Tweet
I am an avid Time Trial participant, who started running TTs back in 1989, with 400+ events entered to date. I run on average 30 track events per year, and still run in 3 different Time Trial series. I have written letters to the SCCA Time Trial rules board before, always with the intent of trying to help make this relatively new series more inviting, and to attract more competitors. The early drafts of the TT rules did not sit well with me, but after a few rounds of rules changes, I came on board and have been a bit of an SCCA TT evangelist ever since.
After seeing some real momentum in this series, I committed in 2021 to build all of race cars in my shop around SCCA Time Trial classes. This was a big change for me, as NASA had been my group and TT classing of choice since 2006. Since that change in 2021 we have built and campaigned three cars for SCCA Tuner class (two entries in T2 and one in T3), and one for Max1.
Each time you build a car around a particular group and class, it is a big commitment, and is not an inexpensive choice. Not only do building these cars to SCCA TT rules cost real money, it limits the cars' competitiveness in other series.
We get a lot of phone calls from folks wanting to get into TT, and over the past few years I have struggled helping folks "class" their cars in SCCA's five Max classes, as well as my own cars. The Max classing rules seem somewhat limited by the fact that they still only use engine displacement for base classing - which I feel is highly flawed. Some cars end up with a decent shot, but many are stuck in hopelessly uncompetitive classes.
Weighing our TT3 classed 2011 GT on scales at a NASA event. We "ballasted up" to 3802 pounds to meet the limit of a class's power-to-weight ratio
Without measuring a car's actual horsepower and actual weight, this is what happens - disparity. In other racing groups that go by "end measurements" instead of just engine displacements, almost any car can be built to the "limit of the class", and picking the right car up front is not as critical. In SCCA TT, picking the right car before you build is virtually all that matters if you want to win. Starting with a car that has the engine size at the "bottom of the range" for a class, or with one that isn't super high strung / modern / has high horsepower per cubic inch is a recipe for disaster.
But I understand that weighing cars after each session and dyno'ing cars on a chassis dyno during competition adds a huge layer of cost and complexity. The SCCA rules are simpler, and that can be a good thing to many racers.
The definition and scope of a "modified" engine is also kind of weird in Max terms. A simple change outside of what Tuner allows (essentially that limits you to exhaust and cold air updates) might make 8 horsepower (a throttle body change), or 80 horsepower (aftermarket heads and a camshaft change). I mean, if you are taking a full Max class jump, you don't want to make a small change, right? This incentivizes people to make some potentially bad decisions, trying to justify the Max class jump. Such are the ramifications from not measuring power.
Currently there are five Max classes. Max 5 is for cars with engines up to 1.9L displacement, Max 4 is 2.0-2.9L, Max 3 is 3.0-4.5L, Max 2 is 4.6 to 6.4L, and Max 1 is 6.4L and up. But, "modify" any of the engines (beyond Tuner legal mods) and your car jumps up one class. A single power adder (turbo / supercharger) adds 1 class, two power adders jumps 2. Seems simple, but what about two engines with the same displacement that make wildly different power in stock form? Some of these examples I will show differ by extreme amounts.
In the past we ran a 1997 M3 in NASA Time Trial and had a great time, even set a couple of NASA TT class track records. We currently have the opportunity to build a 3.0L powered 1995 BMW M3 for Max, but it falls into SCCA Max 3, due to the displacement rules. If it had a 2.9L it would go to Max 4. There's a big, big difference between Max 3 and Max 4.
US Spec E36 M3 engines (at left) made 240 hp. The Euro spec M3 engines of the same displacement were 316 hp, and quite different
The somewhat underwhelming US spec 1990s "E36" BMW M3 models had 3.0L and 3.2L engines, but at 240 hp neither was much of a powerhouse. We could swap in (at great expense) an unmodified Euro M3 model 3.0L - which makes 76 more at 316 hp in stock form - and still be Max 3 legal with this car if we didn't "modify" it. Or use an unmodified S54 3.2L from an E46 M3, which makes 333 hp - again, at great expense. If we keep the US model's original 1995 M3s 240 hp 3.0L engine, however, the same car is still in Max3 but massively uncompetitive. Are OEM engine swaps outside of a model's original lineup even allowed? The Max rules don't say one way or another.
