August 2010 Fastrack

[GTIspirit]

is posted
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-aug.pdf

Looks like crankfire ignition remains allowed for use by only those cars which came so equipped from the factory, precluding older cars from using this same thing. :shrug:


Improved Touring
1. #1450 and others (Multiple) Crank trigger ignition inputs
The CRB thanks all who wrote on this topic for your input. No change to the sensor allowance will be recommended at this time.

[Prof. Chaos]

Looking at STL, how do people read the weight rule? Does a Miata sporting the 1839cc motor fall under 1900cc or 1800cc for weight? Either the Miatas shed 40 pounds or gain 90 vs. running in ITA. I assume you round up.

[Dave Gomberg]

G. Weight Requirements
1. Minimum weights for cars with piston engines will be determined by 1.3 lbs/cc displacement for the installed engine (see following table). Displacement is determined by the factory displacement for the installed engine. Cars with 3 valves/cylinder engines may reduce their weight by 1 percent. Cars with 2 valves/cylinder engines may reduce their weight by 2 percent. For weight assignment purposes engine displacement will be rounded to the nearest 100cc (e.g., 2150cc = 2200cc and 2149cc = 2100cc).

So 1839 goes down to 1800 at 2340 lbs.

Dave

[Jeremy Billiel]

I don't get it... Whats the intention of STL?

[xr4racer]

1. To allow many IT type cars to do more modifications and run nationals, without spending the money it would take to run STU.
2. To get more money and cars for the nationals and runoffs.

matt

[GTIspirit]

I don't get it... Whats the intention of STL?

:017: Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight. :017:

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

[Prof. Chaos]

:017: Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight. :017:

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

The way I read the rules, STL is IT only with Production-class motors. I think that's pretty exciting, I'm just wondering who's going to spend the money for a Prod motor for their IT car. It sounds like fun...but it also sounds like I'd be spending another $10k.

[Z3_GoCar]

OOH, engine swaps. S-14 powered Z3 with a two stage dry sump, six speed sequential transmission, or maybe go the other way and swap a 4.9 liter V8 and run STO....

[JoshS]

The weights don't compare to IT weights because IT sets weights by power-to-weight ratios, and ST sets weights by displacement-to-weight ratios.

[Chip42]

Is it just me, or does STL look like limited prep production (pardon me, i mean "prep level 2") trading slicks and flares for limited motor and trans swaps? actually, transmissions are more limited than in prod...

I want calipers (and JDM motors)! I don't see why they stuck to stock brakes, kills the parity other ST classes shoot for. honestly, given the build cost, aftermarket 4-pot calipers would seem reasonable (they are not expensive)and probably safer given the power output and weight likely to occur in small (light) cars with brakes never meant to deal with that workload. Still - the weights are unachievably low for many smaller engined cars. oddly, in an mr2, any STL legal motor swap (1 or 2zz, 3SGE, etc..) would shed weight from the car and add it to the min as raced.

on another note, the clarification to update backdate I requested came back as specline addition rather than small rules creep. kudos for the consistency, but It's gonna get damned hard to keep up with all those specs of otherwise identical cars. there are already inconsistencies to be resolved.

oh - and we killed the ITS civic Si yo ITA thing. huzzah!

[mossaidis]

I am still digesting the proposed ST changes. That is, as I read it, the STAC is trying to bring ITA-B-C cars into the STL fold w/o too many mods. I wonder if this is Nationals way of saying... "ah, if you want to go national, go ST" instead of making IT national. uh.

STO/U rules were clarified and easier to understand. For those complaining with about STL restrictions, can't add a turbo? or go STU with less weight and why not add a turbo as well? I think the idea STL/U is to build class rules w/o having to monkey around with model line specs. Then again, I saw references to [table here] where model line specs would go and I got nervous. :)

[Gregg]

I am still digesting the proposed ST changes. That is, as I read it, the STAC is trying to bring ITA-B-C cars into the STL fold w/o too many mods. I wonder if this is Nationals way of saying... "ah, if you want to go national, go ST" instead of making IT national. uh.
When speaking of Nationa racing, I've now personally heard Bob Dowie twice say something along the lines of "IT drivers can't go National Racing. Now we've fixed that."
I do find it odd, though that the only two cars specifically excluded from STL are the Honda S2000 and the Integra Type R.

[Knestis]

There's a gulf between "can go racing" and "can compete."

One standard that the ITAC was pretty good about while I was involved, was the "assume people will build to the limit of the rules" rule. If the stated policy purpose of STL is grounded in people doing entry-level, minimum-commitment efforts, that purpose is going to be blown away the minute someone does it right. That happened to IT, it will happen to STL.

If the intent was to let IT cars run Nationals, we were one rule change from allowing that to happen. Gawd, I hate these shenanigans.

K

[JamesL]

Kind of disappointing that open brakes aren't allowed in STL, and the line about "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" is kind of confusing.

If engines and trans can be swapped between STL legal cars, why not simply state that brakes can be as well?

Edit: Also kind of bizarre that OEM ABS is allowed in STO and STL, but not in STU. You would think that all STL cars would, by default, be STU legal... given the way they outlined the rules.

[EV]

Kind of disappointing that open brakes aren't allowed in STL, and the line about "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" is kind of confusing.

If engines and trans can be swapped between STL legal cars, why not simply state that brakes can be as well?

Edit: Also kind of bizarre that OEM ABS is allowed in STO and STL, but not in STU. You would think that all STL cars would, by default, be STU legal... given the way they outlined the rules.
Ya, what does "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" mean. Does that mean that if you can fit accord brakes on a civic (for example), it would be legal, but Brembo's wouldn't be... How odd....

[Knestis]

Ya, what does "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" mean. Does that mean that if you can fit accord brakes on a civic (for example), it would be legal, but Brembo's wouldn't be... How odd....

It means you need a bud in the decision-making process in order to get your spec line the way you want it.

:026:

K

[EV]

It means you need a bud in the decision-making process in order to get your spec line the way you want it.

:026:

K
This is starting to sound more like the 24 hours of Lemons B.S. inspection. PTE is looking better and better every day.

[erlrich]

I'm starting to think our current CRB is extremely 420 friendly...

[Chip42]

I've been looking at ST for a little while now, and frankly I was upset at first by the limitations and restrictions of STL vs STU - particularly the calipers.

but I started running guesstimates of hp popular engines from IT and the weight of said engines in popular platforms. looks like everythign I can imagine will be 10-11 lbs/hp. brakes and suspension will drive the ideal chassis selection as much as driveline configuration, weight penalties/resductions, and aero. adding open (4 pot max)calipers and a max diameter rotor like in STU would help iron things out even more.

I'm happy with the limited suspension mods, and I think the motor rules are nearly perfect, though as a toyota guy, I would prefer JDM allowance as most of toyota's USDM stuff sucks. at least we can see a path to a MkI MR2 that allows power adders like FP but weight that's approaching achievable and a swap to a head that can make power, even in a 4AGE. factory brakes work well enoguh at this weight. will sure beat mopping up the rear with ITC.


the best part is that (until they start adding stupid spec line messes) the politics are mostly out. this is another reason to just blanket rule the brakes and be done with it. no more car by car guesses and stuborn CRB issues, no big messy updates that always leaves things out. no more guessing. parity of the common dimensions and allow swaps within the brand. strait weight calcs. it's what IT could have been if everyone were ok with pitching 2k at the already insanely expensive motor builds for what amounts to "stock plus". My in-process MR2 will never see an ITB sticker now, and I can't tell you how happy that makes me. hopefully I can get convince steve and mike to do liekwise.

Thanks to the ITAC for trying, I know you guys have been.

[shwah]

:017: Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight. :017:

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

You might consider using the weigt break for fwd strut suspension as well.

And of course if you run an 8v you get a weight break as well.

The way I read the brakes allowance, you need to request it.

I think the class sounds fun. If I ever get my other B car done, I may convert the current one to this spec...

[Marcus Miller]

*snip* My in-process MR2 will never see an ITB sticker now, and I can't tell you how happy that makes me.

Queue black helicopters....
Are we not perhaps missing the forest for the trees?
Did the powers that be 'kinda' make IT osbolete in one swoop?
What's the point of running IT, if you now bascially have every car classed in STO, STU, and STL? rin it nationally, run it regionally, kill IT?

To be fair: I skipped over the STL rules, as I have no interest in running nationally and am building a no rules car at this point. I'll class it whereever it ends up, with whatever organization I feel like running with. (It currently would be an SFR ITE car, or a NASA ST2/SU car.

Marcus, who is just thinking out loud instead of working.

[quadzjr]

Queue black helicopters....
Are we not perhaps missing the forest for the trees?
Did the powers that be 'kinda' make IT osbolete in one swoop?
What's the point of running IT, if you now bascially have every car classed in STO, STU, and STL? rin it nationally, run it regionally, kill IT?

To be fair: I skipped over the STL rules, as I have no interest in running nationally and am building a no rules car at this point. I'll class it whereever it ends up, with whatever organization I feel like running with. (It currently would be an SFR ITE car, or a NASA ST2/SU car.

Marcus, who is just thinking out loud instead of working.

It will definetly split the fields.. some will make the jump to STx, and others won't. I personally wish they can just fix the MR2 and other issues IT.

As for chip, the best USDM 4AGE built to the specs allowed in STL will result just a bit less than a B16 gets with bolt ons gets.

It would be interseting to see what My ITB could do at a more resaonable weight, just to satisfy my own curosity. However, I still would feel bad as I don't want to ruin an other ITB racers race that is going on if we are in the same run group.

[Tristan Smith]

Well, I am going to have to look hard at the new rule set for the ZX. Looks like at first glance that I have a lot more to gain by swapping over to STO (maybe even the twin turbo, if approved) than trying to make the car perform in ITR specs. And the weight remains in the same ballpark, but allows far more engine mods (and probably not cost all that much more) and a few suspension tweaks that the car would benefit from. hhhhhmmmmmmm.

[mossaidis]

Ah... to dream. I dreamt of making my EG Civic a K20A2 host and serve that K20A2 with cams, open pipes and a nice Hondata s300 ECU. Ah, 250 whp... lovely. But at what costs?

The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.

[spawpoet]

The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.


Agree. And IMHO the restrictive IT engine rules have a lot to do with that. Will racers be able to build motors for ST that will give them the power to run up front, and yet last longer than motors built for production classes?? It's not only spending more money up front for the build, it's the frequency with which you have to crack into the engine that's going to get pricey. That is of course unless you are content with running at the back of the field. It really doesn't look like an IT alternative cause it's not going to be nearly as economical to play.

[JoshS]

My biggest problem with STU continues, the rewrite didn't help. How is ANYTHING going to keep up with a 2200 lb. Honda S2000 with the escalating weights for bigger engines? As an example, a 2.8L BMW currently has to weigh 880 (!!) lbs more than the Honda, and under those rules, will make about the same power but will have more torque. Not 900 lbs worth more torque, that's for sure.

Instead of a straight 1.1lb/cc, it should be something like 1200 lbs + .5 lbs/cc. That way the 2.0L Honda S2000 still weighs 2200 lbs, but the 2.8 BMW can weigh 2600. I still think that would be a losing battle but at least larger-displacement cars might try to come and play.

[quadzjr]

The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.

That is why I am staying in IT and hoping they fix the issues. Instead of turning my car into an STL car and spend stupid money and still have 100whp less than you with the K20.

I have faith in the ITAC. I still think IT is a better place to play.

[erlrich]

Well, I am going to have to look hard at the new rule set for the ZX. Looks like at first glance that I have a lot more to gain by swapping over to STO (maybe even the twin turbo, if approved) than trying to make the car perform in ITR specs. And the weight remains in the same ballpark, but allows far more engine mods (and probably not cost all that much more) and a few suspension tweaks that the car would benefit from. hhhhhmmmmmmm.

Hell, with your car I would be tempted to keep the 3-litre engine and go run in STU. I would bet with cams, head work, and all the other STU-legal mods you could get 325-350 hp out of that motor. At 3300 lbs you would need it, but hell the car is already heavy in ITR.

I was briefly day dreaming about stuffing a VG30 into my 240SX and playing in STU, but the thought of adding 500 lbs of lead to the car ended that dream pretty fast. I wonder what kind of power you could get out of a built SR20?...

[Chip42]

I have faith in the ITAC.

I don't have faith in the CRB. But maybe they did the easy thing, and rather than unfucking IT (which by most accounts they have steadfastly refused to attempt recently), decided to start fresh with STL for that "national experience" they think we're so hungry for. for the mony, regionals offer much more track time and enjoyment.

either way, it's a set of rules that, with some tweeking, I think looks like a good, modern place to play. even if my 4AGE will never ever make enough power to get out of the way of those ITB accords and golfs, I have options. it's nice to have options.

The costs don't seem THAT out of hand, considering what people are willing to pay for a front-running IT motor. throw in some cams, some off the shelf pistons, get a good, avaialble engine and chassis combo and you'll have a reasonably reliable racecar. this will be a lot of fun for the handaswap guys. B16/18 and any civic will make weight and plenty of power. reliably.

[Greg Amy]

I'm digging the STU rules. A lot. Especially if I ignore the possibility (probability) that this is an end-run around the "No Nationals" clause of the Improved Touring regulations. This is one of the reasons I decided to go play in STU this year.

I've reviewed the proposed STL rules, and I think they're pretty Ok, for the most part. I'll recommend to the CRB to accept the rules but with some tweaks (like brakes, among others). It truly addresses some concerns I had with the STU rules, and works a long way toward differentiating itself from the wide gap we have between Touring and LP Prod.

Quite intriguing.

GA

[Tristan Smith]

Possibly, but the one drawback in STU is the 8" wheel allowance. ITR has 8.5" wheels and I am not sure that is even enough tire. But at 3 liters in STO the weight of the car would be in the 25-2700 lb range I think. Of course I am not sure if you could get it that light either.

[tnord]

i'd like to kick someone straight in the nuts for the ENTIRE STO/U/L bullshit.

[Greg Amy]

I'd like to kick someone straight in the nuts for Spec Miata, but that's a whole 'nother story...

;)

GA

^^^ Before anyone goes off on a tear, please notice the "winky, winky"....

[Knestis]

>> Will racers be able to build motors for ST that will give them the power to run up front, and yet last longer than motors built for production classes??

Yup. Until someone is willing to push the envelope - and push the pieces a little harder - and stuff starts to go kerbloowie.

