Yeah, I was looking at one of their Mustangs, and it let's say wasn't a happy camper
I saw where I missed you mentioned a C5... C5's are a lot cheaper than the new ones, so it blows my theory all to hell. Oh well.. it is what it is

 

You'd think. But you can pick up a used C5 Z06 for mid-upper 20k and you really don't have to spend $$ on mods to max it out as mentioned. I know the guy that won the last 2 Midwest events and he bought his car used for $28k and just hauls a little trailer with his huge V710's.

 

I think they are even heavier than that even, right around 3200 IIRC? Trips to the scales and dyno are always a surprise and always right at the end of the session - you get the nod as you come off track to report directly to one or the other.

Somewhat unrelated, Tech at Nationals was a farce too. Obviuosly everyone is a volunteer, but I know if I were the cheating type I could have gotten away with a LOT. Some probably did.

Taking one of the *'s off the '03-'05 base Evo's would go a long way towards making things right with the points.

 

Wow, if theyre actually closer to 3200 lbs, then that is a huge advantage. That means they could remove a good 80 lbs right off the bat without taking any points for it.

Im sure some people go out of their way to cheat, but i have faith that the majority of drivers dont. Word on the street is that ill never come close to the TTA track records in Socal.

Yeah, if they would take one of *s off that would make a difference. Or, they could go back to the rules of last year which allowed us to go the ECU based boost controller route without taking points for it. That in itself wouldnt have done it, but we would have had a much better chance. I never went that route last year, but i was planning on it for this year.

 

Ken (National champ) had no weight reduction tho. We were joking that he finally did take some weight reduction by removing his sun visor cd holder...
You're right about the cheating, but as more money becomes available for winning things are gonna start happening.

ECU based boost control was really never legal. In order for it to work you have to remove or modify the pills in the boost line. That is considered mechanical boost control and therefore subject to the +4 for a mbc. I still have the emails from Greg about it from before last season started. I really could have used those 4 points too.

 

Thats bizarre about the ECU based boost controller route. Since Greg is our Socal TT director, i have the luxury of asking him questions in person. Last season, i asked him several times in person, and through email to double check, and he always confirmed that it is legal. Then, as soon as the 2008 rules came out it was no longer legal. He never really gets into details, but he did mention that they are making some significant changes for the 2009 season. What that exactly entails, i have no idea.

 

From 12/15/06:

Greg wrote:
In the event that I do want to turn up the boost by more than a couple of psi, I would need to remove one of the two restrictor ‘pills’ from the stock boost control system. Would this be legal or not? The OEM ECU will still be responsible for setting max boost and taper, the restrictor removal just allows for the max boost to be higher.

Reply:
Once you do that, you are back to using a form of manual boost control. Actually, I just answered a post on the Rocky Mountain forums regarding this. A guy with a WRX was using his daughter's beads to change boost levels instead of an MBC. He thought he could avoid the MBC points this way. I warned him that if he gets caught doing that, with the beads not declared as a boost controller, that he is cheating and may be thrown out of NASA TT. I had a guy 2 years ago with an Evo that I was pretty sure had done the same thing. He actually ended up getting tossed out of TT for getting caught cheating on something else anyway.

Thanks for checking,
Greg G

 

Im mystified. That is really really bizarre. I asked him about the ECU based boost controller route towards the latter part of the 07 season, and he confirmed several times that it was ok, and i wouldnt have to take points for it. I asked him in person and through email, and he always confirmed that it was ok. Its going to be very difficult, but ill see if i can source those emails.

 

Another hole in Nasa's classing for the evo is there is no listing for a 2005 RS. My TTA car is built around great suspension, low weight, aero, mild power and 255 Nt-01's. I am taking points for the 90lbs i shouldnt have to in weight reduction. I have to take the 03-05 TTC** weight of 3263 when a 06 RS is at 3170 TTB.

