PDA

View Full Version : Super Touring is IT



RX3
12-18-2008, 12:08 PM
Has anyone looked at the new Super Touring rules? Super Touring is the new name for the old B and D Prepared classes. The restrictors have been removed and the cars have been classed on a cubic centimeter (CC) per pound bases. STO is for 3.0 liters and above. STU is 3.0 liters and below. These two classes have National racing status and all IT cars 1985 and newer are eligible. These classes only need 180 entries this year to be eligible for the 2010 Runoffs.

Knestis
12-18-2008, 01:11 PM
It'll never fly. It's a category based on expediency and politicking rather than any kind of strategic planning or vision. Doomed, I tell you.

K

Speed Raycer
12-18-2008, 01:27 PM
The only way I see it really flying is IT guys double dipping for seat time OR guys that run with other sanctioning bodies dropping by for a weekend where they're not running in ITE or SP. The only real neat part for me is that some of the high dollar ITE guys will possibly step out and I'll get an extra lap or two per race ;)

924Guy
12-18-2008, 01:42 PM
Nice thought...

...if you've got a new car...

Haven't even been bothering to watch this noise, really.

jhooten
12-18-2008, 01:47 PM
Damn, now I have to figure out how to put the dash back in the ITE car.

SLUF
12-18-2008, 05:12 PM
The Scott team will be one of those double dipping in STU/IT7 with our POS-7 in Midiv for 2009. No chance in hell of being competitive if "real" ST cars show up but the fun factor should be pretty high. Along with the closing speeds! Trey will run in IT7 and dear old dad will run STU. We'll keep at it as long as the car holds up. With the winter mods we have planned we may even surprise a car or two along the way.

If it is an attempt to garner more entries and seat time from IT racers then the club hit the target dead on with us and our situation. We were extremely excited to see the year rollback to 1985 as that now encompasses our entire race car fleet, the 1985 POS-7, a 1985 BMW 325e under construction, and a 1988 Porsche 944S project. All will get prepped to IT specs primarily and then run ST if the class lasts any length of time.

tom_sprecher
12-18-2008, 05:20 PM
It'll never fly. It's a category based on expediency and politicking rather than any kind of strategic planning or vision. Doomed, I tell you.

K

I love expediency and politicking and am constantly using it to overcome strategic planning and vision. How else am I supposed to I make a living in sales? ;)

This could solve my 12A housing dilemma. 1985 and newer? I'm out unless that new VIN rule lumps my car into that spec line. How does that work again?

tom_sprecher
12-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Tom, I just saw your post on IT.com. For some reason I am locked out of the site and can not post. There is no VIN rule in Super Touring, so if the last year of a certain model was built in 1985 they all are in. You could street port your 13B or put a Renisis in. Please post this on IT.com for me.

Peter Keane
SCCA CRB

pkeane2
12-18-2008, 06:17 PM
Thanks Tom, I am back under a new name. STU is going to be a good class.

Jhooten, the rules say you can peice part the dash back in. PK

pkeane2
12-18-2008, 06:19 PM
Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

xr4racer
12-18-2008, 06:54 PM
Peter, nice to meet you at the SCCA "meeting" at the PRI in Fla. I think once people understand that this is by far the easiest way to go National racing it will takeoff. Most on this site already have an eligible car, now you can do many other modifications and race at a different weight. How many years have some IT racers wanted IT to be a national class? I never did, but for those that did here is your chance. If there are 175 or so entries (2.5 per National) for STO and the same for STU in 2009 the classes will be included in the 2010 Runoffs at Road America. I would think that for IT people who normally race at Road America this is a no brainer. It will be tough to get entries this year because the Runoffs can not happen until 2010, but if some people enter their home track national races for more track time the Runoffs in 2010 will finally have IT cars.

Matt Miller

JoshS
12-18-2008, 07:11 PM
I've gotta disagree, Matt.

This isn't a national IT class. It's one thing to "give it a go" in your IT car, but as soon as some cars built to the ruleset show up, it will cease to be fun. Actually converting an IT car to the ST rules in order to compete with those people would be very expensive and then you wouldn't have an IT car anymore.

