Page Options
You are here : Magazine Articles
  Minimize
16

MotoIQ Pacific Tuner Car Championship Rules
2011 Rules and Classifications

DRAFT!

1. Introduction

The MotoIQ Pacific Tuner Car Championship (MPTCC) was created to meet the needs of Sport Compact racers looking for a wheel to wheel racing series specifically tailored to accommodate modified vehicles which are currently relegated to racing uncompetitively in Unlimited classes due to the addition of common popular modifications for street tuned cars. This class is designed to unify fields of cars that currently race in or are classed un-competitively with other sanctioning organizations. This large field/open modification concept will provide racers and performance market manufacturers a creative racing class that can run nearly unlimited aftermarket-created configurations.

2. Intent

The MPTCC Rules will encourage each competitor to create an aftermarket-sourced configuration that will make their car perform at an optimum level. The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use any commercially available parts that will increase the performance and competitiveness of the vehicle and create promotional exposure for that vendor. It is the intent of the series to serve as a “showcase” for aftermarket tuners and manufacturers and to create tremendous exposure for their products and services while providing a friendly, accommodating, and challenging environment for the series drivers. This approach is intended to create a reciprocal relationship that will encourage the aftermarket tuners to give their support and attention to the competitors in the series.  Additionally, this series is intended to provide an affordable introduction to competition with an emphasis on sportsmanship and advancing driver skill. 

3. Sanctioning Body

The MPTCC will be supported and sanctioned by Redline Time Attack. All race events will be governed by the rules set forth by the MPTCC series directors and Redline Time Attack officials. All competitors agree to also abide by the rules set forth by the Redline Time Attack organization and any supplemental rules issued by the MPTCC Series Directors. Any decision made by MPTCC Series Directors regarding the status of MPTCC competitors or their vehicles is final.

4. Eligible Manufacturers/Models/Configurations

4.1 Tuner Under or TU Division

a) All production vehicles certified by the United States Department of Transportation for street use at their date of manufacture.
b) 12:1 power to weight ratio. 1900 lb minimum weight.
c) No tube frame chassis conversions will be allowed.
d) Vehicle must retain its stock unibody, and sub-frames.  Any alterations to these components must be pre approved by the Redline MotoIQ Pacific Tuner Car Series Directors.  Only alterations to improve safety will be considered, such as to install fuel cells or lowering the floor for more driver head to roll hoop clearance will be allowed.  Strut towers may be modified for the addition of camber plates.
e) The unibody may not be modified in the area between the front and rear shock towers, except where allowed in these rules.  The engine location must remain as stock and cannot be changed. If an engine swap is done, the factory firewall and crossmember cannot be altered except for minor clearancing.  Minor clearancing is moving less than 100 square inches forward, sideways or backwards less than two inches.
f) Tire cross section width is limited to 235
g) Tires must be DOT certified with a UTQG of 50 or higher. Cars must qualify and race on the same set of tires, a tire can be replaced if needed for safety reasons.
h) Brakes are open to any system commercially available to any competitor.  Carbon Carbon and MMC rotors are not allowed. Brake pad material is open.
I) Shock absorbers, springs and anti roll bars are open. Shock absorbers must stay in their stock location, for instance, converting the shocks to inboard with progressive rocker arms and push rods would not be allowed. In cabin anti roll bars are not allowed.
J) The suspension configuration must remain as stock, for instance Beam axles cannot be converted to IRS, Strut type suspension cannot be converted to multi link or A arm.  The factory suspension pick up points must be retained and used.  The pick up point locations on the factory unibody or sub-frame can be relocated within a 1 inch circle from the stock location.  Factory pick up points can be reinforced as long as the stock unibody or subframe structure remains.
k) The suspension arms and links can be replaced with adjustable aftermarket parts with spherical bearings or harder bushings if they are available for purchase by any competitor.
l) Suspension bushings may be replaced with bearings or bushings of alternative material.
m) The stock spindles and uprights must be retained.
o) Dog engagement transmissions and sequential shifters are not allowed
p) Clutches and flywheels are open
q) The stock body must remain, however aftermarket aero kits are allowed as long as they are commercially available to any competitor.  No part of the body including the aero kit can extend past the lower edge of the wheel rim at normal ride height. Any removable body panel may be replaced with composite as long as the parts are available to any competitor and the 12:1 power to weight ratio is maintained. Skinning parts of the unibody that are not removable such as the quarter panels and roof with composites is not allowed. Air dams can be modified with splitters.  The splitter cannot extend more than 6" from the base of the air-dam.  A belly pan may be used but cannot extend past the centerline of the front axles.  Rear diffusers may be used but cannot start forward of the rear axles and extend past the edge of the rear bumper. Side skirt fences cannot extend more than 2" past the lower edge of the side-skirt.
r) Rear wings are allowed; wings cannot be wider than the widest part of the body nor extend past the rear edge of the bumper nor extend above the roofline.  Wing mounts must be sturdy and solidly attached to the body or preferably the chassis.  Suspension mounted wings are not allowed.
s) Active aero is not allowed.
t) Engine modifications are open, provided that the 12:1 power to weight ratio is not exceeded. Engine swaps are allowed as long as the power to weight ratio is maintained and the unibody is not altered more than as described in section e).
u) Any commercially available transmission, differential, limited slip or differential gear ratio may be used.  Transmissions must be production based.  Racing transmissions like Extrac, G-Force, Quaife, Wiessman etc are not allowed. Constant mesh gear set conversions are not allowed. No alternative transmission gear ratios are allowed other than swapping different OEM factory gears between transmissions of the same type. No bespoke parts are allowed although different parts may be swapped from other cars as long as they are production based.