K

[GTIspirit]

You might consider using the weigt break for fwd strut suspension as well.

And of course if you run an 8v you get a weight break as well.

The way I read the brakes allowance, you need to request it.

I think the class sounds fun. If I ever get my other B car done, I may convert the current one to this spec...

Missed that:

18. Front wheel drive cars may reduce their minimum weight by 50 Lbs in STO and STU. Front wheel drive cars with a strut type front suspension may reduce their minimum weight by an additional 50 lbs in STO and STU. In STL front wheel drive cars with a strut type front suspension may reduce their minimum weight by 2.5 percent.
So using my example, 1800cc*1.3=2340lbs
2.5% is 58.5lbs, which isn't much of a weight reduction to benefit FWD MacStrut and the weight is still more than the ITA weight for this car. The less restrictive, i.e. more costly engine rules, would probably yield a better power to weight ratio than ITA but the cost/benefit ratio in fun terms is questionable.

One other thing I'm wondering about is what if the STL 1.3lb/cc multiplier puts the car into the next weight class for rollcage tubing size?

[Z3_GoCar]

My biggest problem with STU continues, the rewrite didn't help. How is ANYTHING going to keep up with a 2200 lb. Honda S2000 with the escalating weights for bigger engines? As an example, a 2.8L BMW currently has to weigh 880 (!!) lbs more than the Honda, and under those rules, will make about the same power but will have more torque. Not 900 lbs worth more torque, that's for sure.

Instead of a straight 1.1lb/cc, it should be something like 1200 lbs + .5 lbs/cc. That way the 2.0L Honda S2000 still weighs 2200 lbs, but the 2.8 BMW can weigh 2600. I still think that would be a losing battle but at least larger-displacement cars might try to come and play.

Josh,

Since the motor is saddled with the stock intake, your best bet (if you wanted to stick with a six) would be a M-50B25. If you were willing to swap in a four cylinder, you could build a killer M-42B18, because it's got a forged crank and a decent intake manifold you could build a 8k rpm motor and hook to a sequential 6speed, replace the trailing arms with tubular units or even transplant a formula car double arm set up. As for the S-2000, it's eligable for STO with a supercharger.

[xr4racer]

The current crop of STO cars include a 3300lb, 525 rwhp Viper and the C6Z06 not to mention Viper Comp Coupes, you better bring more than a 300z to play in STO. Lap record for the Glen is under 2:00.

matt

[Chip42]

One other thing I'm wondering about is what if the STL 1.3lb/cc multiplier puts the car into the next weight class for rollcage tubing size?

cage wall change is at 2700lbs. heaviest STL car would be a RWD 2.0L 4 valve @ 2665# (2006+ MX5, SR20 "silvia", etc). no one has to worry (unless thay already have a heavy cage from the old rules or a currently heavy classification, in which case they might have to worry about not making the minimum in some cases.

they did a good job of hiding a lot of the weight rules. RWD +2.5%, strut FWD -2.5%, 2/3 valve motors get 1/2% breaks, and more cam.

I think the "until someone pushes the limits" thing is somewhat erroneous as the rules cap lift and compression, all you can do after that is spin it to the moon (+$$) - yeah people can spend umpteen $$$ to get that little extra, but how is that different from IT? it's just money spent differently. those with the funds are going to outspend those without. it's class independent.

[tnord]

get with the program chip.

this is a class of the finding/building the highest output/highest revving/smallest displacement hand grenade of a motor and then finding a way to fit it in whatever decent chassis from the same mfg you can come up with. oh, and if you can manage to put a FWD motor into a RWD car so you can get an allowance for an alternate intake manifold, that would be ideal. i just can't see how that's anything other than an experiment in how fast you can burn through 50gal drums worth of money. but i guess that's presuming it turns into anything of a successful class.....which it won't.

keep slicing that pie up until we're left with nothing but crumbs.

[JoshS]

Josh,

Since the motor is saddled with the stock intake, your best bet (if you wanted to stick with a six) would be a M-50B25. If you were willing to swap in a four cylinder, you could build a killer M-42B18, because it's got a forged crank and a decent intake manifold you could build a 8k rpm motor and hook to a sequential 6speed, replace the trailing arms with tubular units or even transplant a formula car double arm set up. As for the S-2000, it's eligable for STO with a supercharger.

James, you totally missed my point. I know that.

My point is that at a straight 1.1lb/cc, only 2.0L engines (minimum allowed now that STL is proposed) should bother showing up. Does it really make sense that a 3.0L car (of any brand) should have to weigh 1100 lbs more than that Honda? Really? 1100 lbs?

[Dano77]

Now I might be missing something but, 12a rotary,street port with stock nikki OR auto type 2 barrell with 38mm chokes 2350 in STU minus 50 for solid/live rear axle=2300

12a NO PORTING NO alt carb No mods at all 2600 + 2.5% FOR rwd in STL


Did I miss something or is it just easier to go STU with a first gen and mod the crap out of it...

Dan
77 IT7
Fireing up the die grinder now.........

[Chip42]

josh,
STL is separate from STU. IT cars are split at the 2L mark when they come to play but cars built to the rule sin STU can still be 2.0L and below. they didn't kill that. good luck getting to weight, but it's allowed.

travis - some will go apeshit spending and building hand grenades, others will just enjoy the opportunity to run swaps - see honda challenge for an idea about the popularity there. the "kids" are big on swaps, they know a good motor when they see it. sure, it's an imperfect class structure. what isn't. IT doesn't attract younger people as much as something like STU (L is a nice mid ground). I get where you're coming from, but I think you might be over reacting. the rules certainly could pull entrants from prod and IT, and that is a shame. both are great classes (with some spec line exceptions) and it sucks that there's a limited number of competitors. but this is GOOD for the growth of the club. could it have been done differently? yes. IT swaps to IT prep with similar weighting rules would be one way (honda challenge style). but you will never shake my belief that this is one path to increasing "tuner" participation. look what the bootleggers did for NASCAR, the hot rodders for drag racing, ans the WWII vets did for sportscars. it's time to bring the current automotive movement IN to the club. if you don't want to play with them, stay in ITA.

like I said before, it's nice to have options.

[Z3_GoCar]

josh,
STL is separate from STU. IT cars are split at the 2L mark when they come to play but cars built to the rule sin STU can still be 2.0L and below. they didn't kill that. good luck getting to weight, but it's allowed.

travis - some will go apeshit spending and building hand grenades, others will just enjoy the opportunity to run swaps - see honda challenge for an idea about the popularity there. the "kids" are big on swaps, they know a good motor when they see it. sure, it's an imperfect class structure. what isn't. IT doesn't attract younger people as much as something like STU (L is a nice mid ground). I get where you're coming from, but I think you might be over reacting. the rules certainly could pull entrants from prod and IT, and that is a shame. both are great classes (with some spec line exceptions) and it sucks that there's a limited number of competitors. but this is GOOD for the growth of the club. could it have been done differently? yes. IT swaps to IT prep with similar weighting rules would be one way (honda challenge style). but you will never shake my belief that this is one path to increasing "tuner" participation. look what the bootleggers did for NASCAR, the hot rodders for drag racing, ans the WWII vets did for sportscars. it's time to bring the current automotive movement IN to the club. if you don't want to play with them, stay in ITA.

like I said before, it's nice to have options.

I'm sure the S-2000 can get down to 2100lbs with the Carbon composite hood, trunk, custom glass top, or trade some weight room for a full intake and head port, and a sequential box. A full built car to this rule set will be expensive. The euro racing version of the M-42 made 300-315hp that's 158hp/ltr....

[JoshS]

josh,
STL is separate from STU. IT cars are split at the 2L mark when they come to play but cars built to the rule sin STU can still be 2.0L and below. they didn't kill that. good luck getting to weight, but it's allowed.

I was actually coming here just now to correct myself, I did in fact get confused. Seems like an STL car could easily be built to also be legal for STU. My bad.

I still say that the only car worth bringing to STU (except for maybe turbos, I'm not sure) is the S2000.

[Z3_GoCar]

I was actually coming here just now to correct myself, I did in fact get confused. Seems like an STL car could easily be built to also be legal for STU. My bad.

I still say that the only car worth bringing to STU (except for maybe turbos, I'm not sure) is the S2000.

There might be a couple of other options, they'll be expensive and lots of development will be needed, but they'll be on the smaller end of the spectrum too. To match an oe s-2000 motor a 2.5liter motor would need to make 350hp, I doubt that's possible without forced induction:shrug:

[Chip42]

I'm sure the S-2000 can get down to 2100lbs with the Carbon composite hood, trunk, custom glass top, or trade some weight room for a full intake and head port, and a sequential box. A full built car to this rule set will be expensive. The euro racing version of the M-42 made 300-315hp that's 158hp/ltr....

ST will be more expensive then IT - yes. STU more so, and STO pretty much requires manufacturer support.

as for weight I was really referring to the <2.0L stuff in STU. I think that there will wind up being very strong builds aside from the S2000

[quadzjr]

AS the rules are written, currently. Unless someone spends a metric shit ton.. STO will be dominated by a anybody that is a "decent" driver in an good WC GT car. STU will be dominated by any decent driver in an WC TC. STL we will see, I see two very potent looking combinations and both are acura/honda.

[Knestis]

>> ... I think that there will wind up being very strong builds aside from the S2000.

It's a pretty simple formula, actually. (I know because Greg A told me at WGI.) With a weight-to-displacement structure, all other things being equal, you pick the engine with the highest horsepower/cc - and that's an S2000. The only way this would be different is if the weight multiplier were such that a 2-liter car couldn't get to minimum weight, which it looks like it can.

K

[tnord]

josh,
travis - some will go apeshit spending and building hand grenades, others will just enjoy the opportunity to run swaps - see honda challenge for an idea about the popularity there. the "kids" are big on swaps, they know a good motor when they see it. sure, it's an imperfect class structure. what isn't. IT doesn't attract younger people as much as something like STU (L is a nice mid ground). I get where you're coming from, but I think you might be over reacting. the rules certainly could pull entrants from prod and IT, and that is a shame. both are great classes (with some spec line exceptions) and it sucks that there's a limited number of competitors. but this is GOOD for the growth of the club. could it have been done differently? yes. IT swaps to IT prep with similar weighting rules would be one way (honda challenge style). but you will never shake my belief that this is one path to increasing "tuner" participation. look what the bootleggers did for NASCAR, the hot rodders for drag racing, ans the WWII vets did for sportscars. it's time to bring the current automotive movement IN to the club. if you don't want to play with them, stay in ITA.

like I said before, it's nice to have options.

i know you don't know me chip, but i'm one of those "tuner kids." well, i'll be 30 this year so maybe not anymore, but i was 24 when i joined the club, and came from the HPDE reigns.

citing honda challenge as a reason to create this class isn't exactly helping your case. first off, honda challenge has all but died off and gone away across most of the country. and second, until recently the only honda challenge class that allowed motor swaps was H1, and that played out exactly as i mentioned before. a decent number of people thought it was fun to put the 1.6 160hp B16A2 motor from the 99-02 civic si into old CRXs and old civic hatchbacks. that was all well and good until someone put the 190hp B18C5 in there from the Integra Type R. ok fine, now everyone has to sell their B16A2 for $2k and buy a B18C5 for $4k....big deal. But then some dude with big wallets went and got one of the 2.0 200hp K20 motors from the RSX....and then another guy wanted more torque so he got a 210hp K24 from the TSX.....and before too long (i'd say 2 or 3 years) the H1 field went from about 8-10 cars to 1 or 2.

attracting youth and classifying more modern cars is good for the club i agree, but all we're doing here is cannibalizing our own classes, moving the drivers to different ones, reducing the amount of actual racing going on out there, and decreasing the interest level of people like myself who came for the racing....and the racing alone. take the racing componenet out of the club (which it seems we're trying very, very hard to do) and it becomes nothing but a stupidly expensive HPDE.

[JeffYoung]

Have to agree with Travis. To me, this looks like an attempt to lure drivers from IT, not an attempt to lure new drivers.

[quadzjr]

Have to agree with Travis. To me, this looks like an attempt to lure drivers from IT, not an attempt to lure new drivers.

I also agree, look at the amount of IT drivers just thinking about going STO/U/L.. is that going to be equilvant to the number of new members looking at entering IT? I imagine a good bit of prod members are doing the same thing.

As stated on RRAX by Peter Keane.

"As you may know, I was a big supporter of IT going National. After several years of trying to get IT National, I realized it was not going to happen. With the success of STU (currently 10th in National participation) we decided to try to get the smaller bore IT type cars into National competition. I hope to works out."

It also states in the propsed rules STL was created to alow IT drivers a chance to experience the "national" scene.

"While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category, competition within their inclusion in the category will
allow regional competitors to experience a participate in national events."

[mossaidis]

I agree 100% with travis. Will SCCA kill Prod then? Leave us IT folks at the regional ranks forever? Do I really have to run a SSB/C car to race Nationally at a "reasonable" cost?

[Rabbit07]

All,

Please write your letters for and against the ST rules and STL. I am one of the committe members and quite exited about it myself. We need your input. There are reason why the rules are they way they are now, but most of that is from the committees perspective. Please let us know constructively what you like or don't

Thanks

[tnord]

it's real simple Chris.

don't make new classes that futher dilute the field. the CRB/BOD hasn't understood this as long as i've been a member. i don't know why me writing yet another letter would change anything.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, first, as a fellow committee member (ITAC) -- thanks for your efforts on this. Much appreciated. Committee work is hard thankless work.

On my side, I would (respectfully) ask if any of this was run by the ITAC? I don't think it was and not saying it HAD to be, but perhaps it should have been?

I'm speaking solely for myself, but this looks like (to me) an attempt to draw IT cars into a National class after I think a majority of IT drivers made it clear they did not want to "go national." It could, in my view, create the dilution Travis mentions, primarily via IT drivers leaving to join STL, and maybe asking the ITAC for input would have been a good idea.

That said, I agree with the general concept. We need a place for modern cars with a more open rule set that Touring or SS to race.

I just think it would have made sense to coordinate that with the IT folks, since they seem to be the target for this.

[Rabbit07]

Not all IT competitors didn't want to go national. Some wanted this and wanted to be rid of the washer bottle argument. The fact that STU numbers this year are way up is tell tale. The majority of the cars competing in STU this year have been IT or Spec Miatas. I know this as a fact because I have ran races all year from Sebring to the Glen and have seen the participants and stopped to talk to them. So really the majority of STU competitors this year could have been STL competitors. Keep in mind that drawing IT cars is not the only idea. Drawing from the NASA PT classes was in mind here also.