With all due respect, Peter, I can't understand why the board would think that creating a new ruleset (and then re-creating it 2 years later) is more likely to result in some form of successful jolt to the national program than just allowing a bunch of existing well-built cars, that are built to a well-regulated ruleset, and driven well by active club racing members into the national program. The math just doesn't work for me.

Knestis
12-18-2008, 08:55 PM
Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

The politicking is in the class's very existence. It's a solution to a problem that hasn't been clearly defined. Or maybe (a) it just hasn't been explained, or (b) I'm just slow to catch on. And to be fair, my bias - based on my experience - is that classes that get created to "give XXX a place to race" don't generally have much success. Include in that, classes that exist but get other cars catch-all'd into them.

Classes that are thought out with some kind of strategy in mind - or changes that are strategic responses to new opportunities, like the superbike-based DSR movement - hang in there.

Ultimately, I'll bet that the genesis of BP/DP can be traced back to a tiny handful of drivers who had the ear of someone with clout, and said, "Gee, I think it would be really awesome if I had a place to race this cool bastard car that I bought. Oh, yeah - and it would be a plus if I could do Nationals and get to go to the RunOffs." SURELY, it wasn't the result of someone sitting down and doing an analysis of how many ex World Challenge cars were sitting idle, and deciding that there was a better-than-even chance that they'd strum up enough of them to make a viable category.

I say this because the class was still brand new when people started tossing in other options to fill the fields - namely, IT. Now a name change. It just wasn't very well planned out, was it?

K

Knestis
12-18-2008, 09:00 PM
I've gotta disagree, Matt. ...

And not surprisingly, "me too!"

Any analysis of options, costs, whatever has got to compare apples and apples - 100%, top-flight cars. Either (a) the category will be a flop, in which case it won't matter; or (b) it will be a success - at which point people will want to be competitive. Competition drives costs to competitive right up to match the guy/gal who's willing to spend the most dough.

K

xr4racer
12-18-2008, 09:27 PM
I did not want IT to go National, look at what happenned in Spec Miata. The first year SM was a national class there were tons of cars, then the reality set in. It became apparent to many that it was not that fun running 20th-dfl at nationals and it would take a whole lot of money to move up. Throughout the season entries dropped because many figured they would not accumulate enough points to go to the runoffs. The haves stayed in nationals and the have nots returned to regionals over the last few years.
I am only saying that if someone wants to try a national or just run at their hometrack more than at the regionals it is now a possibility. Also since NASA decided to take their Championships a couple of thousand miles west away from their recently grown base in the Midwest, this may give many NASA drivers a chance to run with th SCCA since many of their cars are beyond IT prep rules.
I also know that like in the SM case once real STO and STU cars show up the cost to be competitive skyrockets. Maybe over the next few years people will build purpose built cars to the rules and the class will succeed. If that happens what is wrong with the plan. We need all of the entries we can get.
The move to Topeka and the economy has decimated national racing in the Great Lakes and Northeast. It only takes 5 entries per national to make it one of the most successful National classes.
The best change is that the new rules are written to allow the STO class to run without SIR's ( which I deal with in GTL). It is very easy for someone that has a car that they want to modify more than allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock to run faster and still run Nationals

matt

JoshS
12-18-2008, 09:46 PM
The best change is that the new rules are written to allow the STO class to run without SIR's ( which I deal with in GTL). It is very easy for someone that has a car that they want to modify more than allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock to run faster and still run Nationals

matt
But who are those people that want to do that? I keep my fingers pretty close to the pulse of the SS/T community and a think a huge majority want to restrict changes and make things cheaper. They're not looking for a place to make more mods to the same car and still play (except for the C5 Corvette guys who want to switch to a brake package that will last more than half a weekend.) SS guys don't even want to adopt T rules because they don't want to pay for shocks!

I just don't know where the cars built to that rule set are going to come from. I hear you that MAYBE you could get some east coast NASA crossover. Is that enough for a new national class?

Z3_GoCar
12-18-2008, 10:18 PM
I've gotta disagree, Matt.

