attention on building the base locally first.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: giantkiller on March 24, 2014, 02:15:22 PM
We have discussed the fuel cell thing before but there are some good points made.

One of the challenges I see is the fact that with a single grid and multiple classes we have some rules which don't seem to make sense in the context of multiple classes, such as the fuel cell rule. If my GT car is on track at the same time as your IT car it seems silly to not have equivalent safety in place.

One way around this is to say something to the effect of:

"fuel cells are only required where the fuel tank sits all or in part rearward of the vertical centreline of the rear wheels. A fuel tank which is situated forward of the vertical centreline must be completely isolated from the drivers compartment."

Now it is up to the driver / builder if a fuel cell is required or presents an advantage through safety or weight distribution. But you can feel confident that the car you are racing with doesn't have 40 litres of fuel immediately on the other side of the tail lights such as on a BMW 2002.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Roy Wallace Racing on March 24, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
My point on cells was not so much about mounting as it was about how fast the fuel escapes a stock tank once it has been breached. It doesn't matter how strong it is, if there is a hole ALL the fuel comes out all at once. A fuel cell prevents a large fuel spill and provides time to get the driver to safety.
Or in the case of our white Honda, prevents a high volume spill where there are many unprotected crew members.

RWR
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on March 25, 2014, 01:00:06 PM
Just to chime in on the fuel cell talk. I'm all for having fuel cells at a certain level, I think as it currently stands it makes sense to require one once at the GT level. I had made a comment earlier that probably didn't make the point I had wanted. What I was trying to say was that it seems odd to me that an ST car can make head and valvetrain changes, have a different intake manifold, bore the throttle body and yet has to retain the stock intake and airbox. From a cost perspective the first thing I would prefer to due is change to a cold air intake and revamp the tune, that makes way more sense to me than starting off with headwork. However if I did that I would be forced to reclass to GT immediately, which would mean a fuel cell right off the bat. The point being that NASA's point system for modifications allows one a far greater flexibility in choosing mods that make sense for your own car. Nothing says that we wouldn't be able to stipulate that fuel cells would be required at a certain class level, be it D, C, B etc... Hopefully that makes what I'm trying to say clearer
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on March 25, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
My point on cells was not so much about mounting as it was about how fast the fuel escapes a stock tank once it has been breached. It doesn't matter how strong it is, if there is a hole ALL the fuel comes out all at once. A fuel cell prevents a large fuel spill and provides time to get the driver to safety.
Or in the case of our white Honda, prevents a high volume spill where there are many unprotected crew members.

RWR

Now with the rule change you want, rather then have one guy, once in a blue moon, gettoing his tank in place (I think leason learned for all that u dont getto ur tank in place) and continuing to drive around with it dragging until it ruptured (which we will probably never see again in our lifetime), you are now going to have everyone, regardless of how mechanically inclined they are, now backyard mechanicing in a fuel cell. Seems illogical to me to exchange something that has been crash tested, engineered with a budget of millions, and placed in the vehicle and secured with an army of engineers thinking it out, and exchanging it for a cube some idiot can throw in the back of his car with some feelings on where it should go or how it should go in without any engineering or testing behind such a decision. That is what I would call an increase in risk rather then risk mitigation.

I know at face value it sounds like a good idea to require everyone to have a fuel cell in your head, but I dont think you have all the facts. Fuel cells do one thing better from a safety perspective, while at the same time do several other things far worse, like deteriorate over time, leave huge wild cards in how they were installed, and where they were installed, and if they are hooked up properly. Leaving opportunities for leaks, being damaged in hits, and coming lose, because the mechanical skill and knowledge of the guy putting it in is a huge wildcard. A stock fuel tank left alone should have none of those problems if not mucked with. Like I said, I've dissected the aftermath of thousands of accidents and not one fuel tank was hit to date, let alone ruptured. That is some pretty significant data to how safe a stock fuel tank is from rupturing in an accident.

I change my injectors, i got a fuel leak, because one of the new orings i put in was either defective, or an improper ring to be used with fuel mixed in with the correct ones. I muk wiht my stock tank, and it leaked when filling it. I fixed both issues easily, but i still had issues after mucking with both things. Now you think everyone is going to install a fuel cell as good as OEM on their first try? not going to happen.

You're not really making things safer with advocating for that. What you're doing is making things different safe, aka, safer in one respect, while causing more risk and therefore less safety in another respect. And we get to pay $1000ish for that reshuffling of 'safety'. No thanks.

parting piece is what nasa has to say on it, which I'm sure put a lot more effort into researching it then you or me:

We do not subscribe to the hypothesis that “any fuel cell is better than no fuel cell.” The stock tank has been crash tested in its location and at least that’s a known factor. When someone installs a fuel cell, it’s possible to create a more dangerous situation because of the location of mounting and the other things around it. Furthermore, bladders do deteriorate. On more than one occasion old bladders have sprung leaks resulting in fires. One car was a total loss. We do not believe that the stock tank deteriorates at anywhere near the rate that a bladder deteriorates. This is not to encourage people to use the stock tank, but rather to answer some questions that have recently come up.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Leigh2 on April 06, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
My first post on this forum, the discussion on the proposed change to NASA rules has been excellent.
I have been racing with NASA at Miller Motorsport Park since they went away from their local (Miller Park Racing Association) rules and adopted NASA rules in 2011. Since the change the car count has almost doubled, it has been very good for Miller to have made the switch. Miller is arguably to best road racing facility in North America but Salt Lake City is rather isolated so the car counts have been lower than you would have expected at such a facility. They are very pleased with the positive effect adopting NASA rules has had on their racing. I think it is an excellent rule set, vetted by a very large number of competitors and continually updated to keep the racing field level.
A good example of this is what's happened to the class that my car has been in up until this year. I won the national championship in 2013 in the GTS5 category. The field at the nationals was largely newer Porsche Cup cars but there were some older Porsche's as well. This year they have added an additional 0.2 lbs/hp to cars like mine with sequential transmissions which effectively punted me out of GTS5. The additional ~90 lbs I would have to add to stay at the legal post-race weight puts me over the maximum 250 lbs of ballast that I'm allowed to carry. Now I could eat more Twinkies and reduce that amount but have chosen to go up into GTSU instead, or I can move laterally into ST1 as well the car fits into both classes. I can't say I'm thrilled at the rule change but can't disagree that a sequential gearbox is a clear advantage. I think it's a good example of how closely the rules are monitored and changed to keep the classes competitive.
I think moving to NASA rules would be a very positive change for WCMA and the timing is excellent. There could be several tracks in Western Canada soon and a modern set of rules will lay the ground work for a competitive series operating at all of the tracks.

Regarding fuel cells:
Zhao yours are the best comments I have seen regarding fuel cells ever. It's very good to hear from someone with your background of seeing the actual effects of severe crashes on fuel tank integrity. I have been racing for a while and most of the problems I have seen with fuel tanks involve poorly installed cells or degraded fuel cell bladders. The Porsche Club of America experienced their first death last year after a severe crash where the fuel cell in an older 911 exploded. Porsche Cup cars that have been built since 1999 did not come with a fuel cell as standard equipment until 2011, largely due to rule changes in some series. The only fuel leak I have seen in a cup car has been due to a degraded fuel cell bladder. I agree that it's difficult to improve on the stock tank location in modern crash-tested cars. I think the example used of the white Honda where the fuel tank fell out is more indicative of a poor technical inspection than the choice of fuel tank.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: aavery on April 07, 2014, 04:42:09 PM
In my defense both stock gas tank straps broke, there was no sign of fatigue, i have talk to other honda racers and it is a common occurrence just not both at the same time, i have installed 2 new straps as well as a secondary strap , and know of at least 3 others that have installed secondary straps.

might want to add this to the rules  ( back up gas tank retainer)





 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: TrentO on April 17, 2014, 04:41:41 PM
From my perspective there are 3 groups of racers:

Stock cars - current IT racers
Modified cars - the tuners / tweakers
Full race cars - The GT cars, tube frame or completely stripped tub cars.

We need rules to fit all three groups, and having people race against a time bracket feels wrong.  I would be concerned about people moving around in brackets throughout a season, making for a nightmare in points calculation.

The power to weight system of NASA seems like a good solution, but after doing a lot of playing with the NASA calculator, it appears almost all GT cars would move up at least one grouping, so GT1 would become STU, GT2 to ST1, GT3 to ST2.  This seems odd.
I also think we're smashing the current STO/STU guys into an unhappy place.

As I'm obsessed with GT, I'll start there.  GT to me is all out racing, we should assume every motor is built to the maximum and making all the power it can possibly put out.  With GT1, the current rules stipulate a restrictor plate for larger V-8 engines but I don't see this as feasible to easily check (also impossible on a factory fuel injected motor).  Unless we have a safety concern we could just let everything run unrestricted.  If we have safety issues, we could stipulate a single inlet restrictor to keep the horsepower down to safe levels.  The main problem I see with GT is the displacement classing.  I think the divisions should be more along the lines of cylinders in the engines. So GT1 is for V8's and larger turbo motors, GT2 for 6 cylinder cars and smaller turbo motors and GT3 for 4 cylinders and rotaries.  If we wanted to stay displacement based this would mean moving the GT2 displacement up to 3800 cc to allow for the 370Z engines and various Porsche engines.  GTL should move up to 2500 cc.  This would allow usage of the newer 2.4 and 2.5 L four cylinder engines. This would make a home for many of the modern cars and potentially freshen up the GT field.

For STO/STU I think we need to change our perspective and focus on this as a mid-point between IT and GT racing, with the goal of graduating the ST cars into GT as they progress.  We could do a three class system like I propose for GT 1,2 and GT3 based on the same GT rules, just allowing for the cars to weigh more as they are all tub-based and still running interiors.  Just massage the weight factors the GT classes use to account for the extra 300 or more lbs of car weight which likely accompanies the displacement.

Another option for STO/STU would be to put them in with the GT cars and add a few class factors (which we could steal from NASA) to account for tub car vs tube chassis, street tires vs slicks.

