Author Topic: WCMA Road Race Classing Review  (Read 58358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 25, 2014, 03:26:26 PM
Reply #45

Chrisw

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
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

February 25, 2014, 04:05:22 PM
Reply #46

SputnikRSS

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

February 25, 2014, 05:21:43 PM
Reply #47

Chrisw

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
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).

February 25, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Reply #48

GTcalgary

  • Guest
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://www.nasanorthwest.com/schedule/calendar-2/

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"
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 07:03:43 PM by GTcalgary »

February 25, 2014, 10:13:10 PM
Reply #49

SputnikRSS

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
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.


February 26, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
Reply #50

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
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?

February 26, 2014, 11:49:29 AM
Reply #51

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
Hey Spec....

Thanks for that quick Class study. Interesting how that works.....
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

February 28, 2014, 09:15:02 AM
Reply #52

oldpony

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • WCMA Executive
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
 ;D Intensive work by the reviewers.  My view ---- NASA rules are optimum for our needs. The pros outweigh the cons.

March 01, 2014, 08:10:39 PM
Reply #53

Al36rx7

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Jr. Member
  • Tech Committee
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +0/-0
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.   
A. Brown
==========================
Pistons??.....I Don't need no Stinkin' Pistons!!

March 02, 2014, 08:50:48 AM
Reply #54

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
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"

March 02, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
Reply #55

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
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

March 02, 2014, 08:58:23 AM
Reply #56

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
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

March 02, 2014, 09:12:42 PM
Reply #57

Al36rx7

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Jr. Member
  • Tech Committee
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +0/-0
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.   
A. Brown
==========================
Pistons??.....I Don't need no Stinkin' Pistons!!

March 06, 2014, 01:09:55 PM
Reply #58

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
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?
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

March 06, 2014, 06:07:54 PM
Reply #59

super70dave

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: +1/-0
Why not one comment from Manitoba. Hmmmmm