Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rulebook and PiP Questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rulebook and PiP Questions

    Hi everyone,

    I have specific questions on PiP and want to ensure that I understand the impact of making changes.
    1. If I take the 1 PiP for alignment change as per 5.1.B.3 does that mean I don't take an additional PiP if I use camber plates?
      1. Or are camber plates considered as additional 1 PiP in 5.1.B.10 as an “Attachment point change” for a total of 2 PiP? Do all other changes in 5.1.B.10 qualify as part of that 1 PiP eg. control arms, end links, etc.
    2. Can I use any non-OE shock that does not change the height or attachment point of springs and not take PiP under 5.1.B.4?
    3. Are Strut tower braces free under 4.8.2.5?
    4. Are Urethane bushings free under 4.8.2.8?
    5. To stay in GT2, I have to be in PI range of 70-75? Otherwise move to GT1 with PI of 75-80?

    I read from Kevin’s notes that more changes may be coming? What would the timeframe be to finalize the rules? https://forums.casc.on.ca/forum/casc...-meeting-notes

    Questions on Kevin’s notes:
    a. Running R888R would be -2PiP?
    b. Would there be a grandfather clause in place for 2022 as changes to take advantage of those PiP would come at considerable cost .

    Thanks in advance for your assistance.

    Henry
    Last edited by Hqfoto; 12-30-2020, 01:26 PM.

  • #2
    Hi Henry,

    A draft of the 2021 OTA rule book is posted on the OTA website. It will probably answer most of your questions.
    Jud - TeamVDG - OTA#47

    'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy' by Browne & Frey

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hqfoto View Post
      Hi everyone,

      I have specific questions on PiP and want to ensure that I understand the impact of making changes.
      1. If I take the 1 PiP for alignment change as per 5.1.B.3 does that mean I don't take an additional PiP if I use camber plates?
        1. Or are camber plates considered as additional 1 PiP in 5.1.B.10 as an “Attachment point change” for a total of 2 PiP? Do all other changes in 5.1.B.10 qualify as part of that 1 PiP eg. control arms, end links, etc.
      2. Can I use any non-OE shock that does not change the height or attachment point of springs and not take PiP under 5.1.B.4?
      3. Are Strut tower braces free under 4.8.2.5?
      4. Are Urethane bushings free under 4.8.2.8?
      5. To stay in GT2, I have to be in PI range of 70-75? Otherwise move to GT1 with PI of 75-80?

      I read from Kevin’s notes that more changes may be coming? What would the timeframe be to finalize the rules? https://forums.casc.on.ca/forum/casc...-meeting-notes

      Questions on Kevin’s notes:
      a. Running R888R would be -2PiP?
      b. Would there be a grandfather clause in place for 2022 as changes to take advantage of those PiP would come at considerable cost .

      Thanks in advance for your assistance.

      Henry
      Hi Henry,

      The 2021 rules have now been updated and can be found here: https://time-attack.ca/rules/

      Regarding your questions:
      1- You'd have to refer to page 39 where it allows for camber plates. I am assuming you are not using anything else like bushing that are harder than poly urethane and such. If you are, you need to declare 5.1.B.10.
      2- If you are using NON-OE shocks, it is a modification and thus triggers rule 5.1.B.4. The intent of this rule is to take a performance improvement point for going aftermarket shocks which usually improve handling.
      3- Correct - as per the rule 4.8.2.5 - "The suspension mounting points on the chassis/frame may be reinforced. Strut and other suspension mounting point braces may be added to the chassis/frame and firewall. Suspension braces, (e.g., strut tower braces, tunnel braces, and tie-bars) subframe connectors and firewall braces may be added. The chassis/frame and floor pan may be modified only to the extent necessary to facilitate this."
      4- Urethane bushings are now free to allow for older cars to refresh their OEM bushings without making competitors pay insane OEM prices.
      5- The new rules now bunch classes differently as per page 46 of the new rules. We now have 10 PI ranges instead of 5.

      R888Rs will still only be considered street tires for 0 PIPs and NOT the negative as per my notes which were meant as a recap for potential changes not final.

      Not sure what you mean by grandfather clause?

      Cheers.

