STL Class No Type R or S2000

[Bob Roth]

Does it seem like they are picking on us, in the new SCCA STL class, the rule is


B. Engines

1. Engines up to 4 cylinders and 2000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, except those from cars in
the following list:

Honda S2000 2.0 liter
Acura Type R

As I read it, you cannot run a S2000 (there is no non-s2000 engine availble for that car) and it appears your type r Teg will need to run a GSR or RS motor. Or drop a 2 liter civic Si 2 motor in it. Can somebody explain this?

[quadzjr]

Does it seem like they are picking on us, in the new SCCA STL class, the rule is


B. Engines

1. Engines up to 4 cylinders and 2000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, except those from cars in
the following list:

Honda S2000 2.0 liter
Acura Type R

As I read it, you cannot run a S2000 (there is no non-s2000 engine availble for that car) and it appears your type r Teg will need to run a GSR or RS motor. Or drop a 2 liter civic Si 2 motor in it. Can somebody explain this?


Those cars would be in STU not STL

[Bob Roth]

I guess the latter part of my question remains, my Type R cannot run its stock 1800 engine in STL, but it can run a 2 liter civic Si motor? Why do I have to change engines if I have a type R?

Again, with ability to change pistons, match porting, crank lightening, cams etc, does anybody have data to say that a honda type R motor or S2000 motor is out of line in this class's prep rules? If SCCA's intent is to make STL actually be STM(iata), why didn't they just do it.

[cjb25hs]

I guess the latter part of my question remains, my Type R cannot run its stock 1800 engine in STL, but it can run a 2 liter civic Si motor? Why do I have to change engines if I have a type R?

Again, with ability to change pistons, match porting, crank lightening, cams etc, does anybody have data to say that a honda type R motor or S2000 motor is out of line in this class's prep rules? If SCCA's intent is to make STL actually be STM(iata), why didn't they just do it.

I dont think that STL is to be STM(iata), why would it be. They already have a national class to run in SM. The idea I believe is to give the IT cars a place to run in National events that they would have the opportunity to be competitive, specifically A and B cars. Before the creation of STL is any ITA car such as a miata, crx si, etc... all of the best going to have any chance up against a true STU car. The answer is no. I would believe that the reason for excluding the Type R and the S2000 is because, although legal by displacement, those cars are both ITR cars and would not be in the same comparison of speed as say an ITA crx si.

[Z3_GoCar]

I can't say about the type R, but the S2000 is legal in STO with a supercharger allowance at 2600 lbs.

[Bob Roth]

I guess the point is there is no place for a S2000 and why take out the type R engine is a mystery to me. If someone has data, throw a 100 pounds at it, fine, but why ban them?

As it is, the rules outlaw the S2000, and make type r owners either change to a RS intake and head or change to a 06 civic si 2 liter. It can't be for cost because you can buy a JDM type r motor and a transmission for $3700 that would be 11 to a and meet all rules. Its cheaper to buy a JDM type r motor than build one. Just check ebay. Anybody who runs Honda's knows cost is not a reason to forbid the type r and ban the S2000. In fact it looks like SCCA has banned the cheapest most potentially popular Honda engine and also only rear drive Honda car from STL. Why?

Meanwhile, what about the potential of the bmw 318i motor or the Mazda MX5 ? Where is the data. the 318i has the same size valves and the MX5 has bigger valves, but why aren't these cars banned too? Does the CRB have data that says a type R motor built to the rules is really so much better better than a these motors to justify banning them? Sure a s2000 and type r are both more specific hp at stock but at stock they rev higher and have near 11 to one compression. But in other words these engines are already near the limit of the rules whereas the BMW and Mazda are not. Where is the data showing that when the BMW and Mazda gets bumped to 11 to one they are worse than a type r or s2000? In other words, why were the R and S2000 honda motors banned from STL when BMW's and Mazda's MX5 equivalent motors were not?

[Greg Amy]

...why take out the type R engine is a mystery to me.
It's no mystery; it's a super-easy answer: the category is based on specific brake horsepower of any engine, that being the one that can make the highest ponies per cc when built to the extent of the rules. The B18C5 and the S2000 engine have clearly and historically shown to have brake specific horsepower numbers greater than what the rulesmakers feel should be in STL (remember when the S2k first came out, about how it was marketed as 'the first to get 100 hp per liter' or something like that?) If these cars were allowed they would likely dominate the class.

These cars - and all STL cars, I think - are still eligible for STU. Further, World Challenge Touring history proves the Type R is competitive within that class of cars as well, and you get to run lighter to boot. Go find yourself an ex-RealTime ITR (probably the cheapest way to do this) and I bet you can run at the front...

GA

[Bob Roth]

Maybe PD Cunningham had more than a little to do with the competitiveness of the type r than all the Honda goodness. Remember, he also won a race in a nissan sentra (are we banning them too?) The fact that the R was competitive in 2001 does not mean beans today.

I suppose there are those that are saying that that type R is too much engine. But is this a fact? Where has anybody shown that the 318 motor or MX5 motor not capable of being equal when built to the rules? I see people using the specific HP arguement in IT but there you can't change pistons, compression et al. Here you can. Meanwhile, I can put a 197 hp civic Si motor in the car at higher weight, but not run type r motor? It seems like its specifically, honda go home, especially you pesky honda challenge cars which would be ready made for this class.

Finally, I have to say, if I were to guess, I think a fwd honda would be fun, but not a lot of hope vs a rear drive Miata or BMW. FWD may be the cats meow for ITA, bit while watching miata's railing through turns that my type r would plow/scrub through, methinks the uber chassis for these classes will be rear drive. All the more reasons to let the type r in.

When you look on ebay you will find it easy to get type r parts. Its the most obvious build for any honda fwd owner if price and resale value matters. Why forbid the type r until someone has proven that the car is unfairly fast? The bummer to me is that I could strip my type r and it would be ready for the class, except that SCCA excludes it from the class.

This decision to ban them mistifies me when they could have just as easily thrown some weight if there was a problem. If SCCA wants entrants, especially all the Nasa Honda Challenge cars they are welcoming into WC touring, they are sure doing it in a odd way.

My point is, if this is based on data then share it. If that's not the reason, what is.