In light of the conversations and opinions expressed in this forum, certain proposed changes that I previously listed are being amended to read as follows:
1. Allow racers to keep the "Show up" and the "Qualifying" points for any _four_ TSM races attended during the season. This is to award those that attend more races (i.e. try their best) to show their support for the class and their desire to be "in the money" with the points series. This could eliminate the upset we had in 2002 and/or favor those who have the time and money to go to all the events running TSM.
2. Raise the Qualifying ET for the points series to 11.99 seconds while eliminating the qualifying time for participating in the TSM class. Qualifying points beyond the "Show up" points will only be awarded to registered racers who meet the 11.99 qualifying time. This is a modification to the proposal by several people at Bristol in order to increase car count. Whereas this allows slower cars into the field, only the cars running 11.99 or faster can collect points for the points series.
Fuel cells are allowed. This would allow the new little cells that fit in the spare tire well to be run in conjunction with the stock appearing tank and would allow people to use only a fuel cell, for safety purposes. This could cause resistance from those who spent money on modifying their stock tank in 2002.
All other proposals remain as written in parts one and two of this thread. Remember: you have until Saturday night November 30 to voice your opinion on these changes as all rules will be final on December 1.
Scott,
I have stated this before but did to the list and not here.
There is an obvious safety advantage to a fuel cell. But im confused on why if allowed, we have to run both a cell and stock gas tank. I know that having cars that with a stock appearance and not race cars is part of the class.But if this is the case what looks stock about a sumped stock tank with a big ol hose coming out of it? ;-)
NO, im NOT proposing that we NOT use sumped stock tanks.The fact remains the fuel has to get in the motor ,no matter how.But In my opinion we should be given the choice to run either one. A GN minus the stock gas tank looks way more stock than one with a sump.
Uh, Louie - reread ALL of paragraph 4...
I am chnging the rule that says "No fuel cells allowed" to "Fuel Cells are allowed." This is based in part on your comment to the gnttype mailing list. We are allowing you to run either one - assuming the proposals (as modified) are enacted.
Time for new eye glasses!
So is a fuel pressure gauge mounted on the hood out of the question?
rule #1 75pts is too many pts against a guy that can only make 3 events 15pts tops. help the guys that are out of the radius to get in and compete. 3 out of 4 just like this year.
I'd say include Reynolds, a lot of "TR's in the SE, and make it 3 out of 5 as discussed in Bristol.This would give the guys from the Southeast an opportunity at the points, every body goes to the Nationals, most to Bristol, which is really up and comming, (one of the nicest tracks in the nation) and for us "PO-BOYS" from the South Reynolds would be great. There are 3-5 possible TSM cars in FL that would, more than likely not be able to make the events in OH, IN.
If you REALLY want to be fair, and want to keep it 3-4, drop either Norwalk or Morocco, which are relatively close and include Reynolds.Geographically, that would spread things out more evenly, not giving a considerable advantage to those in the Northeast.
3 out of 5 or 6 add vegas too give everybody a shot at it. and lets vote on proposed rule #1
I agree with Bret, add another track/event or even more to make it fair to those who are located too far from the ones already running. But DO NOT drop one track to add another. That would megasuck. Limit points to your best 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 6-- whatever. But to drop a track in Indiana or Ohio so you could run an event in Reynolds would be rediculous.
Allowing a racer to keep his to show points and qualifying points from a 4th event is an incentive for that racer to come to more than 3 events so we have participation. Example look at Morocco. We had only 4 racers. There were people who did not come to that race because they would need to throw out the points from one race and they felt that Morocco would have the least rounds to run so they did not come. Thus we had 4 Racers show. If there was 75 points a guy could bag by showing then you can bet we would have had more cars and there would have been more rounds that could have been run for guys to gain even more points. It would also be an incentive if Reynolds is added for us guys from up north to go south to race so those guys down there have some rounds to run to collect points. Another thing to think about we need racers. If we expect the vendors to support this class we need racers. When the racers dont show then vendors will lose interest. Again look at Morocco. We want PTE's support and at the TSM event in their back yard we had 4 racers. Scott will have his hands full again this year convincing Harry that we have a class worthy of his support. I also am for adding Vegas if someone out west wants to take the bull by the horns and organize the race and keep track of the info and it will add racers then I am all for it. The only problem I see with Vegas and the points is those guys more than likely would only be able to run 2 events simply because of their location. Maybe Jason Cramer can put something together for Vegas and give us some kind of idea of who would be interested in points and maybe Vegas can be added. Vegas is just to far for Scott and I to go. We have already talked about Reynolds and if added I will go to Reynolds and Not go to Morocco so we can cover all 5 events. We have not even thought about dropping an event and do not plan to but if we had no choice but to drop one my vote would be Morocco based and the turn out this year. If we all want this class to be around and grow from year to year we all need to look at the best interest of the class and the racers as a group.
