PDA

View Full Version : STL - what's going to be hot?



Andy Bettencourt
10-26-2010, 03:46 PM
SO what cars are people thinking have a chance? I have my idea...to be sprung mid thread!!!

Greg is thinking Teg with a what?
Ben likes a turbo and an SIR?

I am thinking its going to be Honduh-land. Specific output to cc's is their wheelhouse. If turbo cars dominate, expect SIR spec changes.

Greg Amy
10-26-2010, 04:27 PM
No turbos in STL...Ben's talking STU. That class will continue to be dominated by World Challenge cars, with likely very little mods required (if any) to be STU legal.

STL? Best power-to-displacement, easy enough, right? 'Cept there's always that wrench-in-the-works of a very good, greater-than-the-sum, balanced car coming in and doing well despite a power disadvantage...not all FWD get the 50# reduction in STL, only those with struts.

What size engine? Well, If you can get a modern chassis down to 2080 pounds then a good 1.6-liter might could do it, but I think you're pushing it to get weight down that low, and you'll have a significant torque disadvantage. 2-liters will give you a great torque advantage, but now you're weighing a porky 2600 pounds. IMO, the "sweet spot" for displacement will be 1.8 liters, at 2340#, or maybe a decent 1.7-liter at 2210#.

Best engine for the class is probably the Honda B18C1, the GSR engine. Toss that thing into a good-handling chassis (think: CRX Si) and you've got a winner. The Integra should be able to compete at faster course, but the short tracks will be the CRX. Hell, if you want to hit the "easy button" take a strong ITA CRX package with the D16, unbolt all the weight you've got in there, and toss in some cams. I bet that damned thing would rock in the right hands. Or, what about an ITS Del Sol at 2080#?

The Honda K20 is a dark horse. It's a much better engine design than the B18 series, but it's only been installed in strut cars (RSX, Civic). Legally you can probably install it in an earlier, better chassis but since the drivetrain rotates the opposite direction it's a major endeavor to install, and not clearly legal given engine re-positioning rules. Further, the "good" one, the K20A3, starts out at 200 ponies but the camshafts have a higher lift than allowed for STL and the stock compression is already at the class limit of 11:1; lower-output versions (160hp) have room to grow. But, I suspect that once you cut the cams down and allow the rest of the class to catch up with class mods, you may find that the K20 is probably not worth the additional 260 pounds a 2-liter has to carry.

Plus, the STAC is "skeered" of the K20, so it's possible it may get itself banned to STU-only. Until things shake out I'd not be "investing" in that option quite yet.

Other opportunities? The Nissan SR20DE could shine, especially if installed in an S13/S14 chassis. Our SR was putting out ~180 crank in IT trim; toss in there some cams and compression and it would be a torque and HP monster.

The Neon engine got tossed a bone with the alternate rods allowance: no more worries about availability and dependability of the cracked rods. Figure out how to get some serious torque out of that 4-valve with a good bottom-end, then drop 50 pounds for struts.

Then...there's the Miata. Think light '90 M1 chassis with '99 1.8L engine/drivetrain/suspension. I'm sure more than a few people know what that engine could do with STL mods. And it'll weigh the same straight-up as the CRX/Integra gang. And in the end...it's a Miata. 'Nuff said.

There's many other RWD engine/chassis combos I have in mind, from Honda and others. Open your mind and a few may come...

No, it's not just gonna be Honda-land. Yeah, to start with maybe, but if/when someone gets serious in one of these other packages, it'll be an crap shoot.

GA

Rabbit07
10-26-2010, 04:53 PM
If you ask me about STU I think hands down a 2.8l BMW E36,E46,E92 it really won't matter much. That is what I wanted to build if someone would just by the fastest ITA Neon in the country (shameless plug :D)

In STL I like the 240 sx with the SR20,or the BMW E30 1.8l is, maybe a BMW Z3 would be a good fit as well?

anthony1k
10-26-2010, 05:37 PM
If you ask me about STU I think hands down a 2.8l BMW E36,E46,E92 it really won't matter much.

I agree, although it will take serious effort to get the right hp/weight on later models. On the other hand cranking up the boost on a turbo is a lot easier.

mossaidis
10-26-2010, 06:03 PM
Are their enough differences in the Type R vs the GSR chassis that might motivate someone to place a B18C1 prepped motor in the Type-R? Perhaps...

http://www.itrsport.com/technical.html
http://www.itrsport.com/specifications.html

but that would be a whole lot of money...

Knestis
10-26-2010, 08:24 PM
Sorry - dumb question: Is the age cut-off for STL proposed to be the same as for STU...?

As I mentioned, I'm "intrigued" by STx, partially as a possible solution to my crossover rallycross/hillclimb/screwaround car question. A 1.8 VW 16v at something close to Pablo's ITB spec weight would be pretty entertaining. It's not ever going to have the specific output numbers of a Honda but it would be a truck up hills.

K

quadzjr
10-26-2010, 10:22 PM
Well though there is alot or red line and print from the proposed ruleset that the BOD is reviewing. As of the current proposed ruleset, it makes little sense to build anything other than a honda in STL. However, the PTB have stated that they are going to do someting about that. :shrug:

Superior head design, amoung other things allow for high % gains compared to others. There was papers written to allow for non-usdm engines to allow for better options for nissan, ford, chevrolet, BMW, Toyota, and honda. However, the JDM v.s USDM isn't that big of a jump for honda compared to the other options in the lower displacement range.

Another option was written is to set almsot GT weights based on engines.

In my opinion choose a honda of your liking that has the best brakes and wheel base. Then build a B16 if your chassis can get down to weight, then build a B18. We will see what they do with the k20, but if that was me that is what I would do.

Z3_GoCar
10-27-2010, 01:04 AM
If you ask me about STU I think hands down a 2.8l BMW E36,E46,E92 it really won't matter much. That is what I wanted to build if someone would just by the fastest ITA Neon in the country (shameless plug :D)

In STL I like the 240 sx with the SR20,or the BMW E30 1.8l is, maybe a BMW Z3 would be a good fit as well?

Key is to pick a BMW with a good intake manifold... The m-52 doesn't nor the M-44, M-54 is better, best would be a M-50 or the M-42. All should easily fit in a Z3.

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2010, 09:36 AM
No turbos in STL...Ben's talking STU. That class will continue to be dominated by World Challenge cars, with likely very little mods required (if any) to be STU legal.

STL? Best power-to-displacement, easy enough, right? 'Cept there's always that wrench-in-the-works of a very good, greater-than-the-sum, balanced car coming in and doing well despite a power disadvantage...not all FWD get the 50# reduction in STL, only those with struts.

What size engine? Well, If you can get a modern chassis down to 2080 pounds then a good 1.6-liter might could do it, but I think you're pushing it to get weight down that low, and you'll have a significant torque disadvantage. 2-liters will give you a great torque advantage, but now you're weighing a porky 2600 pounds. IMO, the "sweet spot" for displacement will be 1.8 liters, at 2340#, or maybe a decent 1.7-liter at 2210#.

Best engine for the class is probably the Honda B18C1, the GSR engine. Toss that thing into a good-handling chassis (think: CRX Si) and you've got a winner. The Integra should be able to compete at faster course, but the short tracks will be the CRX. Hell, if you want to hit the "easy button" take a strong ITA CRX package with the D16, unbolt all the weight you've got in there, and toss in some cams. I bet that damned thing would rock in the right hands. Or, what about an ITS Del Sol at 2080#?

The Honda K20 is a dark horse. It's a much better engine design than the B18 series, but it's only been installed in strut cars (RSX, Civic). Legally you can probably install it in an earlier, better chassis but since the drivetrain rotates the opposite direction it's a major endeavor to install, and not clearly legal given engine re-positioning rules. Further, the "good" one, the K20A3, starts out at 200 ponies but the camshafts have a higher lift than allowed for STL and the stock compression is already at the class limit of 11:1; lower-output versions (160hp) have room to grow. But, I suspect that once you cut the cams down and allow the rest of the class to catch up with class mods, you may find that the K20 is probably not worth the additional 260 pounds a 2-liter has to carry.

