November Fastrack

[JoshS]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-nov.pdf

[tom91ita]

ITC

1. #2616 (Brody Saari) Request rules explanation/reasoning
All air restrictions from the original fuel injection system must remain in place, although air metering devices may be added to support aftermarket ECUs.


is the comment regarding the "restrictions" have to be remain in place the question or the response?

if it is the response, just what does that mean? i consider the OEM air filter and inlet hose to be restrictions and they can be replaced.

[JoshS]

Nothing has changed, don't worry. The letter was specifically asking why the original air metering device had to stay in place if one was added.

[cjb25hs]

I am very glad to see my fellow pgh'er Brett Mars got the Focus ST classed in ITA. In my opinion this car could dominate the class. This car should be capable of putting down between 160 and 165 at the wheels and at a weight of 2680. I like the package :)

[dhardison]

I am very glad to see my fellow pgh'er Brett Mars got the Focus ST classed in ITA. In my opinion this car could dominate the class. This car should be capable of putting down between 160 and 165 at the wheels and at a weight of 2680. I like the package :)

I wonder if this means Brett is looking to run a Focus as well as the 'Stang? He was a force to be reckoned with in NASA SpecFokus a couple years back.

[Knestis]

Requests for "clarification" or "explanation" should *not* be handled through Fastrack. That's like asking a senator for an opinion about whether a particular law passes legislative muster. More words are almost never the right answer...

That official Fastrack item just opened up the rule - "A MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added" - by saying that "air metering devices may be added." More than one and any type. While at the same time stipulating, as Tom points out, that we now have to worry about something called "air restrictions." Neither of those terms is in the GCR Glossary, btw.

Why can't we just leave well enough alone and let the systems work the way they are supposed to?

K

[quadzjr]

I agree with kirk.. leave well enough alone.. should of done that awhile ago. *cough* open computers and spherical suspension joints *cough*. IF we kept fatory computers there would be no need for aditional sensors. yes the newre cars have better designs, but thusly they are expected to be able to adapt to changes better and should be calculated in their expected gains.

Josh am I correct about these air restrictions rule. Does force the addition of new AFM's to to run in series to the orignal pieces? Meaning does all air have to go through both the factory and additional meters one after the other?

[quadzjr]

is the comment regarding the "restrictions" have to be remain in place the question or the response?

if it is the response, just what does that mean? i consider the OEM air filter and inlet hose to be restrictions and they can be replaced.

yoru factory air filter and intake tube can be replaced currently. However, you must still collect air from the stock location and cannot collect air from outside the engine bay unless it came stock that way.

[tnord]

Why can't we just leave well enough alone and let the systems work the way they are supposed to?

K

"we" got what "we" asked for after complaining endlessly that "thanks for your input" was not good enough.

[lateapex911]

Well, if Kirk was still on the board......
Annnnnyway, LOL.
Josh, can you explain the current practices of weighting cars? How did all the Honda adjustments come to be? What's the internal policy about actually changing existing weights?

[JoshS]

The Honda adjustments came about because of two letters asking us to clarify the Del Sols, and their inconsistency vis-a-vis their mechanical siblings, the Civics. In addition, splitting up the Sis across the two different engines is analogous to what we did with the ITR Z3s. Wholly different engines, slightly different stock HP, identical chassis.

Perhaps we didn't need to answer the ITC question in Fastrack -- the author had already gotten his answer privately. But I disagree with Kirk that the answer changes anything, as nothing changes with respect to the actual rules, and certainly all the context isn't present in Fastrack (such as the actual question.) I agree with Travis that the answer there is a side effect of the desire to be more verbose and explanatory with every letter that comes in.

[mossaidis]

Josh, keep the clarifications coming... great work. I am being a little selfish as well, since my 92 Civic Si just dropped another 35 lbs. :) With that, the 92-95 Civic EX will need to drop weight as well... i.e. since the EX has the same suspension, engine, etc (except that it's a coupe/sedan).

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am very glad to see my fellow pgh'er Brett Mars got the Focus ST classed in ITA. In my opinion this car could dominate the class. This car should be capable of putting down between 160 and 165 at the wheels and at a weight of 2680. I like the package :)

What is the stock HP on this car?

(Edit - did the research: 151hp. Interesting that the ST in 2006 is the only version of the Focus that has the 2.3L according to Edmunds.)

It would need to make 160whp to be 'at process'. HP in ITA is really creeping up. Mazda 3, this car...you got a big home track? These could be the ticket.

[JoshS]

HP in ITA is really creeping up.

That's probably going to happen in all the classes. We class based on power-to-weight ratios, and newer cars are both more powerful and heavier than older ones.

[joeg]

Yeah I owned a 2006 Focus ST as my daily driver a couple years ago (had an '04 SVT Focus immediately before it).

The ST was a great car; you could keep the SVT. I would not concern myself with HP; it has torque and good gearing.

At the weight, it should be a great ITA car.

[lateapex911]

I am very glad to see my fellow pgh'er Brett Mars got the Focus ST classed in ITA. In my opinion this car could dominate the class. This car should be capable of putting down between 160 and 165 at the wheels and at a weight of 2680. I like the package :)

OK, IF that's true, and IF we accept the "top dog" (bla bla bla, in everyone's minds, never really 'proven', bla bla bla) Miata puts 138 down at the wheels , we get 16.54 lbs/hp for the Focus, (using 162) and 17.25 for the Miata.

So, indeed, the Focus looks like it has potential...

But....

That said, 150 stock hp to 162 at the wheels is a just bit more than the standard 25%, (my math shows 160.4 at the wheels expected.)
Initial math 151 x .25=37.35, = 188.75 crank, x 14.5= puts it at 2736lbs, minus 2% FWD, (54.73) = 2680.
No additional adders appear to come into play, right?

IF you get 165 out of it, that's 14.5 x 4.5 =65.25 -1.3 (FWD) = 64. So, you'd have an advantage of 64lbs. ...
To me, it looks like a good listing, one that could threaten/win at certain tracks, but not necessarily all tracks....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Remember Jake, the power to weights are going to be off a bit because the FWD subtractor is taken off AFTER the P/W calc is done.

[lateapex911]

yea, that's why I said, "but".....then did the math with the FWD adder, and concluded it looked like a "Good" listing. Pretty much right on.

[pitbull113]

Did I read it correctly that the ST class will be a regional class only as of next year? I guess IT drivers wanting to run a national race and the runoffs is a dead issue.:shrug:

[JoshS]

Did I read it correctly that the ST class will be a regional class only as of next year? I guess IT drivers wanting to run a national race and the runoffs is a dead issue.:shrug:

I think that's the ST *class*, not the ST category (STO/STU/STL). ST is a little-known class in the Touring category for cars too fast for T1 (super-expensive supercars, basically). Just another recent failed new class experiment.

[pitbull113]

I think that's the ST *class*, not the ST category (STO/STU/STL). ST is a little-known class in the Touring category for cars too fast for T1 (super-expensive supercars, basically). Just another recent failed new class experiment.Okay thanks for the clarification.

[Greg Amy]

I think that's the ST *class*, not the ST category (STO/STU/STL).
Correct. That's a class I didn't even know existed until I saw it on the Runoffs schedule!!!

STO (over 3 liters) and STU (3 liters and under) will still be National classes in 2011; STL (2.0 liters and below; see August Fastrack) will be introduced in 2011 as a new Regional class.

GA

[tom91ita]

........How did all the Honda adjustments come to be? What's the internal policy about actually changing existing weights?

did some Hondas jump to the head of the line?:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

I think that's the ST *class*, not the ST category (STO/STU/STL). ST is a little-known class in the Touring category for cars too fast for T1 (super-expensive supercars, basically). Just another recent failed new class experiment.

Right, so ST was Sooper Touring, then it was T1, 2, 3 etc....
Then SSB, C, etc. right? With the prep rules in Touring being slightly more open then SS....

[pitbull113]

Correct. That's a class I didn't even know existed until I saw it on the Runoffs schedule!!!

STO (over 3 liters) and STU (3 liters and under) will still be National classes in 2011; STL (2.0 liters and below; see August Fastrack) will be introduced in 2011 as a new Regional class.

GA I didn't realize STL was regional only. I guess I still don't get to go to the runoffs :rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

I didn't realize STL was regional only. I guess I still don't get to go to the runoffs :rolleyes:
It never "was" National, Steve; it's a new class for 2011. Are you maybe thinking about STU? STU will retain its National status in 2011 (it was the 10th most-entered National class in 2010). There was a short handful of us that ran Nationals and the Runoffs in 2010 in STU, though we got our asses handed to us by full-up World Challenge cars...

If you build a car to STL rules, you can run Regionals as STL and/or STU, and the car would be legal (but not competitive) to run Nationals and qualify for the Runoffs in STU. That is my plan for 2011 (though I will likely not go to the Runoffs.) I know that Kolin Aspergren is planning to run Nationals-Only in the southeast with his ITA Neon...

GA

[dickita15]

STL comes in as a regional class. A regional class can become a notional class based on criteria C below. Many expect that STL will have a big leg up on making the numbers because I addition to people building cars for the class Miatas and IT cars can use the class for double dipping. STL cars can also run in STU at nationals until this happens.