The 3150 pound E36 M3 models with either the 3.0L (1995) or 3.2L (1996-99, and same 240 horsepower rating) would be much better suited in Max 4 against cars like the S2000 (2.0L and 2.2L), which have a similar weight (slightly better, in fact) but the exact same 240 hp. And in NASA Time Trial TT4 class, the E36 M3 goes head-to-head with the S2000, and has parity good parity.
In SCCA TT, the E36 M3 in a similar level of prep as NASA TT4 (suspension, aero, and similar power outputs and weight), that 240 hp M3 goes up against a Porsche 911 GT3RS, which makes 518 hp. How is this even possible? Hard set "displacement rules" for car classing don't always work.
The modern 4.0L 911 GT3 RS ($241K) makes 518 hp. This is more than double the power of the 1995-99 M3 engines (240) and yet these race in the same Max 3 class (these are not legal in Sport or Tuner categories, so they go straight to Max). We have seen more than a few Max3 classed 911 GT3 RS models running at and even setting FTD at local Texas Region SCCA TT events, and all of us were scratching our heads ? how does this quarter million dollar supercar end up in Max 3?
This obvious overdog in Max 3 class, along with some others, are keeping us from building our 3.0L E36 M3 for Max3 class. It would be slaughtered. We have a number of GT3 and GT3 RS Porsches that show up in Max locally (Texas Region SCCA), so this is not some theoretical worry.
How do we fix this? Well there are numerous engines / car models that straddle the lines between Max classes and get left out of the hope of competitiveness with these fixed displacement rules. Just like the Sport Exclusion List, why not have a list of engines / car models where you modify the base Max class for that car or powerplant? Some go up, others go down.
For instance, I feel strongly that some cars like the GT3 / GT3 RS cars need to be "up-classed" by at least 1 class in Max (to start in at least Max2, if not Max1), and these older cars like the 3.0-3.2L 1995-99 M3s could do well to go down a class (start in Max 4). These older engines just do not have a much "untapped potential" with Tuner legal mods (which is all that is allowed in Max to stay in their base Max class). The E36 M3 in Max 4 would not be an overdog, not hardly, but it would at least be "in the hunt".
The SCCA TT classing committee could add exceptions for a handful of car model or powerplant listings for base Max classing, starting with user input, then verified with research and discussion (like they do for everything else). This would work better than relying 100% on these hard set displacement limits, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for reading,
Terry Fair, SCCA Member #338999
After seeing some real momentum in this series, I committed in 2021 to build all of race cars in my shop around SCCA Time Trial classes. This was a big change for me, as NASA had been my group and TT classing of choice since 2006. Since that change in 2021 we have built and campaigned three cars for SCCA Tuner class (two entries in T2 and one in T3), and one for Max1.
Each time you build a car around a particular group and class, it is a big commitment, and is not an inexpensive choice. Not only do building these cars to SCCA TT rules cost real money, it limits the cars' competitiveness in other series.
We get a lot of phone calls from folks wanting to get into TT, and over the past few years I have struggled helping folks "class" their cars in SCCA's five Max classes, as well as my own cars. The Max classing rules seem somewhat limited by the fact that they still only use engine displacement for base classing - which I feel is highly flawed. Some cars end up with a decent shot, but many are stuck in hopelessly uncompetitive classes.
Weighing our TT3 classed 2011 GT on scales at a NASA event. We "ballasted up" to 3802 pounds to meet the limit of a class's power-to-weight ratio
Without measuring a car's actual horsepower and actual weight, this is what happens - disparity. In other racing groups that go by "end measurements" instead of just engine displacements, almost any car can be built to the "limit of the class", and picking the right car up front is not as critical. In SCCA TT, picking the right car before you build is virtually all that matters if you want to win. Starting with a car that has the engine size at the "bottom of the range" for a class, or with one that isn't super high strung / modern / has high horsepower per cubic inch is a recipe for disaster.
But I understand that weighing cars after each session and dyno'ing cars on a chassis dyno during competition adds a huge layer of cost and complexity. The SCCA rules are simpler, and that can be a good thing to many racers.
The definition and scope of a "modified" engine is also kind of weird in Max terms. A simple change outside of what Tuner allows (essentially that limits you to exhaust and cold air updates) might make 8 horsepower (a throttle body change), or 80 horsepower (aftermarket heads and a camshaft change). I mean, if you are taking a full Max class jump, you don't want to make a small change, right? This incentivizes people to make some potentially bad decisions, trying to justify the Max class jump. Such are the ramifications from not measuring power.