This isn't a national IT class. It's one thing to "give it a go" in your IT car, but as soon as some cars built to the ruleset show up, it will cease to be fun. Actually converting an IT car to the ST rules in order to compete with those people would be very expensive and then you wouldn't have an IT car anymore.

With all due respect, Peter, I can't understand why the board would think that creating a new ruleset (and then re-creating it 2 years later) is more likely to result in some form of successful jolt to the national program than just allowing a bunch of existing well-built cars, that are built to a well-regulated ruleset, and driven well by active club racing members into the national program. The math just doesn't work for me.

Hey Josh,

For us it might actually break even being ITR or going full bore STU:

STU:
2795 * 1.1 = 3075

ITR:
2800lbs

That's a 275lb weight break for not running cams, or getting a rear wing, or a custom multi-link. In the case of a 2.5, the break is definetly for STU where STU and ITR e-36 325 are both 2750, and with a 330 is close to the same at 3278.

JoshS
12-18-2008, 10:33 PM
James, you have to assume that the "real" STU car that shows up is the best package for the ruleset, not the same car as your ITR car. It'll probably be something around 2000cc (2200 lbs) that makes the same or more power as an ITR car (up to about 250hp), and it'll handle way better, have a much stiffer chassis, and have aerodynamic aids.

It doesn't matter what ITR car shows up against that thing ... the ITR car won't win.

titanium
12-18-2008, 11:55 PM
Super Touring is IT?
Answer - NO

Can you take your ITO, ITR, ITS, ITE, and run with a World Challenge GT or TC?
Answer - NO

As an IT racer that raced in the very first BP race at Sebring in January '07, and the very last one in November '08, I can tell you there is no way you can kid yourself in to thinking that you have any shot against a current WC team.

Brandon Davis is reported to have spent 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS of his own money building & developing EACH MUSTANG.

However, if you accept that you dont have a chance on outright speed, you can have a pretty good time and win some races when the WC teams dont show or break.

Also, you get to do some pretty cool mods to your car that IT racers can only dream about. Such as: Strech the wheelbase. Custom design your own rear suspension and not have to worry about using roll bar padding as your bushing material:D and an ifninite number of attachment points on your roll cage.

One side benifit to racing in BP/STO, I get a lot of compliments on my Mustang from 'ordinary' people at the track.
No 'ordinary' person ever came up to me an said, 'nice RX7'.
('ordinary' = non-racer)

Z3_GoCar
12-19-2008, 12:03 AM
James, you have to assume that the "real" STU car that shows up is the best package for the ruleset, not the same car as your ITR car. It'll probably be something around 2000cc (2200 lbs) that makes the same or more power as an ITR car (up to about 250hp), and it'll handle way better, have a much stiffer chassis, and have aerodynamic aids.

It doesn't matter what ITR car shows up against that thing ... the ITR car won't win.

To get the full allowance of the rules, you'd have to start out with either a solid axle or semi-trailing arms, then transplant the rear suspension from a formula car ( fabricated suspension option.) The car would need a two liter option too. There's not a weight break for front wheel drive, so that's probably out at the 250hp level (maybe.) The stated purpose for allowing WC/TC cars, would also put them at a distict disadvantage too. According to the current VTS sheet for the TC e46 325 it should weigh 2750lbs with a speced stock cam, and ferrous flywheel, same as an ITR e36 325. Rules are silent on intake manifolds, so that's got to remain stock, and fuel injectors have to be in the stock location. So probably, unless the motor makes close to 200hp stock (probably with revs) there's not much chance for a 2liter making 250hp with cam and porting allowed and stock cranks. So I doubt there's an ideal car according to the current rules, but a Z3 coupe with an M-42 transplant and a fabricated rear suspension might be close.

Short of that, I say we could probably take'em.

seckerich
12-19-2008, 12:44 AM
Actually it should be like most 12 step programs where the CRB and BOD stand up and admit they screwed up. My name is XXXXX and I created a class that nobody wanted that bypassed all the rules to become national. Instead we tweak it to keep it alive in an already too crowded class structure.:smilie_pokal: Trophy for everyone that shows up!!