9.1.12. NATIONAL CLASS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
A. A class retains its National status as long as its annual average
number of entries achieves 2.5 or higher per National event.
B. Should that annual average number of entries fall below 2.5, the
class will have one additional year to bring the participation level
above the current requirement. Alternatively, it may be immediately
consolidated into an existing class. If the class does not exceed the
current average requirement during the grace year, it will either be
consolidated into existing classes or become a Regional Class.
C. Based on member input, a Regional Class (except Improved Touring)
meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in
paragraph 9.1.12.A. for 1 year may be reviewed to become a
National Class.
D. Based on member or manufacturer input, the CRB may recommend
creating new National classes for BoD approval. National classes
created under this section have 5 years to achieve an average of
2.5 cars per National event before being consolidated or redefined
as a Regional Class, according to 9.1.12.B.

[pitbull113]

It never "was" National, Steve; it's a new class for 2011. Are you maybe thinking about STU? STU will retain its National status in 2011 (it was the 10th most-entered National class in 2010). There was a short handful of us that ran Nationals and the Runoffs in 2010 in STU, though we got our asses handed to us by full-up World Challenge cars...

If you build a car to STL rules, you can run Regionals as STL and/or STU, and the car would be legal (but not competitive) to run Nationals and qualify for the Runoffs in STU. That is my plan for 2011 (though I will likely not go to the Runoffs.) I know that Kolin Aspergren is planning to run Nationals-Only in the southeast with his ITA Neon...

GAI read the fastrack about the addition of STL but missed the part about regional. I guess I just assumed it would be national like STO/STU.

[Greg Amy]

I read the fastrack about the addition of STL but missed the part about regional. I guess I just assumed it would be national like STO/STU.
Well, that was the original intention when it was proposed. However, the Club is going through a lot of strife right now about how to handle "legacy" classes and categories that aren't making their numbers; general competitor sentiment at the CRB town hall meetings at the Runoffs made it clear that the club is not ready for any new classes.

The problem is that while everyone wants all the lesser-participated classes to go away, they want "their" class waived (of course). So you get all these folks arguing back and forth (while the Spec Miata and SRF guys just smile and wave... ;)). So the BoD decided to bring STL in Regional-only, and it will be up to us, the competitors, to prove that it will be a viable class. Once we demonstrate that STL can bring in the required numbers (see Dick's post, above) then we can request it be considered for National status. As Dick noted, I have all confidence that we'll easily hit that target this coming season.

GA

[pitbull113]

Yes with IT and SM guys double dipping in STL the class will be popular.

[Knestis]

9.1.12. NATIONAL CLASS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
A. A class retains its National status as long as its annual average
number of entries achieves 2.5 or higher per National event.
B. Should that annual average number of entries fall below 2.5, the
class will have one additional year to bring the participation level
above the current requirement. Alternatively, it may be immediately
consolidated into an existing class. If the class does not exceed the
current average requirement during the grace year, it will either be
consolidated into existing classes or become a Regional Class.
C. Based on member input, a Regional Class (except Improved Touring)
meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in
paragraph 9.1.12.A. for 1 year may be reviewed to become a
National Class.
D. Based on member or manufacturer input, the CRB may recommend
creating new National classes for BoD approval. National classes
created under this section have 5 years to achieve an average of
2.5 cars per National event before being consolidated or redefined
as a Regional Class, according to 9.1.12.B. All classes are eligible for
divisional and regional championships, as determined by those bodies.
The [however many] most highly subscribed classes in any year will be
eligible for the RunOffs the following year.

Problem. Solved.

K

[tom91ita]

is there a stated goal or strategy with regards to adding STL?

is it to increase fees due to double dippers?

is it make a good home to attract drivers back from NASA?

is it to increase car count by more people building cars?

it seems that most classing is a zero sum game except for the double dippers. that is, having a driver build or enter STL instead of ITA or ITS does not increase overall membership or entries.

mostly just curious.

[Greg Amy]

Problem. Solved.
And therein lies the problem, Prof (and you know this): everybody in the club agrees with that philosophy...right up to the moment it detrimentally affects them.

To do something like this would require resolve and leadership that we - collectively - are not willing to support. So we go through these arguments time and time again...

GA

On edit: For reference, National Class Participation numbers for 2010 (http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/2010%20National%20Participation_FINAL.pdf).

[dickita15]

is there a stated goal or strategy with regards to adding STL?

is it to increase fees due to double dippers?

is it make a good home to attract drivers back from NASA?

is it to increase car count by more people building cars?

it seems that most classing is a zero sum game except for the double dippers. that is, having a driver build or enter STL instead of ITA or ITS does not increase overall membership or entries.

mostly just curious.

Yes
No, but it will happen
Yes
Yes

I think there are racers who are in SM or IT who are ready to move on to something else. To many of these the culture and rule set in Production may not be so popular.

STO, U & L is designed with the people in mind. The fact that is may be attractive to some current Nasa racers is not a bad this either.

STO is probably what GT2 or 3 should have evolved into.
STU and L may be what Production should have become.

[Knestis]

And therein lies the problem, Prof (and you know this): everybody in the club agrees with that philosophy...right up to the moment it detrimentally affects them.

To do something like this would require resolve and leadership that we - collectively - are not willing to support. So we go through these arguments time and time again...

GA

On edit: For reference, National Class Participation numbers for 2010 (http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/2010%20National%20Participation_FINAL.pdf).

That's what happens when jellyfish are in charge.

K

[shwah]

A regional class can become a notional class based on criteria C below. <snip>

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class (except Improved Touring)
meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in
paragraph 9.1.12.A. for 1 year may be reviewed to become a
National Class.




I think there are racers who are in SM or IT who are ready to move on to something else. To many of these the culture and rule set in Production may not be so popular.


So the obvious, easy solution is to create a completely new class, rather than remove three words from the GCR...

[dickita15]

I respect your point however this is not really IT racing going national. STL is a bit higher prep level than IT and STU is even higher. I look at these classes as a great place to go if you are tired of IT.

[JLawton]

I look at these classes as a great place to go if you are tired of IT.

I thought that was supposed to be Production? :D

[gran racing]

........How did all the Honda adjustments come to be? What's the internal policy about actually changing existing weights?

I recognize the changes are being done with good intention but once again I fail to understand how these and some of the past adjustments are being allowed? Hopefully when the BOD reviews the rule to allow other classed cars to be reviewed it'll resolve this ever confusing lack of consistency. I do find it quite puzzling among other words.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I recognize the changes are being done with good intention but once again I fail to understand how these and some of the past adjustments are being allowed? Hopefully when the BOD reviews the rule to allow other classed cars to be reviewed it'll resolve this ever confusing lack of consistency. I do find it quite puzzling among other words.

It's not really hard to comprehend IMHO. The CRB is on (at least was on) a 'if it looks like a duck' kick. These are changes that are probably being made under errors and ommisions. Making the classifications 'make sense'. Same engine, different chassis (assuming no core design is different like suspension design or driveline, etc) then teh weight should be the same given the grainularity with have in IT. It's a correction based on clear data.

What they aren't allowing yet is a re-do of cars using the process. The CRB doesn't (didn't when I was there) believe in it enough to allow it. We been through it a million times. Th etime will come when they do it I am sure, but not when I was Chair and not in the next month or so, but I bet it will get done. The sh!t storm that played out last year opened enough eyes to allow this to happen. Some just had to fall on the sword.

[Knestis]

^ ^ ^
Someone

[Andy Bettencourt]

^ ^ ^
Someone

LOL. lost it's effectiveness with the page change. Maybe when they get it straight, they will have room for some former members again.

[gran racing]

I realize that's how they're attempting to rationalize the changes, however based on the previous stance it yields a confusing appearance. Oh well.

[tom91ita]

Some just had to fall on the sword.

nothing but a flesh wound!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Dhaz4PzGkTPRAM:http://gamesocialist.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/monty-python-black-knight-with-one-arm-off-794357.jpg

[tom91ita]

I realize that's how they're attempting to rationalize the changes, however based on the previous stance it yields a confusing appearance. Oh well.

this was my first thought.

thanks Andy for the clariifcation. i had been thinking there were other hondas in the line....

[shwah]

I respect your point however this is not really IT racing going national. STL is a bit higher prep level than IT and STU is even higher. I look at these classes as a great place to go if you are tired of IT.

I don't know that I have heard much of "I'm tired of racing IT" from pretty much anyone. I have heard "I want to race national, but don't want to race Production" (though I personally wouldn't mind that path), and "I want to race national, and I'm sorry I have to leave IT to do that" though.

Seems to me that this is a place we are going because the folks driving it are tired of trying to go national racing in IT. If you call it something different, and change it some, its not IT, and it can be national. Just a way more difficult an convoluted path that will require developing an entire base of racers to get there.

[gran racing]

At the same time Chris, there are pros and cons of IT going national and it would have an impact on the category that can be debated for the better or worse.

[Knestis]

... Seems to me that this is a place we are going because the folks driving it are tired of trying to go national racing in IT. If you call it something different, and change it some, its not IT, and it can be national. Just a way more difficult an convoluted path that will require developing an entire base of racers to get there.