Plus, the STAC is "skeered" of the K20, so it's possible it may get itself banned to STU-only. Until things shake out I'd not be "investing" in that option quite yet.

Other opportunities? The Nissan SR20DE could shine, especially if installed in an S13/S14 chassis. Our SR was putting out ~180 crank in IT trim; toss in there some cams and compression and it would be a torque and HP monster.

The Neon engine got tossed a bone with the alternate rods allowance: no more worries about availability and dependability of the cracked rods. Figure out how to get some serious torque out of that 4-valve with a good bottom-end, then drop 50 pounds for struts.

Then...there's the Miata. Think light '90 M1 chassis with '99 1.8L engine/drivetrain/suspension. I'm sure more than a few people know what that engine could do with STL mods. And it'll weigh the same straight-up as the CRX/Integra gang. And in the end...it's a Miata. 'Nuff said.

There's many other RWD engine/chassis combos I have in mind, from Honda and others. Open your mind and a few may come...

No, it's not just gonna be Honda-land. Yeah, to start with maybe, but if/when someone gets serious in one of these other packages, it'll be an crap shoot.

GA

I like the analysis. Help me understand how a 99 1.8 Miata and a CRX with a 1.8 would weigh the same? 2340 for the CRX, 2400 for the Miata (+ 2.5% rounded up)?

She we get clarification on these things or did I miss it:

- Should it say minimum weight WITH driver?
- Are OEM engines with stock cam profiles outside the 'max' allowed or do you have to 'de-cam' them?

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2010, 09:45 AM
A SR-powered 240SX might be the real deal. 170whp Miata? 180whp CRX?

Wow.

Rabbit07
10-27-2010, 09:50 AM
The rough target is 100 whp per liter.

On Edit: 100 flywheel HP per liter not WHP, sorry

Greg Amy
10-27-2010, 09:57 AM
... how a 99 1.8 Miata and a CRX with a 1.8 would weigh the same?
I'm not sure what you mean. "For weight assignment purposes engine displacement will be rounded to the nearest 100cc" (G.1, the paragraph before the weight table). Don't both of these engine round to 1800cc?


She we get clarification on these things or did I miss it...
These are valid questions.

On the weight, doesn't the GCR specify that all weights are with drivers?

On the cams, the rules state "maximum cam lift is .xxx". They don't state that you "may" replace the cams with one of this lift, it states - categorically - the maximum cam lift allowed for the class. In my mind, there's no question that stock cams that exceed that lift are illegal.

On the other hand, the "Purpose" paragraph states:

Unless a particular modification, or part, is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car.
This is a lesser version of IIDSYCTYC, which implies the legality of a stock cam. Given possible confusion, I have in the past weeks asked the STAC/CRB to clarify the rules to state that the cam lift limits also apply to stock cams. I did this primarily to alleviate their fear of the K20A3 so that we don't eliminate all 4-banger Hondas made from the 2002 onward...

GA

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2010, 02:29 PM
Yes on the base weight but the Miata gets +2.5% for being RWD.

Greg Amy
10-27-2010, 02:56 PM
Yes on the base weight but the Miata gets +2.5% for being RWD.
Sorry, but where is that specified? I honestly don't recall seeing that...

On edit: Sorry, just found it. That's in a terrible location in the rules, guys! Why is that buried in a rule about re-fabricated rear suspensions in STO and STU??? I see a line that starts with "STO and STU cars that come with a solid rear axle..." and it doesn't apply to me and I move on. Dropping in a coda that has nothing to do with that opening line is bad ju-ju...Seriously, move that rule to the the STL-specific section, like where the minimum weights are specified...? While you're at it, delete and move the .18 one to its appropriate class-specific area, too.

As a general rule-writing rule, if a line applies only to a specific class, move it to the specific class's rules section.

So, as you can tell, this 2.5% is truly news to me, I thought FWD and RWD were on equal weight parity. Being a FWD'er I'm OK with it, of course; after all, we've had many prior technical discussions about the relative value of FWD vs RWD, and I'm on record that FWD should get a weight break. On the other hand, 2.5% ain't that bad; it's only 62 pounds on 2500...

So scratch that sentence of mine you refer to, I see where the RWD'ers get a tad more weight. - GA

Dano77
10-27-2010, 03:09 PM
I saw the 2.5% adder as well,thats why a Rotary will not be Competitive in STL. 2600# plus 2.5% for rwd is a stout 2665. Whats the rolecage break point for bigger tubes?
No porting,polishing,carb allowance,nothing to help the power output at all.
STU Streetport,carb,efi with pnp megasquirt,fab the suspension parts. huh

The first gen is probably not the hot setup. Thats the only one I looked at. The second gen and third gen cars maybe. the RX8,who knows they already have that much weight on them.

Dan 77 IT7

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2010, 03:14 PM
Sorry, but where is that specified? I honestly don't recall seeing that...

It's in the Aug FT. Strut FWD gets -2.5% and RWD gets +2.5% RUle #9 on page 10 of the FT.

It's a tough draft to wade through with all the cross outs.

Dano77
10-27-2010, 03:25 PM
Found it,the correct wieght for a 12a in STU is 2350 -50 for soild axle rear wheel drive
13b is 2400 with the same allowance. There is a fasttrack for the carb allowance for the 13b only. not the renisis. Thats stuck(ha)with EFI

12a in STL is 2600 +2.5%

Why is STL a good idea again if you dont have a FWD car under 2.0?

Dan

Rabbit07
10-28-2010, 10:09 AM
Sorry - dumb question: Is the age cut-off for STL proposed to be the same as for STU...?

As I mentioned, I'm "intrigued" by STx, partially as a possible solution to my crossover rallycross/hillclimb/screwaround car question. A 1.8 VW 16v at something close to Pablo's ITB spec weight would be pretty entertaining. It's not ever going to have the specific output numbers of a Honda but it would be a truck up hills.

K

Yes, the age requirement is 1985< unless a model run included cars from before and after 1985. i.e. Gen 1 RX-7

Rabbit07
10-28-2010, 10:15 AM
Found it,the correct wieght for a 12a in STU is 2350 -50 for soild axle rear wheel drive
13b is 2400 with the same allowance. There is a fasttrack for the carb allowance for the 13b only. not the renisis. Thats stuck(ha)with EFI

12a in STL is 2600 +2.5%

Why is STL a good idea again if you dont have a FWD car under 2.0?

Dan

Depends on the weapon, inherently RWD is going to perform better than FWD, so instead of providing a weight break for FWD, there is a weight adder for RWD. essentially, the SLA front drive car is the basis with strut FWD getting a reduction in weight, and the RWD getting a addition in weight. We know that the non SLA RWD cars aren't adjsuted. The thought there is that most of them can get enough Caster to help them handle better that FWD strut cars usually can not attain.

jlinfert
10-28-2010, 10:29 AM
SO what cars are people thinking have a chance? I have my idea...to be sprung mid thread!!!

Greg is thinking Teg with a what?
Ben likes a turbo and an SIR?

I am thinking its going to be Honduh-land. Specific output to cc's is their wheelhouse. If turbo cars dominate, expect SIR spec changes.
For STU a Mk2, Mk3 Golf or Corrado with a 1.8T and the 33mm inlet restrictor, 2100lbs and capable of 225+ whp with the restrictor. I like the Corrado for the aero, and better brakes (11" stock).

lateapex911
10-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Yea? You think that will beat a World challenge car? (I think I heard WC cars were getting phased out or something, but the prep rules still allow that level of prep, no? So lap times should be pretty darn quick, and/or expensive, right?)

jlinfert
10-28-2010, 03:18 PM
Power to weight is still power to weight, and an N/A 2.5L world challenge car (say one of the Bimmerworld E46 cars that are for sale) has to weigh 2750(or more) vs 2100 for a 1.8T VW with the 33mm restrictor (2200 - 50 for FWD and -50 for struts) The stock K03 inlet is 34 mm and we can get 22psi out of it. 1 mm reduction should only take you to 18-20 psi boost and we make 225 whp at 15psi in my buddy's 1.8T powered corrado street car on 87 octane. With a 3.38 r&p it's still pulling hard at 130mph in 5th gear (.80) so yeah I think a 1.8T 'rado would be tough to beat in STU. In STL the clear overdog is a B18C1 CRX especially with a standalone ecu to optimize VTEC and fuel/spark.