I haven't had much experience with IT cars as I jumped from CC to IT/GT back in the day. So I'll avoid any discussion on IT.

Hope this makes sense to someone else.
Regards,
-Trent
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on April 18, 2014, 07:54:15 AM
I can understand some of your thoughts Trent but from my perspective the biggest issue that needs to be addressed is that the current ruleset is unique to the WCMA and ideally it would be nice to adopt the ruleset of a larger popular sanctioning body. I don't really see any major issues with the current rules other than some adjustment to the ST-O factors likely needs to happen. I'm not sure that what your proposing would result in an increase in competitors whereas the adoption of a much more widely used ruleset at the very least has the potential to interest more regional people who choose to go south and race if not draw some racers who would not otherwise consider coming. And certainly would interest someone like me with a NASA prepared car and others in the region who might then be able to fit in somewhere like guys with drift cars. Just my take on what the end goals behind this review are about, not trying to say your wrong or anything.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: TrentO on April 21, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
Has anyone looked at the SCCA rules lately? All 889 pages of it?
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/2014%20GCR%20April1.pdf

So SCCA is not an option, although you can see the roots of most of the WCMA GT rules.
As for NASA rules, Anyone who was at the NASCC meeting saw less than 1/4 the membership supported adopting NASA rules.
Over half supported modifying the existing rules, so I'm trying to come up with ways to make the current rules more workable and actually bring out more cars by opening it up to displacements over 2L.

-Trent
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on April 21, 2014, 11:13:43 AM
Thanks for posting the link, it's a very descriptive ruleset. I'm personally for anything that makes more sense for larger displacements as that is exactly where I'll fit in. I just really like the flexibility of modifications that the NASA rules allow for. Although I immediately like that in American Sedan (Where I would fit in SCCA's classing) that it specifically addresses that my car can have a cold air intake which according to WCMA's current rules would force me into a GT Class whereas my car probably belongs in ST-O.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: The Radium King on April 24, 2014, 08:49:49 AM
will a cold air intake push you into GT? air boxes are free in IT, so presume free in ST. you may be confusing air box with intake manifold, where I *think* they define manifold as anything downstream of the throttle body, and air box as upstream?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Terence Thyr on April 24, 2014, 10:05:55 AM
The 2014 regs clear this up for me. I was very confused by the 2012 and 2013 regs that stated that the type and style of "intake manifold" was unrestricted but then right after it stated the "intake" type and style was to be stock, I had assumed that since "intake manifold" and "intake" were mentioned seperately that "intake" must have referered to the air intake and airbox ahead of the throttle body, which made very little sense given what was allowed in IT. Thankfully I can see that I had interpreted this wrong and it is worded much differently in the 2014 regs, which makes me a happy camper. Thanks for helping to point that out to me.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on July 16, 2014, 09:08:49 AM
Has there been any news on class restructuring for next year? I think last weekends results exemplify the need for some restructuring. Those beautiful old Datsuns finished 3 laps down and looked like they were having a good race between them, but they certainly can't give Bruce in his tube framed 300zx silhouette car any kind of run. I know the argument is that they bought the wrong cars or should have read the rules before they bought their cars, but what should happen with these older race cars that don't have the hp/L of the modern stuff?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 4kruzn on July 17, 2014, 06:18:41 PM
Justin.   I am not certain, but I believe both those old 240s have been severely tuned down to run in vintage, but because not enough vintage came out...   I could be wrong but I overheard one of the drivers talking about running the car on factory carbs...    Not going to make any power that way.  Cannot really consider more classes because of under prepped cars.     That is kind of the part I dislike most about nasa.    If you don't want to build the car up, simply put it in a slower class.    I guess This can be seen as a good thing too...   Hahaha. 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on July 18, 2014, 12:37:43 PM
Justin.   I am not certain, but I believe both those old 240s have been severely tuned down to run in vintage, but because not enough vintage came out...   I could be wrong but I overheard one of the drivers talking about running the car on factory carbs...    Not going to make any power that way.  Cannot really consider more classes because of under prepped cars.     That is kind of the part I dislike most about nasa.    If you don't want to build the car up, simply put it in a slower class.    I guess This can be seen as a good thing too...   Hahaha.

I think this "Cannot really consider more classes because of under prepped cars."  is a miss leading because;
1) the change suggested reduces the # of classes
2) cars will still need to be prepped to a class to be competitive, however each class is a stepping stepping stone to the next class, so you do not have to do all the prep at once.
3) no one single mod, moves you from IT to ST or ST to GT or from IT street to GT (like not having a dash)

the change would not guarantee any is competitive in a class just gives them a better chance to be.

 
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on July 18, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
That is kind of the part I dislike most about nasa.    If you don't want to build the car up, simply put it in a slower class.    I guess This can be seen as a good thing too...   Hahaha.

I see this as a good thing :)  I think these guys could have fit right in with some of the STU/IT cars in a slower class and had a great time dicing with cars of similar speed instead of getting lapped three times by the class winner. Taking cars to the limit is a very expensive endeavor and entry level grassroots racing should allow people to slowly work their way in.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: aavery on July 18, 2014, 09:04:35 PM
i have raced other types of racing, hydroplanes, rally ect in other forms if you didnt have 3 entries the class it was canceled for that weekend, and if there wasnt more then 5 registered with national body the class would be put on probation to be deleted.

there was a step up rule where you could run in the next class up if you didnt have enough entries

winning you class when your the only car in it is a joke, if you dont have 3 cars in you class upgrade or down grade your car to fit another class,

lets face it spec racing seems to be the way things are going

justin best thing you can do is convince other 944 to come out and ie nasa 944 spec racing

out of the 40 cars last weekend   

10 were stu
12 were spec miata
6 challange car

almost 2/3 of the field in 3 classes,  yet we have 30 classes in wcma

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on July 22, 2014, 08:00:28 AM
winning you class when your the only car in it is a joke, if you dont have 3 cars in you class upgrade or down grade your car to fit another class,

Agreed, but changing classes in a system where displacement determines your class means serious engine work to change class. The other 944 guys have 2.5L+ turbos or LS swaps... making them all GT1 or GTS cars by virtue of displacement.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: zhao on July 24, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
I 95% agree with bought the wrong car, modded ur car wrong, blah blah blah = dont whine about how it doesn't class right and just build a car well to a class it fits in well and a class that is popular, etc if that's what u care about. What I want to race is a formula mazda, but I dont cuz i dont want to race alone. But illogical things happen, and people do jump out of their class into higher classes for no damn reason. Take IT2, it was the largest class a short time ago but now a lot of IT2/it3 cars are sitting in STU cuz a lot of people decided to put on some single mod that doesn't do anything for performance that bumps them out of IT, and are running times slower then IT2/IT3 cars. So what do you do there? Follow them to STU? but that involves dumping a lot more money into the car to make it competitive in STU (now ur cracking engines open and camming it or porting it, or upgrading turbro's). I'll race in IT2 until IT2 has no real field to race against, then i'll do what i need to do to move to another class with a high car count, but i wont race in something with a car taht can't win, cuz imo, thats pointless.

What I like with nasa is the jump to the next higher class can be made with a little hop, rather then the huge leap our rules currently require. discribing it by our current rules, its like going from it2 to it1. instead of IT2 to STU. How NASA rules play out who knows though. might be  more annoying with a lot more class jumping as people move up and down for various reasons. Might be a lot harder to police who belongs in what class too.
Title: Re: Good Article on NASA: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: GTcalgary on September 19, 2014, 08:51:28 AM
http://www.racer.com/nasa-racing-first-steps-prepare-for-liftoff (http://www.racer.com/nasa-racing-first-steps-prepare-for-liftoff)
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: JustinL on September 19, 2014, 10:30:43 AM
I had a great time this year racing with the guys in the 1:27-1:30 lap time range. I think there were 4 or 5 of us right in there having a great time in the GT group. It's just a shame that the 5 of us at the last race were in 3 different classes. I can't make the October meeting, but my vote as usual will be for adoption of the NASA rules or at least some power to weight classing system for the GT group.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on September 19, 2014, 10:31:48 AM
I had a great time this year racing with the guys in the 1:27-1:30 lap time range. I think there were 4 or 5 of us right in there having a great time in the GT group. It's just a shame that the 5 of us at the last race were in 3 different classes. I can't make the October meeting, but my vote as usual will be for adoption of the NASA rules or at least some power to weight classing system for the GT group.

Thanks Justin
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on September 19, 2014, 01:55:50 PM
We might have to add a change to the Formula Continental rules as well since %75 of the cars run this year where illegal :o

Current rules do not take into account the new Zetec motor that FC cars use only the old Pinto is in the WCMA rules.



Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on September 21, 2014, 11:14:07 PM
I had a great time this year racing with the guys in the 1:27-1:30 lap time range. I think there were 4 or 5 of us right in there having a great time in the GT group. It's just a shame that the 5 of us at the last race were in 3 different classes. I can't make the October meeting, but my vote as usual will be for adoption of the NASA rules or at least some power to weight classing system for the GT group.

Is that what the plan is? I have sadly moved to Calgary and can no longer attend meetings but it would be nice to vote. I would be is support of the nasa rules as well.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: ChrisS on September 23, 2014, 02:43:05 PM
Can't make it up for the AGM and banquet (http://www.wcma.ca/forum/index.php?topic=731)?  There will be a bunch of us coming up from Calgary.

I anticipate that attracting new competitors will be a major theme of the AGM (the classing rules proposal, licensing proposal, etc) so it would be great to have input from newcomers like yourself!

Chris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: GTcalgary on September 23, 2014, 07:35:43 PM
Switch to NASA rules?  Do it.  Its a start.  Its not just NASA's class rules that make them successful, its their whole business approach. From what I have heard, NASA's growth rate has been so impressive, that the SCCA has been forced to stand up and take notice.  As another forum member pointed out,"...at a recent NASCC/WCMA event, out of the 40 entries, 12 were spec miata, 5 were challenge cars and 10 were STU. Almost 2/3 of the total race registrations in three classes yet WCMA rules have 30 classes."

