2016 Rules Thread

1. Allow T4 or V band inlet / outlet housing.
2. Allow wastegate to exit anywhere
3. Allow exhaust to exit anywhere
4. Allow turbo to be mounted anywhere under hood
5. Allow any diameter wheel ( same tire widths )
6. Allow any oiling system
7. Disallow stage 2 heads
8. 1/8 mile


* restrict t4 / V band housing to 68 compressor / allow up to 72 compressor with three bolt housing ?


Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
No weight penalty for stage motors or make the weights simpler?

Rule 4 change would conflict with stock location headers. You can't have both.

No stage 2 heads. Big port stuff
 
Headers would have to change with the turbo location rule.

Base weight is 3450

-100 for 68 or smaller turbo
-250 for iron heads
+100 for stage block
 
Turbo rule need to be looked at. As it is now we have a turbo rated 115 hp higher than the 71 getting a 100# weight break.
 
sackracing said:
* restrict t4 / V band housing to 68 compressor / allow up to 72 compressor with three bolt housing ?


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This last part doesn't make sense to give the more powerful turbo the advantage of the bigger exhaust housing. I say allow the t4 on any turbo. If we were to only allow it on certain turbos it should go to the lower rated unit (71mm) That should help tighten the gap between the two?
 
That's fine, but the 71/75 is not the same turbo, we were told by Precision that it will go low 8s on a 109.
If it is a 71/70 that would make sense.
Taking away the weight break makes sense as well.
 
I was thinking on the 7168 that so many people now run, that way a lot of us could pick up power by simply buying an exhaust housing, and of course re-working the header flange and the downpipe. I would like to hear more on the 7175, it still fits the 71/72mm turbo rule and all of the other classes have progressed rapidly with new turbo technology. Why shouldn't we continue to go faster?
 
I know I haven't. That 148 mph pass was on 29.5 pounds.
My CO2 to boost ratio is about 1.4.

But there has been good discussion so far.
 
When thinking of a limit on the three bolt turbo why not make it to include the 76? General consensus is that the three bolt housing is the restriction and the 76 three bolt has been around for years. This was the max turbo size for TSE and maybe TSM could pick up the guys who built their cars for that class. Then make the 4 bolt limit smaller and no weight break for turbo sizing would be required.
 
The reason for the bigger housing being suggested is due to some guys wanting to step up their program. Moving the class forward is something to considered as well. THS had two cars that would have qualified in the middle of the TSM field.
But it also needs to be kept in check. What is the goal? 8.50s? 8.60s? Or stay at .70s?
I don't have the answer to level the playing field for everyone that enters.

And I only weighed 2 of 14 cars that were at or under weight. Everyone was over, some were way over.
I think coming down from 3550 a few years ago has helped these motors live, as well as made them safer

The stage motor penalty could be eliminated, but I want the option to assess and make changes if a stage car runs away from the field

I believe the turbo weight break could go away in light of the turbo technology available. 2 of the top 3 qualifiers were running a 68.
But does that mean bring those cars up or bring everyone else down In Weight?

This class is the only one with the wastegate rule, it's not a performance advantage, but more of a convenience thing. I'd love to see it change.

We need to consider the availability of turbos and how it affects us. The 68 wheels are gone. The options are not as many and people building cars have to know what to get.

I'll bring to a vote whatever everyone wants.
 
sackracing said:
The reason for the bigger housing being suggested is due to some guys wanting to step up their program. Moving the class forward is something to considered as well. THS had two cars that would have qualified in the middle of the TSM field.
But it also needs to be kept in check. What is the goal? 8.50s? 8.60s? Or stay at .70s?
I don't have the answer to level the playing field for everyone that enters.

And I only weighed 2 of 14 cars that were at or under weight. Everyone was over, some were way over.
I think coming down from 3550 a few years ago has helped these motors live, as well as made them safer

The stage motor penalty could be eliminated, but I want the option to assess and make changes if a stage car runs away from the field

I believe the turbo weight break could go away in light of the turbo technology available. 2 of the top 3 qualifiers were running a 68.
But does that mean bring those cars up or bring everyone else down In Weight?

This class is the only one with the wastegate rule, it's not a performance advantage, but more of a convenience thing. I'd love to see it change.

We need to consider the availability of turbos and how it affects us. The 68 wheels are gone. The options are not as many and people building cars have to know what to get.

I'll bring to a vote whatever everyone wants.
Click to expand...

This....
It doesn't make sense to build a car that is for a class that has 1 or 2 races a year but limited in any local/ heads up racing. I want a car I can race at several events...not just Buick ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Rule changes vote
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Tweeked6
T
sackracing
2017 Rules Vote Results
Replies
3
Views
2K
sackracing
sackracing
sackracing
2016 RULE CHANGE BALLOT
Replies
13
Views
2K
sackracing
sackracing
J
GS Nationals roll call
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
6cylboost
6
J
Norwalk roll call
2 3
Replies
43
Views
5K
KevinBroadwater
K
Top