Personally I don't think this is diluting the fields, it's filling them.

[EV]

......Drawing from the NASA PT classes was in mind here also.
A great idea, but you have to look hard at how NASA PT works. The PT power to weight (not cc per weight) is a better formula with the Dyno being used to level the field.

Of course, PT is thought of as a budget class, but I am thinking budget isn't what ST is focused on.

[PSherm]

Not all IT competitors didn't want to go national. Some wanted this and wanted to be rid of the washer bottle argument. The fact that STU numbers this year are way up is tell tale. The majority of the cars competing in STU this year have been IT or Spec Miatas. I know this as a fact because I have ran races all year from Sebring to the Glen and have seen the participants and stopped to talk to them. So really the majority of STU competitors this year could have been STL competitors. Keep in mind that drawing IT cars is not the only idea. Drawing from the NASA PT classes was in mind here also.

Personally I don't think this is diluting the fields, it's filling them.

What I have seen here in the Midiv (Trav, what's your take?) at least has been ALL double dipping by IT guys, either for the available extra track time or contingency $. And there hasn't been a lot of them. I don't see ST* as a good thing for club racing in general, and I personally can't see spending more money on my ITA car to add more weight to it.

I *might* feel differently if all the Miatae leave ITA though..... :D

[Chip42]

Moral dillema: PK is involved in ST.

I honestly think ST is a class that is right for the times.

prod is not really "modern" but efforts have been succesful in making it more-so. sTL and limited prep are so simillar that I would think they could find a way to combine them. that WAS the way to graduate to nationals for IT guys, remember? and even with the extra cost, the politics are much more palitable.

IT is in decline because part of its membership wants to run nationally, part wants to stay regional. some want to keep the rules restrictive and simple, and some want to move toward prod (st?). the rules makers have to balance this, and it leaves them in a stale mate. and they go back and forth about addressing existing classifications (both under and overdogs)which leaves many in the membership confused and frustrated.

I agree with Travis and others: it sucks that ST will pull from IT and P - both have a long history and are great classes in theory. car gcounts going down means less racing and more open passing lapping day for everyone.

The CRB and membership are both to blame for the decline in IT as much or more than any new class. don't blame the class if it ATTRACTS people away from IT. thsoe people wanted to go that way. Others want to stay in the SS+ mindset.

as for going national - the only benefit I can see is that nat classes get better attention from the PTB than regional classes. racing in nationals isn't necessarily any better, and I personally have a lot more fun at regionals.

and money - look, we live in a competitive society. people will spend as much as they can afford to win at all costs if thats what they ar einclined to do. it doesn't matter what class. we have competitors with ongoing motor programs and engine builders on call in FP that we race against with our shoestring operation, and they walk us. we all watch the same happen in certain fields of IT. sT will be no different. it isn't the classes' fault, it's the racer's. if we all wanted to drive cheap fun racecars, "SBC" would have been taken seriously.

[tnord]

Bullshit Chris.

March 27th Saint Louis STU Entries - 0
March 28th - 2; Chris Albin & Ralph Woodard. Both are actually IT cars.

April 10th Hallett STU Entries - 0
April 11th - 0

April 17th MAM STU Entries - 1 (an actual Honda Challenge car, whooopeee!!! oh but wait....it's running significantly slower than SM or ITA.)
April 18th - 2 (the same HC guy and a guy in what looks like an ITA car to me)

May 1 HPT STU Entries - 0
May 2 - 3 (two of them known IT cars, one guy actually does have an ex-WC car that he used to run ITE)

May 16th Saint Louis STU Entries - 1 (known ITA car)
May 17th - 1 (same ITA car)

May 22nd MAM - 1 (known ITA car)
May 23rd - 2 (both IT cars)

June 5th HPT - 1 (known IT car)
June 6th HPT - 2 (both IT cars)

July 3rd Hallett - 2 (one known, one guy i've never heard of in an old RX7 turning very slow times. i bet i can guess what class it really should be in)
July 4th Hallett - 2 (both unknown guys in slow, old RX7s.)


soooo......we've got what, 2 sorta legit entries in STU so far this year? well done club leadership. in fact, it's such a big success, lets EXPAND the category and add STL, so that one of those two guys in STU can go win "races" in STL!!!

[DavidM]

IT is in decline.....

Who said IT is in decline? I don't think that's the case here in the SE. Car counts may be down for all classes, but that's more due to the economy than anything.

David

[Rabbit07]

Bullshit Chris.

March 27th Saint Louis STU Entries - 0
March 28th - 2; Chris Albin & Ralph Woodard. Both are actually IT cars.

April 10th Hallett STU Entries - 0
April 11th - 0

April 17th MAM STU Entries - 1 (an actual Honda Challenge car, whooopeee!!! oh but wait....it's running significantly slower than SM or ITA.)
April 18th - 2 (the same HC guy and a guy in what looks like an ITA car to me)

May 1 HPT STU Entries - 0
May 2 - 3 (two of them known IT cars, one guy actually does have an ex-WC car that he used to run ITE)

May 16th Saint Louis STU Entries - 1 (known ITA car)
May 17th - 1 (same ITA car)

May 22nd MAM - 1 (known ITA car)
May 23rd - 2 (both IT cars)

June 5th HPT - 1 (known IT car)
June 6th HPT - 2 (both IT cars)

July 3rd Hallett - 2 (one known, one guy i've never heard of in an old RX7 turning very slow times. i bet i can guess what class it really should be in)
July 4th Hallett - 2 (both unknown guys in slow, old RX7s.)


soooo......we've got what, 2 sorta legit entries in STU so far this year? well done club leadership. in fact, it's such a big success, lets EXPAND the category and add STL, so that one of those two guys in STU can go win "races" in STL!!!

You need to look outside

Sebring 9 entries
VIR 9 entries
Glen 19! entries
Grattan 8 entries
Mid-0 4 entries
June Sprints 8 entries

These are just a few that I know.

It's a bigger club than just your division. I have traveled coast to coast racing and each division has different classed that are strong. No need to get all touchy.

[tnord]

i expected that response chris. have you guys done any research to find out where those entries came from?

my money says 80% or more are actually cars from other classes.

and furthermore, don't give me any garbage about "it's a bigger club than just my division." i'd go so far as to say that anyone who supports STL, or ST as a category at all as it exists today are the ones who need to get some perspective and take a larger view, not just looking at the entries in their specific class of interest. look at total entries, memberships, and licenses in the club as a whole.

i'm not touchy, i'm just sick of the horrendous leadership and direction the club is being taken in. and keep in mind, i'm one of the guys that DEFENDED the CRB when they booted out most of the ITAC last year.

[Rabbit07]

i expected that response chris. have you guys done any research to find out where those entries came from?

my money says 80% or more are actually cars from other classes.

That is exactly what I said in my first post you bashed me on. They are mostly IT and Spec Miata. These are the cars thay fit in STL.

[tnord]

so then how again is that this category isn't diluting the field?

[xr4racer]

Life does not revolve around your division. Chris is right, STU regardless of where the cars came from has had 251 entries, which is tied for 9th in participation with FP. This is more entries so far than T2, AS, T1, SSB, SSC and GTL etc. Your division has only had 13 STU entries but they have had only 380 entries total. NE has had 67 out of 1088 total. No matter where the cars have come from the entries have been steady and the participants can go to the runoffs which was not possible because IT is a regional only class.
Hopefully this is one more step in the long time goal of haveing 16 or so classes by consolidating the 29 existing classes. ST will be gone and consolidated with T1 so the proposed STL will again make 29.


matt

[quadzjr]

I agree with Travis and others: it sucks that ST will pull from IT and P - both have a long history and are great classes in theory. car gcounts going down means less racing and more open passing lapping day for everyone.


Who and the hell wants that?? ST will/has increased that. Though only based on my opinion I would rather drive a slow car well and get beat, then a fast car racing myself on the track. If I wanted to race my self, I could save money and go SOLO or TT.

Like I have mentioned before. I do like the idea of ST, but targeting IT drivers to go national racing is dilution. It has worked to it's advantage for some. (know that Steve E. and his wife share the ITS/STU car on weekends)

I don't think IT is on the decline.. last time I raced daytona (8/2009) there was close 90 IT cars... at Daytona of all places. There has been growth in ITS atleast in the SE, and their are a few people have taken a break from IT do to the political side of IT. Which in my opinion is the only negative. The ITAC/CRB issues of recent will be something that will be hard to forget. It fustrated me to no end. However if an agreement is made and corrections are made things will continue on. If not then I will be going into ST as well. not becuase I wanted to go national racing, but becuase I am tired of driving a misclassed heavy car that is hard on hubs, and brakes.

[jimmyc]

Ya, what does "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" mean. Does that mean that if you can fit accord brakes on a civic (for example), it would be legal, but Brembo's wouldn't be... How odd....


Ehh I'd dissagree with that.

If you are running a Honda/Acura there is a Brembo caliper you can run...

[tnord]

Life does not revolve around your division. Chris is right, STU regardless of where the cars came from has had 251 entries, which is tied for 9th in participation with FP. This is more entries so far than T2, AS, T1, SSB, SSC and GTL etc. Your division has only had 13 STU entries but they have had only 380 entries total. NE has had 67 out of 1088 total. No matter where the cars have come from the entries have been steady and the participants can go to the runoffs which was not possible because IT is a regional only class.
Hopefully this is one more step in the long time goal of haveing 16 or so classes by consolidating the 29 existing classes. ST will be gone and consolidated with T1 so the proposed STL will again make 29.


matt

what the hell kind of business strategy is this?

it absolutely matters where the cars came from. if all you're doing is changing letters on fenders without increasing membership/entries, what good is it to you?

you may think that this is part of a class consolidation plan, but i've never seen that actually happen. so unless the addition of STL (and all of ST) is tied directly to the elimation of multiple other classes, i'm 100% against it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. It's not diluting if they are double dipping
2. It's not diluting if Regional racers are ADDING Nationals to their schedule because of a new class

It most certainly IS diluting if this class is pulling from Regional IT racing. BUT...what is that telling you? It could mean that there is dissatisfaction with regional racing schedules, IT rules, or a desire to go National racing.

If STU class is 10th on the most wanted list, figure out why. Up here in the NE I can tell you it is most certainly because some IT cars and more SM's are double and triple dipping at National/Pro IT weekends.

Can anyone think of a car that would compete with a 250whp, 2600lb (with driver) S2000 (using that weight because that is as light as I think they can get-sih)

[seckerich]

Who and the hell wants that?? ST will/has increased that. Though only based on my opinion I would rather drive a slow car well and get beat, then a fast car racing myself on the track. If I wanted to race my self, I could save money and go SOLO or TT.

Like I have mentioned before. I do like the idea of ST, but targeting IT drivers to go national racing is dilution. It has worked to it's advantage for some. (know that Steve E. and his wife share the ITS/STU car on weekends)

I don't think IT is on the decline.. last time I raced daytona (8/2009) there was close 90 IT cars... at Daytona of all places. There has been growth in ITS atleast in the SE, and their are a few people have taken a break from IT do to the political side of IT. Which in my opinion is the only negative. The ITAC/CRB issues of recent will be something that will be hard to forget. It fustrated me to no end. However if an agreement is made and corrections are made things will continue on. If not then I will be going into ST as well. not becuase I wanted to go national racing, but becuase I am tired of driving a misclassed heavy car that is hard on hubs, and brakes.

You are correct with that. We double dipped the ITS car in STU both last year and early this year. Only place we could go because the stock tank is not legal for EP because it is behind the axle. I plan to run the RX8 in STU National as it is properly classed there and just change shocks and glass/lexan for ITR in regionals. The 8" wheel width is stupid if they want IT cars to run. Not going to have multiple sets of 17" wheels to change over. Need to match maximum wheel width in IT to get crossover. That was constructive suggestion for lurking committee members.:D I doubt ST/STL will hurt IT, but actually grow some with the double dipping. I still have more fun with regionals, much more laid back.

[xr4racer]

The good is you have a class that attracts new builds and NASA cars that the younger people are into. I cannot tell you how many times people are interested in SCCA and they can not believe they have to get rid of the 17" wheels, wings, engine swaps etc. to race in IT. They immediately lose interest and go to NASA or just track days. If this happens maybe some of these cars will come to race with us.
This could have all been avoided if IT was granted national status or club racing did away with the national/regional format. The powers that be will get what they want even if it takes an end around to get it.
Not to change the subject but a bigger problem in growing the club is that the licensing procedure sucks, some divisions only have 1 school a year because of the extravagant cost and low turnout. Some how this could be incorporated into a regular weekend

matt

[JoshS]

Can anyone think of a car that would compete with a 250whp, 2600lb (with driver) S2000 (using that weight because that is as light as I think they can get-sih)

You know, I've been saying that the weight assignment isn't fair because of the existence of the 2200 lb. S2000, but you have a point, it probably can't get that light.

However, based on a couple of ITE-built S2000s out here in SFR, I'm pretty sure that under 2500 w/driver will be reachable.

That does make things a little bit more fair, I guess.

[Chip42]

The good is you have a class that attracts new builds and NASA cars that the younger people are into. I cannot tell you how many times people are interested in SCCA and they can not believe they have to get rid of the 17" wheels, wings, engine swaps etc. to race in IT. They immediately lose interest and go to NASA or just track days. If this happens maybe some of these cars will come to race with us.
I have had the same experiences. I cna't say for certain how many of the turned-off would have actually showed up at driver's school, but I know of 2 cars right now that are but a manifold swap away from being proper STL cars and they WANT to go racing.

when I say IT is in decline I don't mean car counts, I mean the quality of the racing. I actually should have said "ITB" because it seems that where the bulk of the stubborn prejudice is in the CRB, and the widest breadth of technological ages is. it's the hardest place to level out and the one most in need.

I'm so turned off by the CRBs treatment of ITB that I started tossing around plans to move my car to STU with a jap toyota 2.oL - only to have that idea crushed by this latest rule proposal and replaced with a place to run the car that is more affordable than STU but still allows the things IT will never (and should never in the current form) allow for the car to make the power it needs to run with the front ITB cars. this is where the idea of getting in the way of another's race comes in, and we all just have to be aware of ourselves and our surroundings when it comes to that. further, I could just swap engine families and have somethign that is at an achievable weight, will make good HP from a supported engine family ina car that I want to drive and probobly even be mid-pack runoffs competitive assuming the class takes off and gets built-to. mayeb a front runner if not.

why shouldn't I be attracted to that? - guys get more track time in a weekend with their IT cars, get to run nats if they want to, can finally take their car to a place where it might be competitive if it's one of the eligable IT tweeners, and lets a bunch of new faces bring the cars they WANT to build, the things they understand as normal off of the street and on to the track.

win win win.