I just had another browse through the NASA rule set and it provides a single solution to a number of the various challenges our group is facing. As a start and a first step in the right direction, the class rules are clean and tidy and easy for a newcomer and even a spectator to understand. Therefore, its so much more marketable! Brilliant!  NASA's "American Iron, German Touring Series, Honda Challenge, Spec Miata, Performance Touring (catch all sort of like STU), and Super Touring (sort of like our GT)" are easily recognizable to the layman spectator and give hints as to which types of race cars to consider as a newcomer.  Power to Weight is also an easy concept to understand. The standard class decals, easy to follow rules and newcomer license progression are all very welcoming.  Smart.  These are huge factors behind how they are able to grow participation. Once the easy to understand, clear and marketable rules are in place, a marketing effort is required to capitalize on the opportunity.  Simply changing the rules alone won't grow the sport.  Leaving the existing confusing rules the same and continuing to neglect real marketing initiatives definitely won't facilitate any growth.  Re marketing initiatives, who is going to chip in? ARCA? NASCC? CSCC? WCMA? Castrol? Racers? Sponsors? Some from each of them? What portion of the club dues collected and event profits are put back into marketing? The dues are paid by the racers who are asking for growth in order to have more competition. A thousand bucks from each could go a long way if handled by a savvy marketing person. NASA is a for profit business as I understand. I'm sure they allocate a portion of their budget towards marketing.

In order to grow quickly, we need to first address the local demographic and then look forward. NASA rules fill this need for us. For example, Tuners need welcoming and the PT points system allows them to play around and make changes - something they like to do! Also, I'm pretty sure Castrol could easily grow an American Iron class from drag racing onlookers alone. Once Calgary builds a track, German Touring (or maybe Italian Touring!). The good thing about the NASA rules is that we can keep our existing critical mass of long-time local racers and simply grow it from there, as the NASA rules easily accommodate virtually any type of race car.  Fewer classes, more cars to compete against within a class and therefore higher levels of more interesting competition. Imagine, actually having to compete to win a trophy! I know club racing is meant to be fun and all but there seems to be far too much easy plastic handed out.  To the onlooker, there is no real prestige in winning or disappointment in losing (especially when there is only one car competing!). For the most part, spectators don't get the whole thing anyways. The highlight is watching the rare close battles between two cars which may or may not be in the same class.

Quickly re sporting regs, NASA's rules are written with more definite measures and less vagueness than the WCMA document. Clarity and to a certain extent transparency, removes doubt and supports a welcoming, educational and supportive culture rather than pulling rank (which I have observed first hand). Once quality racers are in we have to keep them. 

Being marketable means its easier to grow participation, increase community following and draw greater attention from the public. This increased size of audience allows us to show sponsors value when they ask the question, "how is this going to help me sell more of my product?":

1) The audience needs to be able to relate to the talent of the athletes.

2) There has to be something significant on the line. In other words, the ‘prize’ for winning has to be substantial.

3) You need to have the very best competing at your events.

Re 1) The challenge is that unless you’ve driven a race car, it is hard to “see” Will Power’s talent and relate to it. To the masses – the general public – Will looks the same as Danica going through any given corner. But there is clearly a difference in talent that is hard to appreciate.

Re 2) A monumental prize for the winner, and significant lost opportunity for the loser. The audience needs jubilation driven not just by financial gain, but by the prestige of winning, and they need heartache and disappointment. They need to see success and failure at the highest level.

Re 3) Real competition will bring real talent.

(Thanks to Mazda Motorsports for these important tips!)

Think big. Maybe Castrol can be home to the Mazda Motorsports Development Racing School (Canada) where Mazda supplied caged MX5's are used as student cars! WCMA can run the school with Castrol to make $ together and use it as part of the competition licensing program. Now that you've read that and figured its out of reach, NASA does it with Ford supplied Mustangs at their "Ford Racing School". Time to raise the bar on what can be achieved. I look forward to hearing other ideas on this forum and at the AGM. I'm very happy to see all stakeholders inviting this kind of discussion and being open to change where its likely for the better (not just for the sake of change). Implementing all of the new great ideas will take time and effort and it will be very exciting to see a big surge in race registrations!

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on September 24, 2014, 06:11:53 AM
Good morning,

I will  take the liberty to re-post Gary Roberts' & Doug Campbell's, February 2014 review . Please see the next POST after my request to ask the competitors to  seriously review the WCMA car classifications……Gary R & Doug C  prepared an excellent framed layout for the competitor's to set the future tone of the car classifications and the direction competitors would like to see for future car classifications.  Decades ago  SCCA, the original CASC' and WCMA's initial car classifications were new and modern rule sets for the race cars of those eras. Since then  cars in general have changed so very, very much , actually tires, brakes,  and the increase in structural integrity of the unibody cars have had the greatest impact, and then with modern suspension and materials we have all seen the speed, braking and handling of all production based cars  improve an exponential amount.  Production based have changed so very much that it is time for a major overall of  many organizing and sanctioning body's car classifications.  It was not very long ago where a well prepared GT2, GT3 or GT4 purposely built GT race cars  would run easily many circles around the most favoured high performance and often very expensive off the shelf production cars like Corvettes, BMWs , Mustangs and even Porsche &  Ferrari.   However today, cars off the show room floor are often faster and handle equally well or better than the purpose built GT race cars of the past.  Today, production based cars have brakes and suspension that are equal or even better than what the very wealthy could build, find and place  on their GT race cars. At the same time as these other attributes improved we have seen the Hp and torque per litre has increased astronomically.  In my opinion, it is well past the time for new car classifications to be implemented in the Prairie Provinces and 2 territories within WCMA's territory.  Many of you know I have asked for many, many years for us to review the car classifications and to simplify it and reduce the number of classes.  However, each year the participants at the WCMA's AGM race workshop have been more than satisfied with the present car classifications or to make small adjustments, often by adding additional classes. It may be the case again at the 2014 WCMA AGM. Competitors, it is your sport and competition events, in what direction do you want your car classification to go.  I know it is tough, and  I know some of you have very opposing ideas but we have to come to some sort of consensus. Many of you disagree with me and others.  However, Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell put in a considerable amount of time to prepare this excellent review to set the wheels in motion for a new set of rules that are suitable for the modern era of competition cars and to still leave a competitive location for those cars from the previous era. The world has changed.  ( personal comment - Spec classes & power to weight ratios should be the focal point  - but I'm no longer a competitor) .   Competitors,  it is your sport!  Gary Leadbetter , President of WCMA.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on September 24, 2014, 06:13:44 AM
REPOST - «


 Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 10:48:15 PM »
QuoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Preliminary Report

Authors: Doug Campbell and Gary Roberts

Rationale

Over the past several years the WCMA has received numerous comments regarding the current classing structure both at AGMs and via E-mail. During this time the WCMA has made changes both small and large to the rules, with little effect on the content or number of comments. Key concerns raised include;

Lack of inclusiveness
•   Certain makes and models require a minimum not conducive to racing
•   Certain “common” modifications are not allowed or permitted in “Entry Level” Classes

Do not reflect the current state of motorsports
•   GT Displacements
•   “Tuner Mod’s” are not permitted in “Entry Level” classes

Ability of members to travel or to attract racers from other areas.
•   Majority of class do not match any neighbouring regions

Lack of competiveness
•   Classes allow too great of a disparity between cars to create competition.
•   Too many Classes

While these concerns come with varying degrees of accuracy, it has been many years since the WMCA last did a ground up review of the rules and not just adapted or modified our existing rules.

Mandate

Review current classing rules from all neighboring regions to determine if there is an existing rules set that will meet the need of the WCMA and its members, and could be a suitable replacement of any combination, or all of IT, ST and/or GT.

Criteria

The following criteria will be used to help formulate a recommendation;
•   Must be more inclusive
•   Should not exclude any current competitors
•   Must align with areas that members could visit, or other racers could visit from.
•   Must maintain some level of affordability
•   Should be well suited to  address the issues of Modern Cars and Modifications
•   Must maintain or reduce the number classes
•   Must offer a reasonable competitive balance within classes
•   Must be viable as a long term solution.

Summary of Rules Reviewed

CACC-BC (British Columbia): GT, GTS and IP.
http://www.caccautosport.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-Race-Regs-Final.pdf

CACC-BC runs a rule set with an approach somewhat similar to the WCMA. They Run SCCA GT1,2,3, and L with 3 classes or GTS “catch-alls” (<2.0L, 2-4L and >4.0L). IP cars must meet SCCA IT prep rules, however they are reclassified by displacement (IP3 >1750CC and SM, IP2 1750-2750CC and Pro-3m, IP-1 >2750 CC and ITE, a “catch-all” that allows some additional modification not permitted in other IT classes) and min weight is Manufacturer curb weight – 100lb.
A transition to the CACC-BC rules may be easy, however, they do not meet many of the key criteria, including being more inclusive and not excluding current competitors, and offer little to no upside to the current WCMA classes.

CASC-OR (Ontario): GT http://www.casc.on.ca/sites/default/files/casc_2014_qf_gt.pdf

CASC-OR runs a GT1-6 for sprint races where type of vehicle and level of modification is not a factor in classing. Car classing is a bracket system based solely on lap time; each track has its own lap time for each class, and it is possible to be in a differently class at each track.
This does create classes that run very similar lap times, and is very inclusive, but it does not truly create a competitive balance and is not in the spirit of racing in the WCMA.

CASC-OR (Ontario): GT Challenge  http://www.casc.on.ca/sites/default/files/casc_2014_qg_gtc.pdf

For endurance races the CASC-OR runs “GT Challenge” with Classes of GT, GS, ST1, ST2, ST3 where classes are based solely on power to weight, with no adjustments due to differences in chassis or driveline layout. Classing is wide open with a few exceptions. The rules appear to be more, a set of supplemental regulations for endurance racing, than a complete classing structure.
These classes do again offer a very inclusive structure, with little to no limitations on what can be run. Using solely power to weight does put affordability at risk as all other areas of modification are fully open.  Also included in this review are other rules are primarily based on power to weight but are more complete.