Matt93SE
10-30-2010, 06:03 PM
A SR-powered 240SX might be the real deal.

Wow.

Sssssshhhhhhh. I'm working on that one. :p
The problem is that the NA SR20 is only available in the US in FWD variants, which don't fit in the S13/S14 chassis due to intake manifold, distributor, starter, and cam locations. The turbo SR was never available in the US, so it's out.

In order to make a FWD SR fit into an RWD platform, you have to use a shload of non-US spec parts, so it would be of questionable legality to try. You'd better have a stack of paperwork from the CRB allowing all of the JDM parts to make it work unless you want to get protested everywhere you go.

Andy Bettencourt
12-27-2010, 09:01 PM
Best estimated power to weights? Anyone done the math on their favorite STL car yet? I am thinking between 11.0 and 12.0 will be a real runner. Weight / whp.

Lael Cleland
12-28-2010, 01:15 PM
Just a note, I have tried to get a delsol under 2000# for STU..Its almost impossible, we did lexan, removed all structure from the hood & deck lid, I also tried cutting holes in the bumper rebar and broke several hole saws, its made out of Kryptonite or titanium? We even cut off every non essential metal bracket, there is like 5 brackets holding the hyd clutch line & hose..... We are at 2180 with a skinny 160lb driver.The first 200# is easy... It has a B18 Integra LS engine with 180ish hp(its built), and a GSX box...11in corrado rotors & wilwood 4 puck calipers...FUN CAR!!!!! It did a 1.45.00 at MAM.WAHOO!!!!.. We are going to mill the head .030-.040 this winter, do a HOG out port job, Maybe a scirocco 4lb radiator, lighter oil cooler, Swedge tube/heim joint lower C-arms, The uppers are already light......

I would love to see this setup in a CRX, and some 225-45-15s A6's.....

Edit: Miatas are going to come in and ruin the ST classes just like they did to ITA.......Only kidding... I love my rabbit!

Mrsideways
01-03-2011, 06:58 PM
SO what cars are people thinking have a chance? I have my idea...to be sprung mid thread!!!

Greg is thinking Teg with a what?
Ben likes a turbo and an SIR?

I am thinking its going to be Honduh-land. Specific output to cc's is their wheelhouse. If turbo cars dominate, expect SIR spec changes.

1st gen MR2 with a currentish Celica 2zz motor in it. Think lotus Elise but all Toyota.

Chip42
01-03-2011, 07:29 PM
2ZZ in 3rd gen MR2 (Spyder) - lighter and better than MkI MR2 and much lighter than MKII. otherwise, MrSideways has it.

I think 1.8L miatas still have a chance due to the sum of their parts phenomenon. 2.0L MX5 might be good too but HEAVY.

B16/17/18 cvics will be winning everywhere - they fit the rules to a t.

Andy Bettencourt
01-03-2011, 08:02 PM
Research just in...1.8L Mazda motor won't even be a consideration. Just not good enough. Interested parties can PM me for the data.

tyler raatz
01-03-2011, 08:55 PM
Research just in...1.8L Mazda motor won't even be a consideration. Just not good enough. Interested parties can PM me for the data.
I'd be curious what you have here. I'm not sure what you expect one to make, But I have no doubt it will make what I need:shrug:

Greg Amy
01-03-2011, 09:05 PM
Research just in...1.8L Mazda motor won't even be a consideration. Just not good enough. Interested parties can PM me for the data.
I don't believe you; my research indicates otherwise. You to spend the money and time to build one to the nth degree of the rules and prove it's not competitive before it will be considered for any kind of adjustment...

I kill myself sometimes.

:happy204:

lateapex911
01-04-2011, 12:47 AM
2ZZ in 3rd gen MR2 (Spyder) - lighter and better than MkI MR2 and much lighter than MKII. otherwise, MrSideways has it.

I think 1.8L miatas still have a chance due to the sum of their parts phenomenon. 2.0L MX5 might be good too but HEAVY.

B16/17/18 cvics will be winning everywhere - they fit the rules to a t.

No coincidence the guy who is a originator /proponent of the category/class is a Honda guy.....

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 01:27 AM
I'd be curious what you have here. I'm not sure what you expect one to make, But I have no doubt it will make what I need:shrug:

Call me Tyler. Estimates are from Jeremy at Flyin' Miata. You may want to save your money!

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 01:31 AM
I don't believe you; my research indicates otherwise. You to spend the money and time to build one to the nth degree of the rules and prove it's not competitive before it will be considered for any kind of adjustment...

I kill myself sometimes.

:happy204:

I've seen hypothosis from your 'research' on other Miata motors! Equally funny!!! :happy204:

Seriously, I am just not the sucker who is going to waste money to prove that a car nobody wants competitive needs some help. Tyler's money tree must be overflowing this year.

Greg Amy
01-04-2011, 08:08 AM
Seriously, I am just not the sucker who is going to waste money to prove that a car nobody wants competitive needs some help.
Wow, we agree!

But just not about the same class... ;)

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 09:11 AM
But this is different. You have made it very clear in a couple posts that some should be content and shut up that there may be a class that a Miata won't be competive in. Now I have the ability to take the model out of the discussion and fully agree with you. Some classes are designed with paramters that exposes beauty marks and warts. STL is one of those that magnifies those attributes a lot...but I don't think you WANT the Miata to be competitive. As a Ad-Hoc member, you shouldn't care.

Greg Amy
01-04-2011, 09:49 AM
...but I don't think you WANT the Miata to be competitive. As a Ad-Hoc member, you shouldn't care.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Good try. But if ever you decide to stop stomping your feet and making a big scene in the grocery store and going to the garden to eat worms (and all that), you might be interested to learn you're - once again - wrong. I've actually been discussing how to make the class more attractive to the gay set, given they're apparently proving to be far too spoiled and whiny (Tyler's pressing interest excluded) to give it a shot. But I'm assured that in the end others who think differently than you (and not just Miata or Honda drivers) are "manning up" and taking the challenge.

But on a much brighter note, I think we now have a new IT.com strategic corollary to put up on the mantle next to The Roffe; I'll call it "The Bettencourt Corollary":

"I am just not the sucker who is going to waste money to prove that a car...needs some help."

Glad you've finally recognized that position.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 10:11 AM
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Good try. But if ever you decide to stop stomping your feet and making a big scene in the grocery store and going to the garden to eat worms (and all that), you might be interested to learn you're - once again - wrong. I've actually been discussing how to make the class more attractive to the gay set, given they're apparently proving to be far too spoiled and whiny (Tyler's pressing interest excluded) to give it a shot. But I'm assured that in the end others who think differently than you (and not just Miata or Honda drivers) are "manning up" and taking the challenge.

But on a much brighter note, I think we now have a new IT.com strategic corollary to put up on the mantle next to The Roffe; I'll call it "The Bettencourt Corollary":

"I am just not the sucker who is going to waste money to prove that a car...needs some help."

Glad you've finally recognized that position.

GA

LMAO. All of that gibberish to point out in a grade-school way that I don't think the car can be competitive? If you would take off your Miata-hater glasses and read the posts - I don't really care if ANY car is competitive. It's a thread about what can be and why or why not. I also pointed out - factually BTW - that your posts in the past have certainly inferred that you are happy that this isn't a class that will be 'overrun' by Miatae.

The fact you have come to grips finally that it's a class with rules that limit the viable choices is evident in your new-to-us effort to broaden the appeal. And that's a good thing.