Sorry, Chris - I think you're missing most of the plot line.

IT drivers were thrown a bone to be allowed to play - not compete - in a category created by a few folks who have an interest in WCT and GT cars. That begat STL. That this idea is attracting IT drivers is coincidental - not intentional.

Again - when nobody has the foresight or stones to make a failed class go away, or suffer the selfish arguments of small-pond big fish, we get class proliferation, dilution, and a weak Club Racing program.

K

[Greg Amy]

I don't know that I have heard much of "I'm tired of racing IT" from pretty much anyone.

<waving...>

No offense to anyone, but that's why I'm in STL/U. I'm not going to rehash the gory details, but I can tell you that the exact moment I told Kessler we were running STU this year he walked up to the car, calmly lifted the hood, removed the washer bottle and hurled it across the shop into the back wall and it dropped down to the floor...

...where it still lies today.

This - along with some other "let's not go there again" arguments - led me to consciously choose to take the Integra into Super Touring. Being National was icing on the cake (if IT were suddenly made National today, I'd still race STx.)

And I have zero interest in Production.

I've got nothing to add to Knestis' post, though I am aware of a few folk that intend STL to be a back-door National entry for IT, rather than coincidental. But that's individual motivations, not the Club's as a whole. And I recognize that whole "no new class" issue, which is why I'm disappointed, but I understand, that STL is not National. But, in the end, if I'm right and the class proves to be popular then it's nearly a foregone conclusion that it will be National eventually. If I'm wrong and I'm racing myself, I'll probably either race NASA PTx/Honda Challenge or assimilate and buy a Miata...

GA

[Rabbit07]

So the obvious, easy solution is to create a completely new class, rather than remove three words from the GCR...

Not true. Tech is the major issue in regards to IT going national. You tell me what the camshaft profile is suppose to be a on Volvo 142e? circa 1968.

With STL we provide a maximum cam lift, a maximimum Compression ratiom, etc.

This along with the "Washer Bottle" removes the ambiguity in tech.

[Rabbit07]

<waving...>

If I'm wrong and I'm racing myself, I'll probably either race NASA PTx/Honda Challenge or assimilate and buy a Miata...

GA

You won't be alone, but you may have to race with a bunch of Dodges :D.

[shwah]

Not true. Tech is the major issue in regards to IT going national. You tell me what the camshaft profile is suppose to be a on Volvo 142e? circa 1968.

With STL we provide a maximum cam lift, a maximimum Compression ratiom, etc.

This along with the "Washer Bottle" removes the ambiguity in tech.



You tell me what the stock wheel opening profile is for an Elva Courier. This is a red herring argument.

I understand that the point I am trying to make is tangential to the subject. I'll drop it now, but I couldn't help but take notice that we are going the 'other way around the world' to get to a destination - at least in the eyes of many, including some driving the class creation.

[seckerich]

Not true. Tech is the major issue in regards to IT going national. You tell me what the camshaft profile is suppose to be a on Volvo 142e? circa 1968.

With STL we provide a maximum cam lift, a maximimum Compression ratiom, etc.

This along with the "Washer Bottle" removes the ambiguity in tech.



That is the single biggest crock of $#*& I have seen posted in quite a while. If there is a problem a protest is lodged and specs or stock parts located to compare to. If there are a few old listings with questionable spec cams then spec the car weight with what is being run if nothing else is available. Not that hard. Total BS.

[Rabbit07]

That is the single biggest crock of $#*& I have seen posted in quite a while.

If there is a problem a protest is lodged and specs or stock parts located to compare to.

If there are a few old listings with questionable spec cams then spec the car weight with what is being run if nothing else is available. Not that hard. Total BS.

So there in lies the issue, 'Stock Parts" whos, stock parts? The older cars are harder to police, and that is as I understand it, one reason why IT would struggle to go National

Spec the car? This is IT w/out competition adjustments. Are we excepting that we would adjust cars with competition adjustments if it were National?

It is hard, because we are talking about post race tear downs at the RunOffs, where all decisions are final. There is no time to gather stock parts, old spec etc.

[rsportvolvo]

IF SCCA performed a proper homologation of each car and logged them, dare I say like the FIA, then many of these "spec" issues dry up. The entire approach to how SCCA runs their "show" needs to be revised.

[Knestis]

Not true. Tech is the major issue in regards to IT going national. You tell me what the camshaft profile is suppose to be a on Volvo 142e? circa 1968.

With STL we provide a maximum cam lift, a maximimum Compression ratiom, etc.


This along with the "Washer Bottle" removes the ambiguity in tech.



Yeah, sorry - I'm not buying this either. It is NOT possible to write self-policing rules. Cite a standard cam lift as the Easy Button for STL but you've still got hundreds of other similar problem unresolved. And as Chris points out, neither obscurity nor age are limiting factors in many other National classes.

If one thinks STL is a cool idea, all he has to say is, "I like it!" Don't trot out specious arguments in an effort to make it sound like a solution to a non-existent problem inherent in the IT rules.

And if you DO want to start arguing values and priorities, how about the reality that a formula where weights are based on displacement and cams/compression are fixed, cars that don't realize good specific HP figures are pretty much doomed...? If (when?) it gets truly competitive, there just won't be very many cars that can run up front, presuming equal preparation. Spec K20 anyone? :D

I'm NOT suggesting that STL is just bad. (Count me among the "intrigued.") I'm just saying that there are bigger issues that trump "cool." If it's a better mousetrap than, say, a particular Prod class, it should REPLACE it.

K

EDIT - And there's exactly ZERO room for "ambiguity" re: washer bottles. It's binary, dude - they're either there or not there. If you think that "real race cars don't have washer bottles," that's fine but again, don't make it sound like making that rule go away is solving some great quandary for the Club.

[R2 Racing]

I just don't understand what most IT racers have against Limited Prep Prod. I absolutely love it. I took the chassis I drove and knew in IT, added high lift cams and high compression pistons, GSR gear ratios, slicks, lexan, a fiberglass hood, and removed every single thing in the car that is not there to solely make the car go faster or protect my ass. It is just as reliable as my IT car, it is easier to work on and maintain, it's 305lbs lighter, and has ~25% more horsepower. And the best part? It's actually competitive in a REAL National class with lots of participation!

I just fail to understand why someone would have zero interest in that, yet be so excited for STU & STL. Is it just old pre-conceived notions of the class?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just don't understand what most IT racers have against Limited Prep Prod. I absolutely love it. I took the chassis I drove and knew in IT, added high lift cams and high compression pistons, GSR gear ratios, slicks, lexan, a fiberglass hood, and removed every single thing in the car that is not there to solely make the car go faster or protect my ass. It is just as reliable as my IT car, it is easier to work on and maintain, it's 305lbs lighter, and has ~25% more horsepower. And the best part? It's actually competitive in a REAL National class with lots of participation!

I just fail to understand why someone would have zero interest in that, yet be so excited for STU & STL. Is it just old pre-conceived notions of the class?

Good question Mr. Ruck. To me, the way cars are classed is the high spot for STU/STL. It is what it is. Comp adjustments every year trying to make everything equal? Doubt it. THAT is the issue for me.

Take the Sargis car that was a monster at the Runoffs. That is a full prep, hand-grenade-powered rocket. You guys either got out-driven or that car needs to be brought back down to earth. He must have thousands of dollars and hours making it fast. Now they will handicap it to the point that it won't win. The Patton Sunbeam is a great example. A win in GT2 and then enough of a limitation to set him back 5 years. It's a tough pill to swallow.

[Greg Amy]

I just fail to understand why someone would have zero interest in that, yet be so excited for STU & STL.
I have ZERO interest in Prod. Some examples why (and I admit I don't know the rules intimately, assuming anyone possibly can):

- High lift cams and high compression pistons
- Sequential shift boxes...?
- Slicks
- Repositioned pickup points
- Flared/shaved/stretched body panels
- High lift cams and high compression engines
- Dry sumps
- Shitloads of other engine and drivetrain mods
- And/or you're competing against (read: spending money against) guys that can do all that.

And the biggie:

- You're racing against cars that were considered old even back when your dad and mom were getting frisky, each with its own unique and oddball rules allowances, hand-grenade engines, and drivers older than even me. Or Miatas.

Production is the *ultimate* in catch-all run-whatcha-brung, with a wierd-ass ruleset to try and make some semblence of parity among the whole pack. And it really doesn't work. If it was *only* Limited Prep cars out there, and the cars I'd be competing against were interesting instead of two half-spins away from the crusher (or vintage racing), then maybe. But it's not, so...not interested.

Why I like STL:

- Fixed cam lift limit
- Fixed compression limit
- IT head prep
- No dry sumps
- GSR gear ratios
- DOT radials
- No relocated pickup points
- Lexan
- Fiberglass hood and hatch
- Ability to pretty much remove every single thing in the car that is not there to solely make the car go faster or protect my ass.
- But not nearly the modification allowances required in Prod to be competitive.
- Interesting more-modern competition? There's no way a Spitfire or a Fiat or Datsun or a MGB will ever be competitive in this class. So they'll stay in Prod. Except Miatas.
- The rules are out there, you make your choices, warts and all. NO WHINING!!!