Lonnie
I will do whatever is needed in Vegas if the Vegas event is added to the points series.
Unfortunately I’m not racing in the TSM class, hopefully I will in the 2004 season. Question, when did a fuel cell ever become stock appearing? I personally don’t think it should be allowed, unless we plan on changing the name of the race/class! Lets not lose site what this class is supposed to represent. Also, aluminum heads should be an easy 150# over steel heads (don’t have to mention the advantages, I think we all know). Ford 9inch rear end, not stock but looks clean. Just these three additions to a TR will give it a RACE CAR appearance. Just my 2cent!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MARIO
A roll bar is not stock appearing, but it is a safety item that is required/ oops- I mean encouraged for the class. Why not a fuel cell?
It is also a safety item. No advantage over a sumped tank as far as ET or MPH go. Minimum car weight for the class takes care of that. Same goes for a rear end, or transmission. Especially a 9" or TH 400. It's proven fact they both rob horsepower vs 10 bolts and 200 but many guys are willing to make that concession for the durability. That same 9" rear under a old ford truck dont make it look like a race car. Actually if you want "stock appearing" a 9" under the car and a fuel cell in the trunk looks a lot more stock from the grandstands than a set of aftermarket wheels do. So make the GN's run those megaheavy stock steel rims :^( (just kidding)
Scott and Lonnie, I sure don't envy your jobs running this event. No matter what, you'll never make everybody happy.
For all of you in favor of adding another 50# to the aluminum headed cars, Roy has reciently gone 10.01 with irons heads. My car is heavy enough either way but all of you that have aluminum heads might have to add another 50# to compete with Roy.....
Although this is not a stock appearing class (and never was) I think that allowing fuel cells takes this class to a more professional level. A Fuel celled car will discourage participants instead
of attract them...
Food for thought.
Fuel Cells, I had a fuel cell up until this class got started and I switched to a stock tank with a sump to make the rules. I don't think it would be too much for someone to run a fuel cell in this class. It isn't a "Stock" class but a "Street" class. Fuel cells are in alot of "Street" cars. I agree Jason, I watched Roy go 10.0s all day long at Reynolds. Not everyone is willing to push their cars that hard though. Roy's car is right on the weight limits at 3400lbs. I think the concern is for the "what if's". What if some one like Roy had aluminum heads and was at 3500lbs? I think the 10.0s would be easier to get than with iron heads at the 3400lb weight. Your car being over 3600lbs with aluminum heads went in the 9.9s. What if your car was at 3500lbs? 9.70s maybe? I would love to see this class make it into the 9.70 range but realistic goals would keep it in the low 10s.
Jason White "Registered TSM Racer"
Scott is there a list of racers that are definately going to register for next year? Maybe we should get that list together then get input from each one and then make the final decision. That way each person that will be racing will have their input on the rules.
Mario Wrote:
"Question, when did a fuel cell ever become stock appearing? I personally don’t think it should be allowed, unless we plan on changing the name of the race/class! Lets not lose site what this class is supposed to represent. Also, aluminum heads should be an easy 150# over steel heads (don’t have to mention the advantages, I think we all know). MARIO "
If u can see a properly , legally installed fuel cell let me know. The only thing you may notice is the missing stock gas tank and we all know how i feel about that. A fuel cell will not detract from the "look" of the car. Unless u race with the trunk lid open!
On the issue of iron Vs alum. Although Roy is pushing his car arent we all ??? We really have to take a look at what hes doing and that Iron heads are not all that bad. In my opinion we really have to watch this weight penalty move. Next year this issue will come up again the next. 50 lbs here 50 there. The alum cars will continue to get hit while the irons are left alone weighing less, and getting faster and faster.
I still think 10.0's are the limits on the iron heads no matter what unless you can be lighter than 3400lbs. Does anyone know a car with iron heads that has been in the 9s with that weight? 70 turbo limit? I don't think anyone is doing it, and doing it for a long period of time. I think the 150 lbs added to the AL headed cars will help keep things even. And yes I am changing from iron heads to AL heads for next year.. so I will be penalized with the 150lbs but I think the AL heads will make up for the weight addition.