Knestis
12-19-2008, 08:34 AM
Steve made me laugh on what promises to be a very awful Friday.

Thanks, Steve!

K

shwah
12-19-2008, 09:59 AM
Reading the rules, looks more like a new Prod class, with a simpler rule set. This is a good thing, IF it were a new prod class, but instead it is just an additional class.

BUT - a 16v scirocco with 12:1, open .600 cam, open fuel injection, open trans, lighter/better brakes, head porting to fix VWs crappy exhaust port, 1980lb. Sounds like a fun car that would cost the same as a full tilt prod car, but should be a bit easier to operate.

jmracer17
12-19-2008, 10:29 AM
so would this new class start up new contingencies?? or would the guys running the IT cars still be under the regional ones?? :shrug:
james

EBSNASCAR
12-19-2008, 10:45 AM
Tom, I just saw your post on IT.com. For some reason I am locked out of the site and can not post. There is no VIN rule in Super Touring, so if the last year of a certain model was built in 1985 they all are in. You could street port your 13B or put a Renisis in. Please post this on IT.com for me.

Peter Keane
SCCA CRB

So, if I read this right...I can take my 1979 ITB Ford Mustang and run STU?

tom_sprecher
12-19-2008, 11:24 AM
You could street port your 13B or put a Renisis in.[/FONT]

At 1.1#/cc and assuming the typical factor of two for rotaries that would give me 2616cc I'd have to add almost 600# to my car? Is that right?

Every cloud has a silver lining. As a bonus to switching to STU I can give up on any diet I was trying to keep to. ;)

pballance
12-19-2008, 11:59 AM
I was wondering about rotaries and STU so I looked at the rules. 1.1/cc does not include wankles. The rule is:



"4.

The Mazda 13B and Renesis rotary engines are permitted at 2600


lbs. The 13B may be street ported. The Renesis shall remain


unported."


Then you have to look at the turbo rules and the inlet size. Oh well, RX8 loses again......



Link to the rules: http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/09%20GCR/STCS.pdf

pkeane2
12-19-2008, 12:37 PM
I am going to try and take these one at a time. So if I miss someone’s question let me know and I will address it. It is a real pain to be taking on the IT committee first.

Josh: As you know, I was big supporter of IT going National, but I believe the membership is maybe 60/40 in favor of it. These classes give the current IT cars a place to race at a National event. They also allow for most of the ITE car out there and cars competing in other sanctioning bodies to race Nationals. These are the type of cars street tuners are building and we are finally given them a place to race.

The original rules were based off of WC and tuner cars. The tuner cars were required to run a SIR, that no one wanted to run. With five years of incubator status, what were we suppose to do, not try and improve the rule set? I believe that there are a lot of IT type guys that want to run National races. If you currently own an ITS or ITR car they are good beginnings for a STU car. If you have done an engine swap and run with another club, you now have a place to race.

Kurt: There was no secret deal to get ST into the National program. The old WC guys wanted a place to race and the GT community did not really want tub cars in their group. It was my first CRB meeting and both the GT and WC guys made good cases and so we gave them their own class. We also saw it as a way to bring new members in. Right or wrong, that is how it happened.

I guess you can blame the name change on me, I never thought Prepared was attracting the people we were looking for.

Z3: There is a weight break for front wheel drive cars and intake manifolds must be stock.

Steve: I guess I am standing up and I hope you know how funny that is.

EBSNASCAR: Yes

Tom: The rules say you have to weigh 2600 pounds so that is only +133 pounds by my calculations.

shwah
12-19-2008, 01:14 PM
Rules allow IT port on intake manifolds as I read them.

shwah
12-19-2008, 01:16 PM
Steve: I guess I am standing up and I hope you know how funny that is.

:happy204:

BTW - that was a really fun race in November. Can't wait until next time.:eclipsee_steering:

Knestis
12-19-2008, 01:24 PM
Don't get me wrong, Peter - I never suggested that the deal was secret: Just that it was silly. The fact that it bypasses what I understand to be the process for National status seems problematic.

K

pkeane2
12-19-2008, 01:49 PM
Chris, I can't wait. Next time I am going to get in front of Deuce and let him deal with all of you guys.