[jimmyc]

You know, I've been saying that the weight assignment isn't fair because of the existence of the 2200 lb. S2000, but you have a point, it probably can't get that light.

However, based on a couple of ITE-built S2000s out here in SFR, I'm pretty sure that under 2500 w/driver will be reachable.

That does make things a little bit more fair, I guess.

Our S2k hits the scales at 2375lbs when getting on the track.

I'd expect with the addition of the kraftwerks it will gain 25 to 40lbs.

[tnord]

this is lunacy.

i don't believe for one second that the barrier to entry of swapping a manifold (or whatever insignificant part) is keeping people from racing. they may SAY that, but if that's too big of a hurdle for them to overcome, i can't imagine that once they get into the REAL logistics of going racing that they'd actually go through with it if we allowed said manifold. racing school, medical exams, roll cages, annual inspections, membership/license fees for seemingly nothing, etc etc....

if people really do want to go racing, some stupid little rule like a washer bottle or having to swap back to a stock intake manifold is not going to stop them. the converse is true as well, allowing removal of a WB, or alternate IMs is not going to bring them in by the truckload either.

what this really amounts to is ego, and the gradeschool/autocross mentality of "everybody's a winner." some people are attracted to a smaller field with less competition, an easier win, or easier national championship.

others like to ya know......race.

[JIgou]

When speaking of Nationa racing, I've now personally heard Bob Dowie twice say something along the lines of "IT drivers can't go National Racing. Now we've fixed that."
I do find it odd, though that the only two cars specifically excluded from STL are the Honda S2000 and the Integra Type R.

I thought the same, Gregg. Then, as I thought about it a little more....are there any other ITR cars that have a displacement that falls within the STL guidelines, or are they all STU/O? In other words, is this just a way of saying "we don't want ITR cars or their drivetrains showing up in STL?"

[JoshS]

I thought the same, Gregg. Then, as I thought about it a little more....are there any other ITR cars that have a displacement that falls within the STL guidelines, or are they all STU/O? In other words, is this just a way of saying "we don't want ITR cars or their drivetrains showing up in STL?"

The only ITR cars under 2000cc:

Acura Integra Type-R
Acura RSX-S
Toyota Celica GTS

[Chip42]

i don't believe for one second that the barrier to entry of swapping a manifold (or whatever insignificant part) is keeping people from racing.

I was referring to full engine swaps with aftermarket intakes - typical honda stuff because the oe GSR manifold is not as good as the type R stuff and there are aftermarket clones.

there are plobobly a ton of people out there who want their own little playground. I know we have that in the local SPU class. but I honestly see ST as a place for common modern hot rods to go racing. unswapping a B series honda to its original 12V 1.5L glory doesn't make sense to a lot of the peopel OUT THERE with stuff that is pretty close to legal in ST. what we need to do is start persuading those guys to come play in our sandbox now that we have a real place for them to run. it WILL add to the overall car counts, and it WILL force the midpack slow IT cars to rethink using ST for a trophy becasue they are woefully outclassed in IT as they will be far worse of is ST.

we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what comes of it. in the mean time, write letters with your ideas about that to do with the proposed rules or new proposals and hope that the STAC and CRB agree with you. it's not always fair pool but it's all we have other than bickering here and wasting our employers' money.

[erlrich]

I thought the same, Gregg. Then, as I thought about it a little more....are there any other ITR cars that have a displacement that falls within the STL guidelines, or are they all STU/O? In other words, is this just a way of saying "we don't want ITR cars or their drivetrains showing up in STL?"

I think it's just their way of saying "we will give you a chance to race your IT car at the national level, but we will make damn sure you have zero chance of winning against a real ST car".

It still blows my mind that those idiots thing ANY IT CAR belongs in STO.

[tnord]

let's imagine for a second that creating yet another class while membership shrinks actually is a good idea.......

this is an abortion of a ruleset. if it gains any momentum/popularity at all, you're looking at $50-$60k cars to compete at the runoffs. do you REALLY think that these "modern hot rodder" kids you speak of will be able to afford to build the car alone? ignoring the truck/trailer/etc that goes along with it of course.

[Gregg]

The only ITR cars under 2000cc:
Acura Integra Type-R
Acura RSX-S
Toyota Celica GTS
And so my idea of putting a D16a6 (CRX Si motor) in an ITR shell are shot to hell. :blink:

Anyways, it will be interesting to see how many people build cars specifically for STL in the next few years. Me thinks it won't be many. At the regional level you'll still have many drivers who want to run in multiple classes. At the National level, once the BoD raises the min. requirements to attend the Runoffs (and it will happen), I think you'll find that many of the IT cars masquerading as National STU cars will go back from where they came. Running a regional schedule with two Double Nationals thrown in isn't that big a deal.

When you again have to start towing your car all over the division to qualify for the Runoffs you'll see the migration back to Regional racing. We only have to look at the first year SM made it to the show....Of all the drivers who thought they could mount a successful National campaign *and* a regional campaign, many found out how expensive--both in travel and level of car prep--it really is.

We've got to remember that the IT cars were added to STU/STO as field fillers to get those classes on their feet. Participation went up dramatically when (a) the classes were guaranteed a place at the Runoffs and (b) the threshold for getting to the Runoffs got absurdly low for "low maintenance" cars like those in SM and most IT cars. At the same meeting I heard the "we fixed that" line from Mr. Dowie, he also mentioned how difficult it was to prep a Natioanlly-raced car for four races. He races in GTL and that may be true. I know what would happen to participation in ST* if a guaranteed Runoffs spot disappeared. I'm pretty sure we'll see the same result when those used to regional racing now have to shell out National-level budgets.

BTW--I'll be "racing" at the Runoffs in STU this year, not that I think my 130hp CRX has the slightest chance against an ex-WCTC. I don't plan on doing the National STL thing when the Runoff requirements change.

[spawpoet]

. if it gains any momentum/popularity at all, you're looking at $50-$60k cars to compete at the runoffs. do you REALLY think that these "modern hot rodder" kids you speak of will be able to afford to build the car alone? ignoring the truck/trailer/etc that goes along with it of course.


The same can be said of the vast majority of IT racers too. The cost to compete will quickly exceed what most IT competitors want to put into a budget. That's why you won't lose too many drivers from IT. What you will get is some cross pollination at regionals and Nationals from IT to ST just for the extra track-time. IMHO it should have very little impact on Regional racing, while it should ultimately bolster National racing some. To me the real potential downside it may cause is further defection from Production from guys who already spend the money to win at that level, and would prefer to do that with this ruleset.

[jimmyc]

Really the only IT cars that have a chance to run up front in STL are ITS cars, as i see it from the cars i know about.

You aren't going to be pulling any "cross-over" Honda Challange H2 guys.

The B16a H2 cars aren't legal because of the cams they run.

The b18c1 h2 cars aren't legal becuase of the IM they run.

And nothing else in H2 would work out, the LS/b20/k20a3 cars don't make enough power to compete.

Then go to IT.

ITA/B/C honda/acura= Not enough power

ITS honda/acura= GSR/del sol SI/Civic SI which are far from the most popular IT cars

ITR Honda/Acura= To much cam lift.

[quadzjr]

I dont' think the idea is for crossover.. though some could come around if they choose to with modifications.

Okay goin goff what Jimmy and others are talking about.. on paper it looks like the best on only logical engine in STL is aB16 or B18 based on the displacement and output. Nothing can come close to these two motors with allowed mods. Mazda BP (ITS Miata) may make some extra ponies, doubtfull to make what it needs.. Don't know the specifics..

Nissan's SR20 (in NA trim), Toyota's 4AGE (small port) are the best in their stable that is legal, but neither are going to make honda power with bolt ons. Will the 16V VW motor make honda power? doubt it.

Per the rules as of right now it looks like you could put a smaller cam in a honda K20 or Toyota 2ZZ but then you are looking at starting at less than factory hp. Not as big of a deal for the K20, but the 2zz stock is already behind the B18..

So really in STL unless they allow a jokingly busa motor in a 1600 lbs swift it would make no sense to purpose build anything other than a honda. I am sure I am missing a few.. From the outside looks like honda challenge, with other cars therotically behind the lead pack.

IF the kids just want to go wild and build crazy crap they already had STU and regional classes ITE/ITU/etc..

[Chip42]

yeah it's funny that all of these "hand grenade" motors are illegal because the STL engine specs are more conservative than the way they were delivered for the street.

how about this - we convince the CRB to forget ST but instead allow IT level prep engine swaps in IT. class cars by the motor, weight through the process with some fixed value per engine as a baseline and modifiers based on chassis config (strut, RWD/FWD, whatever). list eligable chassis and engines if you want. it would satisfy the HC crowd and me. it would make more sense then dividing a finite number of cars between more classes, and it would still mean that the MR2 is a DOG. everyone wins.

funny - I proposed the same thing here about 2 months ago...

[quadzjr]

yeah it's funny that all of these "hand grenade" motors are illegal because the STL engine specs are more conservative than the way they were delivered for the street.

Both the B16 and B18 are legal in stock trim.. both have lift at .417. Jimmy is refering to the Type R cams they are allowed ro run in H2 that are too large.

guestimated power with B16 165-170.. B18 180-185..

Any ideas on any other manufacturer within the STL rules that can come close to matching that per displacement? Like I said.. it only makes sense to build a honda.. not saying there isn't another option out there.. but it is hard to match. On top of that they can make weight..

[Rabbit07]

I like Greg Ginnsberg, am taking an IT car to Runoffs. as an experiment I am building a DOHC 2.0 for the Neon. I plan on being able to make above 190 hp with the cams allowed in STL. Unfortunatly I would have to add almost 100 lbs to my car to run legally in STL. I want to see if this can be done. The ST committee discussed this regarding the Honda's and their already high lift cams. I would think that the Nissans should still be capable of making really good power also.

[Knestis]

All,

Please write your letters for and against the ST rules and STL. I am one of the committe members and quite exited about it myself. We need your input. There are reason why the rules are they way they are now, but most of that is from the committees perspective. Please let us know constructively what you like or don't

Thanks

Could we please get an official explication of the desired outcome of creating a new category? We have lots of "mights" and "shoulds" but NO policy should be put in place without a clear statement of its aim. Ideally, someone would have looked at possible negative outcomes, given consideration to the likelihood that they would happen, and come up with contingencies to put in place if goals aren't achieved (e.g. sunset clause, absorption into existing category, etc.)

I worry that initiatives like this are often the product of some group of people - typically a small group - saying, "Hey - I know what would be cool!"

K

[Knestis]

>> At the same meeting I heard the "we fixed that" line from Mr. Dowie, he also mentioned how difficult it was to prep a Natioanlly-raced car for four races.

Seriously...? Hey - how about this: If one can't afford to run the requisite number of races to qualify, maybe they should lower their goals and expectations?

K

[DoubleXL240Z]

Sooo, A class was made to allow a few, more or less, an opportunity to race in a National class, with little or no mods to their car. The possibility to build a car for another class, or rebuild an existing car for another class, or be able to doubledipp on a Nat'l/Pro IT weekend. And we have cried about how terrible that is for 5 pages about how the sky will fall, and conspiracy theories will be the death of IT, Prod, Happy Meals, SS, and life as we know it!!!
The people that will build $50k+ cars will be there, just like they are in IT. If you want to run your ITS car or ITB or whatever, go do it!! It may not be competitive, but you are not guaranteed that anyway!
Nobody said you had to race there, thats your decision!

[quadzjr]

It is more to it than that..

okay.. you have started your new ITB project. Currently there are roughly 5-10 ITB cars per race. Now say if you finish your car and now.

3 or 4 of those cars are running in STL. So now there are 1 to 6 cars in class with you. But the guys now running STL are in a mix in your battle for ITB. If they are in a battle for 2nd and 3rd and are seperating you from 2nd place in your class what happens then? You guys are all similiar prepped cars and running the same times.. but are running different classes.

also in simple numbers alone would you rather race against larger group of cars in your class or a smaller one?

If you want to build a crazy car there already exists catch all classes currently.

Lastly alot of the pages involved issues with the rules.. seems to be highly favorable to use two engines in a class that is open to all USDM.. which is kinda dumb.. like the simplicty of the rules.. but as it turns out if someone wanted to spend the money and build the car the options are truely limited..

[Z3_GoCar]

$50k cars? Nice try, more like $150K there's lot of opertunities to buy speed in this class. That said, in our region we run two production car groups, STx runs with the ground-pounders, while ITx runs with T#, AS, and G/HP. I had a choice between ITE and STU for a double dip class, both run the same group. I choose STU for my first :smilie_pokal:

As for the S2000, sice you can't make the minimum weight you could take all the performance penalties, such as sequential transmission and fully ported head as freebies. It's also classed in STO with a supercharger in its VTS.

[lateapex911]

My mind is spinning.
Random points:
Steve, the inconsistency in wheel sizes between ITR and ST was brought up by me last fall when I saw the STL rules. So it's not a "new discovery" to the committee.

If this is to bring in Honda guys, well it looks like that's the only thing that it can do, if I'm hearing you guys. Great, a Honda class. Wow, how thrilled am I. (Not because I hate Hondas, but because I LIKE other things...why bother making the rules for 'all" if they have no chance? At least TRY to make things even)

Travis makes an EXCELLLENT point(s). Building a real deal full tilt race car that can run at the leading edge of the ruleset isnt about wings and engine swaps. It's about development. The more options you have, teh more development costs. Seam welding? Cages to teh towers? Kiss cheap dampers goodbye. And so on. How many engine swap wing toting kids are going to get their asses blown off by a real deal developed car? A lot. And how many will stick to the program, and how many will bail in a act of disillusionment. I LIKE the idea of attracting them, but I'm not thinking this is the best way.

I see where the whole 'system' came from. It's the arguement we've had in the ITAC/CRB 'issues', regarding why similar cars with similar displacements should, or should NOT be the same/similar weight. Bob Dowie says they should. The ITAC thinks that things like cams, etc mean they should not, and stock HP is a guiding tenet.
In this case, they said, "Fine, instead of being limited to stock cams, we'll allow ANY cam up to XYZ and then we can use displacement as the classing/weighting factor."
Well, kinda....not. It's now become a head and intake class. So, with that magical stroke, competitive cars are either limited to a few makes/models, or costs have skyrocketed, (if I read the rules right).