Pages: 1 of 7 Next Page

Comments

Boxed Fox
# Boxed Fox
Friday, September 17, 2010 12:18 PM
Interesting language on the rules set. I was wondering how you guys were planning to distinguish the series from catch all classes like NASA Super Touring, and this seems to do it well.

With the potential for cars of greatly varying levels of prep showing up, are there any plans for performance based handicaps? Something like the SuperGT weight handicap or the WC REWARDS system might help keep things close.

Either way, I'm very curious to see who & what shows up at the first event.
Dusty Duster
# Dusty Duster
Friday, September 17, 2010 6:42 PM
I like these rules so far. Power-to-weight ratio is a better criterion than specific modifications. It's sort of like Forza Motorsport's classes. :-P
SexyTime
# SexyTime
Friday, September 17, 2010 9:01 PM
This definitely piques my interest. With the ideas I'd like to implement into my vintage race car build, a series like this seems like the only option for me to race in. And still be somewhat competitive. I hope this goes into fruition!
gmdmsolstice
# gmdmsolstice
Sunday, September 19, 2010 11:46 AM
Since power to weight is governed, it seems to me that tire to weight is the most important thing. And since tire width is controlled, the lightest car that can fit the max tire should have an advantage. Late model mr2 or miata ftw.
gmdmsolstice
# gmdmsolstice
Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:22 PM
The more I think about it the more it seems like the TU class will be like the ST and STS SCCA autocross classes. Nobody would pay to see that. You might need a tire to weight rule to keep 1900 lb 150 hp 20 year old 4 cylinder cars from dominating.
mxpop
# mxpop
Monday, September 20, 2010 9:17 AM
"You might need a tire to weight rule to keep 1900 lb 150 hp 20 year old 4 cylinder cars from dominating. "

Shhhhh, you're giving away my dominating strategy....... ;-)
Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Monday, September 20, 2010 10:31 AM
TU is nothing like ST or STS Autocross classes. In ST and STS hardly any modifications are legal and the cars are pretty boring. The 1900 lb rule was to prevent cars like Locash and Caderhams from competing. We don't particularly want those types of cars in the series. We will see if 1900 lb 150 hp vintage cars can overcome modern and developed Honda Challenge type race cars. Stuff like this wiill make this class interesting. We may allow vintage sedans that are slightly ligher compete on a case by case basis. The main basis will be letting the vintage car run at a lower weight but not letting it have modern aero and other systems. We plan on being flexible enough so that hardly any sedan racer will be turned away but fair to all competitors.
gmdmsolstice
# gmdmsolstice
Monday, September 20, 2010 11:47 AM
I'm not trying to say that the rule sets are the same. Just the type of cars that will dominate are the same. With power to weight ratio standardized and a max tire size, I see horsepower as being a liability. Just so you have enough power, but not too much to make you add weight. The less weight that the tires have to lug around the better. But I do love the concept of the race series. My solstice is not far from the 8 to 1 ratio. I would just need some safety equipment, better suspension, and brakes, and sticker tires. Oh yea, and the whole skill thing. You know, setting up and racing a car. But that's all!! I especially love the clear path that it provides car guys to actual racing.
billshoe
# billshoe
Monday, September 20, 2010 1:22 PM
TU rules--