On your new corollary, love the "..." because it takes it out of context. When you write it again, make sure you include the 'that nobody WANTS competitive" as was originally written. :rolleyes:

Onto the data for everyone else: Just talked with Tyler and he has TWO sources that are confirming he can make the power that he is targeting. Still well below the Honda's but well within his goals for on-track parity. I liked what he had to say and it seemed to fly in the face of what I learned in my conversation with another prominant engine builder yesterday. If I had to go with my gut, I would lean toward his conclusions and think that if the CRB was willing to tweak some, it could be a decent choice.

For those of us who like RWD, is anyone considering anything conceptually other than an MR2 hybrid?

Greg Amy
01-04-2011, 10:34 AM
...love the "..." because it takes it out of context.
Noooo....I took it out because you're wrong about that part, and spouting unsupported emotional tantrums. I figured it was better for you to not quote that part.

If you really want to believe that "that nobody WANTS [the Miata to be competitive in STL]", like there's some black-helicopter conspiracy among the STAC (or even the Club as a whole!) to actively develop a class that's intended to make the Miata uncompetitive (esp given the STAC has a very-Miata guy on it), well, I suppose you you can believe that, but the paranoia is misplaced. There is no one that I've ever spoken to that "wants" that in any shape or form. In fact I've heard quite the opposite!

At best, you can argue that we're just not willing to make the mental and categorical twisting gyrations that it would take to shoehorn that car into yet another category, like it's some kind of pre-ordained right that the Miata be competitive wherever it lies. Nope, sorry, it's not a right.

Call the class whatever you want, but in the end the rules are plainly right out there for everyone to choose. Members can take it, or leave it.

I think we have your answer... - GA

Matt93SE
01-04-2011, 10:54 AM
For those of us who like RWD, is anyone considering anything conceptually other than an MR2 hybrid?
Still waiting on rules to stabilize before I come out of the closet.......

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Call the class whatever you want, but in the end the rules are plainly right out there for everyone to choose. Members can take it, or leave it.



And I have never said otherwise, nor have I campaigned to have any adjustments made to any one car. What I have done is made suggestions (13-bee) that may allow for some diversity in a very popular chassis. Thinking about the CLASS's success.

As to the black helicopter rhetoric, of course not. But just be careful when you post stuff like this because it, right, or wrong, adds to your Miata mystique.


I'm really sorry that Mazda doesn't make BSHP (hp/cc) as good as others do, but maybe you should direct such misplaced ire at them instead? GOD FORBID we have a class in this club where the Miata isn't a dominant car..."just sayin"...


Especially when there was NO mention of the Miata prior to you typing it. You have a very thick skin, but lets try and see the classes critisism for what it is.

Listen, I think it's very fair that many are worried about the success of the class given the amount of cars that people perceive to be capable of competing. No more and no less from me.

Greg Amy
01-04-2011, 11:11 AM
Still waiting on rules to stabilize before I come out of the closet.......
A very reasonable position to take...

However, I can tell you with confidence that there are ZERO major rules changes afoot in STL except for consideration of two requests from me, one to allow alternate brakes in STL and one to allow the MX-5 in STL in SM5 trim (I'm such a Miata hater! ;)).

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 11:38 AM
A very reasonable position to take...

However, I can tell you with confidence that there are ZERO major rules changes afoot in STL except for consideration of two requests from me, one to allow alternate brakes in STL and one to allow the MX-5 in STL in SM5 trim (I'm such a Miata hater! ;)).

GA

Do you feel there is a big need for alternate brakes? These cars are so sttractively light that I wonder if there is a need...but also can't think of much of a downside except for cost issues.

tyler raatz
01-04-2011, 11:54 AM
Do you feel there is a big need for alternate brakes? These cars are so sttractively light that I wonder if there is a need...but also can't think of much of a downside except for cost issues.

I would LOVE big brakes. The miata will be the same weight as my ITA car but have WAY more straight line speed. Chassis wise they will be virtualy identical except for downforce, slow speed corners following a long straight will require much more brake force. Good race pads for Wilwood calipers are also significantly cheaper then pads for the OE brakes.

I also dont consider the cars to be "so sttractively light", I will need to carry around 300# of ballast and the car is not undergoing a major weight loss program.
2100 to 2200 pounds would be a better more attractive weight for a 1.8L car, the reason I might still abort and switch to EP or STU.

Andy Bettencourt
01-04-2011, 12:00 PM
I would LOVE big brakes. The miata will be the same weight as my ITA car but have WAY more straight line speed. Chassis wise they will be virtualy identical except for downforce, slow speed corners following a long straight will require much more brake force. Good race pads for Wilwood calipers are also significantly cheaper then pads for the OE brakes.

I also dont consider the cars to be "so sttractively light", I will need to carry around 300# of ballast and the car is not undergoing a major weight loss program.

I for sure get they would be 'better' but wonder if they are needed as all. I glossed over the 300lbs when we talked earlier. At about 2450lbs of car why would you need to add that much?

Greg Amy
01-04-2011, 12:01 PM
Do you feel there is a big need for alternate brakes?
"Need"? No, certainly not in terms of performance or safety as some would suggest. My desire for brakes is purely that - a desire - and a recognition that alternate brakes fits right in with a philosophy of Lexan "glass", carbon fiber panels, lots of rollcage points, and seam welding (my request to disallow that last point was "not recommended").

GA

Chip42
01-04-2011, 12:10 PM
the brake thing has a few huge potential upsides.

1 - increased partiy. currently chassis can be chosen as much for their handling characteristics as they can for their ability to bolt on stoppers and drop in motors. 2.0L cars will be HEAVY and bigger brakes will make them more attractive - more cars become "competitive", at least in theory. Also, you will have a good variety of pads available no matter what car you choose, and they will be lower cost. no more shipping pad backings to carbotech for custom rears on the fugizit. just get the superlight compound of your choosing.

2 - simplification. and it's not expensive after the buy in. pretty much like everything else in the class.

3 - category cohesiveness. STL DOESN'T LOOK like ST. it looks like IT. this will take it a step towards matching its bigger brothers and not looking like the mailman's kid.

4 - speed. we're looking at a LOT more speed than factory binders are made to slow. we all recognize that all motors of similar displacement are not created equally, even within the class allowed mods. what is certain is that speeds will be a lot higher than similarly bodied IT cars. give them the mass in the braking system to cope with that.

downsides:

some work. less IT-ish if you care about that. other than that...

tyler raatz
01-04-2011, 12:12 PM
I for sure get they would be 'better' but wonder if they are needed as all. I glossed over the 300lbs when we talked earlier. At about 2450lbs of car why would you need to add that much?

The weight is actually 2398.5#
To make ITA weight 2380#, I have between 150-180 punds of ballast depending on fuel load, cool suit etc.
Build lighter tub, remove HVAC system, remove all excess wiring, remove all the BS parts required by IT, lighter hood, lighter trunk, lexan, etc.
Yea, I'm gonna have 300# of ballast.

Mrsideways
01-04-2011, 01:45 PM
Still waiting on rules to stabilize before I come out of the closet.......

Don't blame you there, but I hardly sat in a race car last year so it's time to get on track. I was the one who wrote the request for the headlights as I have an S2000 that both headlights were smacked up in the last accident the car had as a Touring 3 car. At $500 a light it was a tough pill to swallow. I've got some jerry rigged replica lights in there now to get it by till that passes.

But come race anyway, help build numbers. We have 22 in the class this weekend at sebring. That's gotta almost make the southeast numbers in one weekend.

STL looked to have the potential to be faster then STU. I was thinking K20 in a CRX, but I've heard that the K20 will be a banned motor. I think that 2zz in the Celica should be banned to as over on the celica forum there are a ton of them all stock to almost stock making near 180whp. Imagine a built one in a mid engine'd car. It's gonna put the power down far better then a FWD car, it's got much better weight distribution so it'll use the tires less. It's gonna be better under braking. I still think a K20 CRX could dominate STU. 240-250whp isn't very hard in one of those motors. I wish it were legal because I want to do a K24 in a 2nd Gen MR-2 as a daily driver.