Double dipping?. SFR had this nailed years ago. ITX. Done. Soup.

Speaking of SFR, Josh, your comment about the inability to make min weight in an S2000 makes it 'fairer". Well maybe, but not by plan! Shouldn't it be about the PLAN? (And there is the concept of hey, since it can't make weight anyway, add a sequential and take teh weight penalty because it won't make any on the track weight difference. Great, what's a sequential box cost? A l-o-t.

If you ask ANYbody in SCCA racing if ADDING three more classes was a good idea, I doubt you'd find many that said yes. It strikes me that I haven't heard a mission statement, a big picture thought process about what this is supposed to do, and what possible outcomes and corrections have been prepared. More classes, oh joy. We DON'T need a whole new category (actually 3) to encourage double dipping. How many prep levels will the club have? SS, Touring, IT, SPL, SPU, SPO, Prot Light, PRod. ALL are production based. NASA's PT looks good in comparison.

I'm not buying the whole "Give IT a chance to experience national racing." And get their doors blown off. What the F is so different about National racing? A longer race? Wonderful, when you're running along getting your ass whipped because you brought a knife to a gunfight, the misery lasts longer? That's really just a trackday when it all boils down, if you ask me.

Critics of the above view might be saying, "Yeah, but how many real deal builds will actually show up? Who cares? If one shows up, and you run 2nd out of 3, is that really a good race?. Sounds like a trackday. Heck, we already have ITE for that. Ooops! That's not "national"....

At this point, I can't help but feel that properly managing the National/ Regional system, and the existing classes would have resulted in a better and more cohesive program than throwing yet more classes at the perceived problems.

Maybe I'm wrong...but long term experience in this club to this kind of thing makes me worry.

[Greg Amy]

I'd like to point out to everyone concerned about "thinning" the existing classes, that this same argument is trotted out for every new class.

I still remember the hue and cry - mostly from IT and SS competitors - about class "thinning" when a funky new Regional-Only class was proposed a few years ago. Everyone said it would take away from other classes, causing an even further dilution of existing classes, and maybe even cause an overall reduction in competition; people were screaming about "why do we need new classes? Just revamp the existing ones!!" I also remember screams about how do we "really need a new spec class, especially one based off a single marque?"

Today, I'd suggest there are very few people who can legitimately argue against the success - both in within itself and for the Club - of Spec Miata... :shrug:

I'm not suggesting that STx will prove itself as popular and successful as SM - that would be a historical feat - I'm simply saying that the "club economy" has a way of taking care of these issues all by itself (remember Shelby Can Am?)

In the end, the decision on what class to run is yours; I sincerely doubt the existence of another National class will have much effect on your racing. Hell, it might even make it better...

GA

[Chip42]

I'll agree that the rules for STL are imperfect. I like that they tried to blanket the mods and keep all things more or less at the same potential. I like that there's a place to do swaps - other than GT, that doesn't happen in any real classes. I don't care about national race winning, but I do like a class where I could theoretically go out of region and compete with others built to the same rules rather than be dropped into whatever alphabet soup catchall class they use there.

I like the simplicity and afford-ability of IT (to run, you can spend as much money as you want no matter where you go). but I dislike the refusal by rulesmakers (be they ITAC or, more likely, CRB ) on matters of helping to level the field to encourage better racing. I also don't like that the class doesn't seem attractive to so many of the younger people.

how would you propose to reconcile the two? what would you change in STL (we have to assume it IS going to pass in some very similar form to what was presented in the fastrack) or what would you think would be good, large scale changes to IT to force the hand of the CRB and allow a bit more prep flexibility a'la PT or a lot more a'la ST? assuming, of course, that when the dust settles we want your competitive IT car to remain so without touching it aside from maybe ± a few #s of lead, but would also want to see volvos, MR2s, other toyotas, VWs, triumphs, dodges, whatever else able to mix it up up front. assume we stick with the current 5-tier system (R/S/A/B/C).

if we can come to a solution here, maybe convince a few in the sandbox and other relevant groups, and get a letter writing campaign going to the concensus, it will at least have been a good effort in organization - I'm sure the CRB will refuse to listen anyway. I mean - maybe we can consolidate the changes into something most of us are happy with.

or you can all tell me to F off. after all, I mostly play with hondas.

[Knestis]

>> ...If you ask ANYbody in SCCA racing if ADDING three more classes was a good idea, I doubt you'd find many that said yes except for the people who thought said new classes were cool.

I finished Jake's thought there...

No question, Greg, that the "success" of SM is evident in terms of sheer relative numbers but it depends how one measures it. Nobody has demonstrated to me that Club Racing is (was?) healthier becuase of it was around. SM's arrival coincided with a period of time when US consumers were wildly optimistic, so were spending $$ like drunk sailors. It was an attractive option because it reached some critical mass as a bunch of new racers were primed by track day participation and other factors to jump into road racing.

Do we believe that, absent that class, those people would have opted for a boat instead? I have some difficulty believing that would have been the case.

I view success of our program by a couple of measures including (a) gross participation (in entries, not drivers), and (b) size of classes. My hypothesis is that we would likely have had similar increases in participation AND larger classes - so more "competition" or "racing" - if SM had never happened and all other factors shook out the same. OPM would still have built rental cars. History suggestst that they would have been ITA Hondas rather than Miatae. Or they might have been ITA Miatas.

Now, if "double dipping" is the goal - increasing total entries per car to something greater than 1:1; a good thing - regions have demonstrated how to easily do that.

If "a chance for existing IT drivers to try Nationals" is a good thing, the barriers to entry in Prod are similar to for STU/L. And a "try it, you'll like it" effort is going to be closer to the theoretical pointy end of the field. AND the cost (normalized to some level of competitiveness) is likely lower.

So we come back to, "I think it's cool."

I won't tell you to F off Chip but I will play my old fart card to explain a bunch of inconsistencies in your arguments, that are essentially covering "I think it's cool." NOTE that you are ALLOWED to think it's cool, and that you can pick - or support creation of - a category or class for that reason. However, remember that a lot of folks are going to see through some of this smoke.

** I like that [STU] tried to blanket the mods and keep all things more or less at the same potential - at a substantially higher cost for any given level of preparation. The most level rules in the racing world are in "Unlimited" classes. There's no way to guarantee low costs, since they are a function of competitive pressures NOT rules, but additional rule allowances raise the ceiling where costs are concerned.

** I do like a class where I could theoretically go out of region and compete with others built to the same rules rather than be dropped into whatever alphabet soup catchall class they use there - except that you won't be able to "compete" (i.e., run for a win) in any region where ONE person has spent a $gazillion to build something to the letter of the STU rules. If you want to simply participate, you can do that in alphabet soup.

** I dislike the refusal by rulesmakers (be they ITAC or, more likely, CRB ) on matters of helping to level the field to encourage better racing - Racing is mostly "leveled" by budgets. Put differently, most of the cases where someone isn't competitive are the result of their driving skills, their lack of $$ to spend on racing (largely, to increase their skills), or both. This is a long conversation - the longest in IT history, probably - but the primary rub vis-a-vis "encouraging better racing," is that the ITAC (c.2009) pretty much agreed with this first principle. The WORST thing that can happen to a category is to have some clever person trying to "level the field." That WILL happen in STU and it WILL NOT be pretty for some people.

** I also don't like that the class doesn't seem attractive to so many of the younger people - We could do a better job of proactively listing newer cars in IT. But if the reason that younger people aren't road racing in SCCA is because of the ossified IT rules, where are they doing it? Perusing NASA MidAtlantic results, they typically get 8 +/- entries in PT. H1 is fading fast and H2 is essentially dead. The biggest classes in NASA are spec series for cars older than "younger people" - 944s and e30 BMWs. Utlimately, this issue is more about "younger people" than about classes. And NASA captures new racers more effectively than SCCA because it's got a kick-ass HPDE feeder program.

** I like that there's a place to do swaps - There you are. That's "I think it's cool." And again, there's not a damned thing wrong with that but the question should be, "Does the Club realize a net gain in measures of success by creating a place for people who like swaps, over some other course of action - including business-as-usual?"

Nobody seems to be asking that question.

K

[Bill Miller]

Interesting discussion. Let me first say, that I did not read the ST rules. I did however, read most of the 5 pages of this discussion. Kirk makes a good point, what goal are the PtB trying to achieve with this? And I know many of the old timers here will find this hard to believe, but for the most part, I agree w/ a lot of what Travis says.

A quick though about the whole engine swap thing (and this goes to something that Travis said). What's the main driver behind doing an engine swap? Pretty much an easier / cheaper route to more power. Are most of the people doing engine swaps Talso doing the development to wring the most out of the swapped-in motor? Not usually. I don't know the Honda side, but I do know the VW side. 20+ years ago it was a lot cheaper and easier to drop a 1.8 16v 123hp engine in a Rabbit than it was to try and get that much power out of a 1.6 or 1.8 8v motor. The motor swap thing is an easy/inexpensive way to get more power for the people that don't have the money/time/skill to actually develop their car.

Now, when you take someone that does have the money/time/skill, AND you give them a better platform to start from, you've really raised the price of poker. The pointy end will naturally gravitate to what is the best starting platform, and spend from there. If you don't think so, just look at ITS from 5-10 years ago.

Bob Dowie's wt/cc model is obviously crafted through GT-colored glasses. Can't fault him for that, that's what he races. But shouldn't people in leadership positions have the ability to look at things from not just their own perspective? His comment about prepping a car for 4 National races was priceless. Good thing he doesn't race in a class where he's actually got to compete for a Runoffs' slot.

Anyway, y'all have fun. Nice to see that some things don't change.

[xr4racer]

Bill, GTL is a class that does require a ton of prep and money to run well. Currently no one runs in a class that has to compete for a runoffs slot.

matt

[Knestis]

... Currently no one runs in a class that has to compete for a runoffs slot.

matt

Please tell me that's got a winky next to it... Or has it come to the point where everyone believes they should be allowed to go to the RubOffs just for paying their entry fees...?

K

[Russ Myers]

just wait till i get around to dropping a cosworth bda into my focus...

Russ

[Greg Amy]

Please tell me that's got a winky next to it...
Kirk, are you aware the only requirement to "qualify" for the Runoffs is to "finish" four races in the class you're entering...? And that no classes are being excluded from the Runoffs, all get to go (the lesser-attended groups are combined)?

QUITE a departure from "the old days", when you had to finish top-3 in your Division (and were REQUIRED to run at least one race out of Division) to be guaranteed a slot in Da Big Race... - GA

[xr4racer]

Kirk, if you mean "competing" in the truest sense of the word, no one is competing this year to go to the runoffs. When there are people going to the runoffs by running half distance of 4 races done over just 2 double national weekends, that is not competing.

matt

[Greg Amy]

I'm submitting a response to the CRB supporting the acceptance of STL, with the following prep changes to the proposed rules:

- Allow alternate control arms (continue using stock pickup points);

- Allow alternate outer ball joint and outer tie rod relocation;

- Allow alternate brakes;

- Consider slightly lighter weights so the larger-displacement cars (primarily, the 2-liters) do not have to add a lot of ballast.

GA

[Knestis]

Kirk, are you aware the only requirement to "qualify" for the Runoffs is to "finish" four races in the class you're entering...? And that no classes are being excluded from the Runoffs, all get to go (the lesser-attended groups are combined)?

QUITE a departure from "the old days", when you had to finish top-3 in your Division (and were REQUIRED to run at least one race out of Division) to be guaranteed a slot in Da Big Race... - GA

BAH! I'm going back to my cabin in the woods and carve something out of wood.

K

[jimmyc]

I'm submitting a response to the CRB supporting the acceptance of STL, with the following prep changes to the proposed rules:

- Allow alternate control arms (continue using stock pickup points);

- Allow alternate outer ball joint and outer tie rod relocation;

- Allow alternate brakes;

- Consider slightly lighter weights so the larger-displacement cars (primarily, the 2-liters) do not have to add a lot of ballast.

GA


I like those rules/ideas.


FYI it would not be hard to get a 94-00 integra to ~2200lbs with everything that is allowed.

[Butch Kummer]

Kirk, are you aware the only requirement to "qualify" for the Runoffs is to "finish" four races in the class you're entering...? And that no classes are being excluded from the Runoffs, all get to go (the lesser-attended groups are combined)?

QUITE a departure from "the old days", when you had to finish top-3 in your Division (and were REQUIRED to run at least one race out of Division) to be guaranteed a slot in Da Big Race... - GA

It didn't make it to the latest FasTrack so I guess it's gone back for more tweaking, but there was SUPPOSED to be a serious modification to the Runoffs eligibility requirements starting in 2011. Rather than just show up and run four races you would have to actually outrun someone (actually half the people in your class and division) in order to earn an invitation. I expect to find out more at our SEDiv Mid-Year meeting tomorrow (7/24), but I CAN tell you that if stays the way it is right now Atlanta Region may not schedule any National races next year.

The Run-Ons needs to return to a "Best of the Best" format. Inviting everyone that can fog a mirror didn't work and destroyed the local Nationals this year.

[Greg Amy]

Inviting everyone that can fog a mirror...
I dunno, Butch; given some of the Production fields I've been grouped with this year (I've been running STU) I'd say it's quite an accomplishment for them to make it halfway through any race, let alone four times a year...;)

GA

Before Prod guys off on a tear, please notice the "winky, winky".... :happy204:

[lateapex911]

I'm submitting a response to the CRB supporting the acceptance of STL, with the following prep changes to the proposed rules:

- Allow alternate control arms (continue using stock pickup points);

- Allow alternate outer ball joint and outer tie rod relocation;

- Allow alternate brakes;

- Consider slightly lighter weights so the larger-displacement cars (primarily, the 2-liters) do not have to add a lot of ballast.

GA

So, that means we'll all be fabricating arms. And brakes , means some will be spending $$ to have the parts made for their model. $$$$. Why not just allow new uprights to, to save those guys the money of having to have parts made to fit their particular up right?

What makes this different than other prep categories?
How is this different than Low Prep prod? (for example?)

[lateapex911]

Interesting discussion. Let me first say, that I did not read the ST rules. I did however, read most of the 5 pages of this discussion. Kirk makes a good point, what goal are the PtB trying to achieve with this? And I know many of the old timers here will find this hard to believe, but for the most part, I agree w/ a lot of what Travis says.