Looks like the 4 bolt turbo rule got some consideration. (Yawn) Whatever. A fuel cell and a 9" - pardon me but it looks like your heading AWAY from a STREET eliminator class. Add fuel injector regulations for those that want them, add a 9" rule, add a weight penalty for aluminum heads... I heard the argument that injectors or a rear end don't make power. Can you launch a 10 bolt indefinetly into 1.3X 60's? No, but a 9" will take it all day long. A fuel cell requires less fuel in the tank and weighs less. Additional fuel injectors shoot more fuel. It's a known fact that the 4 bolt turbo makes 50% more power than a 3 bolt. Why not ban the PTE housing? Are you going to outlaw Harry's new turbos?
The discriminate method of picking and choosing your rules is ridiculous. Open discussion? What discussion?
Ryan Guy out of Oregon 9.99 @ 135 iron heads stock block 3500+ lbs.
When talking about alum Vs iron , I think we are getting hung up on running in the 9s. It seems that in every discussion that appears to be the goal. Just because a few TSM cars can do it it(im aware of only one) doesnt mean thats what its all about. We know well that It does not take a 10oh car to compete here and win.
I understand that you do not need a 10.0 car to compete and win but if you have an AL headed car running 9.70s and the first iron headed car say at 10.20s your looking at a half a second difference between the two. Kinda easy to win with that much margin. I am not saying this will be the case but it could be in the right circumstances.. I would rather see two cars within 1-2 tenths running heads up instead of a slaughter of the slower cars.. That's what makes heads up racing better than bracket racing. I watched a radial tire heads up race this weekend that was a joke. One car BBC with nitrous on a 325 BFG drag radial against some street cars on 235/60s. Wasn't very fun to watch..
"Ryan Guy out of Oregon 9.99 @ 135 iron heads stock block 3500+ lbs."
What turbo did he use to accomplish that? That is only .02 faster than Roy "Booost" Garcia..
Jason White "Registered TSM Racer"
I think it's kinda comical(sp) about the discussion about "fuel cells" looking too much like a race car. Forgive me if i'm wrong, but seeing a roll bar/cage tells me(implies) a lot more than a fuel cell. As Jason White said LOTS of "street" cars have fuel cells. I also agree with Jason about the Aluminum vs iron head discussion. Just because that ONE guy has done a 9.99/135 with an iron head car still does not justify the obvious advantages of an aluminum headed car in "most" instances. Give him a "nice" set of ported/polished aluminum heads & see what he does. Oh well, i guess i better hush since i'm not competing anyway:-). Good luck with the class, wish i could join in. Take care, Jay "IBQWK" Jones
Jay Jones, I couldn’t of said it any better. Just because that ONE guy has done a 9.99/135 with an iron head car still does not justify the obvious advantages of an aluminum headed car in "most" instances. Give him a "nice" set of ported/polished aluminum heads & see what he does.
If aluminum heads weren’t such an advantage why run them, stay with the iron heads. The champion aluminum heads with out being touched will out flow a well-ported iron head with extensive headwork.
Jay, I have disagree with you on the fuel cell situation, there’s nothing comical about a fuel cell given a car a race look appearance especially when a stock tank is proven to bring a TR in to the low 10’s. Same goes for a well done stock TR rear end. Never disagreed with it being allowed since many TR are running Ford rears. As far as the 9” Ford rear vs. the stock 10 bolt, there are plenty of people running in the 9’s with the 10 bolts. My brother for instance has a SMC with a 10 bolt (TR rear) and has gone some low 1.30’s sixty foot times for over two seasons with out a rebuild and stock suspension G-body. If there is any rule change that needs to be addressed, it is the added 50# (total 150#) to aluminum headed cars and the no fuel cell. If the fuel cell rule is adopted, why hold back on a simple fuel gauge. Why stop there, let’s add 4 bolt turbos and any style header.
Mario, i think you misunderstood what i meant about the fuel cell. My point was about someone saying that it looked like a "race car" if it had a fuel cell. My point was what does having a roll bar/cage look like?? I DO NOT mean that there shouldn't be a bar/cage, there should!! If the speed/ET requires it. BUT, i really don't see the big deal if you have a cell, stock tank, or both. As i believe someone pointed out (Jason W.) it's Turbo Street Modified, not Turbo Stock Modified. Anyway, i'll get off the soapbox & let the TSM racers thenselves discuss it. I wish this class the best as it "IS" probably the most exciting class to keep an eye on of them all. Good luck & see you all at BG. Jay "IBQWK" Jones
Oop's I forgot my asking for rule changes don't count. Because I am not a TSM member.