typical example = 2000 lbs
therefore max power = 166.67 hp

optimum engine performance as function of RPM is:

RPM power torque
2500 166.66 349.32
3000 166.66 291.10
3500 166.66 249.51
4500 166.66 194.07
5000 166.66 174.66
5240 166.66 166.66 *** power = torque with English units
5500 166.66 158.78
6000 166.66 145.55
6500 166.66 134.35

This is roughly the power curve of a wheezy 5.0 Mustang V8 with the secondary butterfly sealed shut.

Insert wheezy V8 into old Miata.

Notice this car would only use a single gear ratio.
(Good r&p ratio would eliminate the need for a transmission altogether.)
This allows uncompromised full-time left-foot braking.
It also avoids effects of gear-change nonlinearity on car dynamics.
Is this intended to be allowed?
Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Monday, September 20, 2010 2:21 PM
AWSOME!
gmdmsolstice
# gmdmsolstice
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:11 AM
How about adding a tire to weight ratio allowance. Something like this for TU:
lb tire
1900 195
2040 205
2180 215
2320 225
2460 235
2600 245
2740 255
2880 265
3020 275
3160 285
3300 295
TO could +10 to each tire size. And you could -10 or -20 for AWD
I think something like this could let the more popular cars that most big shops build parts for compete.

And instead of lb to hp ratio how about lb to hp+tq/2. I think that would help cars that are more rev happy compete. It would help the cars that have less low end power and hurt the "wheezy v8's".
Brent
# Brent
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:14 PM
I am curious about the sequential transmission rule. There is a tire allowance made for the R35 GT-R, but I did not see a transmission allowance spelled out in the rules. I only saw that sequential transmissions were not allowed. Will there be an exception for the GT-R, since it only comes with a sequential? If so, what about other cars that come withoptional sequentials, like the Evo, Porsche Turbo PDK, and BMW's?

I not a competitor, but do feel it is a fair question. And I recognize the rules are a "draft."
ChrisLock
# ChrisLock
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 5:38 PM
Hi Mike,

Can you address my concerns about the 50 treadwear limit you are going with? You can read my comments on:
http://www.timeattackforums.com/forums/redline-time-attack/3942-motoiq-com-pacific-tuner-car-championship-series-3.html

This series comes at a good time for me because I am looking for anothe series to run my car, but rules like this one make this series too similar to others for my to care to come and play. Thanks.
Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:44 PM
Brent, those transmissions are not sequential transmissions. I am talking about constant mesh racing transmissions such as Xtrac, G-Force, Quaiffe, Weiseman, etc, not OEM semi automatic transmissions.

As far as tires, I am going to change the rule to state something like cars whose OEM tires are bigger than the stated maximum sizes will be allowed to run but not exceed the OEM tire width. That should allow cars like Corvettes that have bigger tires. If these cars are proven to have an unfair advantage I will do something to rein them in. I am not sure they will as these cars also tend to be very heavy.

Chris, sorry but the 50 treadwear rating actually allows a bigger choice of longer wearing, better heat cycling tires. I am trying to keep tires like the C91 and Hoosier out of the series to allow the racers a bigger choice of longer wearing tires instead of a series where you need one of three tires that are good for fewer heat cycles to possibly win.