A quick though about the whole engine swap thing (and this goes to something that Travis said). What's the main driver behind doing an engine swap? Pretty much an easier / cheaper route to more power. Are most of the people doing engine swaps Talso doing the development to wring the most out of the swapped-in motor? Not usually. I don't know the Honda side, but I do know the VW side. 20+ years ago it was a lot cheaper and easier to drop a 1.8 16v 123hp engine in a Rabbit than it was to try and get that much power out of a 1.6 or 1.8 8v motor. The motor swap thing is an easy/inexpensive way to get more power for the people that don't have the money/time/skill to actually develop their car.

This. To carry the thought further, I think the swap thing is mostly a street thing. And yea, it's gets carried into racing. But the number of guys who do the swap AND develop ...really develop...the swapped motor, (and the whole package) are, I think, few and far between. Certainly the top dogs in Honda Challenge have a handle on the concept, but nationwide, how many is that? (Jimmy will know) I suspect we're not talking numbers that require two hands to count. Some will blame NASA for killing HC with the Toyo spec tire rule. I'd suggest thats a red herring...a reason many people cite in lieu of other more personal reasons, which might include inability to prep and run at the pointy end due to finances and talent. Or it was a straw that broke the camels back.

I fear that while it seems like a good way to encourage swappers to play, the longer term outlook is bleaker, and sets up people for disillusionment.




Bob Dowie's wt/cc model is obviously crafted through GT-colored glasses. Can't fault him for that, that's what he races. But shouldn't people in leadership positions have the ability to look at things from not just their own perspective?

I don't know if the whole thing can be put in Bob's lap. I know Peter Keane is very high on this concept. I like that Peter is enthusiastic. I worry that the bigger policy issues haven't been thought out. This is, first and foremost, a policy decision.

[Kolin Aspegren]

+1 to what Greg Amy said.

I'm not adding over 100 hundred pounds to my (2.0) car, more than my ITA or
SSC race weight in order to run in STL.

Other than fixing some of the cough cough Acura,crx, miata weights everything looks
great for 2011. Hats off to PK,CC,RM and company.

See everyone at the Runoffs, roll me over if you find me face down in the mud.

k

[Greg Amy]

So, that means we'll all be fabricating arms...
No it won't, Jake, 'cause I'm assuming you'll keep your RX-7 in Improved Touring where you can't do that. It will only affect people that choose to run in this class.

I, on the other hand, will purchase aluminum rear lower arms to reduce weight and easily add sphericals; adjustable upper rear arms to replace the fixed links so I can easily adjust camber; replacement upper front arms with adjustable ball joints so I can adjust camber easily; and a pair of adjustable rear toe links to allow quick and easy rear toe changes without dealing with those f*****g slots.

And best of all, it's all available off-the-shelf for the Integra (in fact we're done almost all of those already). I could even buy it off eBay... "Warts and all", I think we call it...?

And alternate brakes? That's a given.

I like your idea of the uprights, though... (juuuust kidding.)


How is this different than Low Prep prod? (for example?)Uh, different rules? Or is that a trick question? I never had any interest in Production, even Limited Prep, so I can't tell you. But I encourage you to look it up...I am a bit disappointed that the rules allow alternate windshields; I've often thought that one thing really philosophically separates "rational" mods from "all-out too far" ones...

What's really funny about this whole thing is that it reminds me a lot of the "Modified Touring 2 (http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3)" ruleset I wrote almost a decade ago...imagine that, me being ahead of my time... ;)

GA

[Russ Myers]

Why not just build a GT car? all of this is perfectly legal there. seems to me there ain't a whole lot of difference.

Russ.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All of those changes are very FWD-centric in practical application if not on paper. You still want all that weight break too?

[Chip42]

I'm glad someone like TGA is on the same side of the fence as me. makes me feel less insane.

ST is a neat class. the differences between the proposed STCS and PCS are small - slicks, fenders, roof, swaps, brakes. the speclines will come to ST, most likely listed by motor, but they will come. there is absolutely no reason for there not to be brake, suspension link material, and alignment adjustments more like the "big" ST classes. if you think it's expensive, don't run there. you don't run prod or gt, do you? they're expensive...

I personally think the IT rule set is great in general, and I don't want to see it die or be injured. I see 2 real problems though - 1: the book keeping is very difficult due to the large list of spec lines and the amount of crossover. 2: the balance issue - we've all read knestis' dispositions on various thread sbaout that, and I would check with him about the sanity of anything as I generally LIKE the guy's ideas. when I say there's prejudice in the PTB about changing the old and the wrongly classed, I don't think I'm wrong. I don't want to rebalance everything necessarily, but I do think there has to be either a break in the damn or a rewrite to force something like a real process to be appliead accross the board.

I think people are wrong about ST hurting IT long term. it might hurt car counts for a couple of years, but all you need is a rule to forbid regional-running of IT cars in ST. done. go play in SPITOUE land if you want to double dip.

and I still think swaps are cool AND CAN BE WORTHWHILE!!! I'll never stop thinking so. having them in IT is a mere flight of facny and I'm sorry I mentioned it.

[Greg Amy]

Why not just build a GT car?
Hmmm...well, if one were to take that idea of "no guarantee of competitiveness" to its illogical conclusion, maybe the SCCA only needs three classes: GT-1, ASR, and Formula X (whichever is the fastest one).

But no, some people like the idea of "appearance of competitiveness." So, we as a Club break down our competition into smaller chunks based on level and type of preparation, such as Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring, Production, GT; we even break out cars based on make and model (Spec Miata, Spec RX-7). All of this is done categorized in such as way to at least give opportunity.

And, even within those categories we further classify cars based on performance potential within those categories based on prep level. Thus instead of just "Improved Touring" we have ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC; now we have ITR to let more cars play and regionally we have IT-7/Spec-RX7 to let more people be competitive (how come I haven't heard anyone complain about those classes diluting the fields? Instead I heard how "groovy" those ideas were...?) We also break down our SS, Touring, and GT categories, too.

And that's only within the tin-tops...

If your argument is - as Jake's seems to be - that the difference in prep level between Improved Touring and Production is not large enough to warrant a separate class, I'll grant you that debate; it's a reasonable one to argue (though I may not necessarily agree). However, the way the club is structured now, it's not a debate of "what is between IT and Prod", it's a debate of "what's between Touring and Prod" because in the National scheme of things Improved Touring is wholly irrelevant (sad to say). And that "IT going National" debate has been argued for each of the nearly-three-decades I've been in the Club, and it's been consistently rejected. And what I'm seeing here with the STx proposal is the Club taking IT National with an attractive "step up" rule set from GCR 9.1.3.

So to use the argument of "why not just [enter] GT" just makes me laugh, because to me it indicates that you are unsatisfied with the current structure of multiple categories and classes; if not, then maybe you're just trying to protect your own situation (like when the Irish used to tell the Italians to go home -- or was it the other way around...?) Let's not forget that STO/STU, and its predecessors BP/DP, has been around at least 4-5 years, and in fact many IT competitors have been consistently using it for extra track time. Yet this argument is one that never came up vis-a-vis BP/DP or STO/STU until the moment IT cars had a prayer of appearing competitive.

But in the end, it really, really doesn't matter. If you guys find the STL category a threat to Improved Touring, then maybe IT is not as strong as we think it is (I, personally, don't believe that). You'll find very few people "leaving" Improved Touring to race STL exclusively, and those that do were probably not seriously considering IT to begin with. And, whatever you think of the rules, you know the drill...

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

The problem I have with a class like this is that EVENTUALLY, someone is going to find a magic combination (lets say the S2000) that is unbeatable because of the ruleset.

Couple things could then happen. The CRB will then handicap that car with a competition adjustment OR people will lose interest very quickly.

[quadzjr]

just wait till i get around to dropping a cosworth bda into my focus...

Russ

not exactly legal.. not a USDM motor. IF that was legal.. Toyota Atlantic motor here I come!.. well I would have to sell my truck and one of my other cars.. and probably the canoe.. the smoker... bicycle.. :rolleyes:

[Rabbit07]

The problem I have with a class like this is that EVENTUALLY, someone is going to find a magic combination (lets say the S2000) that is unbeatable because of the ruleset.

Couple things could then happen. The CRB will then handicap that car with a competition adjustment OR people will lose interest very quickly.

Hello Spec Lines.

I say this because we have them in the works.

[seckerich]

Good. No SCCA National class is complete without the ability to hand out candy to your friends.:rolleyes: You have already started down the slippery slope with "special" exemptions.

[lateapex911]

Good. No SCCA National class is complete without the ability to hand out candy to your friends.:rolleyes: You have already started down the slippery slope with "special" exemptions.

DING DING DING.

The problem is the same ole same ole. Heck, look at it now, it's laughable to think that all cars are included because from the napkin math shown so far, not much can actually stand a chance at the theoretical front row, except for a few Honda cars...

So spec lines are promised to equal the chances? Making it up as we go along.

Sadly, IT has been rejected as a national class, and sadly the PTB don't trust a policy and a process ....and custom spec line adjustment rears it's head again. How very Prod like.

Greg, all that super cool alternate control arm stuff is great.....for you....and I'd suggest that your choice of car is WHY this is a cool concept......to you.

But, to suggest this is a category with multiple models that are getting the same treatment is far fetched from what I'm understanding. (I know you aren't saying that, but the creators have set it up that way..) Sure, I CAN put control arms on my Durward, but I'll be fabricating them. (If Greg gets his way) Understood, I chose the wrong car.... if i wanted to go cheap racing i should have chosen a Honda product. The point isn't that I hate Hondas, it's that it's a category for multiple models, but it seems like it's really catering hugely to a very limited selection. heck it could be catering to BMWs or whatever, it would be no different.

I still haven't heard one big picture coherent policy explanation of what the larger intention is, and why this is the best solution.

[Greg Amy]

I still haven't heard one big picture coherent policy explanation of what the larger intention is, and why this is the best solution.
Show me one class - absent Spec Miata and Spec Renau...uh, Ford, where this is the case? And "best solution" to what, Jake? This is not a "solution" to a "problem", it's just another alternative. If you don't like it, don't enter it; if no one likes it, it dies. You were given the option of Spec/IT-7 (I don't recall being given opportunity for feedback or input on that one and on how it dilutes Improved Touring A...?) Let others have that option to whatever they might be looking for.

And, Jake, I don't recall you getting bent all out of shape as I was having to singularly fabricate everything on my NX2000 in order to make it a competitive car. If that was the case, why were you not there side-by-side with me trying to get all the IT rules changed in regard to things I had to pay for fabrication for Improved Touring A? Why were you not there with me in regard to "multiple models that are getting the same treatment"? Or does that ideal of "should be easily available before approved" only apply to classes other than ITA? If I were to do a search on this board for "warts and all" and "username=lateapex911" any wonder what I'd find...?

You guys are really getting your panties all in a wad here...and I just don't understand why. It's not like the IT forum has been given the prerogative of deciding the long-term big-picture strategy for all of Club Racing or anything, that's the responsibility of the BoD...so let the market decide, and you can direct that course through your input to the CRB and your BoD member; let THEM both know what you want. But honestly, I like the option, and will use my economic voting ability accordingly.

:shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

If one class pulls from another, it just means that is a better option for THOSE people. If more than half move, it would seem that it is a better class for the club. How many people are running LP vs. full-prep in prod anymore?

I think the PTB should be commended for trying out ideas that try and grab the current state of the market. Whether this one hits the mark is yet to be determined. The REAL challenge for SCCA is to identify the classes that are simply not cutting the mustard and eliminate them.

I stand by my assertion that a displacement-to-weight class with stock intake and throttle-bodies will quickly result in HUGE under and overdogs. THEN you can really feel the shit-storm if traditional comp-adjustments are used to compensate. No thanks.

[Chip42]

I stand by my assertion that a displacement-to-weight class with stock intake and throttle-bodies will quickly result in HUGE under and overdogs. THEN you can really feel the shit-storm if traditional comp-adjustments are used to compensate. No thanks.

which is why the rules need to be addressed NOW in their proposed state to avoid said shit storm.. everyone knows that honda will dominate in a class based solely on displacement - their USDM heads are typically the best available. JDM and European market stuff would change the balance but no one wants to entertain that idea. that doesn't make the intent of the rules and the class any less attractive - they simply need to iron out the lack of thought that went into writing them.

[xr4racer]

I do not see the problem with spec lines,E prod has been one of the most successful classes and the cars are equalized by the spec lines. I know it will take a few years but everybody bitches about a car not having a chance in IT, this is what spec lines will hopefully fix over time. If the Hondas run away with everything they can actually add weight, add restrictors etc. In the end if done correctly you will have many manufacturers able to have a chance.

matt

[lateapex911]

Show me one class - absent Spec Miata and Spec Renau...uh, Ford, where this is the case? And "best solution" to what, Jake? This is not a "solution" to a "problem", it's just another alternative. If you don't like it, don't enter it; if no one likes it, it dies. You were given the option of Spec/IT-7 (I don't recall being given opportunity for feedback or input on that one and on how it dilutes Improved Touring A...?) Let others have that option to whatever they might be looking for.

I'll start with IT-7, which was a response to classing issues made by the PTB long before there was an IT-7. When the yardstick was moved in ITA, many stakeholders were displaced. Those guys decided that they were a large group, and took it upon themselves to create their own class....regionally. That class was the poster child for the failings of leadership. That was the problem: unfair classifications. And I resisted NER creating an IT-7 class for years, while I worked from within the system to make a better IT category. In the end, I screwed my own car with my votes as to how to form performance envelopes that framed the classes. I never once suggested that the class be slowed down enough that the RX-7 would be competitive. When the classes were settled, I supported NERs adoption of IT-7, and the Region benefited because while they lost 1 or 2 ITA entries, they gained 4-6 IT-7 entries at every event. I doubt any ITA competitor really cared. I would have far preferred the car was competitive in ITA, but....