I agree with all of the comments but if we don't do something now for next year there will be other cars like Roy, right at the minimum weight, except with aluminum heads. Don't you think if we leave the AL head weight at 3500 there will be some ringers, that run into the 9s easily, show up and pound the iron headed guys? I guarantee my car will weigh in at 3510 next year with AL heads.. ;-) I just want the "Heads Up" class to really be heads up with cars within 1-2 tenths of each other. Now I wished I would have kept my fuel cell.. I thought it looked better than my stock tank with a sump..lighter too.
Jason White
TSM 2479
Scott will the full stock interior rule be changed to full interior. Also i have not heard a responce on the manual stering. If we can remove the ac i dont see why we have to run the power stering.
I think the Full interior will be a go. I have no problem with the Manual Steering what do the other racers think?
Lonnie Diers
Is a hood mounted fuel pressure gauge out of the question?
Hood mounted fuel pressure gauge is posted in the Proposed rule changes. Looks like it will be a go.
Lonnie
If you ask me, which I know no one did, if you want a class that is about the racing and not about pocketbooks then it should be run like some of the drag boat racing. The class has a standard time that no one can go faster than. For the point of argument let's say it's 11.0 or 10.5. How fast it is doesn't really matter. Every racer tries to set their car up to run the standard number. You run faster than the standard you loose. Then the class is about tuning and racing not about Money. You really don't have to worry about what turbo somebody runs or what intake. It's a number that is obtainable for most racers. Then you get cars that are really racing. Not a 12 sec car against a 10.0 car. I drive my car to the events. I don't have money for another vehicle to tow with and a trailer and money to keep my car running(not making excuses, just think there are a lot of guys that are in the same boat)
You will get a lot more people to participate. The racing will be a lot better. The guys with tons of money and trailers, big dollar parts, etc would not have a significant advantage over the low budget guys (like me) that drive their cars to the events. It's hard for me to drive 6 hours to BG then run on the very ragged edge to compete knowing that I need to save enough car to drive home.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with TSM as it is and I will try to run more events next year, but I hear a lot of people that would like to see some better racing and a lot more people that would like to participate. If the class is about the racing then this would level the playing field for good racing and more participation plus you still have the heads up style.
btw I am not trying to taylor the class to my car as I am in the middle of the field with a low 11/high 10 sec car. Just making a suggestion to get more people involved and have better racing overall.
Sully
I think the Full interior will be a go. I have no problem with the Manual Steering what do the other racers think?
I have a problem with the manual steering box because I changed to power steering to make the rules last year..
Jason White
Manual steering will not be allowed. As a core idea to the class, the GSCA wants the cars to be more like factory original than not like factory original. The one relevant "modification" is the allowance of the elimination of the A/C. (This is Turbo Street MODIFIED.)
It is likely that there will never be any changes to the Engine Compartment rules.
The interior rule is "full stock interior required" and will not be changed. Racing seats are allowed for safety purposes, but need to be covered in material resembling the rest of the stock interior (i.e. a Turbo Limited with a gold interior must cover his fiberglass race seat(s), if used, with a similar gold fabric).
The point is: you cannot run just one front seat, you cannot run without a back seat, you cannot remove the dashboard, plastic sail panels or carpet to save weight.
Just a quick note to Sully's comment ... what he's described is "Index Racing" or "Super Class" racing. The major sanctioning bodies all have similar programs (Super Street, Super Gas, Super based on 10.90, 9.90, 8.90 indexes). The index classes basically set a mark, and then the one who comes closest to hitting the mark exactly without going under (with a good R/T) wins.
This was meant to allow almost any car to compete, as long as they can get close to the index. Most of the cars that compete in those classes leave off a transbrake, have delay boxes and throttle stops, and often the car is built to go more than a second faster than the index and then is slowed down with the throttle stop. They leave the line hard for 20 feet, fall on their face for the next 100 feet while the throttle stop engages, and then CHARGE out the back end, running some ridiculous MPH for the ET. Interesting and challenging, but a whole different set of technical challenges and strategies.
This type of racing is fun, but you also see LOTS of very expensive and complicated cars that have the capability to go much faster than the index, which use the throttle stop and such to hit the index. It isn't uncommon to see some pretty serious cars that can run low 9s or high 8s if they go flat out running in the 9.90 or 10.90 classes. It's another venue where the thought was to keep the money down, but the guys who like to win will always spend the money.
That's a whole different ball game from HEADS UP racing which is you run balls out and the first guy to the stripe wins. This relies more on the cars being built to a set of basic standards and then who ever maximizes that combination should have the fastest car. When it's close, the best driver wins by virtue of better R/Ts.