ICSSC (Conference): – Multiple http://www.icscc.com/references/comp_regs_2013_complete.pdf

ICSSC runs many classes, almost all SCCA or catch all’s based on these classes. In some cases confusingly, these classes are listed both as individual classes and rolled up into one catch all (Example rule 1307: “Improved Touring A (ITA), Improved Touring B (ITB), Improved Touring C (ITC), Improved Touring S (ITS). These classes shall run under current year SCCA rules“ and rule 1325: “ITX This class shall run under current ITA, ITB, ITC, & ITS SCCA rules. (Fall 2011)”). There are some Spec classes but they are not included in this review at this time.
ICSSC would offer a nearly unlimited number of classes to pick and choose from, however there is no reason not to go directly to the SCCA for the classes, and the catches all’s do not eliminate any of the WCMA’s issues.

SCCA (Sports Car Club of America):  - GT, ST, and IT

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/2014%20GCR%20February-mobile1.pdf

The WCMA’s current classing structure is largely based on the SCCA’s GT, ST, and IT rules, on allowed modifications, and members of the WCMA should find the SCCA rules fairly familiar.  The WMCA has not always followed the SCCA’s updates, which have led to some differences, most notably the Single Inlet Restrictor rules in GT. The current issues related to inclusiveness in the WCMA are largely related to the SCCA rules on allowed modifications. The SCCA also has other classes, but most of those are targeted to a specific car or group of cars.
Following the SCCA rules exactly should level the competitive playing field, however without adding more classes, it would only compound the WCMA’s current issue with inclusiveness, and exclude some current competitors, and force GT cars to move to SIR’s.

NASA (National Auto Sport Association): – PT and ST (Performance Touring and Super Touring)
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/performance_touring_rules.pdf
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf

NASA’s PT and ST classes are designed to work together where, if desired, a competitor can progress their car slowly up through PT into ST.
PT (PTB-F) works by starting cars off in a base class with some “free” modifications, and allowing other modifications by claiming points which, as they are accumulated, move cars up to a higher PT class and eventually into ST classes. This points system, while a little complex, does allow cars to run with a wide variety of modifications, and ensures all cars can have a home in PT.  NASA has as minimum adjusted Power to weight for each class to help ensure competitive balance.
ST (ST1, ST2, ST3 and SU) classes are based power to weight ratios (higher then PT) with some adjustment. ST1-3 cars can maintain a relatively stock chassis (Frame rails, Floor pan, etc), or with an adjustment to the power to weight chassis can be modified or a full tube frame, SU is a truly unlimited class (excluding safety)
PT Example - 92-95 stock (less safety equipment) Civic weighing 2390lb on RA-1’s is in PTF, but if that same car was to upgrade Swaybars , header, exhaust, remove the cat, and add coilovers and run A6’s, it would be in PTE.
Like the SCCA, NASA also offers many other classes targeted to one car or one group of cars. (eg: Spec BMW E30 and German Touring Series) We would not recommend adopting these other classes unless competitor numbers were sufficient.


Conclusion

While some regions rule sets offer a solution to some of the WCMA’s concerns.  NASA with PT and ST is the only one to offer a suitable alterative to the current WMCA IT, ST, and GT classes that meets 100% of the criteria.
•   Must be more inclusive
o   Every car regardless of modification has a place to race.
•   Should not exclude any current competitors
o   All WCMA IT and many ST cars will find a competitive home in PT, and the balance in ST. All GT cars should find the same in ST.
•   Must align with area that members could visit, or other racers could visit from.
o   NASA runs races across the US including the NE. NASA cars should also be able to run in the CASC-OR and ICSSC, and, any CACC-BC, CASC-OR, ICSSC, or SCCA could run in the WCMA
•   Must maintain some level of affordability
o   PT maintains entry level affordability and allows development of the car over time.
•   Should be well suited to  address the issues of Modern Cars and Modifications
o   Both PT and ST allow modern cars and modifications.
•   Must maintain or reduce the number classes
o   The number of classes is reduced from 11 to 9
•   Must offer a reasonable competitive balance within classes
o   Statistically, the large number of cars and competitors running NASA rules, ensures a reasonable calculation of competitive balance within classes
•   Must be viable as a long term solution.
o   NASA is a strong organization that regularly updates and maintains their rules. There is no reason to expect this to change in the near future, and that these rules should be viable for years to come.

Recommendation

That the WCMA replace IT, ST and GT class rules with a reference to NASA’s PT and ST in the same format, as we have done with Spec Miata, for the 2015 Race Season.

Next Steps

1)   That the WCMA publicly announce this review and its’ conclusion, to all members and competitors via the Web forums. 
2)   Provide a period for members and competitors to provide written comments or concerns for review and consideration. This period should be not less than 6 weeks but should be completed no later than May 1st
3)   The WCMA Tech committee (lead by Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell) to review all submissions for consideration, and review. This period should be not less than 6 weeks or more than 8 but should be completed no later than July 1st
4)   Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell to submit a final recommendation to the WCMA upon completion of the review within 2-4 weeks (Based on the outcome of the review, the final recommendation will recommend the immediate announcement of change to the rules for 2015, or if after the submissions and input of the tech committee, a clear conclusion could not be reached, the announcement of PENDING change in the rules for 2015, to be finalized at the AGM)
5)   That the WCMA publicly announce the final review and its’ conclusion
Modify message
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: jcm0791 on October 05, 2014, 09:49:32 PM
A rules change is not going to be a magic bullet to cure the biggest problem right now:  too few cars spread across too many classes.  It could help by easing some of the complication new and potential racers experience when trying to prepare their cars.  At the same time, many existing racers may disappear because their cars (carefully prepared to fit neatly into existing rules) are suddenly not competitive in their class ... Either because they have moved or something else has been moved into their class.  Example: Since the SCCA changed the GT2 class allowances, it is the Porsche GT3's and Corvettes (I think) that dominate and the tube frame cars are non-competitive.

This is not all bad, but one does need to look at how many cars that used to run in Calgary vanished (Or Edmonton International Speedway before that).  Some may have been sold into the U.S. but many of the obscurely prepared cars don't so easily find a home there (I am thinking of the Modified Production cars here.  Neat cars, but limited international usefulness)

People stop racing for many reasons ... and sometimes they come back, sometimes the cars come back... Rules can't fix everything that makes that happen or not happen.

I agree that the new blood will come from many sources but the best bet is the tuners and the drifters.  For are these not the modern equivalents of the gear heads and street hooligans of the previous generations (I.E. My generation)?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: ChrisS on October 06, 2014, 06:22:27 AM
A rules change is not going to be a magic bullet to cure the biggest problem right now:  too few cars spread across too many classes.

That's actually one of the things I like about the NASA style of prep rules; they allow easier class mobility, which lets competitors address your second point.  Are you continually running in a class of one?  Add or remove some mods or weight so you can move to a class with people in it.

one does need to look at how many cars that used to run in Calgary vanished

That's a very good question; where have they gone?

Chris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on October 07, 2014, 04:19:12 PM
Whether we like it or not, whether it is justified or not, the reputation of Castrol Raceway road course has a lot to do with car count. It is our job to spread the word that the track now is much different from June of 2013.

The adoption of NASA rules does carry with it the possibility of losing cars due to the nature of the classification. If we did not have CC class, which I believe will stay regardless, my old RX-7 would be hopelessly out-classed where it would fit, without extensive and allowable upgrades. The problem is that the upgrades would cost a lot more money than I am prepared to spend, so, as I couldn't afford a different car, I'd just be out of luck and probably off the track. It is highly unlikely that I would de-tune the car to go slower.

I have not seen any empirical evidence to show it is in fact the tuners that are our source of new cars. Lots of guys in other disciplines want to stay where they are, and do not see road racing as an automatic upgrade in their motorsport careers.

Just some thoughts. I intend to listen very carefully at the AGM, and do some reading before the meeting.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 08, 2014, 09:05:54 AM
The adoption of NASA rules does carry with it the possibility of losing cars due to the nature of the classification. If we did not have CC class, which I believe will stay regardless, my old RX-7 would be hopelessly out-classed where it would fit, without extensive and allowable upgrades. The problem is that the upgrades would cost a lot more money than I am prepared to spend, so, as I couldn't afford a different car, I'd just be out of luck and probably off the track. It is highly unlikely that I would de-tune the car to go slower.

Brooke,
This is an interesting point, and I'll start with I expect CC to be around for a few more year but let's pretend it is gone tomorrow.

Today in the WCMA structure "Your old RX7" would be hopelessly out classed in against STU (a CC is not IT legal), against Domo's 2.4L Honda, and and SM that would like to run there for double points.

In NASA you would be near the front of Performance Touring (PT) E with My mean green sentra, IT3 civics, etc and would could do some improvements or with a change of tires and maybe a little extra weight you might be able to be in PTF.

I have not seen any empirical evidence to show it is in fact the tuners that are our source of new cars. Lots of guys in other disciplines want to stay where they are, and do not see road racing as an automatic upgrade in their motorsport careers.

True there are a lot of autocrosser's and time attacker's that love autocross/Time attack and are not interested in doing road racing, but there are are also a lot that are interested in roadracing. Many do not see a path from one to the other, and see the move to racing is starting over in a new sport. A clear path and progress would help that.

For empirical evidences below is a list of guys would started in Solo (most Slalom and then TA, but some just one or the other) and are now racing
Me - Gary Roberts
Chris Semanciw
Anthony Lo (yes that is all the drivers from the LA1K winning team... All crew were from solo too)
Gerard Tobin
Doug Campbell
Bob Veroba (4 of the time 5 in SM)
Kent Seymour
Simon Kong
Brando Choy

5 on this list have had a Race lic 3 years or less and is about 1/3 rd of the new drivers.
4 or five on this list choose to start racing in Chumpcar, because the classing / rules / value made more sense then the WCMA.