And, Jake, I don't recall you getting bent all out of shape as I was having to singularly fabricate everything on my NX2000 in order to make it a competitive car. If that was the case, why were you not there side-by-side with me trying to get all the IT rules changed in regard to things I had to pay for fabrication for Improved Touring A? Why were you not there with me in regard to "multiple models that are getting the same treatment"? Or does that ideal of "should be easily available before approved" only apply to classes other than ITA? If I were to do a search on this board for "warts and all" and "username=lateapex911" any wonder what I'd find...?I came into ITA and joined the ITAC when the category was FIFTEEN years old! I DID work hard to equalize things as much as possible for all makes. I wrote the initial motion to get ECUs made available to you and anyone who couldn't fit them in their box. If I had been around earlier, I would have resisted certain allownces, but once the genie is out of the bottle it's tough to get it back in. This situation is the creation of a category, with a clean sheet of paper, and we sure seem to be forgetting lessons that we should have institutional memory of.
I'm suggesting that I think that your desire to run alternate bits isn't ideal for a category that has been said by it's makers as a place for IT drivers to take their cars. By definition, that suggests many makes and models, so to me, I think restricting allowable mods is wise. The harder it is to construct a race car, the more narrow the possible audience is. It's not a coincidence that we see 2 or 3 GT2 or GT3 or GTL cars at an event and 10 or 20 times that in the SRF or SM classes.


You guys are really getting your panties all in a wad here...and I just don't understand why.Reread my comments. I'm looking big picture. WHY are we doing something? Will it help the club? How? I know I can, or can chose not to run the class. My questions have nothing to do with me and my car, they have to do with the bigger picture promises and realities. If we are just moving guys around, and entries and entrants aren't rising, then I'd say we are worse off then before. If we are attracting new racers to the club, and they stay, great!!

It's not like the IT forum has been given the prerogative of deciding the long-term big-picture strategy for all of Club Racing or anything, that's the responsibility of the BoD...Of course we, as a board, haven't been charged...but we ARE members and I think our thoughts DO matter. Any rule change gets vetted before the membership.... So, was the BoD involved? IS there a big picture strategy? Is that really wrong to ask?

[lateapex911]

I do not see the problem with spec lines,E prod has been one of the most successful classes and the cars are equalized by the spec lines. I know it will take a few years but everybody bitches about a car not having a chance in IT, this is what spec lines will hopefully fix over time. If the Hondas run away with everything they can actually add weight, add restrictors etc. In the end if done correctly you will have many manufacturers able to have a chance.

matt
How long have you been in the club??
EVERYone in IT bitches in IT?
(wow, that's a 180 from just a few months ago)
How will they decide to add weight? how much weight? What kind of restrictors? Based on what, from where, when? By who? These are fundamental questions that are very difficult to answer on a large class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do not see the problem with spec lines,E prod has been one of the most successful classes and the cars are equalized by the spec lines. I know it will take a few years but everybody bitches about a car not having a chance in IT, this is what spec lines will hopefully fix over time. If the Hondas run away with everything they can actually add weight, add restrictors etc. In the end if done correctly you will have many manufacturers able to have a chance.

matt

I have not met ONE person who agrees with, understands how it was determined, or thinks it's fair - when THEIR car gets weight added.

I have not met ONE person who doesn't agree with, gives a crap how it was figured out, or think it was enough - when THEIR car gets weight taken off.

I have a Sunbeam Tiger street car. I have been following Tom Patton and his GT2 effort for decades. He developed and developed and drove his ass off...and finally won one. Poof! Smaller carb the next year and had no prayer. Teeny-tiny give-backs since then...THAT is not a class I want to live in when it's MY money and effort they can legislate to the back with a stroke of a keyboard. Was it the car? Did he just outdrive everyone? Ugh.

IT is one of the biggest categories in SCCA. It was on the path to really being top dog until the CRB went haywire 9 months ago. It's a solid recipe.

[Rabbit07]

As far as comp adjustments go, that is one benefit I see to ST in general. The future as I would see it could use SIR's, different adders for certain cars ect. The SIR's that are being used by GT are great for caping HP. This would a great way to slow some down. It's always easier to bring some back than speed others up. Really folks, if you don't like it, know one says you have to run in the class. However, keep in mind that there are many who really like this idea. The simple terms for STL is to allow a lower prep level (IT Plus) to run in ST and not have to run STU. There is all this talk about expensive cars. You are sadly mistaken if you think that there aren't super expensive cars in IT right now.

[Rabbit07]

I have a Sunbeam Tiger street car. I have been following Tom Patton and his GT2 effort for decades. He developed and developed and drove his ass off...and finally won one. Poof! Smaller carb the next year and had no prayer. Teeny-tiny give-backs since then...THAT is not a class I want to live in when it's MY money and effort they can legislate to the back with a stroke of a keyboard. Was it the car? Did he just outdrive everyone? Ugh.

.

First off I would like to acknowledge that the Tiger is one of my all time favorites. What you mention here happens often in the club. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between the car and driver without hard evidence. This is why the CRB started using data boxes in the vehicles at the Sprints and RunOffs to help determine what is going on. Still subjective to an extent, but this is the same process that Pro racing uses aswell.

[Knestis]

As far as comp adjustments go, that is one benefit I see to ST in general. The future as I would see it could use SIR's, different adders for certain cars ect. The SIR's that are being used by GT are great for caping HP. This would a great way to slow some down. It's always easier to bring some back than speed others up. ...

When competition adjustments get framed as a "benefit...?"

Have fun with that, Chris. You'll think it's the best thing in the world right up to the point where you get screwed or your competition gets a gimme - that is, until you find yourself on the outside of the circle.


...The simple terms for STL is to allow a lower prep level (IT Plus) to run in ST and not have to run STU. ...

Wrong. That's not the strategy behind creating the class. That's a rationale for creating a class that ALLOWS cars prepared to lower levels to be eligible to participate. IT cars were already allowed to "run in" STU, so STL offers nothing that wasn't already available. Delve deeper into your own thinking, young Jedi - what do YOU want the category to accomplish? You have a reason. What is it? Is it of value for the Club Racing program as a whole?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

[QUOTE=Rabbit07;309257]As far as comp adjustments go, that is one benefit I see to ST in general. The future as I would see it could use SIR's, different adders for certain cars ect. The SIR's that are being used by GT are great for caping HP. This would a great way to slow some dow...
o...... There is all this talk about expensive cars. You are sadly mistaken if you think that there aren't super expensive cars in IT right now.[/QUOT

DP started out with the SIR, and if it's brought back it will kill 80% of the people running the class, because where do you find an SIR?

Second, a top build car will be expensive, have you priced a six speed sequential transmission, how about converting a solid axle or trailing arm suspension to multi-link?

[Rabbit07]

DP started out with the SIR, and if it's brought back it will kill 80% of the people running the class, because where do you find an SIR?

Second, a top build car will be expensive, have you priced a six speed sequential transmission, how about converting a solid axle or trailing arm suspension to multi-link?


SIR= www.raetech.com (http://www.raetech.com)

The other items you speak of are for STU only, which is one of the reasons for STL. Higher dollar mods like that were left out.

[lateapex911]

Chris, tell me why the class is so lopsided? Why have a class where there are really only a couple cars that can win?? PK has acknowledged this.

IT "plus".?..... but already there is serious talk that brakes will be opened up, and other people want more. (if the 'more' works for their car, of course).

Listen I SEE a rational for the concept. But I wish it were simpler: Allow IT cars to run in a class where they could actually have a chance, without changing the car so much that they can no longer be IT cars. Things that can get changed at the track. Wings? Fine, take them off, swap the springs, and reset tha dampers...thats not an impossible task in order to run in two goups with the same car and have a chance to be competitive in each class. But really, while this allows IT cars, most won't have a chance against a real deal STL car.

And let's not fool ourselves about SIRs. yes, they can work, BUT, they need to sized correctly, and that's not that easy, in spite of what the gurus say. (see E36 ITS SIR implementation issues). And tuning for one, and setting the car up for one, is expensive. Here's why what you just said makes me scared of the class: I build a car, get my gearing and trans all set up with my chosen wheels, I develop my engine and my cams and my ECU etc, and, finally I'm doing well, just as my math predicted i would when I chose my car for the class. Then BAM, 'sorry buddy, but you're too fast down the straight'*, here's a 28mm SIR!. Great, now I get to go fabricate a whole new cold air box, and I get to go back to they dyno to recalibrate the ECU, and really, I should look at a different cam, and all the changes that go with that, and maybe the gearing is wrong now as well.

Sure, it's simple to FIND an SIR, but it's thousands to USE an SIR.

* That is, if I'm dumb enough to GO to the big dance where they'll be looking at my car. I COULD stay local and under the radar, and play the game to keep my 'overdog'.

** Further, it's a box, it records data.....the analysis is the important aspect....what if i was running around in a draft that session and i was 3 or 5 MPH faster than I'd ever been? Or there was a tailwind? Or .... or..or... I know, no worries, people will realize that stuff and it'll be ok. Uh huh.
See history.....
(yes, I know, history is full of successes too, and we can't win if we don't try. I like the initiative and the attempt at moving the club forward, but, I think we need to come to grips with what we are fixing, ...every time a 'reason' is provided, (it gives you a chance to run nationals, It gives more double dip chances, it attracts new members) it implies that the lack of those things is a problem, and htat this is the best solution to those problems...)

You mention that Pro manages WC with data, etc. Yup, they do, but the difference is that they have what, FIVE models to balance? A staff dedicated to the job, AND they see those cars at 10 tracks a year? That's a tenth (or less) of the cars, with five times the data...WAY different.

[Bill Miller]

As Jake mentioned, trying to extend the WC model doesn't really work. In WC, you've got essentially a finite number of cars, and that's a pretty small number. Not to mention that you pretty much get to see all of them at every race. What you're talking about would be much more like setting the ITA rules based on what the guys running ITA in the NARRC series are doing. If the goal is to get IT cars to the Runoffs, no need for all this jumping through hoops and creating new classes, just include IT. My personal take on this, is that the various ST classes are probably the future of Prod. I know I'll catch flack for that from the Prod guys, but I think you stand a better chance of bring new racers into something like ST than you do bringing them into Prod. Slice it a little finer (i.e. add another class or two), and you'll have a pretty attractive category for the folks that want to build and prep to a level beyond IT, but not all the way to a tube-frame GT car. Jake, The problem is that you're not the only one that would get that 28mm SIR. Every guy running that same Puddlebee GXR would get it. Chris, ST sounds like a good idea. But don't try to sell it as "IT-plus". I believe Kirk used the appropriate term before. Disingenuous.

[Matt93SE]

Here's my $0.04 from a guy that started in SCCA BECAUSE of the STU ruleset.
7-8 years ago, I bought a cheap 240SX for $1400 with a blown engine and put it together to run DEs... I built it the way I wanted. Cheap, reliable, and fun on track..

Moderate engine mods: ebay Intake, early-model OEM cams, aluminum flywheel & crank pulley, Hotshot header, cheap aftermarket ECU, catback exhaust.. (All of these bought USED, btw)
moderate coilovers ($1k Japanese stuff built for the drift crowd),
$110 wheels from Discount tire, and a $400 set of used 5Zigen wheels for spares. Used Take-off R888s on both. full tread all-seasons on the stock wheels for rainy days.
A smallish (11.5") custom brake setup so I can run Wilwood Dynalites where pads are $56 a set and rotors are $60 each (and have lasted me over a year and I still have 1/2 the pad left!),
Sus Tech sway bars,
ebay rear upper control arms to adjust rear camber

That's the MINIMUM I expect to be done to a Nissan 240SX to make it decently quick on track. There are all kinds of JDM turbo engine swaps that can put you at 400+hp for a couple grand.. but I'm keeping the stock engine for cost and parts availability. You can go to any Autozone (or dealer) in the country and get a waterpump or a clutch for reasonable cost.


Fast forward 5 years and 100+ HPDEs and I want to go REAL racing- not just putting around the corners waiting for the point-by from the old fart in the vette in front of me that thinks we're drag racing.

I don't want to DE-mod my car. I want to put a roll cage in it and go play and see how I really stack up.

Now.. I go look at the SCCA ruleset and where can I compete? I have a car that won't fit (or be competitive) in Production or IT... I'm not going to go buy narrow 15" wheels (WTF mate?!) and cantilever slicks and stick the stock brakes back on... The factory anchors are junk and pads are >$400 for a full set. That's stupidsauce.

Sooo, SCCA is out.

I take a look at NASA's ruleset. Performance Touring is perfect! I can mod the car the way I want to, and tally up the points. blammo, there's my class. I'd run in PTD given my current setup.

Throw in a back injury and life outside of racing delays things a couple years. Now I've got the money for the cage in my budget, permission from the wife, and the time to do it.

I start looking at rulesets again and voila! SCCA has created this thing called Prepared/Super Touring. My car drops right in, and I can add cool stuff like wings and splitters when I'm ready to go faster, and it's not insanely expensive to run since I can run a stock engine and still be competitive locally (based on current lap times & race results).

Given my current lap times during HPDEs and lapping days, I'm competitive with the rest of the local guys running STU cause their car won't fit anywhere else. Go to a nationals weekend and I'll get my butt kicked- by about 2 seconds a lap given the nationally-prepped cars that have run here. But I don't really care about that right now- I want to get out there and race. IF I win, great! If not, well I was out there trying. And I did it in the car I built the way I wanted. :)

As for local participation, there are cars built specifically for STU and a bunch of IT and SM guys double-dipping, plus a Don Istook in his VW GTI coming over from T3. He's coming to STU because it's cheaper to run there than it is to run in Touring. so I'm not sure why people are complaining that STU is a money class...

You can run in it cheap or you can out-money the next guy, but you're still out there.
even in SSB/SSC, you can always be out-monied so why worry about it? go out there and race. If you lose, drive better next time. ;)

[lateapex911]

Out of curiosity, where do you run, and what are your times?

[pfcs]

:shrug:JUST WHAT SCCA NEEDS!!: another class.

[Matt93SE]

Out of curiosity, where do you run, and what are your times?

I'm in Houston Region. Texas World Speedway, MSR-Houston, Eagle's Canyon, etc.
At TWS 2.9 setup I run a 2:02 fast, 2:04 average. At MSRH I run a 1:52 average, 1:48 fastest lap.
I just got through driver skool so haven't run any races yet, but my average lap times are good enough to finish top 3 in most of the races with STU entrants.

Also note I haven't purchased a set of NEW tires in years. I run used R888s so if I were to throw on a set of new Hoosiers I can probably knock off a couple more seconds.. But that's of course armchair conjecture. ;)

Here's the local race results for the last umpteen years..
http://www.sowdivscca.org/raceresults.aspx

As you can see in the last couple races, STU is really picking up in attendance. Many of those are double-dippers running IT during Regional and STU on National races, but a few are nationals cars from out of region and/or Touring guys double dipping.