Time will tell on the "real National class" participation thing... :shrug:

To each his own, Kev; I'm not making value judgments on your choices/preferences. But Prod just doesn't do it for me at all.

GA

[Rabbit07]

If one thinks STL is a cool idea, all he has to say is, "I like it!" Don't trot out specious arguments in an effort to make it sound like a solution to a non-existent problem inherent in the IT rules.

Spec K20 anyone? :D




I am not buying the "non existent problem" part of IT either.

Don't bet on the K20 yet, that is on the radar as well.

[downingracing]

... And the best part? It's actually competitive in a REAL National class with lots of participation!

I just fail to understand why someone would have zero interest in that, yet be so excited for STU & STL. Is it just old pre-conceived notions of the class?

Yea... But your ITA car is actually competitive in a REAL IT Regoinal class with a TON MORE participation than Prod..... With a ruleset that isn't (that much) of a moving target to get to the front.

Just my .02 cents.

[Bill Miller]

I'll probably either race NASA PTx/Honda Challenge or assimilate and buy a Miata...

GA

Ladies and gentlemen, hell has indeed frozen over! :D



I just don't understand what most IT racers have against Limited Prep Prod.

Kevin,

I think a large part of that, is that it's been pretty much a moving target for the past 10 years.

Rabbit07,

As SPL matures, it will become less IT-like and more Prod-like. For example, there's a spec max cam lift, but there's nothing about profile. People will start spending many $$$ to develop cam profiles that gain them more power.

I really don't understand why they don't just put the question of IT being National out for a vote. Let the chips fall where they may.

[downingracing]

...I really don't understand why they don't just put the question of IT being National out for a vote. Let the chips fall where they may.

Because they put the question of motor mounts in IT out for a 'vote' and even with the vast majority of the letters in support - NO... :blink:

[lateapex911]

That is the single biggest crock of $#*& I have seen posted in quite a while. If there is a problem a protest is lodged and specs or stock parts located to compare to. If there are a few old listings with questionable spec cams then spec the car weight with what is being run if nothing else is available. Not that hard. Total BS.
Steve, I wish I could agree with you....well, I agree with your conclusion, but not your intro line.
Now, positions change, and people say things that they don't remember, or didn't mean, but....in my talks with the PTB regarding IT going National, (in my ITAC days) one major barrier that the PTB put up was indeed the tech issue. Any solutions or options offered were shot down. Not ALL the CRB guys didn't like the National idea, and, who knows, maybe the resistance I was hearing was "devils advocate", but, it sure sounded like the resistance was significant.

[lateapex911]

I hear you all...
Prod: Could be cool, as Kevin has certainly found out, but, as Andy points out, it's a moving target. And, it's subjective, and based sometimes on one race. I get why they do it that way, but I sure don't like it, and I've been behind the closed doors and I've seen how things work, so I'm not sure I trust it....

STx: STL seems like a neat option, but, I trip over the future. One, it's seems pretty FWD biased. And, when you really work the numbers, it is as Kirk points out all about specific output. Which really limits the choices. (Assuming you want a front line car, and uh, last I checked, this is racing, why would you NOT want to be up front?)

IT: Once stable, and circling in on a balanced category, it's in a bit of limbo. Still good though. But, Forever regional. And while some get hung up on moving their stupid battery or needing a washer bottle, I don't.


So today, IT seems like the least thorns.

[Russ Myers]

No whining??? Just like here in Improved Touring, right?

Russ

[Rabbit07]

Kevin,

I would not try to speak for others on this, but if it tried to do what you have done it couldn't work. You and I race together in ITA with our cars. You take the same model car and race it in FP. I take my car and it lands in EP? Sure it can weigh 2000 lbs or something like it that the chassis could never get to, but it still is in the next faster class. God knows I like a challenge, I race a freak'n Neon, but the cars should be in the same class in Prod as well. Letters have been sent and it has yielded nothing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

...but the cars should be in the same class in Prod as well. Letters have been sent and it has yielded nothing.

MAYBE in this case, but certainly not as a rule. Remember, displacement has a TON to do with classification in Prod. When you remove the IT restrictions and apply full or limited prep Prod allowances, gains can differ drastically.

Look at engine sizes in FP...anything bigger than the 1.8 Hondah? You go to 2.0L and you are for sure in EP based on that.

I agree that a LP Neon and an LP Teg would be a sensible pair...and as the LP rules are more accepted by the ful prep crowd, it could happen.

[Z3_GoCar]

Now EP has the S-2k, Boxter, and Rx-8 all classed with 17-18 x 8.5 rims. Meanwhile they have both the four cylinder Z3 and the 2.8 liter Z3 in the same class, oh and it's the only car that gets to run 16 inch slicks :blink: With a market of one, what the avalibility of slicks?

[Greg Amy]

After Serra got the 'Teg approved for FP I actually tried to get the NX2000 approved for FP, using relative competitiveness in ITA as supporting evidence. BRAACK! Next! Try again EProd Boy...

[Chip42]

I've always wanted to know how the Del Sol VTEC (B16) which is in ITS, and the Del sol Si (D16Z6) is in ITA, but the SOHC car is a prep 1 car in EP, and the DOHC is prep 2 + dry sump in FP. and not at stupid weight either.

compared to a FP miater - more power, roughly equal aero (frontal Area and Cd) with windshield cut off, parts are cheap and available, slightly heavier, twitchy.

if we had the money, we'd have one of these already.

as for the honda weight adjustments, they were needed to balance the field and remove a potentially destabilizing precedent in the 2-motor line for the Del Sol Si, my thanks to the ITAC for getting them done. I do wonder if a del sol Si can get down to 2270, though (I have no real info either way but I have a hunch it's a bit heavier).

[shwah]

Take the Sargis car that was a monster at the Runoffs. That is a full prep, hand-grenade-powered rocket. You guys either got out-driven or that car needs to be brought back down to earth.

OR he has likely the most developed cars in SCCA road racing and is racing at his home track, where he has proven to be a bit of a jedi master.

I agree that he will get a lead trophy, but I don't agree that it will necessarily be 100%s deserved. It's not like the HP Honda that still runs at the front while it stumbles out of every low speed corner carrying 275 more pounds than last year.

Your point remains valid. Production car specifications can and do change from year to year. We are still struggling to get Chuck's car back to the level of competitiveness it was in G. At least we now know what works for the new configuration, but budget and time constraints are a bitch and we merely hope to be able to execute it by next September...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree that he will get a lead trophy, but I don't agree that it will necessarily be 100%s deserved. ...

And therin lies the problem...determining when it is deserved and by how much, if at all.

[gpeluso]

where do the 12a and 13b rotaries fit in ST (STU or STL)? I'm speaking of the ITA/IT7 and ITS cars?

Greg

[Bill Miller]

where do the 12a and 13b rotaries fit in ST (STU or STL)? I'm speaking of the ITA/IT7 and ITS cars?

Greg

I'm not sure if the 12a fits anywhere. Did Mazda have any '85 RX7's w/ a 12a motor?

[JeffYoung]

Yes. Only the GSL-SE had the 13b. All GSLs and GSs had the 12a in 84 and 85.

[Rabbit07]

where do the 12a and 13b rotaries fit in ST (STU or STL)? I'm speaking of the ITA/IT7 and ITS cars?

Greg

The Mazda 13B and Renesis rotary engines are permitted at 2400lbs. The 13B may be street ported. The Renesis shall remain unported. The Mazda 12A Street Port is permitted at 2350lbs.12A induction: (1) Nikki 4 barrel carburetor with primary choke(s) bored to match secondary choke(s) on a stock manifold, or (1) Auto-type 2 barrel carburetor with 38mm choke(s) on a “dual-y” manifold.

[mossaidis]

1.I've always wanted to know how the Del Sol VTEC (B16) which is in ITS, and the Del sol Si (D16Z6) is in ITA, but the SOHC car is a prep 1 car in EP, and the DOHC is prep 2 + dry sump in FP. and not at stupid weight either.
...
as for the honda weight adjustments, they were needed to balance the field and remove a potentially destabilizing precedent in the 2-motor line for the Del Sol Si, my thanks to the ITAC for getting them done. I do wonder if a del sol Si can get down to 2270, though (I have no real info either way but I have a hunch it's a bit heavier).

on your first part, "wow!" I need to pay for attention to the prod rules... what a cluster X. Well, I guess it's "their" problem to sort out, but still... ugh.

on your last comment, ditto! FYI, I can get my 92 Civic si down to 2270 with 195 lbs driver, a small fire bottle and a filled washer bottle and w/o ballast or the spare tire.

[Ed Funk]

....empty your damn washer bottle! The del sol has a lot of steel in the tunnel...still doesn't help with the flexibility problem in the street car.

[JamesL]

Why I like STL:

- Fixed cam lift limit
- Fixed compression limit
- IT head prep
- No dry sumps
- GSR gear ratios
- DOT radials
- No relocated pickup points
- Lexan
- Fiberglass hood and hatch
- Ability to pretty much remove every single thing in the car that is not there to solely make the car go faster or protect my ass.
- But not nearly the modification allowances required in Prod to be competitive.