I also I think the following started in Solo or lapping
Zac Burke
Martin Reid
Andrew Moschuk
Sean Lin
Peter Lawrence
Gary Lohues
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on October 08, 2014, 12:24:21 PM
Solo -

Add Gary Leadbetter, Rick Coutts, Shawn Bishop, Gary Lohues and Brian Sinfield  and we were all in the same solo classification in the 1982, 1983 , 1984, 1985  and we all went road racing when Race City opened. Rick and I had been in schools, competitions  and involved in motorsports before that, however Solo to Road racing is a very nice and easy step.

Access from autocross to road racing & back to autocross events use to be a very easy transitions.  Today, with the right class structures this back and forth should continue and be even easier with the new modern cars with incredible brakes, stiffer unibody construction, suspensions and of course the incredible advancements in tire technology. 
Let's make these "potential" new rules work for today and well into the future. Let's move forward.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: ChrisS on October 08, 2014, 02:59:50 PM
I wonder if 'tuner' isn't really the right word in this context...

To me, there are really two ways people get in to racing:
1. They want to get into racing, so they look at what is the popular class.  Then they go buy/build one of those.
2. They have a car they enjoy, and want to race it (or just want to build a ____ race car).  I think this is what the 'tuner' category is trying to express.

I think it's important that any rule set finds a clear home for both groups.

Chris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: giantkiller on October 08, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
I wonder if 'tuner' isn't really the right word in this context...

To me, there are really two ways people get in to racing:
1. They want to get into racing, so they look at what is the popular class.  Then they go buy/build one of those.
2. They have a car they enjoy, and want to race it (or just want to build a ____ race car).  I think this is what the 'tuner' category is trying to express.

I think it's important that any rule set finds a clear home for both groups.

Chris

I think this is a great discussion and it shows there are a lot of passionate people who are interested in making the experience better.

There are no shortage of racers (or racecars) in the region just a shortage of racers who choose to race here. I cant remember the last time I was at an ICSCC, SCCA, NASA or BMWCCA event where I didn't run into someone from AB who I didn't know prior. Many factors contribute to this but in the end I think building a framework of rules (I think NASA does a good job) that allows consistency, fairness and mobility of classing is a good start.

Without that framework which allows for a competitive reduction in classes you will always have people that prefer to take their limited racing time and budget elsewhere, either because of a lack of clarity, competitiveness or just sheer numbers.

Good luck at the AGM and I will monitor this thread for the results. I will be in the US stretching the racing season.

Anthony
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: jcm0791 on October 09, 2014, 07:45:44 AM
I am certainly not saying that a rules system change would be bad.  I motorsports, it is very easy to look very critically at how rules changes will effect ones own car and not have a firm grasp on the problems faced by other competitors ... Or the full benefits.

As in life, everyone has a agenda.  One must always consider how actions will affect the one ... Nobody else is in a position to see that perspective as clearly.

I agree that tuner friendly rules will not open a flood gate of new racers.  I believe it is important to see the potential market for what it is ... One of few outlets for car enthusiasts that exists anymore.  One that society as a whole could benefit from their finding a legal place to race (thinking street racers here) or simply a place where people are conditioned to spend money modifying their cars.  They are certainly not all going to drink the Koolaid and come road racing ... Not any more than we are going to jump ship and go drag racing, or vice versa ... I don't have all the answers, I only have my perspective.  This is what the AGM is about, bring prospectives together.

I believe that the ST (U and O) classes have great potential to attract the 'tuner' type cars.  It is not without flaws, no system is.  I believe that the ST rules are too restrictive in some ways and not restrictive enough I others.  Primarily, the trouble is that as rules adapted from the SCCA rules 3 classes are trying to force cars into 2 classes.  This ; the penalties for some mods are too high while others are too low.). The 'production weight + 180 is a good idea, but ultimately creates instability.  Why would I prepare a car for a class where it is written in the rules that if I am too fast I will be penalized.

I like the idea of greater variety of cars, but am always opposed to more classes than competitors.  Any comparison of the number of classes from one rules system to another must go beyond comparing the number of available classes in each system.  Rather, we need to compare the number of utilized classes vs. the number that will be utilized under a new system. Example: We can't really count GT4 and 5, right now there are no cars in either and most modern cars won't fit there anyway.  The SCCA addressed this by combining GT4 and 5 into GTL ... It may be a matter of eliminating classes that are unsubscribed at present thereby preventing cars from being built.  Toes will be stepped on no matter what changes are made ... I don't know how to avoid that.

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: jcm0791 on October 09, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Brooke:

A first gen RX7 could be made to work well in STU.  The rules used to allow (not sure if they changed) cars outside of the MY 1985 rule if they were specifically built for ST ... Why else would there be so many carburetor rules?

Anyway,  the live axle rules are such that a great many changes could easily be made to fix the problems with an early RX7 (high roll center, short swing arm in sideview, limited travel) and the engine swap rules are such that a later fuel injected, street ported engine could be installed.  The early cars are the only ones that truly can make the weight allowed in STU (1962 + 180) for 13b's. ... That or a first gen Miata with 13b ... The only trouble you may face is getting enough tire under the car.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on October 09, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
I believe the main concern in all of this is car counts, and how to improve them. Rule changes may do that, maybe not. We have lots of cars and drivers in Alberta, but many that we never see. Some we haven't seen for years, some we haven't seen recently. Part of the problem is that we have local racers who have for some reason decided not to race here. If you don't race here, you are part of the car count problem. Why not race here?

Is it the rules? Those of us who choose to race here and support the local racing community do so under the current rules. We have found classes for our cars, and prepared them to those rules. The rules may be an issue, but many of the cars that do not race here any longer still fit into our current rule structure. These rules may be an issue for new racers, people who want to build cars that do not fit into our classes, and change here could prove to be an attraction. New rules would also maybe bring some of the other racers back.

Is it the track? Many people have told me they won't race at our current facility because of safety concerns, because of track layout, because of parking / paddock space etc. Well, all of these are concerns that we have been dealing with at this new facility, but let's remember, it is a NEW facility, and it takes time to work out the bugs. Again, those of us who raced here all summer long found that everything gradually improved over the season. Walls have been moved. Runoffs have been increased. Parking / paddock space is being addressed over the winter. Curbing is being laid. In order for the track to improve, we need competitors to sign up, so if people don't support the local facility, it will be unable to afford the sort of improvements we all want. Catch 22. You don't like it the way it is, so you don't come, and if you don't come, it can't be improved from the way it is.

Is it the type of races? Lots of drivers have decided that they prefer the Chumpcar style of racing, long endurance races with multiple drivers over the shorter sprint style races that we currently have here. If that is the issue, those concerns should be presented to the organizing clubs to see if we can change the mix. We did have a good endurance race this summer, and I was a little disappointed in the car count, so maybe type of race isn't an issue after all.

Is it where we live? Many of the comments I hear from racers who travel to the USA rather than race here is that these other tracks have more people, are nicer tracks etc. I am just winging it here, but population base is likely a factor in our area. Many of the tracks folks go to in the USA are closer to larger populations, hence a bigger pool of potential racers. As to the tracks being "nicer", well, as I mentioned, that is being worked on.

So....where are we? why are we here? and how do we move to over there?..wherever that is. We need to dig deeply enough into all of the issues to determine our future. There is little doubt in my mind that the rules need to be overhauled. Whether we scratch our existing structure outright and import a rule set from elsewhere, or we look at what we have, and bring it into the 21st century is a discussion we will certainly have at the AGM. I believe the car count issues are deeper than simply rule changes.

So much for that.

Now, as to making my CC car into an STU, well, sure it is possible, but again, mucho $$$ to do that. I have thought about it a lot, and have figured out what I would need to do, and it is extensive, much the same as with the NASA rule set. I need to go over the NASA rules again, but looking at all the stuff on my car currently, I would need to do a lot to be competitive in PTE with 325is BMW's, Mustangs etc. We'll play in CC for a while longer, but the class won't last forever. As far as that goes, either will I... ;D
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: GTcalgary on October 09, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
SCCA Runoffs Car Count October 2014: http://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/D565C2B0-9AD3-935D-9D429ADE171FC6C1#.VDcppvmCN8F (http://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/D565C2B0-9AD3-935D-9D429ADE171FC6C1#.VDcppvmCN8F)

"There are 523 entries for the race, a majority of them West Coast entries, split among 27 classes. Here’s the full entry list link.

Spec Miata leads the way with 46 entries, followed closely by Spec Racer Ford with 45. Several classes (Formula Enterprises, Formula 500, B-Spec and STU) have only 11, one over the 10 minimum required for a National Championship race to be held.

A live multimedia experience will take place with video, live timing and more, via SCCA.com/SCCALive. More information is linked here.

Live broadcast will be done through SpeedCastTV, with veteran motorsports broadcasters Rick Benjamin and Greg Creamer joined by SCCA Champion Randy Pobst and Pirelli World Challenge broadcaster Jeff Lepper for the on-air call. Heyward Wagner will man pit lane throughout the weekend. Information can be found at SCCA.com/Runoffs."

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 10, 2014, 07:12:56 AM
For WSCC, It looks potentially like this:
 
1) IT3 will split into 2 (possibly 3) classes: PTF, PTE and PTD
2) STU will split into 2 Classes: PTD and PTC
3) STO will split into 3 Classes: PTC, PTB and ST3

 
So, it would seem that the solid 3 classes we have now would split into 6 smaller classes. The point made "too many classes" is completely the opposite for us. This change would increase within WSCC and this is not practical for WSCC.
 
Aside from this, these are the issues I see with this classing system from polling some random cars from our own group...
 