[Knestis]

>> ...my average lap times are good enough to finish top 3 in most of the races with STU entrants.

Also note I haven't purchased a set of NEW tires in years. ...

In before Jake.

Those two statements illustrate clearly that you are not in a competitive region. It is *not* reasonable to ask for Club Racing policy decisions to be based on a case like that. Put differently, any policy based on that kind of thinking will almost certainly come up short of expected outcomes or result in unanticipated consequences when (if...?) it gets competitive.

K

EDIT - ...and under WHAT conditions is it less expensive to race the same GTI in STU, than it was to do so in T3...? This stuff just doen't compute, guys.

[JoshS]

Those two statements illustrate clearly that you are not in a competitive region. It is *not* reasonable to ask for Club Racing policy decisions to be based on a case like that. Put differently, any policy based on that kind of thinking will almost certainly come up short of expected outcomes or result in unanticipated consequences when (if...?) it gets competitive.

Sure, when it gets competitive, I totally agree.

But until that happens, it's great, and can lead to all sorts of club and program growth. Once the growth has occurred, the club can roll out a different program that caters to the competitive.

I think this is what NASA is doing. All of us who have BTDT can see that NASA programs like PT and GTS will take a serious turn when the competitive spending comes in. But until that, they are doing great. If they can recognize the inflection point and time it right (probably by building a different category that caters to those that are about to cross the line), they will have it made.

[Knestis]

You're suggesting that the CRB and/or BoD has put that degree of thinking into SPL, Josh...? That's like suggesting a moth has a range of contingency plans in place as it flies toward a light, to be selected depending on whether it finds a fluorescent tube, campfire, or bug zapper. No. Way. That's funny as heck...!

:)

K

[JoshS]

You're suggesting that the CRB and/or BoD has put that degree of thinking into SPL, Josh...?

No, I'm certainly not saying that ... I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a bad strategy if it HAD been thought about and there was a longer-term strategy at play.

But I'm glad I made you smile :-)

[Matt93SE]

... so I guess Don Istook and Matt Reynolds aren't worthy competiton :shrug:

The region may not be 'competitive' yet, but the car count is increasing at every race while the IT count ir staying the same. Thus STU is attracting a different crowd than IT and your evil plans to hold the poor guys hostage are safe. ;)

[tnord]

Matt Reynolds? like Matt Reynolds running a SM in STU?

no.

[Matt93SE]

dunno what car he's driving, his name is on the results sheet. probably his SM Miata since he ran in ITA the day before. oh noes!

[tnord]

ITA or ITS?

i think he had a 1.6 before he had his 99, could have been that one. Matt is a wonderful driver, but you're more than dilusional if you think a SM (even a 99 without RP) is anywhere near the same ballpark of speed as what STU should be.

[Matt93SE]

who says I'm being delusional? Maybe that's you guys. Maybe I just like working everyone up into a frenzy. ;)

(All bragging aside, I could outdrive Schumacher. In a golf cart.)

[pavis]

The southwest division IT/STU program is NOT competitive. The division stuggles to support regional races and IT has been left behind which has left IT racers looking to add some track time. Hopefully some of that will change with the new Colorado plan next year which might allow IT to grow.

Almost all the STU cars this year (including me) are IT or spec miata crossovers (Save Grahovic's grand am car).

[Knestis]

... so I guess Don Istook and Matt Reynolds aren't worthy competiton :shrug:

The region may not be 'competitive' yet, but the car count is increasing at every race while the IT count ir staying the same. Thus STU is attracting a different crowd than IT and your evil plans to hold the poor guys hostage are safe. ;)

So are those STU entries in addition to - or instead of - the classes where they would have been (e.g., Istook)...?

Don't for a minute believe that I'm worried about new classes simply because of their potential impact on IT. My issues are bigger than that.

K

[Matt93SE]

the word that I've heard (through the grapevine, so take it for what it's worth), is that Istook is going to be running his VW in STU and in T3. move some weight, change inlet restrictors, do a couple other minor things between races and voila.

the last few results I've seen Istook running shows him in T3 and the last National race at TWS he entered T3 on Sat and STU on Sun IIRC. that's by memory though so consider it as valuable as everything else I've said here. :)

[jimmyc]

This the istook you are talking about...

http://www.world-challenge.com/event/results.php?ID=1158&event=99

[Kolin Aspegren]

STU and T3 are in the same race. Of course that could change, but then some entries
will not be attending.

k

[Matt93SE]

This the istook you are talking about...
http://www.world-challenge.com/event/results.php?ID=1158&event=99
Same guy, different cars, way different level of competition.

[jhooten]

The southwest division IT/STU program is NOT competitive. The division stuggles to support regional races and IT has been left behind which has left IT racers looking to add some track time.


Say what? Have you looked at the Sowdiv schedule for the rest of the year? There are two double regionals yet to do, one each from Houston and Texas region. Lone Star had a R/N Memorial Day weekend.

Yes we tend to front load the schedule with the Nationals ( the cooler part of the year here and snow still on the ground up north). Sowdiv holds plenty of Regionals many of which are held between the Runoffs and the start of the new rules year. I still don't get this Sowdiv ignores regional racers mentality.

[Matt93SE]

It's cause we're not catering specifically to them, therefore they're being ignored...

[JS154]

OOH, engine swaps. S-14 powered Z3 with a two stage dry sump, six speed sequential transmission, or maybe go the other way and swap a 4.9 liter V8 and run STO....

V8 would be the way to go.

If you run an S14, it has to be US - so that measn 2.3l - so that puts you in STU - which mean you have to run the AFM, so aftermarket ECU agins you nothing, and the AFM is the serious choke point - wont; support the compression or cams allowed, plus you'd be running against ex-World Chalenge Touring cars - which are rumored to be putting down *way* more power than the 250 original"target for the class'

I was thinking this may be a good class for my E30 M3, but for what it would cost...no way.

[lateapex911]

Sure, when it gets competitive, I totally agree.

But until that happens, it's great, and can lead to all sorts of club and program growth. Once the growth has occurred, the club can roll out a different program that caters to the competitive.

I think this is what NASA is doing. All of us who have BTDT can see that NASA programs like PT and GTS will take a serious turn when the competitive spending comes in. But until that, they are doing great. If they can recognize the inflection point and time it right (probably by building a different category that caters to those that are about to cross the line), they will have it made.

It would be GREAT if that's what the big picture thinking was.

PT would be AWESOME if there was a real way to handicap that many cars with that many mods, a way that couldn't be 'gamed' by a 4th grader. (That's it's biggest failing, and I can't see how that aspect can really be changed)

So, If i'm reading this all, we have a class that's running where a guy on multi year old tires and an admittedly not top notch build is happy because he's winning trophies, and his competition seems to be the random SM or maybe IT car? I don't think I really need to draw the conclusion...

[stamper]

The ONLY reason STU has posted such large numbers in national racing is because all the Spec Miatas take advantage of the rules aimed at them, and run in both SM and STU.

STU will die the instant they all switch to STL.

Smoke and mirrors.

[lateapex911]

The ONLY reason STU has posted such large numbers in national racing is because all the Spec Miatas take advantage of the rules aimed at them, and run in both SM and STU.

STU will die the instant they all switch to STL.

Smoke and mirrors.

Maybe the class should REALLY be called DDL? (Double Dippers, Light)

[Rabbit07]

The ONLY reason STU has posted such large numbers in national racing is because all the Spec Miatas take advantage of the rules aimed at them, and run in both SM and STU.

STU will die the instant they all switch to STL.

Smoke and mirrors.

Thats it Sanda, you are off my Christmas list...........:D

Want to buy a Dodge Viper? I am sick of looking at it.

[seckerich]

You have to tell me about the cat killer line. That is not from a hillclimb is it?

[Rabbit07]

You have to tell me about the cat killer line. That is not from a hillclimb is it?

2006 13 hour at VIR. Poor kitty was a brake marker at turn 3 for about 10 laps. Ever since then, the name stuck.

[Matt93SE]

So, If i'm reading this all, we have a class that's running where a guy on multi year old tires and an admittedly not top notch build is happy because he's winning trophies, and his competition seems to be the random SM or maybe IT car? I don't think I really need to draw the conclusion...

Actually you're completely bastardizing my comments and trying to turn them into something that suits your perspective.

1. Currently there are few competitive people in our region. Several are 'new' cars and new drivers. A few are IT/SM double dippers. A few are national level cars and drivers that are currently running in other classes or are building additional cars for the class.

I never said anything about the region being competitive nationally- I said they were active and the class is growing with more than just IT/SM cars.

2. I'm not winning trophies. yet. note my name doesn't even appear on the results sheets since I just got my novice permit earlier this month. (check again after the next R/R weekend though.) I never said anything about being thrilled to win trophies against under-prepped STU builds and current IT cars. I simply said I would be competitive locally.

Frankly I don't even care about finishing position at this point- long as it doesn't say DNF. I want to get out there and race and see where I stand. I'd really love to get out there and get my butt kicked by the fast guys to see how I stack up against what IS competitive. (since your obvious opinion is that we're driving a bunch of LeMons....)

3. I didn't say I hadn't bought tires in years, I said I hadn't bought NEW tires in years. Big difference. I buy takeoff R888s from pro teams, so they're shaved plus a couple heat cycles. They last me 2-3 weekends and cost me $75 each after shipping and mounting. Not as fast as new, but much less expensive. Once I gain experience and need the speed, I'll worry about the purple crackpipe. Until then, I'm content driving on harder tires and challenging myself to keep up with the guys running fresh rubber.


Is there anything else you'd like to distort? http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/kiss.gif

[lateapex911]

Well, sorry if I missed the mark. I AM glad you're running your car, and I took it that you were pleased with your results and finishes, and i thought I read those were top three occasionally. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but the bottom line, in my eyes, is that you're here running your car and having a good time, and that's great. Now, down the road, I guess we'll wait and see. Will you get attached to the class? Will you up your game? Will the class attract full tilt boogie builds? Will guys who entered the class with swapped motors, etc, have fun for a bit then get disenfranchised when the big guns come to town? I'm not saying you will, or wont. But I'm trying to see the big picture strategy, and the possible ramifications.

Attracting new drives is great. KEEPING new drivers is GREATER.

People leave racing for several reasons, and a fairly significant one is disillusionment. The class rules change and they get the dick sandwich, the class matures and they get left behind, or the class gets popular and the costs double or triple...(not to mention other things like having a kid, buying a house, working too much, not working enough, etc etc.)

I've been in the club long enough to see things come with great fanfare then quietly disappear (or cling to life support for years, which doesn't do many people any good at all). New classes cost the club. They take resources. Time is something committees don't have, and when they spend it on classes that are bad ideas, other categories suffer. The bigger toll is lost members. Guys that would have stayed if they had a better long term experience. SCCA isn't known for member retention and I'm not convinced we can place all the blame on grumpy stewards, LOL.

We want to have something for everyone. But that's a LOT of classes, and becomes a lapping day for a free trophy. We want good racing, but we can't all be in the same class. Balancing it all is key.

[Kolin Aspegren]

but Childs actually killed ie ran over the cat. Lots of us were out there in other cars at the time. Track radio even reported that something was on the track at turn 3. Childs comes over the radio and confirms it was a cat.

13 could be the best race in scca

k

[Matt93SE]

Jake, I agree on all points. I'm 'cautiously optimistic' about the future of the class.
Is STU going to wind up being a small-bore money class? probably. But since I was in elementary school I've always been the poor kid competing on a budget in a rich class. I have no illusions of winning, but I'll be out there and you'll be amazed what a shoestring budget can do with a little imagination and the right connections. :)

It's been a 10 year fight to get this far- First there was no job. then there was too much job (still is). Then there was the first house purchase and the money pit. Then there was the second house since the first one had major undisclosed issues and we spent 3 years in court (eating up $30k of my track budget).

I've put off finishing the car and getting my license for 4 years due to work and life in general. so I got my license and now the wife is talking about squeaky things that you have to push around in a stroller. eeeek. (talk about a way to kill the racing budget!)

I know I'm dog slow compared to the fast guys. But I'm building the car as I want to and as time- and funds- allow. Just like the rest of the guys of moderate means running in my region. The plan is to do aero and build an engine next year, which is why the proposed rule changes are so important to me. It's time to pick an engine and get it to the machine shop if I'm going to have one ready for next year.

[Chip42]

OK so bottom line appears to be:

the ruleset for ST(L in particular) appears to be attractive but, is very poorly worked out.

There's no "need" for a double dipper class for IT due to the commonality of the ITE/X/O and SPO/U groups already existing.

IT guys who want to go national already can.. it's called production, and without a lot of money, your IT car wont be fast enough there, either. if you don't see a specline for your particular car and really want one, ask for it.

so what we are left with is something earily simillar to the additions to production a few years back when they started "limited prep" - now prep level 2. (which worked well to reinvigorate the class by adding new blood to the British Leyland parade) the weighting rules and allowed engine mods mean that whatever breathes and spins, wins. given the USDM rules - the number of engines under 2.0L with a realistic shot when built to the limit of the rule is less than 5, the number of manufacturers MIGHT be 3 - likely only 1 or 2 (honda, mazda - the club WILL find a way to make mazda competitive).

ST in general makes sense as a dumping ground for WC cars and an interesting place to daydream about swapping motors, big brakes, cool aero, and other bling. STO/U might be a great class for those interested in it, and it remains distinct enough from prod and GT (kind of a hybrid of the 2) to make sense. STL, depite the cool factor, doesn't add up. I'll eat some crow on that.

IF the rules were to be rewritten such that STO/U/L had the same core allowances of brakes, suspension tweeking, etc... and classified base weight by engine not displacement (using blanket, sepcline, or IT allowance for prep) AT LEAST IN STL, then the proposed addition would have something. I think the letters written to the CRB/BOD/STAC should aim toward making the class more sensible and fair rather than killing it outright - which is just not likely to happen.

[Knestis]

Oh, there's NO question that it's going to happen. It's got a sugar daddy on the CRB and a few other fans among the PTBs to support it.

K

[Bill Miller]

So what ever happened to the whole "No new National classes"? Or new National classes having to demonstrate participation numbers at the Regional level first? Oh yeah, this is the SCCA, they just make it up as they go.

[Knestis]

I wondered that too but it's old news. The GCR now stipulates that classes may demonstrate sufficient interest and be considered for National status (except for select categories like IT), but it's not NECESSARY for them to do so.

K