Matt93SE
01-04-2011, 06:22 PM
Oh I'm still running (In STU, with a 130k mile stock engine). I'm just waiting on STU and STL to figure out what they're going to do before I dump any cash into the car.
If the SR20DET is allowed, then I may go that way. Otherwise it's dump $10k into a KA to get the same power I can by dropping in an SR w/ appropriate inlet restrictor for $2500.

If they don't allow the SR20DET, then I'll see about an SR20DE (non turbo version) and run in STL. problem there is I've already got the bigger brakes and a few other minor things that would have to go away. I'd spend money to go slower. not what I want.

I'm sitting with money in the bank to buy the engine, dog box, and aero. But I'm not spending a penny until STAC makes up their mind what they're going to do. I'm not willing to throw $15k in the trash.


On the brakes note..
Front Hawk HT-10 for Wilwood Dynalite= $59. They last me a season. $85 2-pc Coleman rotors have been on for 2 seasons and still have lots of life left. custom machined hats cost me $100 each at a local fab shop. Caliper mounting bracket took me a couple hours in the garage with a drill press, digital calipers, and a sharpie.

Total investment in TONS of front brake: $725. that's for rotors, pads, calipers, hardware, brake lines, everything. My expendables are now under $150 per year.

Hawk HT-10 brake pads to fit 300ZX rear (2 piston) calipers. $120 a set.
Hawk HT-10 pads to fit front 300ZX (4 piston) calipers: $150 a set.
Hawk Blue for stock S14 240SX: $120/set.

throw in 3 sets of front rotors and a set for the rear $100/set and I'm looking at roughly $700/year in brake parts to keep the stock brakes on the car.

coreyehcx
01-07-2011, 12:44 PM
Im currently working slowly on my Honda for this class and will be going non vtec.

Im just hoping for larger brakes to be approved like my current ITR oem brakes I have on my civic. I would want everyone to have better braking options as mentioned with increased speeds, its somewhat of a safety concern I would think outside of making more cars more attractive (attractive as in more vehicles).

Matt93SE
01-07-2011, 05:34 PM
Now for a stupid question.. How much faster will your car be than the same weight car in Prod prep? the *current* STU cars are running EP lap times, and Prod requires stock calipers and rotors.
So will an STL car be faster than an EP or STU car? If no, then it doesn't really NEED larger brakes, does it?

That said, I'm all in favor of larger brakes from a reliability and longevity perspective- but will the CRB and STAC see it that way?

Chip42
01-07-2011, 08:32 PM
the last time I saw corey run he was putting down a lot more power than you would likely see in EP.. more than STL rules would allow too (based on mods). either way - I'm sure there will be a nice big B series in that EH hatch so it's not directly comparable to prod.

hondas are one of the cars that have brake compounds available. what if you don't have options for your car? you can spend less on pads with an STO car. that's just stoopid

lateapex911
01-07-2011, 11:44 PM
there are some good reasons for a brake allowance, but 'safety' isn't one of them. brake earlier. overheating? manage it.

IF the class were further along, I'd be dead set against it. But, as it's early in it's infancy, fine.

Just don't do it because it makes the car "look" more like a race car or 'safer"....

coreyehcx
01-09-2011, 01:15 PM
Arent we racing cars like as in race cars?

I don't see why all the fuss over a bigger braking setup.

@Chip
Thanks. I doubt this motor will put down the same type of power but within the given rules I have done everything almost I can. The only thing I didn't do was os pistons incase of a future rebuild. I'm shooting for 150-170whp/120-130trq which I think is pretty doable from the 1.8 non vtec. Higher trq numbers would be nice, the last motor only made around 130.

Knestis
01-09-2011, 06:16 PM
Arent we racing cars like as in race cars? ...

Yup. So what really matters is that everyone is running to the same rules - racing one-another - not whether they're going a couple seconds a lap faster than they would with stock brakes.

Thousands and thousands of fans go to horse races every year. Nobody - not even the jockeys - ever seem to argue that all horses should all get rule allowances to be faster.

K

JohnW
01-09-2011, 07:46 PM
FWIW.

My BBK has saved me (my sponsor) a fortune. I'd burn up a set of OEM ITR pads in two weekends with the stock set-up. Now, with the BBK 4 piston unit, pad wear is almost nill. A good BBK is the easy button.

Larger brakes are the norm in a SUPER Touring type class, worldwide. This isn't Improved Touring.

Chip42
01-10-2011, 09:48 AM
Yup. So what really matters is that everyone is running to the same rules - racing one-another - not whether they're going a couple seconds a lap faster than they would with stock brakes.
K

but the rules make it so that everyone is running with different brakes. even the stuff expected to be popular, say a 96-00 Civic hatch. small front brakes, rear drums. only way it came in this country. STL has a problem here, because people are going to be putting big, ~200whp motors into little economy cars while others have cars equipped for much sportier intentions. but they could have the same motor.

STU and O allow alt brakes to a maximum diameter and piston count - you can get around it with OE brakes IF you are lucky enoguh to have soemthing bigger. everyone running to the same rules. STL should have a simillar allowance. IT rules work, for IT. and as someone said above, this is not IT.

Chip42
01-10-2011, 09:51 AM
I'd burn up a set of OEM ITR pads in two weekends with the stock set-up. Now, with the BBK 4 piston unit, pad wear is almost nill. A good BBK is the easy button.

THIS.

new class - use the rules that make sense on a balance and cost basis in these times. done.

Knestis
01-10-2011, 09:57 AM
but the rules make it so that everyone is running with different brakes. even the stuff expected to be popular, say a 96-00 Civic hatch. small front brakes, rear drums. only way it came in this country. STL has a problem here, because people are going to be putting big, ~200whp motors into little economy cars while others have cars equipped for much sportier intentions. but they could have the same motor.

STU and O allow alt brakes to a maximum diameter and piston count - you can get around it with OE brakes IF you are lucky enoguh to have soemthing bigger. everyone running to the same rules. STL should have a simillar allowance. IT rules work, for IT. and as someone said above, this is not IT.

Fair enough. My point - not well made - was that "they are race cars" is a lousy reason, in and of itself. If the view is that ST(whatever) warrants bigger brakes, the easy answer is to spec a maximum diameter and thickness, front and rear, for each class, and let folks go nuts. That's consistent with the first assumption re: engine size.

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

K

Andy Bettencourt
01-10-2011, 10:22 AM
I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.

Greg Amy
01-10-2011, 10:35 AM
The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.


I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.
Plus many brazzillions. That's my personal position on the matter, and what I'm pursuing. - GA

Rabbit07
01-10-2011, 06:32 PM
Best estimated power to weights? Anyone done the math on their favorite STL car yet? I am thinking between 11.0 and 12.0 will be a real runner. Weight / whp.

100 crank per liter is the target.

We need things to shake out to see if we are correct.

Andy Bettencourt
01-10-2011, 07:02 PM
100 crank per liter is the target.

We need things to shake out to see if we are correct.

Really? So 180 crank hp for a 1.8L?

If a GSR motor makes 200whp in full STU trim, that is an estimated 235 at the crank...or about 130 crank hp/liter.

Rabbit07
01-10-2011, 07:08 PM
Really? So 180 crank hp for a 1.8L?

If a GSR motor makes 200whp in full STU trim, that is an estimated 235 at the crank...or about 130 crank hp/liter.

120 crank for STU is the target, so close.

Mike VanSteinberg told me he has ITS Miatas making 160ish whp, so why not?

Andy Bettencourt
01-10-2011, 07:26 PM
120 crank for STU is the target, so close.

Mike VanSteinberg told me he has ITS Miatas making 160ish whp, so why not?

So Chris, forgive me, I don't get it. What kind of 'target' are we talking about here and how does it figure into classification?

I see the 'target' in STL to be 130hp/L because that seems to be the 'easy' button.

Rabbit07
01-10-2011, 07:35 PM
So Chris, forgive me, I don't get it. What kind of 'target' are we talking about here and how does it figure into classification?

I see the 'target' in STL to be 130hp/L because that seems to be the 'easy' button.

The "target" is what we expect to see in STL and STU. Not saying that some may make more or less.