1) As IT3 gets split up, is there enough cars in that former class that fit into NASA H4 or H2 instead to ask for a special spec class and ditch PTx? If so, where does the remaining ITx/PTx cars fit? or do they run a class of single competitor? <-- results in more classes
 
2) PT/ST/SU strongly encourages that cars be dyno'd to prove their power to weight ratio and to ensure they fit into the correct class...
     i) Dyno time isnt cheap
     ii) Limited Availability - There are only a couple dyno's in the city and I know of only one that is willing to do imports, "Dyno days" rare
     iii) None are AWD capable and it's unacceptable to ask a member to send their car on a journey to Calgary or Minneapolis.
     iv) Many of our racers are not from Winnipeg and would be required to make special trip(s) to get their race car Dyno'd
 
3) Ultimately, WSCC does not have enough steady racers (currently 22) to expand beyond our current classing system and no barrage of new racers will come to fill the gap.
 
4) As far as classing not matching neighboring regions, I would say that the few that have gone elsewhere (Brainerd for example) find somewhere to fit; and if someone were to come to GMP, we would find somewhere for the visitor racer to fit as well. Having a NASA classing system, in my opinion, does not increase the appeal for out-of-towners to drive long distances to come to GMP.

5) Singling out PTE...several of our cars fit into the bottom of this class by mod points. There is much room for advancement within the class with available points. This opens the door to a money race and encourages the larger disparity between cars of same class...opposite of the intent of the change and opposite to the rule set observed by our current IT class competitors.

Someone had mentioned in one post that a reason could be the way the rules are currently written for newcomers to build their car accordingly. I agree with this as I struggled when I built my first car and found myself in a class that wasn't what I intended. I got over it and am successful in the class I currently reside so no harm no foul.

Change is good if its for the better however WSCC's expected classing result makes it look to us like this is change for the sake of change. It will disrupt our current classing and split everybody up who would otherwise have close competition with each other!

The majority of our racers (in fact I would say all) are opposed to this plan and would like to continue as we are.

Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 07:54:32 AM
For WSCC, It looks potentially like this:
 
1) IT3 will split into 2 (possibly 3) classes: PTF, PTE and PTD
2) STU will split into 2 Classes: PTD and PTC
3) STO will split into 3 Classes: PTC, PTB and ST3

 
So, it would seem that the solid 3 classes we have now would split into 6 smaller classes. The point made "too many classes" is completely the opposite for us. This change would increase within WSCC and this is not practical for WSCC.
 
Aside from this, these are the issues I see with this classing system from polling some random cars from our own group...
 
1) As IT3 gets split up, is there enough cars in that former class that fit into NASA H4 or H2 instead to ask for a special spec class and ditch PTx? If so, where does the remaining ITx/PTx cars fit? or do they run a class of single competitor? <-- results in more classes
 
2) PT/ST/SU strongly encourages that cars be dyno'd to prove their power to weight ratio and to ensure they fit into the correct class...
     i) Dyno time isnt cheap
     ii) Limited Availability - There are only a couple dyno's in the city and I know of only one that is willing to do imports, "Dyno days" rare
     iii) None are AWD capable and it's unacceptable to ask a member to send their car on a journey to Calgary or Minneapolis.
     iv) Many of our racers are not from Winnipeg and would be required to make special trip(s) to get their race car Dyno'd
 
3) Ultimately, WSCC does not have enough steady racers (currently 22) to expand beyond our current classing system and no barrage of new racers will come to fill the gap.
 
4) As far as classing not matching neighboring regions, I would say that the few that have gone elsewhere (Brainerd for example) find somewhere to fit; and if someone were to come to GMP, we would find somewhere for the visitor racer to fit as well. Having a NASA classing system, in my opinion, does not increase the appeal for out-of-towners to drive long distances to come to GMP.

5) Singling out PTE...several of our cars fit into the bottom of this class by mod points. There is much room for advancement within the class with available points. This opens the door to a money race and encourages the larger disparity between cars of same class...opposite of the intent of the change and opposite to the rule set observed by our current IT class competitors.

Someone had mentioned in one post that a reason could be the way the rules are currently written for newcomers to build their car accordingly. I agree with this as I struggled when I built my first car and found myself in a class that wasn't what I intended. I got over it and am successful in the class I currently reside so no harm no foul.

Change is good if its for the better however WSCC's expected classing result makes it look to us like this is change for the sake of change. It will disrupt our current classing and split everybody up who would otherwise have close competition with each other!

The majority of our racers (in fact I would say all) are opposed to this plan and would like to continue as we are.

Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President

I have started to add more info on your forum, some which I tried to add at the time but was unable to do to security settings,  so I added it to the WSCC facebook page but someone removed the info from there.

I think a big issue is there a lot of miss information in Winnipeg.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 09:12:57 AM
Fresh off the Presses... the pre-agm package

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 09:13:15 AM
WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Pre-AGM Package.
Authors: Doug Campbell and Gary Roberts
Please review prior to the AGM.
Contents
Definitions (Page 1)
Summary of Competitor Feedback (Page 2 + 3)
Overview (Page 2)
Comments on Rationale (Page 2)
Comments on Mandate (Page 2)
Comments on Criteria (Page 2)
Comments on Summary (Page 2)
Comments on Conclusions (Page 3)
Comments on Recommendations (Page 3)
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM (Page 4 + 5)
Tech Committee Recommendation (Page 4 + 5)
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure” (Page 4)
Part 1.b “Stability Period” (Page 4)
Part 2. “Additional Classes” (Page 4)
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)” (Page 4 + 5)
Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)” (Page 5)
Authors’ Contact Info ( Page 5)
Definitions
GT – Grand Touring
IT – Improved Touring
NASA - National Auto Sport Association, a for profit American motorsports organization not affiliated with ACCUS nor the FIA
PT – Performance Touring
ST (NASA) – Super Touring
ST (WCMA) – Sport Touring
WCMA – Western Canadian Motorsport Association

Summary of Competitor Feedback for a Tech committee review.
Overview
Feedback regarding the “WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Preliminary Report” was received via E-mail, Web forums (ie WCMA, Straightpipe), in person at WCMA events and WMCA Member club meetings (CSCC and NASCC). Despite request for formal feedback in the form of an email, many limited their comments to conversation (whether in person at meetings or events or via web forum), for that reason some of the summary may seem/be anecdotal.
Comments on Rationale
Most competitors seem to largely agree with the rationale, while some took issue with one point or another. The vast majority clearly agree that a review is appropriate and needed. Some pointed out that no matter what rules are used, there will always be disparity between some cars in the same class and the rule set was unlikely the main reason we have minimal visitors from, or competitors traveling to, other areas (excluding ChumpCar). Only 3 competitors thought the rules worked as is.
Comments on Mandate
There was one only comment on the mandate, which came from several competitors in a variety of ways, but largely in the form of questions. “How will we add new classes in the future, like was done recently with Spec Miata, or could be done with American Iron? And how/when do we remove classes when their attendance drops, or is zero, like GT4 and 5, or one day will happen to Challenge Car”
Comments on Criteria
The majority of the criteria was widely accepted. However there was one item that was conflict-ridden “Must align with areas that members could visit, or other racers could visit from”. Many felt that we could have our own unique rule set. About 40% of competitors providing feedback felt changes to our current rules were the best options, however there was very little consistency in what the changes should be.
There was one item that was missed and that should be added based on the feedback “Must be conducive to growing motorsports in the WCMA”
Comments on Summary
In regards to the commentary on the CASC-OR – GT (lap time based classes) one competitor at the NASCC felt that it was unfair to describe it as “not it the spirit of racing in the WCMA”, as it had worked well for the annual “GT money Race”. However all in the room (except this competitor) agreed this would not be the correct approach for the WCMA.

Comments on Conclusions
There was very little feedback suggesting that a different region or body offered a better solution than NASA ST and PT or that any of individual the conclusions “Preliminary Report” were wrong. There was some feedback that there may be some concerns in the form of dyno time and the related cost.
Some concerns raised that were not in conclusions:
1)   PT‘s Preparation Points system - How do we know what is being claimed as preparation points?
a.   Solution offered: PT classing form must be filled out and kept in Vehicle logbook.
2)   Measuring an HP rating at the track… no mobile dyno
a.   Solution offered: Traqmates could be used for compliance (Used in Regional events in NASA)
3)   PT’s Point system – Is somewhat complicated and points could be hard to calculate
a.   NASA has a spreadsheet to make this very easy
4)   PT’s Dyno Reclassing – PT’s cars are not dyno reclassed solely on HP to Weight, NASA does not publish how they reclass and we may not reclass the cars the same as NASA
a.   No solution at this time,
i.   Trial and error.
ii.   Approach NASA for formula
Some other points of support raised that were not in conclusions:
1)   Ease of Changing classes in the NASA system
a.   There are a series of smaller steps and by adding or removing single parts or weight, competitors are able to easily move up or down a class where there may be more competitors
Comments on Recommendations 
The comments on the final recommendations were varied but there are a few items that are not included in the recommendations and should be adopted, whether or not the classing rules are changed.
1)   Guide lines for the addition of classes
2)   Guide lines for the retirement of classes
3)   A commitment to rules stability for a specified period of time

There were many suggestions on how to modify our current rules set, but which were different, with a majority looking to include some sort of power to weight calculation, as a major change from our current formula. With comments online and via email, about 2 in 3 responses were in support of adopting the NASA ST and PT rules, however while attending an NASCC meeting only about 1 in 3 supported the proposal.  This puts competitors who responded formally or informally at about 50/50, it is important to note that not all of the 50% opposed to NASA are set against the idea. Many are open to the proposal but feel the WCMA could come up with something better.

