Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster Racing Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2018, 03:43 AM   #1
Registered User
 
truegearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Richmond, VA (The Fan)
Posts: 915
Boxster Front Suspension Design Category (For Classing)

NASA's new Time Trial rules impose a penalty on cars with upper a-arms of wishbones. As an example they list Miata's, S2000s and Boxsters however I don't believe Boxster's fit into this category.

"2) If the vehicle has an OEM suspension design utilizing an upper “A-arm” or
“Wishbone” type control arm on either the front or rear suspension, a Modification
Factor will be assessed. Conversion from an alternate design to an “A-arm” or
“Wishbone” suspension design using non-OEM parts is not permitted
(front or rear)."


Miata



S2000



Boxster



I think they may have gotten confused with the 996 which does have a wishbone (or virtual a-arm) rear suspension



What do you guys think? Whats the best way to approach this argument? The penalty for a-arms is huge, almost twice as much as aero.



__________________
1997 Boxster 4.2L Audi V8 Bi-Turbo
2003 911 C2
NASA HPDE Instructor
truegearhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 03:56 AM   #2
Registered User
 
truegearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Richmond, VA (The Fan)
Posts: 915
My college professor wouldn't be proud but I'm going to bring Wikipedia in as a reference. Wikipedia defines a-arm suspension as a design that uses a top and bottom arms to control the position of the wheel. Boxsters on the other hand rely on the shock assembly to control the location of the wheel. I think this is the key difference.


"An automobiles, a double wishbone suspension is an independent suspension design using two (occasionally parallel) wishbone-shaped arms to locate the wheel. Each wishbone or arm has two mounting points to the chassis and one joint at the knuckle. The shock absorber and coil spring mount to the wishbones to control vertical movement. Double wishbone designs allow the engineer to carefully control the motion of the wheel throughout suspension travel, controlling such parameters as camber angle, caster angle, toe pattern, roll center height, scrub radius, scuff and more."
__________________
1997 Boxster 4.2L Audi V8 Bi-Turbo
2003 911 C2
NASA HPDE Instructor
truegearhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 07:21 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,006
yup, struts all around on this car, so definitely a misclassification
Quadcammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 07:56 AM   #4
Certified Boxster Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,665
I agree, the Boxster is misclassified. The Boxster is (somewhat embarrassingly) a pure strut design.
__________________
1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
1979 911 SC
POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor
thstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 03:29 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SLC
Posts: 176
Absolutely misclassified.

ST5 rules seem curiously gerrymandered to -> Miata's

I gave up with all the hp penalties, etc. A 2.5 doesn't really have a home in our NASA region unless you have a weak field in GTS2.
MaxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 04:24 PM   #6
Registered User
 
truegearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Richmond, VA (The Fan)
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxD View Post
Absolutely misclassified.

ST5 rules seem curiously gerrymandered to -> Miata's

I gave up with all the hp penalties, etc. A 2.5 doesn't really have a home in our NASA region unless you have a weak field in GTS2.
It’s an odd rule set for sure. For me the e36 M3 seems to be the car they’re making for the class. Especially considering the weight/tire limits, step mid-engine penalty, and a-arm penalty and that little waiver for allowing subframe reinforcement without penalty (which only e36s benefit from)
__________________
1997 Boxster 4.2L Audi V8 Bi-Turbo
2003 911 C2
NASA HPDE Instructor
truegearhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 07:21 AM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SLC
Posts: 176
One thing is sure, no one seems to be happy with the rules (e36 M3 guys too).
MaxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 08:55 AM   #8
Track rat
 
Topless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cucamonga CA
Posts: 3,687
Garage
Somebody is overthinking suspension during NASA rules making process. 99% of this game is wt/hp, wt/grip, and setup. Everything else is window dressing.
__________________
2009 Cayman 2.9L PDK (with a few tweaks)
PCA-GPX Chief Driving Instructor
Topless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 12:26 PM   #9
Registered User
 
truegearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Richmond, VA (The Fan)
Posts: 915
I’m glad it’s not my job, rules can’t be an easy thing but it does seem they made it harder than it had to be. I am thankful I won’t need to take that 4 wheel drive penalty, which at this class power level is doing very very little.

What are the M3 people upset about?
__________________
1997 Boxster 4.2L Audi V8 Bi-Turbo
2003 911 C2
NASA HPDE Instructor
truegearhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 05:32 AM   #10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SLC
Posts: 176
Quote:
What are the M3 people upset about?
Mostly it pertains to having run a rather noncompetitive TT4 car last year then having to ditch aero, add weight or detune to fit into TT5 or pony up the $$$ to be competitive in TT4.

The new tire width rules are not cheering anybody up either.

I'm just glad my M3 fits into ST3/TT3 with its much simpler rule set. For the Boxster I'm still undecided what to do.
MaxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2020, 07:35 PM   #11
Who's askin'?
 
maytag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxD View Post
Mostly it pertains to having run a rather noncompetitive TT4 car last year then having to ditch aero, add weight or detune to fit into TT5 or pony up the $$$ to be competitive in TT4.



The new tire width rules are not cheering anybody up either.



I'm just glad my M3 fits into ST3/TT3 with its much simpler rule set. For the Boxster I'm still undecided what to do.
Max, are you still running in nasa at all?
I'm thinking about going time trial racing.

Waddya think, with my car: TT4?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
maytag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 10:00 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SLC
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by maytag View Post
Max, are you still running in nasa at all?
I'm thinking about going time trial racing.

Waddya think, with my car: TT4?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
I raced the first two NASA events. Tim and I were killed by real GTS2 cars that came out from Colorado over the first Outer track weekend. We are now thinking of running the SPBs in ST5 since we basically will have our own group and now really don't have to make any changes to meet class with the rules as they are today.

Your S could easily be ST4/TT4. It is super competitive in NASA Utah.

You can take out quite a bit of weight I bet.

We need to have a Boxster dyno day!
__________________
PCA Intermountain Region DE Chair
MaxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 11:34 AM   #13
Who's askin'?
 
maytag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxD View Post
I raced the first two NASA events. Tim and I were killed by real GTS2 cars that came out from Colorado over the first Outer track weekend. We are now thinking of running the SPBs in ST5 since we basically will have our own group and now really don't have to make any changes to meet class with the rules as they are today.

Your S could easily be ST4/TT4. It is super competitive in NASA Utah.

You can take out quite a bit of weight I bet.

We need to have a Boxster dyno day!
Looking at the results from last weekend, my lap times (best was 1:49) would slot in 7th among the TT4 guys. The lap times range from 1:43 ("Team Hemisphere Racing" in an M3) to a 1:57. The only Boxster I see in the TT4 results is John Taylor's spec box. My lap times were 2.5 seconds faster than his, which might be all about power, with his SPB vs My 'S' with mods.
I kinda like that in TT4 I'd have some room to go learn some things.

I sent an email off to Matt Guiver. the website says I need a "NASA PAssport" showing I;ve been signed-off for each of the DE groups. But I sure can't find anyting about that NASA Passport anywhere else on the Utah region site. And I sure don't have one! haha.

Hope you're well.
and YES! We DO need a Boxster Dyno Day! Soon!
maytag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 02:23 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SLC
Posts: 176
Breaking 1:50 on East is great. That is a major barrier, good job.

Just buy your TT licence from NASA National and shoot Matt an email to approve it.

__________________
PCA Intermountain Region DE Chair
MaxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page