I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is. But yes power to weight is a consideration. We need for the ST classes to have stability in the long run. If a car is competitive today it should be 4 years from now.

Andy Bettencourt
01-10-2011, 08:30 PM
The "target" is what we expect to see in STL and STU. Not saying that some may make more or less.

I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is. But yes power to weight is a consideration. We need for the ST classes to have stability in the long run. If a car is competitive today it should be 4 years from now.

Your stability goal is "Job #1" as Ford used to say and I applaud that. Just not sure why there would be any 'targets' at all given it's a weight/cc class.

Clearly, 130hp/liter is the 1.8 target (or about 12lb/whp) in practical application.

Which is, BTW, totally irrelevant. I just use it when considering cars that could be competitive. If they can be or not doesn't matter at all. You have a set of rules, firm up the grey areas, dot your i's and cross your t's...then watch it grow. If it has enough fertilizer (people who like the cars that can compete and the rules), the roots will grow! LOL

Rabbit07
01-10-2011, 08:38 PM
Your stability goal is "Job #1" as Ford used to say and I applaud that. Just not sure why there would be any 'targets' at all given it's a weight/cc class.

Clearly, 130hp/liter is the 1.8 target (or about 12lb/whp) in practical application.

Which is, BTW, totally irrelevant. I just use it when considering cars that could be competitive. If they can be or not doesn't matter at all. You have a set of rules, firm up the grey areas, dot your i's and cross your t's...then watch it grow. If it has enough fertilizer (people who like the cars that can compete and the rules), the roots will grow! LOL

It is relevant though. Example of what we started doing with STO inorder to promote parity in the class. We used the LS6 powered Corvette as the class mean. We have lots of data to support what that car is capable of. We are in the process of balancing the class around that car. We are using both know power numbers and on track data to help in this process. Not perfect, but better than using finishing results and lap times to balance the class.

Andy Bettencourt
01-10-2011, 10:05 PM
It is relevant though. Example of what we started doing with STO inorder to promote parity in the class. We used the LS6 powered Corvette as the class mean. We have lots of data to support what that car is capable of. We are in the process of balancing the class around that car. We are using both know power numbers and on track data to help in this process. Not perfect, but better than using finishing results and lap times to balance the class.

Uh-oh.

Knestis
01-10-2011, 11:43 PM
Again, it's TOTALLY academic to me but it sounds like we've lost the handle on this. You can't have a displacement-driven system AND fiddle around the edges to "promote parity."

SP(x) is one of three things, I think - a displacement-based approach with relatively open allowances, a formulaic approach (a la IT), or a performance-adjustment (bleah) approach. It's now none of those things, if I'm following correctly, which makes it the worst possible policy situation: Complaints - general or specific but grounded in the approach - can get explained away by invoking one or both of the other standards. Arguments, lobbying, etc. will be all over the map, without any consistent way to reconcile them.

We've already got members who are sincerely interested in the category with different ideas about what it's supposed to accomplish. I'm going to guess that there's a lack of consensus on some substantial questions among the Ad Hoc members... Now we've increased the potential for the appearance of shenanigans because different classification/specification questions might have different answers, depending on which "first" principle gets applied.

Look, the premise - at least as I understood it - was that the math would be easy. Take out the chart, run your finger from the known displacement to the spec weight, etc. Accept rules as written. Build car. Go race. That is GREAT. We accept that the trade-off is that there will be a few cars that are right for those parameters, and a lot that aren't. It doesn't appeal to me but you don't have to keep me happy. You don't have to - and shouldn't TRY to - give everyone what they want. Even if I have a REALLY cool car that sorta looks right and I want to play, if it doesn't fit the REAL first principles, I should be disappointed. Even if it means the participation numbers suffer for the loss of "1."

Figure out what really matters for the category, big picture. (And that should be the WHOLE category, rather than applying different fundamental assumptions to different classes, but that horse may be out of the barn.) Define a cohesive set of immutable "this is what makes SP what it is" statements. Keep adjusting them until you have consensus - something that everyone can live with, not necessarily LOVE - among the Ad Hoc members. Write them down. Share them with the membership...


...I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is.

...because that's not very confidence inspiring.

I don't love the SP idea but I completely recognize that it can be done right, and really needs to be done right, for the good of the Club Racing program.

K

Matt93SE
01-11-2011, 12:33 AM
Fair enough. My point - not well made - was that "they are race cars" is a lousy reason, in and of itself. If the view is that ST(whatever) warrants bigger brakes, the easy answer is to spec a maximum diameter and thickness, front and rear, for each class, and let folks go nuts. That's consistent with the first assumption re: engine size.

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

K


I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.

Agreed on both counts. The STU rules are just that.. max diameter, thickness, and piston count. done. I don't see why STL should be any different, assuming there is a need for them over OEM rotors/calipers.

But those are the 2010 STU rules.. Or have they changed that too? :rolleyes:

lateapex911
01-11-2011, 05:18 AM
ST Ad Hoc members: read Kirks post . Again.

It DOES increasingly sound as though the ST category is actually more like 3 SUB categories. As there seem to be basic rules differences between the three classes.

My issue is (was) that the formula based system ignores stock components that limit power, thereby making it a one or two horse show. That's fine, but I find it a bit sad, as i think the rules package could be attractive to a lot of racers. I joked that STL should just be called "Honda Challenge", as it seems like those are the cars the math was designed for.

But now I'm hearing allusions to line item exceptions and parity adjustments...and I think, "oh boy, slippery slope, good luck with that".

If thats the direction, and I have no doubt that it is, because the old guard loves to diddle, I have one STAC request: Be transparent in the adjustments, and be consistent. Publish the factors that go into the adjustment, and the policies used to determine when and how. You DO have policies with which to work......right???

Chip42
01-11-2011, 09:51 AM
I wrote a letter back in august or thereabouts that forcast this dilema. I think I was met with the mordern equivalent of "thank you for your input."

excerpts:

As proposed, the rules do not seem to be for a single cohesive category with 3 classes based on relative speed as is the case with IT, Production and, to a lesser extent, GT (the categories most similar to ST) but as 3 separate categories with similarities.

E.15, M.3, N.2, N.9, N.18 - weight adjustments need to be listed or at least summarized in one location with the weighting formula for the class. It is too easy to miss the various adders both for the competitor when preparing the car and at impound leading to an incorrect ruling.

9.1.4.N.8 – Allow alternate material control arms for STL that maintain the stock geometry. This is in keeping with the limited prep philosophy (stock geometry) and the category generally.

9.1.4.3.B.1- Allow the Honda F20C (S2000) and B18C5 (Integra Type-R) with replacement cams that meet the rules and/or an alternate minimum weight. See comments to 9.1.4.G.1-2 above.
9.1.4.3.B.3 – Adding to the input for 9.1.4.G.1 above, there are few cylinder heads in the 2.0L-and-under displacement range offered in the US that are suitable for building power with the allowed modifications, Honda/Acura having the bulk of them.


As there are many small-displacement motors from a variety of manufacturers available overseas (Japan and Europe specifically) that are suitable for racing use within the limits of the rules established and as proposed, I suggest per-request approval non-US market engines if they appear to fit within the category philosophy and fill a void in that manufacturer’s viable US offerings. This will allow Toyota, Ford, GM, etc… to be more competitive, particularly in STL where they would otherwise have few worthwhile options in the 2.0L and under range. Similar allowances have been made in GT (i.e. SR16VE Nissan) and the required published information for the motors is relatively simple to acquire in the modern age.

I Offer the following proposals to preserve parity, all could be covered under 9.1.4._.H, but bear mentioning in 9.1.4.G:
1- Non North American market motors may be permitted on an individually approved basis. The competitor is required to have a factory service manual for the motor as installed in the OE application. All other rules for the alternate engines apply.

2- Where the known possible output of a motor is substantially higher or lower than other motors of that displacement in the class, an alternate minimum weight will be listed based on proven engine output. Weight adjustment factors shall still apply to this alternative minimum weight.