While It would be possible to say that adopting the NASA ST and PT rules was the clear winner with 50% in support and the other 50% spit between a dozen different ideas, and some of that 50 % willing to accept the NASA rules, that would not be fair to the idea that the WCMA can come up with something better.
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM
The follow proposal is the recommendation of the WCMA Tech Committee based on member feedback from original proposal authored by Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell. The WCMA Tech Committee recommends that the competitors adopt the following as presented below:
Tech Committee Recommendation
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure”
Effective Jan 1st 2016 the WCMA will terminate the following classes, Improved Touring, Sport Touring and Grand Touring classes and replace with NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes (pending NASA’S permission).
Spec Miata, Challenge Car, IT-J, Open Wheel and Vintage classes and the sporting regulations are not affected by this proposal and will remain the same
This will not in any way affiliate the WCMA with NASA.
If unable to attain permission from NASA to use their classes’ rules, then empower the WCMA Tech Committee create classes in the same format, spirit, structure, and comparable to NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes, having a power to weight calculation, and preparation points calculation options.
Part 1.b “Stability Period”
This “Core Classing Structure” will be in place for a minimum of 3 years (until at least Dec 31st, 2018), with a comment to review in 2018 for the 2019 season. It is our intent that the rules will remain stable during this period with yearly updates to realign with NASA, however Technical Bulletins or clarifications maybe issued as required.
Part 2. “Additional Classes”
Additional classes are defined any closed wheel class not in the “Core Classing Structure”. The WCMA Tech committee recognizes a need for a structure to add and retire additional classes to the core structure. This additional Classes are often Make, Model, or Country of manufacture specific. 
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)”
1)   To have a “new” class added the WCMA you must propose the new class at an AGM. This is done in advance to allow the Tech Committee to monitor participation for the following 2 seasons
2)   In the following season cars will declare themselves to the new class but run in the appropriate PT or ST classes. If the average car count for the new class is 5 or higher (class/event) at any track for the season, or is higher than 10/class at one event, the class will be added the following season (example if there was no Spec Miata, SM cars could run in Performance Touring D as SM’s and be classed and Score in PTD for a season).
3)   Exceptions.
a.    In cases where a member is able to provide compelling evidence that a class will immediately meet the minimum car count (5), or a complete business case for development, the Tech Committee may add the classes at its discretion following the AGM.
b.   In case of additional “Class Structures” (example German Touring Car, Honda Challenge, etc), Tech Committee may its discretion, add all the classes in the structure once any two classes have met the minimum car count.

Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)”
If an “Additional Class” fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track), the class will be put on probation at the AGM. If the class fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track) in the following seasons, the class will be retired. Cars from the retired Class will be able to run in the appropriate Performance Touring and Super Tour classes.
In case of additional “Class Structures”, the whole Structure should generally be retired at once. Tech Committee may at its discretion, retire all the classes at the structure at once if there aren’t two classes meeting the minimum car count.

Authors’ Contact Info.
Thank you for taking the time to review summary and our proposal on behalf of the Tech Committee.
Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell

Gary Roberts
gary.roberts@dnow.com
Doug Campbell
talongeo@shaw.ca

Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Audi27 on October 10, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
To start, I am one of the Winnipeg competitors who has concerns regarding the adoption of the NASA classing system and don't appreciate our concerns being written off as merely the product of 'misinformation'. We have genuine concerns which merit the appropriate consideration and response of the WCMA.

I'm currently running in STO and based on the NASA classing system I will be running ST should these rules be adopted. As ST is organized on the basis of minimum adjusted power to weight ratios, the existing NASA rules REQUIRE that my car be dyno tested to be properly classed.

As my car is AWD, this means I need to travel between 800 - 1200 kms to either Minneapolis or Calgary to have my car dyno tested just to be classed, and potentially after every modification I make to the power train.

That will very quickly become cost prohibitive, which is one of the criteria that the WCMA says would disqualify the adoption of the NASA rules. A potential compromise has been suggested, where the use of traqmate can be substituted for an actual dyno graph, but I would like to be assured that if that is the proposed compromise that there be a commitment for at least the next three years (the expected duration of the NASA rules freeze) guaranteeing that won't be rescinded.

As one of two new WSCC competitors in STO this year, who have invested a significant amount of money in building our cars, the introduction of these rules, at least at first blush, seems to be having exactly the opposite of it's desired effect.

We're exactly the people you're trying to attract to the sport, but this NASA proposal may make it impractical for me to come back next year.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 09:53:07 AM
To start, I am one of the Winnipeg competitors who has concerns regarding the adoption of the NASA classing system and don't appreciate our concerns being written off as merely the product of 'misinformation'. We have genuine concerns which merit the appropriate consideration and response of the WCMA.

Your concerns are not being written off as misinformation but more the have the considers raised on the WSCC Forum are in fact untrue... EI saying the Seat regs are going to change.

I'm currently running in STO and based on the NASA classing system I will be running ST should these rules be adopted. As ST is organized on the basis of minimum adjusted power to weight ratios, the existing NASA rules REQUIRE that my car be dyno tested to be properly classed.

As my car is AWD, this means I need to travel between 800 - 1200 kms to either Minneapolis or Calgary to have my car dyno tested just to be classed, and potentially after every modification I make to the power train.

I has clear PT does not require a dyno for OEM engine cars, Yes ST requires a Lb-HP calculation.

That will very quickly become cost prohibitive, which is one of the criteria that the WCMA says would disqualify the adoption of the NASA rules. A potential compromise has been suggested, where the use of traqmate can be substituted for an actual dyno graph, but I would like to be assured that if that is the proposed compromise that there be a commitment for at least the next three years (the expected duration of the NASA rules freeze) guaranteeing that won't be rescinded.

Details regarding the use of a traqmate and how to use it's results vs. a dyno for HP validation or classing would need to be finalized but yes anything done would be for the length of the freeze

As one of two new WSCC competitors in STO this year, who have invested a significant amount of money in building our cars, the introduction of these rules, at least at first blush, seems to be having exactly the opposite of it's desired effect.

We're exactly the people you're trying to attract to the sport, but this NASA proposal may make it impractical for me to come back next year.

I'm disappoint that for many in Winnipeg this last weekend was the first they have heard of it, some members of the WSCC knew in February and at least one expect to share the info... attempt's were made to get this to all competitors emails/forums/facebook. It is really ashame that for some it is first blush.

I understand that for your cas there are some issues that need to be addressed and I'm glad you have raise your concerns. we will be sure to address them.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 10, 2014, 10:29:40 AM

 EI saying the Seat regs are going to change.

This was not stated. It was merely a comparison between current and NASA SM regs...


Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 10:32:27 AM

 EI saying the Seat regs are going to change.

This was not stated. It was merely a comparison between current and NASA SM regs...
And in fact, on our boards, I even said this will only be a concern if the rules are adopted too. No mention was made of that happening.

Please don't put words in our mouths.

Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President

And this is what then Darrin????

Posted Today, 01:49 PM
I believe that WCMA utilizes the same seat requirement (FIA) with the exception of the Halo.
 
In NASA, All cars excl formula, require a Halo or right side net (CCR 15.17.9). This would come into play if WCMA accepts the NASA safety rules as well.
 
I don't think that is reasonable to ask all to run out and buy new seats and nets, however, I've been fooled before.

Like This
Darin W. - Club President
1994 Honda Civic - STU #17
1992 Toyota Tercel Turbo - Ice Racer #99x

"...he who lines up in pit row with me today is my brother, be he ne'er so vile...once more unto the breached engine block, or load up the tow truck with our oil-splattered dead!" - King Henry (or what he would have said if he were a racer! R&T)
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 10, 2014, 10:54:36 AM
That post is exactly what I said. Its a reply to another post on our forum...

A SM class member mentioned the difference in regs.

second line in my post says "This would come into play if WCMA accepts the NASA safety rules as well"

Did I say somewhere there that you were? NO! Does the info we got previously say something different? No.

I posted our racers concerns, our racers feel they are valid.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 10:58:05 AM
That post is exactly what I said. Its a reply to another post on our forum...

A SM class member mentioned the difference in regs.

second line in my post says "This would come into play if WCMA accepts the NASA safety rules as well"

Did I say somewhere there that you were? NO! Does the info we got previously say something different? No.

I posted our racers concerns, our racers feel they are valid.

Many will read that has it is something that is part of the discussion... which it is not.... same with changes to SM regs....
you also add "I've been fooled before."... so it is not like you are saying that is not going to happen.

We need to be clear CCR's are not being discussed.

The concerns are valid however some of them members need not  be concerned about  and can be quickly addressed, as there are not being affected but the recommendation, like, changes to SM and Halo sits...
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 10, 2014, 11:03:42 AM
I have noted the possible concern and have modified my post to remove the confusion of whomever i haven't talked to off the boards may have regarding the implication that WCMA may be inserting all or part of the NASA CCR into its current list of safety regulations.

"I have been fooled before refers" to a previous concern that WSCC had that was brushed off as a non issue without second thought.
That will not be discussed here but feel free to talk to me next Saturday and I will gladly have an informal discussion about this and other matters.

I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest.

Darin
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 10, 2014, 11:08:20 AM
I have noted the possible concern and have modified my post to remove the confusion of whomever i haven't talked to off the boards may have regarding the implication that WCMA may be inserting all or part of the NASA CCR into its current list of safety regulations.

"I have been fooled before refers" to a previous concern that WSCC had that was brushed off as a non issue without second thought.
That will not be discussed here but feel free to talk to me next Saturday and I will gladly have an informal discussion about this and other matters.

I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest.

Darin

Thank you Darin, I look forward to talking with you more on Saturday
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Scott14 on October 10, 2014, 08:04:44 PM
I've been holding back on this but thought I better put a few thoughts together before this issue hits the AGM.
I have Jed's job in Winnipeg and race at Gimli although like many I'm racing less for financial reasons.  Oh well.

I'm trying to figure out how this change, which I have favored up to now, will effect our entries and racing at Gimli. This may sound kind of foolish but we are pretty small.  A total of 98 entries last year over 5 weekends, 63 with fenders.  This total entry was spread over only 22 racers who entered one or more races in closed wheel classes so that's an average of just over 12 per weekend.  They only came in 6 classes, 2 of which were small (1 and 2 cars in SM and IT1) making up 5 entries altogether.  Vintage gave us 12 entries spread across 4 cars.  IT3 was the big one with 7 racers contributing 30 entries over the 5 events.   STU was next with 11 entries from 5 cars.  STO only had 3 cars who together made 5 entries.  So the interesting racing was among the STU and IT3 cars with some overlap at the back of the STU pack.