TTA is a decent place for an Evo, TTS is a much much better place were it can dominate with good power, huge tires, aero ect... but the wallet opens up with TTS as well.

I run TTA mainly so i can work on my driving and not spend a ton of money on tires and everything else.

 

Ya Ed, almost like he was setting you up..... It is ok, as long as you don't change, remove, or modify the stock boost tubes and pills. Personally I think the rules are too biased towards a certain Dodge product, and wouldn't be at all surprised if the major changes for next year accompany a new track car if you know what I mean. His total denial and lack of action towards the obvious issues surrounding Pat's Audi at Nationals last year really left a bad taste in my mouth and is one of the reasons I'm not competing this year.

 

You aren't taking points for added weight of the regular EVO. You've got it backward, you take points for lower weight, since your RS is lighter than the stock EVOs, technically you should be taking more points but aren't since they are all classed together. Count yourself some what lucky.

 

^^^ i'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. take a quick look at the 06' classes. the rs and regular ix's come in at the same base but the rs has a lighter curb weight. only the mr gets a *. so if the rs equals the standard model in the ix's why wouldn't that apply for the previous years as well?

also you may be forgetting that the rs takes a pretty big hit with not having abs for the little bit of weight savings it gets.

one other thing that's always bugged me on the ecu/boost control subject is the fact that we have to take double the hit(5 vs. 10) for the ecu over an n/a motor
and then on top of that we still have to take another 4 points for bumping boost. well what the hell is the point of the ecu hit then?

obviously we have an easier time getting extra power out of our motors but unless you raise boost levels you don't see much more than the increases you can get out of an n/a motor doing the same timing/fuel adjustments. the power comes from boost so it just seems like we are getting unjustly hit on the ecu.

i finally got tired of screwing around with all the points so i just went to tts. life is a lot simpler now

 

06 RS 3170 base TTB..... there is no listing for a 04/05 RS which i have.

So i am forced to enter as a 03-05 gsr at a base weight of 3263.

My car "should" base at 2005 RS 3170 TTC** but there is no such listing.

I use a ton of points for weight reduction. I would have to use less points if my car was classed as it should.

If my car was classed correctly i could be saving 90lbs worth of points.


Far from lucky

Hopefully i expained this better.

 

I havent been able to source those emails, but its very strange to say the least. Yeah, i wouldnt be surprised if the new rules somehow end up favoring some other new track car for him. As far as Patrick Lindseys times, there is nothing i can do. Im chasing his times, but even if i had ideal weather conditions and something extraordinary i seriously doubt ill ever come close. You look at some track records in different classes, and they make sense. I have only ran 1 of the Norcal tracks (T-hill), but i can look at the Norcal track records and see that they make sense. In fact, i know that i can do better than the current Norcal TTA T-hill track record. But i look at our Socal TTA track records, and they make no sense. What im thinking is eventually, if know one really comes close, it might look more obvious. Either way, im going to continue chasing them.

 

I don't think you understand the concept of taking points. In NASA you take points for something that gives you an advantage. Lower weight or weight loss on the car is an advantage. Adding weight doesn't give you points as you seem to think. If you take a look at the rules, you have to take more points for the weight you take off the car.

If you compare it your competitors that are driving almost identical heavier EVOs, you are at a slight advantage. Since your RS is LIGHTER "technically" you should be taking points for having that advantage. The RS doesn't get assessed points for being lighter than the GSRs, it just happens to be classed in the same level due to NASA's classing structure. Since they don't consider the difference in weight be be any significant advantage. Thus, consider yourself lucky.

Smack_evo: about not having ABS in the RS model. Really good drivers can extract more braking performance by threshold braking a non-ABS car than an ABS equipped car. So while ABS is a great tool from the novice driver, more performance can be extracted in a car without ABS in the hands of a skilled driver. So its advantage or disadvantage can be argued both ways.

This is another part that also baffles me, 5 points vs 10 points for just ECU tuning in NA and boosted cars, when the preformance improvement is similar.