TSM rule propaganda clarifications and changes.

Race Jace

Research, New Tech and Development
Staff member
I would just like to address some things that have happened lately and explain my position on them. I have been accused of having some kind of behind the scene agenda with the rules concerning TSM. This is NOT true.

I have not talked to a single G.S.C.A official about TSM issues. There has not been any contact via e-mail or phone conversations. Because most TSM racers have been a customer of mine in the past, I have at my finger tips every single name and phone number of every TSM participant that has participated in TSM at the GS.Nats since it’s inception in 2002. Because of my business of course I talk to them all year. Have I called a single person to rally the troops? No. Have I talked to anyone concerning TSM rules? Really only one lately but after the closing of the rule change deadline of which I informed him that any of his suggestions or positions can only be addressed in 2007. With this being said, me having a personal agenda concerning the rules is just absurd. Is discussing the rules illegal? Is it illegal before or after the deadline? Is telling a fellow TSM competitor that has an opinion about intercoolers that he should have the right to submit this opinion for consideration not allowed? I really don’t understand the accusations. I have my opionions, but with this issue they are irrelevant at this point.

The truth, some of you seem to be on a witch hunt. You have to blame someone for rule clarifications that did not seem to be 100% beneficial toward a select few.

If there is no “person” on a crusade to modify the rules, how could this have happened?

Let me try and explain for those few of you that seem to be so narrow sighted. The TSM class has been wildly successful. What is the definition of successful? The answer is participation. It has had the most participation of any class. Why have there been so many participants up to this point? Because the class was evenly matched. Half of the 24 car field was within a half of a second in e.t. and the e.t. That defined the class was at an achievable performance level. This meant that it could have been anyone’s day to shine. This is what made it so enticing. Until recently there were no mega dollar cars with unlimited budgets running outrageous untouchable E.T.s Although this is exciting to read about and to watch this performance at it’s most extreme level it will absolutely kill the class and what makes the class so enticing to participate in.

Luckily there are a few people in higher up places (I don’t mean me by any means) that can see beyond the hood of one car. They are concerned with where this class is going and where the competitive performance level is going to be set. Some people view it as “they are always trying to slow us down”. This is not really the issue; they want the most participation and a closer field, that is what makes a class fun to race, exciting to watch and enticing for future participants.

If there is one incident that stands out that contributed the most on the decision of what to do with distributors it would have to be last years nationals. During peer tech there was quite a controversy of wither or not this part was legal. It appeared that everything possible was done to try and somehow disqualify it, not necessarily the car or person, from competition. (Although I agreed but I was not behind the scrutiny) It was concluded that there really was a loophole and there was not a rule against it so it has to be allowed. It would have to be addressed in next year’s rules. This very car that was the focus of the commotion easily qualified way beyond the rest of the field and easily slaughtered the class. Was the distributor solely to blame? Not entirely but as a result a few other cars have deemed it absolutely necessary to make this modification. Since it was the center of peer tech controversy and this car’s performance was so superior to the rest of the field why wouldn’t you think that this issue would be addressed? That is just common sense. Would the ruling have been differently based solely on the performance of this car? Of course. There is always a consequence to any car in any sanctioned racing event that has an advantage over the rest of the competitors, if these advantages are not addressed they are ultimately the demise of the class or sanction. Looking at the facts behind this yes there was one car that contributed to most to the decision of what to do with the distributor…..

There are some things that really need to be addressed. The main one is TSM rule submittal and evaluation protocol. There is not a standardized way of submitting rule changes and having participants (all of the participants) contribute to each and every ruling. Posting one post on one bulletin board under the subtitle of the Indy race is NOT acceptable. I do not have the answer to how to do this but it really needs to be addressed. I don’t know exactly when the deadline for the proposed new rules has to be made by but I personally feel that it should be at the end of the previous year. I think this should also be discussed by all.


I will only discuss this on a professional level. Any name calling, unwarrented personal attacks on me or my bussiness will not be tolerated.
 
I would like to discuss some of your fact-based points below:
Race Jace said:
The TSM class has been wildly successful. What is the definition of successful? The answer is participation. It has had the most participation of any class. Why have there been so many participants up to this point? Because the class was evenly matched. Half of the 24 car field was within a half of a second in e.t. and the e.t. that defined the class was at an achievable performance level. This meant that it could have been anyone’s day to shine.
You nailed that Jason! And as I recall, you were the man to beat in year one. Obviously you must have more of the times run that year available to you but what Lonnie and I have noticed over the last four years (attending 4 or more events a year) is that everyone is stepping up their game and going faster, and that the field is getting tighter every year.

Race Jace said:
Until recently there were no mega dollar cars with unlimited budgets running outrageous untouchable E.T.s
I would have to respectfully disagree. Dave Bamford was one of the first three people to enter the innaugral 2002 TSM points chase. His first pass at Norwalk that year was a 10.20 that cut up a slick to the point that he was done for the weekend. Roy Garcia showed up the next year and started a 2 year stint of putting the TSM world on fire for iron headed cars. As I recall, he and Dave battled it out in Reynolds 2003, both throwing down some 9.50's. If you think Roy did that on a shoestring budget you are mistaken. In 2004 Dick Kearney joined the crowd. You wanna discuss whether his car is or is not "mega dollar"?