Scott i have no problem with the stering box either way. I will put the manual in if allowed if not i will leave it as is. Jason i know where you are comming from as i spent way more money building the 10 bolt with 100% mark williams internals than a 9" with stock parts would of been.
I am with Scott, leave the rules as they are. No Manual Steering, but I will go with what is decided by the majority of the group.If one is allowed, I'll put one in, and re-locate the weight
advantage to the back.
Not a problem with the fuel cell in the tire compartment, and stock tank being a must, even if it is not used.
A 50 lb. adder for aluminum heads would make things a more competitive, (3550# instead of 3500#), even with the weight disadvantage, the horsepower and weight in the nose of the car make a big difference over steel heads. If things stay the same,(100lb. difference only)we'll play with the steel heads a little longer but will UPGRADE to aluminums by the "Nationals".
I agree with Roy.
Keep stock tank, allow trunk mounted fuel cells.
Add 50 lbs to AL Headed cars (3550)
No Manual Steering.
Keep show up and qualifying points for each race.
Jason White
Jason - the proposal is to allow "Show Up" and "Qualifying" points from a maximum of 4 races (and we would like to have 5 next year). I have heard from Bret Rudbeck and Keith Egan that they are of the opinion that an extra 75 points for attending a fourth race is too much. However, most people seem to be in agreement with the potential extra 75 points.
Where do we stand on the rules?? Need to get started on the car for next year..
Jason White
Everything has "passed" as proposed on the TSM website. I will update that (and post the "new" rules here) when I have some free time.
Let me get this straight..........are you going to award somebody 75 points if they make 4 events, if so then people like Brett and myself will start out the season 75 points in the hole because we don't have enough vacation time to make 4 events. I'm sure there are other people in the same situation. Some of us actually have real jobs and a family and just can't pack up and leave town on a whim to collect 75 points. I hope the powers to be will put some thought into this.
The idea is to attract racers to a 4th event and to reward them if they come. The decision is not final on the bonus points for the four race. There have been 3 racers post opposing the 75 4th race bonus points Keith, Bret, Dwayne. We need input from the other racers. Do we keep the 4th race bonus points? Is 75 points fair?
Lonnie
I have a "Real Job" and a "Real Family" and I make sacrifices to make the Buick events. My wife may not like it but she deals with it. I want to keep the Show up points. If there is a decision to cancel the show up points then I will only hit the events where the most points can be earned. Therefore there will be less cars racing at an event. That will not be good for turnout numbers. Either you want to race in the TSM points series or you want to do something else while we're racing the TSM points series.. I agree with Lonnie make every effort to get more racers to each event.
Jason White
"The Lighter Car"
Roy Garcia send me your number in an email at V6RACER@aol.com. Thanks
Jason White
Note to potential TSM racers -
Whereas the Car Rules have been finalized (I did update the website), the format rules have not.
Concerning the extra 75 points (25 Show, 50 Qualify), this came about due to the "uproar" that the upset brought about last season. Keith went to all 4 events, won 2 of them and still didn't take home first place. Keith felt slighted that his perseverance did him "no good." I have two comments about that:
1. I agree that there should be an incentive to go to more than 3 races.
2. I had thought of this last year...
The incentive to go to the additional races is to improve upon your earlier performances. Keith benefitted last season from going to a fourth race by improving on his point total that he earned at Bowling Green (with his showing at Bristol). But as it turned out, the bonus points (earned by Bret) were an even bigger benefit. Therefore, the incremental points earned at a fourth event may not be enough incentive to get more people to go to more than 3 races.
In order to provide a guaranteed benefit to those that do attend a/the fourth event, the proposal has been made to include "goodwill(?)" 75 points from a fourth event. In my opinion, since I have been convinced that 75 points is too many, I'd like to limit the 4th race goodwill points to something like 50.
Bret won last year by 55 points. I am of the opinion that some extra points for at least showing up and trying to qualify at a/the fourth race is needed, plus it'll bring up the number of TSM point series racers. But what point maximum is fair?
Will Reynolds finally be considered for 2003 ?
Uh...its been considered all along. I cannot come up with a list of events until A) I know for sure that an event will be held and B) that the event organizer would welcome the running of TSM at their event.
Shirley, the four events from last year will be run again in 2003, but nothing is ever definite. I'd like to add Reynolds, but need confirmation on it happening again in 2003. The next thread in this topic is titled TSM Events for 2003 and brings up the idea of running at Las Vegas as well...but no one has responded to it except Jason White.