      Kev
      Kevin Wong
      GT3 / STR / C-Stock Plus Honda S2000 #111
      2020 OTA Chief Timer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hqfoto View Post
        [*]Can I use any non-OE shock that does not change the height or attachment point of springs and not take PiP under 5.1.B.4?
        Originally posted by LemonJus View Post

        2- If you are using NON-OE shocks, it is a modification and thus triggers rule 5.1.B.4. The intent of this rule is to take a performance improvement point for going aftermarket shocks which usually improve handling.
        This, I have questions about. It was always my understanding that a non-OE shock that was not adjustable and did not change the height, or attachment point of springs, was PIP-free. There are valid reasons why you might want to replace your OE shocks with a shock from a non-OEM that is otherwise equivalent to the OE shock; e.g. availability or price.

        Just as an example - and I had no idea that this particular part would be so expensive, it was the first example I tried - a front shock from BMW for a 1988 325e is $2,055.88, whereas you can buy a replacement non-adjustable, OE-equivalent shock for, obviously, much less.

        While the BMW shock is probably an extreme example, the OE shock is probably more expensive for most cars. I always thought the intent of the rule was to permit OE-equivalent shocks, but not *require* OE shocks from the particular car manufacturer; e.g. BMW.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	BMW Shock.jpg
Views:	176
Size:	56.4 KB
ID:	458895

        https://shop.bmw.ca/a/BMW_1988_325e-...andStruts.html
        Jim (aka "Lawrence" in results)

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe it would have to be an OE equivalent shock to not need the shock pips, even if it's not adjustable. You can get higher performance non adjustable shocks (bilstein B6/B8, etc) that would absolutely improve performance, but don't alter ride height and aren't adjustable.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LemonJus View Post

            Hi Henry,

            The 2021 rules have now been updated and can be found here: https://time-attack.ca/rules/

            Regarding your questions:
            1- You'd have to refer to page 39 where it allows for camber plates. I am assuming you are not using anything else like bushing that are harder than poly urethane and such. If you are, you need to declare 5.1.B.10.
            2- If you are using NON-OE shocks, it is a modification and thus triggers rule 5.1.B.4. The intent of this rule is to take a performance improvement point for going aftermarket shocks which usually improve handling.
            3- Correct - as per the rule 4.8.2.5 - "The suspension mounting points on the chassis/frame may be reinforced. Strut and other suspension mounting point braces may be added to the chassis/frame and firewall. Suspension braces, (e.g., strut tower braces, tunnel braces, and tie-bars) subframe connectors and firewall braces may be added. The chassis/frame and floor pan may be modified only to the extent necessary to facilitate this."
            4- Urethane bushings are now free to allow for older cars to refresh their OEM bushings without making competitors pay insane OEM prices.
            5- The new rules now bunch classes differently as per page 46 of the new rules. We now have 10 PI ranges instead of 5.

            R888Rs will still only be considered street tires for 0 PIPs and NOT the negative as per my notes which were meant as a recap for potential changes not final.

            Not sure what you mean by grandfather clause?

            Cheers.

            Kev
            Hi Kev, thanks for the clarifications and updates to the rulebook. My follow-ups are:

            >>> 2- If you are using NON-OE shocks, it is a modification and thus triggers rule 5.1.B.4. The intent of this rule is to take a performance improvement point for going aftermarket shocks which usually improve handling.<<<
            I think it's hard to figure out what the differences in a shock are. The only real differences I can quantify would be the length, travel (if available on the spec sheet or by measurement) and the fixed perches. Most shocks spec don't really say anything other than "improves your handling (and comfort)". And you're never sure whether it's marketing hype or reality. Looks like those extra 2 PiPs are a killer and I'll have to gain 100lbs to compensate to stay in Grand Touring B-Spec.

            >>> 5- The new rules now bunch classes differently as per page 46 of the new rules. We now have 10 PI ranges instead of 5.<<<
            Ok, seems the car classification database is out of date now. I'll use it as a relative guideline.

            EDIT: grandfather means rule will be applied for another year to allow time for changes or protect investments made. Eg. the exemption for Top but seems that that didn't get adopted in the new rulebook.