I understand that you mentioned you may be more interested if ALL the cars in Prod were LP... but you do realize that you just described Limited Prep Prod to a tee, except for DOTs, right??

While Sargis is a bit of an enigma, LP cars won E and F this year... and while some of the full prep cars may need to be reigned in slightly(or have the reigns loosened slightly), depending on the track, LP seems to be the future of SCCA Production.

And in another 10 years, it wouldn't surpise me if almost all the cars running Prod are LP.

[Greg Amy]

Cheater! :) You left out my last two lines:

- Interesting more-modern competition? There's no way a Spitfire or a Fiat or Datsun or a MGB will ever be competitive in this class. So they'll stay in Prod. Except Miatas.
- The rules are out there, you make your choices, warts and all. NO WHINING!!!

Two really big downsides for me.


And in another 10 years, it wouldn't surpise me if almost all the cars running Prod are LP.

...and when that happens and everyone's using the same ruleset without tons of rules changes to try and make everything and everyone competitive, then I very well may change my mind... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And in another 10 years, it wouldn't surpise me if almost all the cars running Prod are LP.

Or if they were actually concerned with the GROWTH of prod, phase out full-prep INTENTIONALLY in the next 5 years and bring prod back to earth.

[JamesL]

Cheater! :) You left out my last two lines:

- Interesting more-modern competition? There's no way a Spitfire or a Fiat or Datsun or a MGB will ever be competitive in this class. So they'll stay in Prod. Except Miatas.
- The rules are out there, you make your choices, warts and all. NO WHINING!!!

Two really big downsides for me.



...and when that happens and everyone's using the same ruleset without tons of rules changes to try and make everything and everyone competitive, then I very well may change my mind... - GA

I guess I figured the rule package itself would be more important than the age of the competition... but it is a valid point. But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.

What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class? Do you actually believe the SCCA will just sit back and say "too bad" to all the other engine/chassis combos?

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.


Or if they were actually concerned with the GROWTH of prod, phase out full-prep INTENTIONALLY in the next 5 years and bring prod back to earth.

I would rather see it phased out gradually as the cars become... well... obsolete? Maybe "less competitive" is a better term. As long as a 1960s British roadster has a chance of winning, someone out there is going to want to race one. Especially the older racers.

...Rather than alienate a whole segment of their customers. Prod keeps getting faster and faster, but what other allowances can you continue to grant a full prep car already built to the limit of the rules?

[quadzjr]

I guess I figured the rule package itself would be more important than the age of the competition... but it is a valid point. But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.

What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class? Do you actually believe the SCCA will just sit back and say "too bad" to all the other engine/chassis combos?

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.

I assume the same, however it was brought to their attention prior to the rules and they said they were aware of the potential dominace of honda's in teh class but made no changes. They like the simplicity of disp->weight. To make it work and to be as "fair" as possible you will have to set your weight per engine similiar to how they do it in GT.

[Greg Amy]

But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.
Neither do I. But I'll give it my best effort to resist it to the end. And if, in the end, it becomes another version of Prod, well then my interest in it wanes... :shrug:


What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class?Speaking in generalities the STAC has indicated its willingness to ban engines that they believe have a power-to-weight greater than class expectations (Type R B18C5 and S2000 F20C). How far they're willing to carry that is open to debate.

As for the K20 specifically, there's talk of adding it to the list of banned engines. However, I think that to be a bad idea, as it would eliminate all 4-cyl Hondas, 2002 onward, from the class*.


I would rather see [non-LP cars] phased out gradually as the cars become... well... obsolete? Maybe "less competitive" is a better term.You can do this a couple of ways, either by gradually increasing weights and/or reducing mods to the full-prep cars, or by gradually reducing weights or granting allowances to the LP cars. But I'd only support this idea if it were codified in the philosophy of the class and send to the membership for feedback. While I like the idea of a benevolent dictatorship's guiding hands moving the category forward, we are in the end a club and subject to the demands and desires of the membership...

GA

* Although, as noted in another thread ("what is hot") I personally think that the K20A2 - the 200-stock-pony version in the RSX-S, with already-at-11:1 compression and with ground cams - will not dominate. This is due to three reasons: one, the 170-pony-stock B18C1 gets an extra point of compression during build and already has cams at the limit; two, the engines are installed in cars with strut suspensions, designs that have been shown to be problematic in professional racing (e.g., Grand Am and World Challenge) and their installation into the earlier chassis is not clearly legal; and, most importantly, three, the K20 carries a 260-pound weight disadvantage to the 1.8-liter. I think the power-to-weight favors the B18 and other 1.8 liter engines.

[JamesL]

* Although, as noted in another thread ("what is hot") I personally think that the K20A2 - the 200-stock-pony version in the RSX-S, with already-at-11:1 compression and with ground cams - will not dominate. This is due to three reasons: one, the 170-pony-stock B18C1 gets an extra point of compression during build and already has cams at the limit; two, the engines are installed in cars with strut suspensions, designs that have been shown to be problematic in professional racing (e.g., Grand Am and World Challenge) and their installation into the earlier chassis is not clearly legal; and, most importantly, three, the K20 carries a 260-pound weight disadvantage to the 1.8-liter. I think the power-to-weight favors the B18 and other 1.8 liter engines.


Hmmm... maybe I missed something in the proposed rules, but why would the K20 not be allowed in the older Hondas?

260lbs is a lot to overcome. I am not familiar with the OEM cam specs on the B18C1. How much hp would you say a STL built B18C1 would make? Maybe 175whp?

The K20 will probably not be a class killer with the OEM cams. But that engine responds very wells to cams with slightly more duration. The TSX cams are a good example, with more duration and a little more lift on the exhaust cam(right at .450 actually). My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts. Coupled with how well the K20 head flows... I could see a 9krpm STL K20 being pretty competitive. :shrug:

[Greg Amy]

Hmmm... maybe I missed something in the proposed rules, but why would the K20 not be allowed in the older Hondas?
On the face of it the idea of the swap itself is legal, but "questions have been raised" here about the legality vis-a-vis completely rotating the engine the other way, flipping the engine trans, physically removing some mount brackets off the rails, and still staying within the intent of the motor mounts and engine relocation rules (STL allows alternate mounts but specifically points out you cannot relocate the drivetrain).


How much hp would you say a STL built B18C1 would make? Maybe 175whp?
Our ITS engine was making 160+ whp, so there's room to grow.


My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts.
It would be an interesting pursuit, though keep in mind that you can't change the intake manifold or t-body...and you can't use the K20A parts legally.

But if it can be done, someone certainly will, eventually.

GA

[JeffYoung]

There are ITS Integras out there NOW making 175 whp, and supposedly 180+ is possible.

[shwah]

You can do this a couple of ways, either by gradually increasing weights and/or reducing mods to the full-prep cars, or by gradually reducing weights or granting allowances to the LP cars.

Seems you would get the same thing if you just stopped adjusting the level 1 cars.

The class WILL get faster around them. That is some sort of law of physics I think. I mean club racers are knocking on the door of a sub 2 minute lap at Road America fercrissakes - something the bad ass CanAm cars in their glory days were trying to do in '71 & '72.

[mossaidis]

The K20 will probably not be a class killer with the OEM cams. But that engine responds very wells to cams with slightly more duration. The TSX cams are a good example, with more duration and a little more lift on the exhaust cam(right at .450 actually). My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts. Coupled with how well the K20 head flows... I could see a 9krpm STL K20 being pretty competitive. :shrug:

Another observation: max valve lift for 4-valve/cyl is .425, not .450... ugh.

[Bill Miller]

, we are in the end a club and subject to the demands and desires of the membership...

GA




Now THAT is funny!

[Chip42]

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.

already begun - the Nissan VQ30DE is allowed in STU under "alt engine specs". despite the glaring differences, STU and L are in the same category so this could be carried over to allow alt cams, compression, TB or intake, or whatever (other than in cases of FWD engine to RWD application, which is legal despite being not legal because you can't move the motor...) This way they could "help" or slow a paerticularly good or bad engine and still have their precious displacement to weight formula.

alternatively, "base weights" could be established for specific motors that replace the 1.3lbs/cc rule in those instances. this would still allow for swapping with the appropriate layout modifiers wihtout extensive rules.

they could also allow non-USDM motors to open up competition. even if only in the same family as US market offerings: toyota's later 3S series (up to the BEAMS), 20v 4AG's, etc... as most of the asian makes have sportier small engines available, just not here. the same might be true for ford/GM of europe/Australia, I'm not sure.

but they probobly wont do any of that. just like they wouldn't allow open (tto a limit) brakes as in STO/U. seems they like their rules just fine how they are, thank you.

[lateapex911]

Ok, you Honda types...my head spins with your K20 and B18 and K20A talk. Simple question raised by the last post...can one run an S2000? or swap a motor in ? If so, which motor, how much power and would it be competitive? I'm trying to get a handle on how this class is a "class" as opposed to a nearly defacto 'spec class"

[Chip42]

An "S2000" is legal. yes. but the stock motor is specifically NOT legal. same for an integra type R.

rules allow for swaps - but there's also a rule saying that engine position cannot be modified - so strict interpretation says you can't do a K-series into car that came with a F,H,D, or B series motor (most civics, 'tegs, 'ludes, etc..) as honda turned them around for the K (traditionally honda engines had been driver's side, K's are reversed from that).

the location rule makes transverse to longitudinal swaps a grey area in some ways, but it's "obvious" they are allowed - so any legal engine, some K20s, B18s, etc.. could be swapped into the S2000 chassis but would need an approved intake manifold from i don't know what.