Currently there are five Max classes. Max 5 is for cars with engines up to 1.9L displacement, Max 4 is 2.0-2.9L, Max 3 is 3.0-4.5L, Max 2 is 4.6 to 6.4L, and Max 1 is 6.4L and up. But, "modify" any of the engines (beyond Tuner legal mods) and your car jumps up one class. A single power adder (turbo / supercharger) adds 1 class, two power adders jumps 2. Seems simple, but what about two engines with the same displacement that make wildly different power in stock form? Some of these examples I will show differ by extreme amounts.
In the past we ran a 1997 M3 in NASA Time Trial and had a great time, even set a couple of NASA TT class track records. We currently have the opportunity to build a 3.0L powered 1995 BMW M3 for Max, but it falls into SCCA Max 3, due to the displacement rules. If it had a 2.9L it would go to Max 4. There's a big, big difference between Max 3 and Max 4.
US Spec E36 M3 engines (at left) made 240 hp. The Euro spec M3 engines of the same displacement were 316 hp, and quite different
The somewhat underwhelming US spec 1990s "E36" BMW M3 models had 3.0L and 3.2L engines, but at 240 hp neither was much of a powerhouse. We could swap in (at great expense) an unmodified Euro M3 model 3.0L - which makes 76 more at 316 hp in stock form - and still be Max 3 legal with this car if we didn't "modify" it. Or use an unmodified S54 3.2L from an E46 M3, which makes 333 hp - again, at great expense. If we keep the US model's original 1995 M3s 240 hp 3.0L engine, however, the same car is still in Max3 but massively uncompetitive. Are OEM engine swaps outside of a model's original lineup even allowed? The Max rules don't say one way or another.
The 3150 pound E36 M3 models with either the 3.0L (1995) or 3.2L (1996-99, and same 240 horsepower rating) would be much better suited in Max 4 against cars like the S2000 (2.0L and 2.2L), which have a similar weight (slightly better, in fact) but the exact same 240 hp. And in NASA Time Trial TT4 class, the E36 M3 goes head-to-head with the S2000, and has parity good parity.
In SCCA TT, the E36 M3 in a similar level of prep as NASA TT4 (suspension, aero, and similar power outputs and weight), that 240 hp M3 goes up against a Porsche 911 GT3RS, which makes 518 hp. How is this even possible? Hard set "displacement rules" for car classing don't always work.
The modern 4.0L 911 GT3 RS ($241K) makes 518 hp. This is more than double the power of the 1995-99 M3 engines (240) and yet these race in the same Max 3 class (these are not legal in Sport or Tuner categories, so they go straight to Max). We have seen more than a few Max3 classed 911 GT3 RS models running at and even setting FTD at local Texas Region SCCA TT events, and all of us were scratching our heads ? how does this quarter million dollar supercar end up in Max 3?
This obvious overdog in Max 3 class, along with some others, are keeping us from building our 3.0L E36 M3 for Max3 class. It would be slaughtered. We have a number of GT3 and GT3 RS Porsches that show up in Max locally (Texas Region SCCA), so this is not some theoretical worry.
How do we fix this? Well there are numerous engines / car models that straddle the lines between Max classes and get left out of the hope of competitiveness with these fixed displacement rules. Just like the Sport Exclusion List, why not have a list of engines / car models where you modify the base Max class for that car or powerplant? Some go up, others go down.
For instance, I feel strongly that some cars like the GT3 / GT3 RS cars need to be "up-classed" by at least 1 class in Max (to start in at least Max2, if not Max1), and these older cars like the 3.0-3.2L 1995-99 M3s could do well to go down a class (start in Max 4). These older engines just do not have a much "untapped potential" with Tuner legal mods (which is all that is allowed in Max to stay in their base Max class). The E36 M3 in Max 4 would not be an overdog, not hardly, but it would at least be "in the hunt".
The SCCA TT classing committee could add exceptions for a handful of car model or powerplant listings for base Max classing, starting with user input, then verified with research and discussion (like they do for everything else). This would work better than relying 100% on these hard set displacement limits, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for reading,
Terry Fair, SCCA Member #338999
Comment