It occurs to me that no matter what class you put these cars in they're still going to be racing with one another in roughly the same position on the track.  If they get broken up into different classes that just means I need to get more trophies at the end of the year. 

There is not a lot of enthusiasm for the change here and we get kind of feeling like the tag end member of the family as there are a lot more votes in Alberta, especially when the AGM is there, as it must be most of the time.

I can't afford to lose racers over this.  I have a lot of part time racers now and the numbers won't go up although we've done a great job of enticing newcomers in and mentoring them along.  I'd like to find a way of implementing this that doesn't have anybody walking off in a funk because of the added cost of getting their car to comply.  Perhaps we ought to see where a car laps in the field before we pin down its class too firmly. 

Have fun at the AGM and good luck with this.

Scott McDonald


Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 11, 2014, 08:34:09 AM
It occurs to me that no matter what class you put these cars in they're still going to be racing with one another in roughly the same position on the track.  If they get broken up into different classes that just means I need to get more trophies at the end of the year.

We have 7 or 8 Honda's that run together in IT3. They care about championship points and are energized by the competition...the spirit of racing.
Bringing in the NASA classing breaks these cars up into 3 different classes, one class having but one car. This is the largest concern within this specific group of racers that has been discussed at length, off forums. They do not wish to be split.

This is why there is a strong desire for Honda Challenge classes, specifically H4, at WSCC.

Darin
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 11, 2014, 08:47:21 AM
It occurs to me that no matter what class you put these cars in they're still going to be racing with one another in roughly the same position on the track.  If they get broken up into different classes that just means I need to get more trophies at the end of the year.

We have 7 or 8 Honda's that run together in IT3. They care about championship points and are energized by the competition...the spirit of racing.
Bringing in the NASA classing breaks these cars up into 3 different classes, one class having but one car. This is the largest concern within this specific group of racers that has been discussed at length, off forums. They do not wish to be split.

This is why there is a strong desire for Honda Challenge classes, specifically H4, at WSCC.

Darin
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President

Darin,
I'm very surprised to hear that you think these cars will end up in 3 classes the PT structure is very good and classing similar cars together, I have classed the IT3 civics and crxs and they are all comfortably in PTE, please email Doug and I the details on it3 cars that will not be in PTE.
Gary
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 11, 2014, 08:54:04 AM
Scott,
I think you have made some very sound points, we will work with to ensure that no one is turned away, it sounds like that means finding a solution for awd cars in Winnipeg, and maybe a few other things that turn up. But all these issues can be addressed.
Gary
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 10cc on October 11, 2014, 10:40:59 AM
Spec, you might want to do a spell/grammar check on these posts... 8)
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 11, 2014, 12:05:16 PM

Darin,
I'm very surprised to hear that you think these cars will end up in 3 classes the PT structure is very good and classing similar cars together, I have classed the IT3 civics and crxs and they are all comfortably in PTE, please email Doug and I the details on it3 cars that will not be in PTE.
Gary

We have proposed a solution that seems to be getting ignored...HC
WSCC may be more in favor of the NASA structure if this was considered as it solves a few of our larger issues.

I would imagine some of our fellow competitors throughout our region (SK and AB) would like it too.

Darin
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 11, 2014, 12:16:50 PM
your HC suggestion is not being ignored, in fact you can see in the last recommendation there is a process for getting it and any other classes added, this is an addition / clarification based member feed back.

However HC is not a solutions for a core classing structure as it excludes any car not manufactured by Honda... and the are a few non Hondas out there.

A core structure is required so we can support all makes and models as spec and mark classes come and go

Again please email us the details are the it3 cars you don't think this works for.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: 84TurboSupra on October 11, 2014, 01:25:35 PM

Again please email us the details are the it3 cars you don't think this works for.


You'll have to wait until after the AGM. I'm currently not in a position to do so right now.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Chrisw on October 29, 2014, 10:48:33 PM
So from what I hear we are making the switch to NASA rules...? I wasn't able to make the meeting but I assume it will take quite a while to get these new rules out. Anyone have any light at all they can shed on it?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on October 30, 2014, 07:39:18 AM
So from what I hear we are making the switch to NASA rules...? I wasn't able to make the meeting but I assume it will take quite a while to get these new rules out. Anyone have any light at all they can shed on it?

On the recommendation to replace the IT, ST, and GT with class rules from or similar to NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Touring.

Implementation for 2016 to allow competitors time to adjust to where they want to compete.

Of the active licenced competitors who participated in the vote. 74% were in favour of the recommendation.

Next steps are approaching NASA and working out some details
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on December 02, 2014, 08:24:15 AM
I love being right.

https://www.facebook.com/NasaNorthWest/posts/775241082547274?fref=nf

Shouldn't we be trying to align our selves with our closer neighbours (ICSCC and CACC)? Not NASA as the farthest foot hold into the NorthWest that NASA has is Salt Lake/Miller which is 15+ hours from Castrol.

Actually NASA has moved into the Pacific North West in a big way this year, so much so that ICSCC is worried about the competition. NASA events are at The Ridge, Portland, Pacific Raceways, Oregon Raceway Park so the same tracks as ICSCC (Conference).  Miller is a (rather nice) bonus and is about as far as Gimli to travel.  The Ridge, Portland, Pacific Raceways, and Oregon Raceway Park are all closer than Gimli as are are Spokane and Mission.  The SCCA is also in the PNW.  For Manitoba WCMA members, NASA tracks in Colorado, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa and Kansas are all as close to them as Calgary.  I suppose certain CACC tracks are too though mostly far to the east from Winnipeg.

http://miatavsmiata.ca/event-calendar/ (http://miatavsmiata.ca/event-calendar/)

http://www.nasanorthwest.com/schedule/calendar-2/ (http://www.nasanorthwest.com/schedule/calendar-2/)

https://www.nasaproracing.com/event (https://www.nasaproracing.com/event)


"NAPA VALLEY, CA (OCTOBER 30, 2012) The National Auto Sport Association is pleased to announce that it will be expanding its operations into the Pacific Northwest for the 2013 season. Leading the region will be longtime NASA NorCal officials Andy Tencati and Robert Kinley who will be relocating to the area to start the region in 2013.

The NASA Northwest schedule will include dates at Pacific Raceways, Portland International Raceway, The Ridge Motorsports Park, and Oregon Raceway Park. The events will feature NASA’s full offering of programs including HPDE, competition racing, and Time Trials. Other special events such as endurance races and rallycrosses may also be on the calendar depending on interest levels from local drivers.

"I am thrilled to be part of the team bringing NASA to the northwest," said Andy Tencati. "We are committed to creating the best track experience for participants at all skill levels -- with an emphasis of getting everyone on the track. This is an exciting time for NASA. In addition to offering our entire range of services, we are also planning some exciting new events for 2013 that will truly elevate motorsports in the northwest region."

"It's very exciting to help spread the NASA programs to the Pacific Northwest," said Robert Kinley.  "We are focused on building a fantastic customer experience as well as hosting top-notch events for all of ourparticipants. Stay tuned for exciting things to come."

John Lindsey, NASA’s Chief Divisional Director added that “The Pacific Northwest has always been an area where we have wanted to introduce our NASA programs to new participants in the region. We are very pleased to finally have all of the key pieces in place and we are very grateful for the warm reception we have received so far. We expect great things from Robert and Andy this year and we will do our best to support them in this important effort for us.”

For more information on the NASA Northwest Region, please visit  www.nasanorthwest.com, visit the Northwest section of www.nasaforums.com,  or e-mail  info@nasanorthwest.com
View our comprehensive news archive"
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Tachyon on December 02, 2014, 09:26:21 AM
NASA is growing and is doing a fabulous job at providing motorsport events.   A very well run business.  Eventually some one will put up the cash and buy or bring a franchise or chapter to Canada.  We thought it would happen in the mid to late 1990s and then again in the early 2000s.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on December 02, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
Thing is its a business first which is why I assume is they are not running any events as they weren't making enough $$$$.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: jcm0791 on December 04, 2014, 05:41:12 PM
Hmmm ... So much for NASA being in the North West ...
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on December 04, 2014, 05:54:42 PM
Still lots of NASA events in the same driving time as Calgary to Gimli, whether in winnipeg or Calgary
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: GTcalgary on December 05, 2014, 06:53:48 AM
Conference (ICSCC) runs quality race events so loyalty is probably high. NASA may have underestimated that and needs to regroup and rethink their NW strategy (i.e. longer expected time frame to operate at a loss to break into the market / more initial capital investment). NASA's points system of classification and license/competition ladder systems are very attractive. It is difficult for any new venture to achieve critical mass vs the established group and in this case also established car prep.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: ChrisS on December 05, 2014, 07:17:04 AM
I bet the challenges with The Ridge weren't helping them (or anyone else  :'( ) either...  Hope that track gets sorted out; would be a shame to lose it...

Chris
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: SputnikRSS on December 05, 2014, 11:32:24 AM
The ridge ownership dispute was put to bed a while back if i remember right.
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: aavery on January 24, 2015, 09:50:52 PM
any word on the approval from NASA to use their rule set for ST , PT and spec miata?
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review - NASA
Post by: Tachyon on January 25, 2015, 09:48:18 PM
Good evening,

I will send out an announcement  tomorrow or Tuesday about where we are in the process. Gary Leadbetter - President of WCMA
Title: Re: WCMA Road Race Classing Review
Post by: Spec Volcanic on January 26, 2015, 11:17:37 AM
any word on the approval from NASA to use their rule set for ST , PT and spec miata?

Good evening,

I will send out an announcement  tomorrow or Tuesday about where we are in the process. Gary Leadbetter - President of WCMA

Just to clarify the WCMA already has approval to use Spec Miata via the SCCA and does not require NASA approval for SM.