[Chip42]

with regard to competitiveness:
STL rules add a 2.5% weight penalty for RWD. With the likely motor being the B18 or K20, you're already in the heavy end of the field so the penalty is the steepest in terms of pure mass.
weights: 1800cc = 2340# FWD, 2400# RWD, 2000cc = 2600# FWD, 2665# RWD.

find a "good" strut car and the weights get lower for FWD.

The S2000 could certinaly be made competitive as it's advantages are likely worth the extra weight - but it's still a lot of weight at 2.0L. either way, you have to find the right mainfolds and stuff, and generally the rules are poorly worded when it comes to swaps between different layouts.

[Terry Hanushek]

already begun - the Nissan VQ30DE is allowed in STU under "alt engine specs". despite the glaring differences, STU and L are in the same category so this could be carried over to allow alt cams, compression, TB or intake, or whatever (other than in cases of FWD engine to RWD application, which is legal despite being not legal because you can't move the motor...) This way they could "help" or slow a paerticularly good or bad engine and still have their precious displacement to weight formula.

alternatively, "base weights" could be established for specific motors that replace the 1.3lbs/cc rule in those instances. this would still allow for swapping with the appropriate layout modifiers wihtout extensive rules.

they could also allow non-USDM motors to open up competition. even if only in the same family as US market offerings: toyota's later 3S series (up to the BEAMS), 20v 4AG's, etc... as most of the asian makes have sportier small engines available, just not here. the same might be true for ford/GM of europe/Australia, I'm not sure.

but they probobly wont do any of that. just like they wouldn't allow open (tto a limit) brakes as in STO/U. seems they like their rules just fine how they are, thank you.

The ST category is starting to look very much like the Production category with the potential of endless adjustments to equalize performance. Both ST and Prod are in the gap between limited preparation (SS / T / IT) and all out preparation (GT). Once major adjustments are permitted to the stock configuration, there will be no end to the lobbying to help a certain car (or certain engine) in a continuing tug-of-war between the different makes / models.

If you have an aversion to prod cars because of the amount of adjustments and relative instability of the rules, my suspicion is you may not be a good candidate for STU / STL.

YMMV

Terry

[Steven McWilliams Jr]

Why doesn't SCCA just combine classes instead of creating them? To me it seems simple to make/combine a class that has performance equal to a modern street car and then go from there. Any car can be in that class,with anything done to it, as long as its times are close to the other cars competing in the class, or the base car. Weight will be the factor to maintain competitevness. I already see this available to many SCCA Classes. For example, growing up in formula cars, the FE and FC run VERY simular times. The FE can be the less adjustable way to get into a fast open wheel car, and FC can be the tinkerers way of turning the same laptimes.

Steven
Sorry to interrupt things

[mossaidis]

Ok, you Honda types...my head spins with your K20 and B18 and K20A talk. Simple question raised by the last post...can one run an S2000? or swap a motor in ? If so, which motor, how much power and would it be competitive? I'm trying to get a handle on how this class is a "class" as opposed to a nearly defacto 'spec class"

I began looking into that myself and I can add one thought to thread above The motor outlined as "outlawed" by STL rules is the USDM F20C. Honda did make other F-series motors in both 2.0 and 1.8l form (in both SOHC and DOHC) yet unfort most of them were JDM/EDM. There is a lot of mystery whether a F20x existed for the USDM with enough potential for a S2000 swap (edit: which is VERY doubtful even if one a f20 usdm existed).

http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1139084

More food for thought.... which is cheaper (time) vs building (money). :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I still fail to see what would ever be able to run with a built 1.6 or 1.8L CRX/Teg in STL. The head design of the B-Series Mazda just won't make the power. One quick call to Flyin' Miata will verify potential output from their N/A engine program. Maybe 170whp.

[Rabbit05]

For some reason I cant seem to find the STL rules. Probably my lack of coffee this morning. :D

And for my own clarrification..STL is a 2.0 L and under class ??

Soooo..its going to be a spec-honda-mazda-Acura class ? :shrug:

I got all excited ..thinking about dumping a 2.6L eurovan motor into my Audi Coupe. Then I saw the STO/U weight to displacement and that would put my car at 2860 lbs ,according to that rule set. I am going to add some tank tracks and a turret....schnell....:rolleyes: I know the car wouldn't be too competitive..but it would be fun to play around with the car..or at least have an option to.

If I did modify the Coupe..would I be in STU ?

[Greg Amy]

If I did modify the Coupe..would I be in STU ?
Anything up to 2 liters can be in STL; anything up to 3 liters can be STU.

Proposed rules in August Fastrack. I believe they were approved during the October BoD meeting with minimal changes.

GA

[Ron Earp]

And for my own clarrification..STL is a 2.0 L and under class ??

Soooo..its going to be a spec-honda-mazda-Acura class ? :shrug:

?

Kind of what I thought too. The 2L limit makes is a darling class for Honda/Acura/Mazda. Great I suppose if those manufacturers are seeking some national exposure and a class that they are sure to win in. Not so great for racers who aren't on the import wagon.

[Greg Amy]

Not so great for racers who aren't on the import wagon.
- Ford Focus Duratec
- Dodge Neon ACR twin-cam
- Didn't/doesn't the Chevy Cobalt/Cruze come with a 2-liter four?

And that's just for starters...two liters is an excellent benchmark for classification, and pretty much includes most small cars of the last couple decades.

If you want to argue vis-a-vis specific output then you've got a good point; the imports have done so much better improving the efficiencies of their small engines (and the consumer market responded to that, making the imports more popular). On the other hand, those imports are already closer to the category possibilities, giving the other ones more room to grow...if someone got motivated to pursue it.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Not so great for racers who aren't on the FWD wagon.

Bzzzt. Had to fix that for myself.

It looks a bit like a "we couldn't take IT National so we'll take the folks out of IT(A) into a National class" sort of class.

[JeffYoung]

And the rules were specifically written to favor small displacement, high specific output motors. With the 1985 cut off date, that may not matter that much, but bigger motors like the 3.8s in the Camaros and Mustangs have no chance really.

It's clear what the class was designed for, and that's fine. But I still think IT's power to weight based formula allows a wider variety of engine types to be competitive. Yeah, some of our rules stink, and need to figure out how to get more newer cars out, but STL/STU do really seem like a flavor of the day rule set to me.

We'll see.

[Greg Amy]

Bzzzt. Had to fix that for myself.

Really, Ron? I think you're confusing correlation with intent. How many RWD sub 2-liter cars have manufacturers made? Miata? MR2? Fiero? BMW? Don't you think those cars can be competitive against FWD cars of similar displacement? Sure they can.

Big bore for STO. 3 liters for STU. 2 liters for STL. Easy. Do you think that STO (and STU to a lesser extent) were intended to discriminate against FWD? Of course not, it's just that smaller-displacement engines tend to be installed in FWD cars, and larger ones in RWD. If more manufacturers would make small-displacement RWD cars, then of course more would be eligible for a sub-2 liter class. But they don't. So you're mixing your engine displacement metaphor with your drive one.


But I still think IT's power to weight based formula allows a wider variety of engine types to be competitive.
I disagree, and that's illustrated by results. How many cars are consistently competitive in ITS? ITA? The ITB field is looking deep, but apparently it discriminates against small-displacement FWD cars, ITC even more so... ;)

^^^ That's a joke, BTW.

IT cannot claim to have a halo over its head as the perfect solution; even the IT "formula" results in the better cars coming to the fore, and even it requires gerrymandering instead of a straight-up calculation.

And, of course, in light of your concerns about specific brake horsepower, note that the STAC has effectively agreed with you, by proactively banning the two more common higher-sBHP engines, and could very well do more. I hope not, but we'll see how they choose to handle large performance discrepancies.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Uh, the smallest Fiero motor is the Iron Duke (2.5ltrs), which was also used in the 3rd gen Camero/Firebird. It was replaced with a 2.2ltr motor.

The less than 2.0 liter mark really cuts off lots of possibilities. The newest BMW option was last made in '98, and it's got a cast crank and a dual path intake manifold, so it won't be taking advantage of the compression and cams that are allowed.

[Greg Amy]

So noted.

2 liters is a very common benchmark in auto racing; FIA's Super 2000 regs are the basis for World Touring Cars, British Touring (BTCC), WRC's Super 2000 World Rally Championship rules, ADAC Pro Cars, and I think Australia and Italy's touring car championships among others. Everywhere else in the racing world a 2-liter formula is the basis for most racing of small production-based sedans.

Chevy, Ford, Dodge, BMW, Audi/VW, Toyota, Honda, and many others produce 2-liter engines. Still more produce smaller-than-2 liter engines that would be eligible for STL.