I personally think the series to be like no other except perhaps IMSA IS and SCCA World Challenge in their heyday but perhaps even better. I hope you change your mind and decide to come and play, we hope to see you and your family there!
Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:50 PM
Currently I am simplifying the rules, getting rid of no duh ones and clarifying some due to points brought up by you guys. I got rid of 3 pages of suff so far.
ChrisLock
# ChrisLock
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:01 AM
If you read my redline post, you would have seen my arguments as to why I believe your assertion(that allowing only >50 treadwear will save the competitors money) is a false one. I was hoping you would specifically address those points with your reasoning, and give me your reasons why YOU believe I am wrong. Since you did not, I will be clear and state them here:

1)How is it different to single out a tire brand than any other component(example, a turbo) if one brand is known to give superior performance? Should we expect you to apply this logic of perceived expense to any other areas? If so, I would say it goes against the philosophy of the series, which the rules stated as being to encourage aftermarket manufacturer participation and allow them to prove their product's worthiness.

2)This rule would only be beneficial if all the tires your refer to that are over 50 treadwear have similar wear characteristics. This is just false. If you have data to support this, I would love to see it.

I have put many of these brands that are on the table to the real test, racing in both open tire and spec tire series. Individual experiences with wear vary so much by vehicle weight and hp, and not so much by the specific compound. In a class that will, by design, have many differently weighted vehicles, if makes far more sense economically for a team to buy tires based on the needs their car.

This rule, and your statement, seem more like a legacy holdover of a sentiment held by the Redline rules makers, rather than actual fact and experience. I don't mean to be disrespectful with that statement. I only mean to ask that you engage in a debate about the subject and make sure your idea stands up to scrutiny of the actual experience of road racers, and not just because "someone told you" or "redline did it so I will too".

It is clear from your opinion of the hoosier, for example, that you seem to think it is not a long lasting tire. This reputation actually comes from the hoosier SLICK, and on old preference from SCCA GT racing. The current DOT tires have exceptional wear, exceeding that of the current RA1 and R888, for example, of which I have direct experience.

Also, the BFGR1 is perhaps the single most cost effective racing tire on the market. Even for cars weighing up to 3100lbs, the R1 has nearly the dry performance of a hoosier, but has INCREDIBLE longevity. I once had a set of R1 that ran on my 2550lb integra for no less than 3 three hour enduros. This feat is impossible with a RA1, Nitto, or hankook. I know because I have raced those tires in the same enduros. Too bad the price point is nearly the same...

By limiting tires in this fashion, I submit you will probably end up costing your competitors money, while actually not effecting the "tire war" in the least bit. It is impossible to define a set of tires in which one of them does not have superior characteristics, so why try?

In my opinion, SPEC the tire, or open it. If you want to disprove me, I would love to see some race series you used as precedent for your rule.
macidcrook
# macidcrook
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:28 AM
Im not understanding what your issues with the tire rule is.

Are you upset you cant use a tire you want to use? or that some one can use a tire better then the one you want to you use?

Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:33 AM
You are correct, I haven't personally raced competitively since 2006 and I haven't really been personally competitively involved in road racing or Time Attack since 2008.

I am open to ideas.

So what do you propose on how to handle the C91? If you open up the tire rules, it will be difficult to win on other tires.

So has the Hoosier R6 compound been revised since 2008? That is the last time I have used it. We used in for Time Attack on a 800 plus hp R32 GT-R and a 550 hp 350Z. At the time it was very fast, went away quickly, wore quickly and heat cycled poorly. In time attack it was the tire to have if you wanted to win until the C91 came out. In other words, not a tire I would think most would want in this series.

On the same 350Z the BFG seemed not to be that great and several seconds a lap slower than the C91. This was in 2008 though.

Is your opinion shared by a majority of the potential competitors? Lets discuss this. I would like to hear others speak up on their experiences. In my experience as an ex NASA series director, many people try to stubbornly lobby for their personal gain when rules are being formed. I am not saying you are doing this but I really want others to speak up on this. I am trying not to make this a short lived sticky tire series.

My intent is to have longer lasting tires to be the norm to reduce tire expense while having the series open to as many brands as possible in order to give racers the most opportunity to go after sponsors and contingency dollars..

I am all for listening if the majority of the competitors share the same opinion. I am also interested in ideas for solutions.
Mike Kojima
# Mike Kojima
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:29 AM
Lets move this discussion to our new forum for the series!

http://www.motoiq.com/forum/afv/topicsview/aff/92.aspx

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.

          MotoIQ Proudly Presents Our Partners:


Copyright 2012 by MotoIQ.com
Privacy StatementTerms Of UseAdvertise