            Happy new year to all!
            Last edited by Hqfoto; 01-04-2021, 01:02 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wparsons View Post
              I believe it would have to be an OE equivalent shock to not need the shock pips, even if it's not adjustable. You can get higher performance non adjustable shocks (bilstein B6/B8, etc) that would absolutely improve performance, but don't alter ride height and aren't adjustable.
              Sure that's valid but harder to quantify than Coilovers with large bodies, multi-way adjustments, extra rolling, etc. Generally the single shocks are cheaper than the Coilover systems I'll agree with wparsons that the rulebook is vague.

              Maybe the compromise would be have a separate PiP for non-coilover or non-adjustable shocks? Maybe 1 PiP instead of 2PiP?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hqfoto View Post

                Sure that's valid but harder to quantify than Coilovers with large bodies, multi-way adjustments, extra rolling, etc. Generally the single shocks are cheaper than the Coilover systems I'll agree with wparsons that the rulebook is vague.

                Maybe the compromise would be have a separate PiP for non-coilover or non-adjustable shocks? Maybe 1 PiP instead of 2PiP?
                I checked with the CCC and they said that the intent of the rule 5.1.B.4 is to cover non-OEM equivalent shocks. If you are using OE or OE-equivalent shocks, you do not need to declare this.

                This is covered in section 4.5 where it says an exact equivalent of an OE part that is replacing an OE part. So if you're replacing your shock on your car with say, a munroe shock that is meant to be OE equivalent, no pips needed.

                Kevin
                Kevin Wong
                GT3 / STR / C-Stock Plus Honda S2000 #111
                2020 OTA Chief Timer

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LemonJus View Post

                  I checked with the CCC and they said that the intent of the rule 5.1.B.4 is to cover non-OEM equivalent shocks. If you are using OE or OE-equivalent shocks, you do not need to declare this.

                  This is covered in section 4.5 where it says an exact equivalent of an OE part that is replacing an OE part. So if you're replacing your shock on your car with say, a munroe shock that is meant to be OE equivalent, no pips needed.

                  Kevin
                  Kevin, thanks for the clarification. See you on the track!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LemonJus View Post

                    I checked with the CCC and they said that the intent of the rule 5.1.B.4 is to cover non-OEM equivalent shocks. If you are using OE or OE-equivalent shocks, you do not need to declare this.

                    This is covered in section 4.5 where it says an exact equivalent of an OE part that is replacing an OE part. So if you're replacing your shock on your car with say, a munroe shock that is meant to be OE equivalent, no pips needed.

                    Kevin
                    Hi Kevin, rulebook link is broken. Can you fix? thx

                    https://time-attack.ca/wp-content/up...-0.94-LIVE.pdf

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hqfoto View Post

                      Hi Kevin, rulebook link is broken. Can you fix? thx

                      https://time-attack.ca/wp-content/up...-0.94-LIVE.pdf
                      Hi, I went to the website and under rules clicked on the link for the rulebook - seemed to work?

                      We've had to update some minor wording to clarify a few things that you and a few other competitors brought up but nothing big.

                      Check again?

                      Kevin
                      Kevin Wong
                      GT3 / STR / C-Stock Plus Honda S2000 #111
                      2020 OTA Chief Timer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LemonJus View Post

                        Hi, I went to the website and under rules clicked on the link for the rulebook - seemed to work?

                        We've had to update some minor wording to clarify a few things that you and a few other competitors brought up but nothing big.

                        Check again?

                        Kevin
                        Still doesn't work for me. Tried several browsers and a google search as well.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-01-16 at 11.28.49 PM.png
Views:	95
Size:	401.4 KB
ID:	458974

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hqfoto View Post

                          Still doesn't work for me. Tried several browsers and a google search as well.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-01-16 at 11.28.49 PM.png
Views:	95
Size:	401.4 KB
ID:	458974
                          Try this?

                          https://time-attack.ca/rules/

                          Kev
                          Kevin Wong
                          GT3 / STR / C-Stock Plus Honda S2000 #111
                          2020 OTA Chief Timer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LemonJus View Post
                            Thanks Kev, that link works.

                            You may want to have someone fix the rulebook url on this link under news.
                            https://time-attack.ca/2021-automove...son-rule-book/

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X