2 liters is a good number for racing; that's illustrated worldwide. So why don't more US manufacturers produce 2 liter engines, and why not more of those size engines into RWD packages? Well, sounds like a good a question for the manufacturers... - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

While under 2.0 liters are common in other countries, they're not so here. Hey Greg, you're from Texas, and you've seen the wide open spaces of the West. You know that crossing these spaces in the small cars that sell in Euope/Japan is less than comfortable. I've done it in my street Z3, but I'm not normal :D

Here's an interesting option: Lotus Eliese/Exeige

[Ron Earp]

Really, Ron? I think you're confusing correlation with intent. How many RWD sub 2-liter cars have manufacturers made? Miata? MR2? Fiero? BMW? Don't you think those cars can be competitive against FWD cars of similar displacement? Sure they can.

The rule set doesn't allow for racers who wants to race a larger displacement but lower tech engine, i.e., a 2 valve per cylinder engine in a varied field. ITU is pretty much going to be ruled by Hondas.

If this class becomes popular I think that over time it'll drain the A/B IT racers off. And maybe that is a good thing in the long run. Racing classes don't last forever. Wait, this is the SCCA, of course they do...

[Greg Amy]

While under 2.0 liters are common in other countries, they're not so here.
Yup, I hear you. Someone else mentioned that to me via PM. I responded by saying:
...if I'm hearing you correctly, then you're saying that we should build our racing programs primarily using the new car market as a benchmark? So, for example, for the US market we should base our racing classes on the 85th-percentile car sold here? If so, we're all going to be racing 4-door V6 sedans... ;)

The 2-liter mark is a good benchmark for splitting out performance envelopes, just like STO is good for the big bore and STU is good for 3 liters. Simply speaking, without that additional displacement break you'll never be able to get 2 liter-and-under cars to be competitive in STU; the front-running STU cars at Road America this year were a 2.4L Acura, a turbo 2L Audi, and a 2.8L BMW. No way anyone with a Neon or Integra could compete with that, even with full up prep. Hell, they'd find it virtually impossible just to get the cars down to legal weight, like the 1930# minimum for my Integra. Just can't happen.

On the other hand, if the argument I'm hearing is not about the displacement, but more like "we like the more-restrictive ruleset of STL and wish our greater-than-2-liter car could compete that way" then the issue is with the STO/STU ruleset, not with STL. If that's the case, then let's either reign in the bigger cars' mods or let's create a separate category of cars that have the same displacement breakdown but fewer mods (Kirk and I created a ruleset called Modified Touring several years ago, that's eerily close to STL...)

Personally, long-term I suspect we'll see a lot more small-displacement cars coming to the market, a la Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit, especially if the new CAFE regs stand. At that point cars with 4-cyl 2L engines will become the 85th-percentile "new Camry". We really should be creating classes for these smaller-displacement cars...

Here's an interesting option: Lotus Eliese/ExeigeI think that chassis is on the STAC RADAR for limitation to STU...purely a second-hand rumor, though. Isn't it a 1.8L Toyota engine? Even if it were legal for the class it would have to add around 200 pounds to ballast up...would be a nice ride, though.

On edit to reply to Ron:


The rule set doesn't allow for racers who wants to race a larger displacement but lower tech engine, i.e., a 2 valve per cylinder engine in a varied field.
Sure, there's STU. but then, I'm inferring you are in that last camp above, about liking the more-restrictive ruleset of STL versus STU and would like to run a higher-displacement car under those rules?


ITU is pretty much going to be ruled by Hondas.You mean STL? For now, you're correct (see the "what's hot topic" for more discussion). but I don't see that maintaining long-term.


If this class becomes popular I think that over time it'll drain the A/B IT racers off.Maybe. I can tell you from personal experience there are other reasons involved in us toward choosing STU/L over ITA or ITS, all options we discussed while building the Integra. And that decision to not build it for IT had less to do with the STL ruleset than it did due to other things, issues that - perceived or actual - will do more to drive racers from ITA/ITS than STL will.

I don't see it driving ITB guys away from IT, through I can see them double-dipping race weekends to get more track time in.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Yes, the Elise/Exige has the 1.8 motor from the Celica GT-2. 190 hp, no torque. I think my Exige had a 8800 redline?

[Z3_GoCar]

I know it's confusing, but the new 328 that's racing in Touring Car is powered by a 3ltr:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N52

Actually weights in STU is high, if they'd get rid of all the 2ltr and under cars from STU then the weights could become more resonable. Based on the current rule set I would not race my current motor. There's no way that it'll respond as it should with the manifold that's on it now. The runners are to small, the plenum is too small, and it can't be port matched.

[lateapex911]

I've been trying to wrap my head around this new "category"...and i use the term 'category' loosely, because, to IT folks, the basic ruleset is the same across the classes. But ST has very different rules from one class to another.

So, somebody who likes the STL level of changes, might reject flatly the STU level. So, that limits them right from the start.

But, what really makes me scratch my head is the hybrid nature of the ruleset. In IT, we set the Process up based on stock hp ratings, due to the rules limiting modifications of significant horsepower limiting components. In other words, we can't change the intake, cams, etc in IT, and those have a huge role in the stock hp rating.

In GT, for example, those limitations are gone, and they utilize a more theoretical method for baseline classifications. Since the components are largely free, it becomes a displacement based math, as opposed to a HP based math, like IT.

I know some in the CRB struggle to wrap their heads around the wild discrepancies that exist in IT vis a vis engine sizes within the same class, yet, for the most part, they race fine together.

This new ST system is using the Displacement based math, but NOT allowing the changes needed to achieve the output that a displacement based system counts on for parity.

So, in the end, it's really more about choosing good stock hp and proper intake components for good breathing. And right away, the vast majority of the possible choices (under 2L in STL, lets leave STU out of it for the sake of discussion) are eliminated.

To me, that seems a folly. Why limit it so severely right from the outset?*
To me, they needed to use a different base system to allow more possible candidates, or, if they were going to allow significant component changes like cams, they needed to go all in and allow intakes to be modded and/or free so that the parity possibilities would exist, because now, it appears they most certainly do not.

I hear people in the "know" say things like "for now" and "maybe later" when discussing the limited model/engine choices and the potential of other manufacturers, but it confuses me as to HOW they can open it up to other makes models that don't have the stock breathing capacity of the obvious/best candidates? Line item allowances? Ouch. Categorical weight breaks for poor breathing? I like 'categorical" but shiver to think how the line of demarkation would be determined...

*All in all, I'm trying to like the category, but I'm worried that it hasn't been thought out, or that the PTB are just fine with such a narrow window of potential good cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Greg. There is O, U and L. A spot for everyone, no?

[CRallo]

Didn't they say no Elise/Exige? :/

[almskidd]

I began looking into that myself and I can add one thought to thread above The motor outlined as "outlawed" by STL rules is the USDM F20C. Honda did make other F-series motors in both 2.0 and 1.8l form (in both SOHC and DOHC) yet unfort most of them were JDM/EDM. There is a lot of mystery whether a F20x existed for the USDM with enough potential for a S2000 swap (edit: which is VERY doubtful even if one a f20 usdm existed).

http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1139084

More food for thought.... which is cheaper (time) vs building (money). :)

The USDM only received the F20A# in SOHC configuration. Those motors have terribly small ports and crappy intake manifolds and would suck for STL. If you are talking about a F-series motor for STU then skip over the the sister series and get an H22. A K24 weights significantly less than the H22 though so it would be the naturally better choice (more power in the K24 as well).

NOTE: ALL USDM motors have a 5 digit code stamped on the block, So A##A#, ie B16A2, K20A3, F22C1. A lot of JDM/EDM only have a four digit code A##A with no B16A, B16B, B18C, K20A, F20B.

[Chip42]

to tGA - I'm in the camp of liking the STU ruleset and wanting STL to be more reflective of that line of reasoning - like you say, min weight under 2.0L in STU is getting hard to accomplish. for my 1.6L MR2 it's fully impossible - even with a 1.8L 2ZZ-GE. so I lik the STL concept opening up the class to those cars. but the rules are wrong - it IS modified touring in so many respects.

one way to deepen the field is to allow non-USDM motors. I know - can of worms. but there are, as has been mentioned, a ton of great small displacement motors out there, they just haven't been sold here by anyone other than honda. I think a miata will still do well due to it's overall awesomeness. but what else?? the 2ZZ toyota is the ONLY thing I can think of. maybe the 2.0L MZR / Duratech but I honestly don't know much about that motor. whatever the case, it's destined to be ST-honda unless they come up with something to balance it.

as for the interaction of IT variety of stock components vs. GT displacement to weight - the most similar category to STL, limited prep production, shows clearly that the CRB / PAC / etc... understand the differences in potential even with similar/same cam and compression allowances.

the impression I'm getting is that the STAC or whoever started the idea has no interest in balancing their playground, they just want it to exist. healthcare, anyone?

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is the best Toyota motor under 2.0? Like 180-190hp? Slap that in a MKII MR2...

That is an interesting choice.