9.1.4.3.E.1 – “OEM brake systems must be used. Alternate OEM brakes rotors or calipers from the same manufacturer will be considered” is in direct contradiction to the category specifications described in section 9.1.4.O.1, .9.a, and .10.

Alternate brake systems up to and including calipers should be permitted in STL. Alternate calipers and rotors should always be allowed as aftermarket brakes are a defining characteristic of ST and do not substantially add to cost, while also helping to level the field between various makes, models, and body styles otherwise treated more or less equally under these rules. Additionally, regulation of the class will be improved and more equitable in the long run if everyone is allowed the same brakes, and without appearing to play favorites by allowing brake upgrades to some cars while denying them to others. I suggest that STL allow any caliper with 4 pistons, to a maximum of 36mm (1.4in) piston diameter, or any 2 piston calipers, and a maximum of 2 pads per caliper. Allow rotors up to 290mm diameter and 30mm thick (this allows the Integra type R, VW Corrado G60, and other commonly available, off the shelf rotors to be used). Disallow slotted and cross drilled rotors.
Suggested language for 9.1.4.3.E:
1. Rotors
One piece ferrous rotors that do not to exceed 290mm in diameter by or 30mm in thickness (290x30mm) are permitted.

2. Permitted Calipers
The standard production calipers, any 4-piston calipers with pistons of 36mm maximum diameter, or any 2 piston caliper may be used.


I do not feel that the restrictiveness of the rules as proposed with regard to STL suspension and brakes are correct – they do not fit with the ST rules we have come to know, and they seem too strongly tied to IT. As IT cars are already allowed to come and play in ST without modification, and without the expectation of competitiveness, it makes sense to have STL more like the other classes in the category rather than occupying its own transitional space.


as it stands, STU seems overly complicated and STL seems detatched from the category as a whole. i'm really leaning towards taking my AW11 MR2 to NASA or something because ITAC can't get the lead out and STAC doesn't seem to have a direction in mind that I'm comfortable pursuing.

Rabbit07
01-11-2011, 10:03 AM
We are being very transparent with our adjustments. As I stated before we have started with STO. This being the most shook out of the classes so far. We discussed with all the main contenders in the class our intentions. We were able to gain their support based on the desire for parity. We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. The data boxes will likely be required at the June Sprints and the RunOffs. You can expect that to be the case for both STO and STU in this case. The STAC is looking at making it manditory for all of the ST classes when requested by an offical to carry a data box.

Rabbit07
01-11-2011, 10:08 AM
I wrote a letter back in august or thereabouts that forcast this dilema. I think I was met with the mordern equivalent of "thank you for your input."




as it stands, STU seems overly complicated and STL seems detatched from the category as a whole. i'm really leaning towards taking my AW11 MR2 to NASA or something because ITAC can't get the lead out and STAC doesn't seem to have a direction in mind that I'm comfortable pursuing.

Continue to watch the Fastracks, we have been actively working on many of the points that you made.

Andy Bettencourt
01-11-2011, 08:13 PM
The STAC is looking at making it manditory for all of the ST classes when requested by an offical to carry a data box.

So for STL, the 'set it and forget it' via cc/weight method can NOT be counted on for those choosing a car right now?

Rabbit07
01-11-2011, 08:20 PM
So for STL, the 'set it and forget it' via cc/weight method can NOT be counted on for those choosing a car right now?

Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter.

Power Number= Hp+Torque/2

Particularly if STL gains national status. It's the only way people are interested if they are planing on the RunOffs.

All this being said, some cars will not do well at Road America, but could absolutely rock at Lime Rock. This doesn't mean they are outside the box of STL,U,or O.

STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.

On Edit; Setting it and forgeting it isn't sustainable. It's the over achievers that we are looking for, not the under achievers. It's always easy to bring a few back than to speed the rest pf the class up. In the case of STO the big hitters were the Viper and LS7 Corvette making about 100 more in the power number than the rest of the class. They had there restrictor plates changed.

Matt93SE
01-11-2011, 09:40 PM
STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.


And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.

TomL
01-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Chris

"Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter. Power number= HP + torque/2."

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're talking about, but by "regulated", do you mean weights will be set on the assumption of 100 power number/liter? If so, I'll have a lot to say about this (like, "This is insane.")

Or am I missing something?

Knestis
01-11-2011, 10:12 PM
... We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. ...

Oy.

You're setting the weight for a [whatever make/model] for the entire category, for an entire nation, based on data collected from (potentially) as few as one (1) example...?

Remember where I said there were three approaches, up above? Well, there's the fourth. It's like competition adjustments (bleah!) on meth... :)

All kidding aside, I am very worried about that. You're taking the one really good thing about the category-as-originally-designed and throwing it out the window.

K

Rabbit07
01-11-2011, 10:56 PM
These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

Rabbit07
01-11-2011, 10:59 PM
And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

Chip42
01-12-2011, 01:25 AM
chris

the rules within the STU class have simply added question marks. the list of alternate cars is great, but makes no mention of swaps, if the weight indicated is as-raced or before adjusting up/down for FWD, etc...

other than that (cam, comp, etc...) the engine rules are pretty much the same, yeah. body rules took a bold step.

in all seriousness - what are the odds of a non-US market motor being allowed - in particular I am thinking of an evolution of the US market celica 2.0L sold from 86-89. the changes were pretty minimal outside of the intake manifold (longer runners, still single TB with plenum) and head (smaller ports) and some oiling stuff. motor came in 94-97 celicas and MR2 NA cars in Japan / europe/etc... it's a 3rd gen 3S-GE (NOT the "BEAMS" motor which is a pretty significant revision). main reason I want it is the head is already converted to shim-under-bucket so I can use the big cams w/out spending ~$1000 extra, head allows port+polish to tune vs. too-big ports a'la 4A-GE, and the oil pickups are easier to work with (added sub-block stiffener with oil filter adapter). and I can get them used with trans and ECU for ~$1000 at my door all day. I know making such an allowance is not within the post-august philosophy, but it's not like it's a 20v 4AG with ITBs and all that. thoughts?

Matt93SE
01-12-2011, 01:46 AM
What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

2010:

9.1.4.E. Engine
Alternate engines may be used, given that the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g. Acura engine installed into a Honda auto).


This states nothing about source of such engines. i.e. JDM, Euro, Aussie, etc is in play.

The chassis must be for a US-spec car, but the rule says nothing about the engine being US-only. Hellooooo JDM, Euro, Aussie engine swap.

2011:

9.1.4.G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine
installed into a Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America. The chosen engine must retain its
original cylinder head and intake manifold. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive
vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered.


No more JDM, Euro, Aussie engines now.

Nissan's options for the 240SX chassis are pretty much shot in the foot unless you want to rev the bejeezus out of a truck engine and rebuild it every few races.
The other options are putting 600+ lb of ballast in the car to run a VQ or VG, or you can install an L/A series engine that was designed in the 60s.
Nissan simply didn't sell any decent small-displacement RWD engines in the states.

OR... for $2500 you could drop in an SR20DET that came in the car on all the other continents and reach STU's targeted power/weight ratio. reliably. And the SR20DE was in the 89-99ish Sentra & 200SX, but all in FWD layout and you can't use the FWD head in RWD configuration due to the layout of intake and location of cam pos sensor and distributor (all on the "back" of the engine over the tranny... which would put it inside the firewall in an RWD layout.)

But allowing non-US engines makes too much sense to me. We'd better not do that. :)

Knestis
01-12-2011, 09:01 AM
These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

Rabbit07
01-12-2011, 09:49 AM
Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

Agreed, but in the long run I suspect we will be only dealing with a handfull of combinations also. Maybe a few dozen. Remember we are only interested in making sure that not one mark runs away with it. The "Over" achievers.

We are working towards a rules set and a performance envelope that should stay the same for many years. Most of what we are working on is closing loop holes and the like. We need to slow the rules creep issues.

On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.