Kurt, If you can come up with a consistant process on how it has been done in the past, please let me know. I still believe that the ST classes are our best chance to get new members, maybe it will only be two of them. I wish I knew what the next SM type success will be.

mustanghammer
12-19-2008, 02:00 PM
Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

Peter,

I have looked over the STU rules with respect to my 1st Gen RX7 and would like to see clarifications in some areas. Since these are not necessarily yes/no answers where can I send my questions?

For the record I still think that a full build RX7 EP car is allot cheaper than a full build RX7 STU car. However, some of the ST induction, suspension and brake allowances are interesting for someone just wanting to go faster than they do in IT.

seckerich
12-19-2008, 02:00 PM
You know I was just giving you a hard time Peter. I understand as people come and go on boards they have to live with decisions of past groups. You are stuck with the class for the promised 5 years (not that a promise ever stopped the BOD, or CRB in the past) and you are working for the best solution. A group of influential Pro guys sold you all a bill of goods to try to prop up the value of their old cars--period. I would have gladly gone National with an IT car because of the stable rules but saw it was best for the catagory not to be used as a prop for a failing system. There are plenty of places to easily cross over and be a field filler as any IT car will be in this new ruleset. If it brings in new cars and members great, but all I see is a further dilution of current classes.

Keep up those meetings.:026:

It's also cool we can now give Robin the "insider" hard time here too.

benspeed
12-19-2008, 02:02 PM
It's funny - I criticized the club for putting Trans Am on a pedastal when I think that running TA isn't really relevant to the future of the club - I said they have blindness towards the cars the next generation of racers will want to run. Now I'll eat those words - this is the kind of class that I think will get a bunch of interest. If it does you can bet the guys who build ST cars will want to move the World challenge guys into another sector of the class.

I think this kicks ass.

Knestis
12-19-2008, 02:53 PM
I'll grant you Peter, that there's been no consistent process applied but that's largely (over years, not just recently) the result of people either ignoring or changing the rules to suit immediate agenda - that's "expedience."

There was a time when, broadly speaking, the philosophy SEEMED TO BE that regional status served as an incubator of sorts, to test whether classes had what it took to "go national." That's the reason the "regional forever" clause was included in the original IT rule set: It would otherwise have been presumed that those classes would be considered for national status if they met the participation requirements. And someone didn't want that to happen.

It would be interesting to search back through past GCRs to see when/how the language around "National Status" has changed. In the 2008 book it says...

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring

That's kind of how I remember it being. Subsection D is where the silliness begins, including the clause that allows for "manufacturer input." So, "based on member input" (how many again?), the board OK'd the prepared classes. I'd venture that far more than that many members have come out in support of IT gaining national status, but it hasn't.

That's politics, just like the way a coal executive can ask favors of the Governor of WV, that I'd never even get a chance to present...

K

pkeane2
12-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Full disclosure, I have just purchased a ’01 Prelude for ITR or STU, I do not know. I will probably run it in both classes in the beginning.

Scott: send the questions to CRB @SCCA.com

Personally, this just me as a future competitor talking, I believe the rules trend will be to go away from the advantage of changing suspension pick points. Similar to the new WC Touring car rules that have been announced.

Knestis
12-19-2008, 04:55 PM
Oh, you get NO arguments from me on that point, Peter. That's like, real engineering or something, to start moving stuff around. I've got no interest in going that far and to me, that's representative of a whole 'nother step in preparation.

K

Butch Kummer
12-19-2008, 06:19 PM
I've been silent on this so far, but as a Race Organizer I am VERY pumped up about STU (and STO) being the "run whatcha brung and hopes ya brung enough" category of the street-tired, tub-chassied bunch. Add in the NASA Nationals moving to Utah for the next two years and I see a HUGE opportunity to attract folks that haven't run with us before. The downside, of course, is that one big-budget driver with a moderate amount of talent can pretty much ruin things for the average racer.