[quadzjr]

Andy.. there is the 2.0L 3S-GE(NA version of the 3SGTE found in the turbo MR2), but the one that came in the states doesn't cut it. JDM version made more power. There is the 2ZZ (1.8L) motor that came in the Celica GTS, elise, vibe, matrix XRS,etc. but it is in the same camp as the K20 and would require special cams as it exceeds max cam lift and compression. however compression is allowed to stay the same. I don't know what the base hp will be after you install the smaller cams, and you can't increase CR. I think it would be your best chance if you own a toyota in the current ruleset, but talk about spending alot of money knowing that you are starting with a handicap.

[mossaidis]

The USDM only received the F20A# in SOHC configuration. Those motors have terribly small ports and crappy intake manifolds and would suck for STL. If you are talking about a F-series motor for STU then skip over the the sister series and get an H22. A K24 weights significantly less than the H22 though so it would be the naturally better choice (more power in the K24 as well).

NOTE: ALL USDM motors have a 5 digit code stamped on the block, So A##A#, ie B16A2, K20A3, F22C1. A lot of JDM/EDM only have a four digit code A##A with no B16A, B16B, B18C, K20A, F20B.

Thank you for clarifying sir! I trying to find a USDM non-F20C1 motor to swap into a Honda S2000 under STL. I (we) don't think there is a viable USDM F series motor option, and certainly not a H series option since displacement is over 2.0 liters. And unless they decide to change the STL rules allowing for JDM motor, k20a2 will be your best choice S2000 in STL if someone goes that route.

PS. and adding a K20a2 still (*we think*) gives you the challenge of getting (given the current rules) a stock k20a2 TB/IM set up that would work in S2000.

[Chip42]

you will have trouble with intakes - there's just nothing "factory" that will work.

the S2000 F-series engines are very much not like the other F-stuff we got in the states.

what about a B18? again - issues with intakes would need rulings, but the weight would be preferable to a K20 and output, as has been rehashed a number fo times by tGA now, would be on par with a K20 - assuming the K even remains STL legal.

[mossaidis]

Let me ask one more question since I know very little about the S2000 - would a B18 or K20 mount up to a S2000 tranny w/o mods?

[tnord]

if i were to do something dumb like build a car for these nonsense ST classes, i'd be very tempted to look into a dumping renesis into a 2002+ sport package miata.

[almskidd]

Let me ask one more question since I know very little about the S2000 - would a B18 or K20 mount up to a S2000 tranny w/o mods?

First problem the B,D,F and H series motors spin anti-clockwise while the rest of the worlds motors spin clockwise, including the K-series motor. I am not sure what direction the F20/22C spins. It is different enough from the rest of the F-Series and similar enough to the K-series that I think it is possible that it spins clockwise.

Second problem the bell housings are significatly different. I have seen a F20C mated to a K-series transmission in a front wheel drive configuration.

http://www.k20a.org/forum/showthread.php?t=34892

Now that I am taking a closer look at that posting it seems as though the F20/22C from the S2000 spins clockwise. Which means the K20A2 in an S2000 with an adapter plate is possible.

Travis: Only the 12A is permitted in STL (2600lbs)

[lateapex911]

yea, it's clear whover wrote the rules hates rotaries and wants them NOT in STL, LOL

[quadzjr]

yea, it's clear whover wrote the rules hates rotaries and wants them NOT in STL, LOL

Yeah I thought that to.. your 12A powered Mazda has to weigh heavier than a honda b-series powered chassis.. good luck with that:023:

[StephenB]

if i were to do something dumb like build a car for these nonsense ST classes, i'd be very tempted to look into a dumping renesis into a 2002+ sport package miata.

I am a newbie as far as rotarys go but I thought the renesis was only the 13b. If so that is in STU not STL. At least that is what I heard anyway.

Stephen

[Dano77]

OH BOY I get the wieght REWARD of 320# for haveing a car I cant touch or modify in either STL or ITA. Way to breath life into an older chassis. I dont think my cage will be legal after we add the wieght due to wall thickness. {new can of worms there,huh} At least in STU we can run a prod spec engine and modify the brakes to obtain the bonus of a real bolt pattern. ... But in STL I can run the Renisis motor and Fuel Injection HMMMM

[quadzjr]

Isn't the renesis based off the 13B? I thought only the 12A was allowed in STL. That would make no sense. all rotaries should be allowed in STL. with different weights.

[Andy Bettencourt]

<----thinks he would build a peripheral port 13B at 2600lbs in STL...

[Marcus Miller]

<----thinks he would build a peripheral port 13B at 2600lbs in STL...

Can you do that in a miata?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can you do that in a miata?

You bet. Not sure the mods you need to do to the car would keep it legal (subframe). I think about 200whp is possible with the factory intake, MAF and TB.

[lateapex911]

They're not allowing any mods in STL to rotaries, are they?

A Renesis in a Miata would be cool chit, mon!
(Even stock)

[CivicRacer05]

I noticed they split the 92-95 Honda Civic EX Coupe and Si Hatch into separate lines. Now they've dropped the minimum weight of the Si to match the Del Sol Si at 2270# based on the fact that they share the same engine. I've already sent an inquiry to the CRB asking why the EX Coupe didn't get the same reduction (same engine there, too.)

I'm sure a ruling will come out in the next Fastrack, but I was wondering if anyone here had any insight or thoughts/opinions on this. Truth be told, I seem to be stuck at 2350# w/ driver, on my EX Coupe, and am not sure where I can lose 45#, much less 80# if they approve the modification.

Darren
#05 ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe
2005 Cal Club ITA Champion

[mossaidis]

^^ I mentioned the exact same point on this thread/forum, I agree. I *believe* Josh took note of the EX coupe weight discrepancy and has discussed it with the ITAC at their last meeting (or the one before).

[JoshS]

^^ I mentioned the exact same point on this thread/forum, I agree. I *believe* Josh took note of the EX coupe weight discrepancy and has discussed it with the ITAC at their last meeting (or the one before).

Correct, we discussed it and the resolution should be in the next Fastrack.

[Z3_GoCar]

I noticed they split the 92-95 Honda Civic EX Coupe and Si Hatch into separate lines. Now they've dropped the minimum weight of the Si to match the Del Sol Si at 2270# based on the fact that they share the same engine. I've already sent an inquiry to the CRB asking why the EX Coupe didn't get the same reduction (same engine there, too.)

I'm sure a ruling will come out in the next Fastrack, but I was wondering if anyone here had any insight or thoughts/opinions on this. Truth be told, I seem to be stuck at 2350# w/ driver, on my EX Coupe, and am not sure where I can lose 45#, much less 80# if they approve the modification.

Darren
#05 ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe
2005 Cal Club ITA Champion

Hey Darren,

Off topic, but congratulations on winning the low-buck racer of the year award :smilie_pokal:

[CivicRacer05]

Hey Darren,

Off topic, but congratulations on winning the low-buck racer of the year award :smilie_pokal:

Thank you, James. I guess only making it to 3 events, yet still coming 4th in points actually counted for something!

[downingracing]

I noticed they split the 92-95 Honda Civic EX Coupe and Si Hatch into separate lines. Now they've dropped the minimum weight of the Si to match the Del Sol Si at 2270# based on the fact that they share the same engine. I've already sent an inquiry to the CRB asking why the EX Coupe didn't get the same reduction (same engine there, too.)

I'm sure a ruling will come out in the next Fastrack, but I was wondering if anyone here had any insight or thoughts/opinions on this. Truth be told, I seem to be stuck at 2350# w/ driver, on my EX Coupe, and am not sure where I can lose 45#, much less 80# if they approve the modification.

Darren
#05 ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe
2005 Cal Club ITA Champion

I've sent the same request for the EX Coupe and expect the information in the next publication. We've got one of our Civics to 2310 with driver and can get another 30-40 lbs without issue. Working on getting the other EX Coupe to the same weight this winter. :D

[erlrich]

Ok, so when you get an email that reads "Your letter has been reviewed by the CRB and the response will be in the December FasTrack. The FasTrack will be posted on the SCCA website on the 20th of this month.", but there is no response in the December FasTrack, should you take that as a sign?

Between this and being left off the MARRS points listing this year I'm starting to develop a complex... :unsure:

[Greg Amy]

Did someone say something just now...?

[JoshS]

Ok, so when you get an email that reads "Your letter has been reviewed by the CRB and the response will be in the December FasTrack. The FasTrack will be posted on the SCCA website on the 20th of this month.", but there is no response in the December FasTrack, should you take that as a sign?

Between this and being left off the MARRS points listing this year I'm starting to develop a complex... :unsure:

Give me the letter number, I'll hunt it down.

[erlrich]

Ok, forget I said anything - the link on the FasTrack page that says "December" actually links to the November FasTrack...and someone was too oblivious to notice.

[erlrich]

Did someone say something just now...?

No... actually nobody said something just now...

[Greg Amy]

Thanks Josh, but I believe my request went to the ST committee. The letter # was 2100 fwiw.
Earl, did you see the following in the December Fastrack (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28622)?
GCR listed IT cars, 1985 and newer, under their current IT specifications shall compete in STU. [#2100]

[erlrich]

Earl, did you see the following in the December Fastrack?

GCR listed IT cars, 1985 and newer, under their current IT specifications shall compete in STU. [#2100]


Yeah - once I actually found the December FasTrack I was fine...:D