Race Jace said:
Luckily there are a few people in higher up places <snip> that can see beyond the hood of one car. They are concerned with where this class is going and where the competitive performance level is going to be set.
I am one of the people concerned with the speed of these cars and was more than glad to memorialize the 3.5" downpipe rule in the point series as an attempt to "choke off some of the potential of these motors. What I hear from TSM Point Seris racers more than any other comment, is that they want the rules left alone. As such, the only thing different for 2006 for the point series was to clarify in writing that distributors are allowed (as they fit the original definition of Factory Stock Appearing '81-'87 Regal items, that the GS club wisely added to their heads up class rules a long time ago), I deleted some language regarding safety issues (it is not my job to tell a racer that his car is or is not legally safe to race) and clarified that CO2 is legal to use.

race jace said:
If there is one incident that stands out that contributed the most on the decision of what to do with distributors<snip>
Yes there was quite a bit of discussion about the dstributor, but by year's end, the controversy had died down and no one proposed a ban on such piece. Add to that the fact that there are at least 6 people that have converted to distributors for next year's TSM races.

There are some things that really need to be addressed. The main one is TSM rule submittal and evaluation protocol. There is not a standardized way of submitting rule changes and having participants (all of the participants) contribute to each and every ruling.
Please advise as to whether you are referring to the rules at Bowling Green or the TSM Point Series. The GS CA did create a specific procedure this summer. Like its posting of the Heads Up rules prior to the BG event, its announcement of the new procedure was done over the internet. As the new TSM Race Rules Administrator, I posted in the GS Nationals Race section of the club's bulleting board announcing my selection as such and solicited comments about the TSM rules on the club's bulleting board (actually I just copied the post that the new TSS RRA had posted in the same forum.) For the point series, I posted the proposals for 2006 on T6P for everyone to see and comment thereon (instead of only including the registered point series racers as had been done in previous years.) I too have many phone numbers in my address book and talked to several TSM racers over the year on the phone. Some of those discussions led to clarifications in the rules for the Point Series...but no outright performance-effecting rule changes.

As the TSM RRA for the Bowling Green event, I did not receive any comments about TSM rule changes for that race. So when the deadline passed, I sent an e-mail to the Race Rules Chairman (as the club requested me to do) stating that there were NO changes submitted and, by way of courtesy, I included the TSM Point Series rules in a Word document to point out the clarifications that were being identified for the Series.

So the quesiton remains, if someone/anyone was interested in having a rule or rules changed, why didn't they say so? My phone number is posted on the old gnttype-TSM website, my e-mail addresses are well-known and lots of the Ohio racers know where I live (semi-annual get togethers). Not only am I not hard to contact, I love to talk Buicks with people. :)
 
I am not blaming you Scott for the problems with the rule change procedures. I am just as much to blame as anyone for not knowing. I am suggesting that we standardize it and make it easier for us all. Maybe put a sticky on all of the websights with a link of where the discussions are talking place. something like that.

My quoted race experieces are based on what has been seen by me in BG over the years. i really do not know details of the other happenings as i am somewhat geographically challenged. ;)
 
Well, here's my 2 cents worth....

Not sure what all the name calling & witch hunting is about, but it is NOT needed in ANY part of the Buick club or BB's. Stuff happens & people need to deal with it on an adult professional level, or just keep opinions to yourself.

As for the TSM class, it IS a super class that became so popular do to the more lenient rules & realistic potential, which allowed many more competitors in. I would have been in it with my car in 1999-2000 if the class existed. My car always had a few issues that forced me out of the heads up stuff & into bracket 1. No biggie, just missed the fun due to tight rules.

Well now the rules are SO open, people are figuring out the "loopholes" and also figuring out how to make more power within the rules. As for limiting power outputs, been done all over for years. Indy, Nascar, NHRA, etc. Got to keep things realistic to ensure safety and more. What good is 8.90 potential on a TSM car if the block falls apart at 9.30 (or is much more likely to)? I had ALWAYS made mention that the 70 turbo was too big for the class, and still think a 63 series would make things MORE competitive & more a "street" class, with less down-time at the track cleaning up crank & rods. Things like limiting the DP & other items that may increase power but also have the potential to reduce breakage (less backpressure) and CO2 spray (less detonation) would seem to make more sense to keep the class fast than allow even bigger turbos or other stuff. On the flip side, my 1997 4" DP never did look that stock, but the distributor & other stuff doesn't either.

It all boils down to where the class is going. I personally would like to see it kept in the 9.5 to 10.2 range potential by limiting turbo and or other big items. This will keep it competitive & exciting, and not seem unobtainable to newcomers. I would also like to see any items (like alcohol, CO2, etc) that were specifically designed to help a street car be allowed. These things HELP all our cars go fast, and intice us manufacturers (including RJC) to come up with new & innovative products to keep us ALL going fast with class.