I'm anxious to see how these two classes work out. I'm hoping they won't be TOO successful at a National level real soon because I want to keep them as part of the ARRC as long as possible. :D

Oh yeah - and we WILL split STU from the other IT classes so guys can double-dip or share the ride at the 2009 ARRC by GRM.

xr4racer
12-19-2008, 07:04 PM
Peter, the only drawback ( if safety could be considered a drawback) is that as I read the rules, every car needs a fuel cell if the stock tank is not between the axles. Obviously IT does not require cells, can you run a legal IT car in STU without a cell?

matt

xr4racer
12-19-2008, 07:06 PM
I was also wondering if anyone knows how many IT racers there were in the country last year. I would imagine the national office knows or they should.

matt

Z3_GoCar
12-20-2008, 02:18 AM
.....

Z3: There is a weight break for front wheel drive cars and intake manifolds must be stock.

.....


Funny because my motor was legal for Speedvision back in '01 but wouldn't be legal for STU. The manifold is stock, but from a previous generation.

The problem with the restrictor was it's limited avalibility, one of the sources didn't even have the correct size, and making the air box stiff enough to not crush during testing.

Like Josh mentioned the weight to hp rules seem to favor the smaller displacement cars. In SoPac we have a regional class called Radial Sedan. I can't run with these rules, by the end of the weight process I wind up at close to 3500lbs, which is nearly 1000lbs more than my cars current weight. It does seem to work for the 1.8-2.3 liter guys though. I'd always planned on giving it (DP/SU) a try once my car was ITR legal though, it seemed easier than trying to adapt the restrictor then bolt on weight, and worry about not having taken advatage of the fabricated rear suspension option.

pkeane2
12-20-2008, 11:04 AM
XR4: I think the fuel cell rule could be changed to something like the new AS OEM fuel tank rule. I will submit it to the CRB. IT cars can run OEM tanks in STO/U.

Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

1stGenBoy
12-20-2008, 12:03 PM
Peter, the only drawback ( if safety could be considered a drawback) is that as I read the rules, every car needs a fuel cell if the stock tank is not between the axles. Obviously IT does not require cells, can you run a legal IT car in STU without a cell?

matt

Yes you can. The STO/STU rules state that if you run a IT car it has to run in IT trim. A 89 CRX Si ITA car won the Cen-Div national points championship in DP the last 2 years I believe.

tom_sprecher
12-20-2008, 12:21 PM
I was also wondering if anyone knows how many IT racers there were in the country last year. I would imagine the national office knows or they should.

matt

I do not have the number of drives but I do have the number of entries for 2007.

ITA 1817
ITS 1093
ITB 920
ITE 749
ITC 418
IT7 362
ITR 193
ITX 124
ITT 16
ITU 13
ITM 3

JoshS
12-20-2008, 02:42 PM
XR4: I think the fuel cell rule could be changed to something like the new AS OEM fuel tank rule. I will submit it to the CRB. IT cars can run OEM tanks in STO/U.

Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

Peter: the STU rules state "Intake requirements. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g. throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise."

He has a 2.8L M52 engine with the intake manifold from a 2.5L M50. In other words, it's not the "installed engine's stock intake manifold." Therefore, it's not legal.

Z3_GoCar
12-20-2008, 02:47 PM
....Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

Or I could put the correct manifold on and run ITR and weigh 2800lbs. Less ballast and I don't have to worry about fab-ing a custom rear suspenson to replace my semi-trailing arm suspension.

JohnW
12-21-2008, 04:35 PM
I'm one of those NASA guys who will be at the IT Fest and ARRC in 09.

Thanks Butch and Todd (& SCCA) for the new oppertunity.

JW
STU #88

Z3_GoCar
12-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Peter: the STU rules state "Intake requirements. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g. throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise."

He has a 2.8L M52 engine with the intake manifold from a 2.5L M50. In other words, it's not the "installed engine's stock intake manifold." Therefore, it's not legal.

I am unable to find the archieved rules for Speedvision circa 2001, but I'm certain that it was allowed at the time in both the e-36 and e-46 328's. I can't imagine that such a swap would be able to fly under the radar of a successful pro-racing effort. Again, no worrys though because I'm going to be ITR legal which makes me eligable for a 280 lb weight break.