I never did see the benefit or really understand why the GS CA had a separate TSM setup that the actual TSM point series. I can't believe the 2 can't come to some sort of agreement to make running the entire year at different tracks easier to follow & be legal for. Just seems to be hurting & not helping anything, but may not be possible for reasons I don't know.

As for rule changes, proposals, etc, what about following the setup NHRA has for the comp classes? They have been doing it for years, seem to have it figured out by mow :) It DOES need to be in 1 central location for all to easily contribute to & be notified of, or it will lead to mass confusion & upset participants.

Hope my ramblings & opinions help out somehow. I just think if the class is allowed to proceed to more than 2 cars in the sub-9.4 range, it will keep the masses from ever considering it. It still may be popular due to enough people wanting to (and able to) be at that level, but who drives them on the street? Last time I checked, it was turbo STREET modified, NOT turbo STRIP modified :D At the low 9 level, you only run the full passes when you have to, and don't take it out any more than you need to, or it won't last. Who benefits from that??
 
Body styles...

I've got a friend building a car for TSM... It's exciting to watch what's going on with the class and his build up.
I've been doing the hybrid thing and was wondering if there is a similar class for stock block cars in different bodys? I'm useing the 82-92 Camaro body with the Buick engine.
Why couldn't I get into the TSM class if I meet the minimum requirement for weight and all the other engine requirements? What's not fair about that?
Maby they could make a stock block Hybrid class seeing as they are getting more popular.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Scott~
 
UR50SLO said:
I've got a friend building a car for TSM... It's exciting to watch what's going on with the class and his build up.
I've been doing the hybrid thing and was wondering if there is a similar class for stock block cars in different bodys? I'm useing the 82-92 Camaro body with the Buick engine.
Why couldn't I get into the TSM class if I meet the minimum requirement for weight and all the other engine requirements? What's not fair about that?
Maby they could make a stock block Hybrid class seeing as they are getting more popular.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Scott~

Aerodynamics.


I for one would love to compete in some of these classes, but my car doesn't fit either. Even though it is a Regal, it isn't a Turbo Regal. At least not originally. I would like to be able to compete, but it doesn't fit the rules, and that is fine. I chose this body style, and I'll live with my choice. The reason the body style is a requirement, is because aerodynamics are different on certain cars. Wheel base, can make a difference too, and so on. My car is a Regal, and has the same wheel base and frame, so why can't my car be allowed then? It obviously doesn't have aerodynamic advantages, and it certainly isn't lighter. Well, I do have an advantage, it has better weight transfer. There are just too many variables to account for when you start changing the actual car that is being raced. And, weight penalties aren't the answer either, because how do you put a number on something like CD or weight transfer, or wheel base, or what not? You can't. I would like to see a Hybrid class myself. I would be all over that, but I just don't see enough participation, unfortunately.
That's just my take on it.
 
wagon said:
I for one would love to compete in some of these classes, but my car doesn't fit either. Even though it is a Regal, it isn't a Turbo Regal. At least not originally. I would like to be able to compete, but it doesn't fit the rules, and that is fine. <snip>
Brian - I do not see why your car would not fit in the TSM rules. The FSA definition includes:

A factory stock appearing part is a GM part originally delivered on a 1981 to 1987 Buick Regal....

I think I told you at one point "No", but do not recall why? Lemme know if you wanna run in TSM and I'll work with you. :smile:
 
I thought that the body had to be a Turbo Regal Body, and since turbo was not available in the wagon, it was excluded. I never pushed it, because it looked like you guys had alot of other issues to deal with and didn't need one more. If the body style is allowed, then I would be a little behind in since I figured there would be no reason to look into it more, but I would definately consider competing joining up. Let me llok at the rules a little closer and see if my other stuff is legal, or close enough that I can change it. Thanks.
 
Scott231 said:
Actually they changed that rule last year to allow any size downpipe.

they actually clarified the rule, in years past the rule read;

"Any single or dual exhaust system allowed. Must muffle and exit in the stock location (3.5" max size)."

It did not say anything about the downpipe specifically. for the simplicity sake they allowed any size down pipe. This was clarified before I ever designed a 5" DP. The clarification actually is what inspired the part. Now if we could just get the series rules to match the **** rules, a complete down pipe would be worth pursuing
 
Sweeet a Wagon in TSM....!!!!! :biggrin:

I hope that works out...I love wagons..
Currently restoring a 67Chevelle wagon..
Good luck with the build...
Hope someone can organize a hybrid class...
I relay have no use for bracket racing..
Thanks,
Scott~
 
I love them too. I have an 83 Malibu that is going to get the same treatment, and a little more. Eventually. I have had it for about 3 years, and I think I finally have everything that I need to get it done, except time that is.
It would be nice if it works out, but I have been going under the assumption all along that it didn't fit the criteria, and I still chose to race this and not my GN, so, what happens happens. If it does fit then that is even better, if it doesn't, then at least I don't have any limitations to what I can do to it. Oh yeah, I do. My wallet is always empty. :D
 
Back
Top