23racer
01-12-2011, 01:43 PM
What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, :shrug:, but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

Chip42
01-12-2011, 01:55 PM
On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly
require a factory service manual. as many of these were sold in australia and the UK, they exist, in english. In large part, they are versions of motors sold in the US, so much is alread "verifiable" and much of what isn't is relatively open in the rules (cams and the like) - the big differences tend to be component orientation (manifolds, distributors, etc..) and design. rarer are the never-in the us motors like the RB nissans, but there is such an enthusiast following for those families of motors that I REFUSE to accept the supposeition that it would be hard to police. allow the motors on a per-request basis, and require appropriate documentation with that request or deny it. what's so hard there?

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.
if they would have to be de-cammed anyhow, why bar the B18C5 (teg tR) and F20C (S2k) hondas?

Rabbit07
01-12-2011, 02:33 PM
I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, :shrug:, but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

Look for Fastrack updates.

23racer
01-12-2011, 04:15 PM
Thanks Chris, now I am all tingly again, :). I will keep my eyes open and see what happens. I will also keep the car as it stands and wait to run it in its present state. I appreciate the difficulties in what you are doing with so many inputs from everybody. It has to be like the gopher game at the Fall Fair getting ready for the season.

If it ultimately doesn't fit, there is always HSR! I just want to race the car at Watkins Glen and Mid Ohio, LOL.

Good luck with the class philosophy, it seems pretty wild right now.

Eric

Greg Amy
01-12-2011, 06:51 PM
Allow me to clarify my esteemed STAC member/peer's comments... ;)

Given the discussion, I think I'm safe in stating the following. Note that is Greg's opinions/observation/inferences and are in NO WAY official/formal announcements of positions of the STAC and/or the CRB.

- STO is an explicitly-managed class, where we will take active measures to attempt to equalize "known" power-to-weight ratios on the (currently) limited number of allowed vehicles. "Known" will be determined by voluntary competitor revelations of measured output (such as it is) backed up by data analysis using SCCA-supplied Race Technology DL-1s. Race results will not result in a foregone conclusion of the need for adjustment, it will simply turn attention toward that car/driver combination for further scrutiny.

Given these cars are all pretty much supercars and super GTs, the assumption is that chassis in general are mostly equal in technology and capability. Thus, the focus will remain primarily on power-to-weight equalization. And, because the vast majority of cars above 3L are RWD, it will be a RWD-centric (-exclusive?) class.

- There is currently no discussions about active adjustments in STL. While of course we reserve the right to consider making minimal vehicle-specific allowances in the future to attempt to equalize engine performance (e.g., intake manifolds, alternate throttle bodies, etc) that is NOT being discussed - or even being considered - at this time. STL is a Regional-only class, and although we - I - want it to be National it is not a focus for adjustments.

My personal vision for the class is to go with the "here's the chart, pick your car", but I am *very* open to the idea of limited allowances for specific cars to try and get the horsepower numbers up to the "goal" or bogey level. Given I'm personally planning on running STL, I don't want to participate in a one-marque, one-car class.

Though - and this is most assuredly my own opinion - since the vast majority of cars 2L and below are FWD, it will likely result in STL being a FWD-centric (though not -exclusive) class.

- STU is the class that's giving us fits right now. SCCA's new policy of "rules changes in the calendar year being set" means the 2011 rules are set in stone through this calendar year, though as foreshadowed by a few others expect an announcement in the next Fastrack regarding inclusion of prior World Challenge VTS cars.

However, it is our goal to make as many cars competitive in the class as possible. This isn't as easy as it is with STO; STO is basically big-engines, high-tech chassis and suspension, mostly variations of the same theme. Given that, STO is an easy focus on the horsepower. In STU you have a wide range of types (FWD, RWD, AWD), suspension designs (struts, DWB, live axles), engines (I4, flat four, V6, turbo, normally-aspirated) and many variations on chassis. Right now the class focuses on horsepower, with some bones tossed to other technical features, but the problem resides in trying to make all these differences competitive; it's going to be a big chore. And, frankly, I personally don't want to spend every hour of every STAC meeting trying to actively manage every possible car, including some that we haven't even considered yet that may show up (remember, STO is limited to the listed cars; STO and STL are "open" with limited inclusions), and then finding out 6 weeks later when it's all approved we got it wrong. We don't have a quick-strike technical team like World Challenge has to take this tack, it would be Sisyphean to try. So I'm personally going to want a general ruleset that does its best to make as many cars competitive with a minimal number of exceptions and no active management.

We have not come to any conclusions on what to do for 2012 for STU; hell, we're just now discussing it. Many ideas are being tossed around, and I suspect we'll post a "what do you think" for Fastrack to get some more input. But for now, rest assured the future of STU is a big focus of our time, all while working in concert to develop a specific philosophy for this class, as well as the category as a whole.

I can move this, and other relevant, posts into a separate thread, or into the philosophy thread.

My two cents.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-12-2011, 07:32 PM
Good stuff Greg. Can you talk specifically about STL? And how the 'power number' appies to it - if at all. I may be mixing up Chris with my questions becuase when I ask about stuff, it's always about STL. STO and STU can be managed. I think what is interesting about STL to IT guys, is the classification methods.

Onto the 'who can build more than 100 crank hp per liter' question, it would seem that a it would be easy in the 1.8L GSR Honda and the 1.6 VTEC as well (already there in stock form 160hp).

If the intent is to bring THOSE cars back via some kind of adjustment, I haven't heard it explicitly yet. And I am not sure I like it but....

Greg Amy
01-12-2011, 08:02 PM
Can you talk specifically about STL? And how the 'power number' appies to it - if at all.
I cannot. That, my friend, I will have to discuss with my esteemed colleague(s). ;) I am inferentially aware of expected results, I'm not directly aware of stated goals. But again, I'm new to the STAC so given that there are no current discussions of active adjustments in STL I'm not too concerned about my ignorance... :)


If the intent is to bring THOSE cars back via some kind of adjustment, I haven't heard it explicitly yet. And I am not sure I like it but....There is no active intent right now in STL. None. Not even being discussed. I'm not promising it won't come up in the future, of course, especially as the class is considered for National status, but it's not there now.

GA

Rabbit07
01-12-2011, 08:20 PM
GA is much better at putting these kinds of things into print. I am going to shut my pie hole for now.......:rolleyes:

Knestis
01-12-2011, 09:26 PM
That was helpful. It would be a good idea to put together some boilerplate text describing the fundamental assumptions for each of the three classes, particularly since they are different. Like Andy (sounds like), I was overgeneralizing what I heard about one to the others. If there were a "one-pager" for each, that could be shared so everyone saw the same description, it would be massively helpful.

K

Rabbit07
01-12-2011, 09:28 PM
That was helpful. It would be a good idea to put together some boilerplate text describing the fundamental assumptions for each of the three classes, particularly since they are different. Like Andy (sounds like), I was overgeneralizing what I heard about one to the others. If there were a "one-pager" for each, that could be shared so everyone saw the same description, it would be massively helpful.

K

That is exactly what the STAC has been working on recently

lateapex911
01-12-2011, 10:30 PM
Allow me to clarify my esteemed STAC member/peer's comments... ;)

There is currently no discussions about active adjustments in STL. While of course we reserve the right to consider making minimal vehicle-specific allowances in the future to attempt to equalize engine performance (e.g., intake manifolds, alternate throttle bodies, etc) that is NOT being discussed - or even being considered - at this time. STL is a Regional-only class, and although we - I - want it to be National it is not a focus for adjustments.

My personal vision for the class is to go with the "here's the chart, pick your car", but I am *very* open to the idea of limited allowances for specific cars to try and get the horsepower numbers up to the "goal" or bogey level. Given I'm personally planning on running STL, I don't want to participate in a one-marque, one-car class.

Though - and this is most assuredly my own opinion - since the vast majority of cars 2L and below are FWD, it will likely result in STL being a FWD-centric (though not -exclusive) class.



GA

Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

CRallo
01-13-2011, 12:08 AM
Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Jake says most of what's been on my mind about this ruleset... Engines from other countries should with out a doubt be allowed! I also believe that people should be allowed to play in their respective manufacturer's parts bins.

Jake says very well what I've been thinking...

I'm also in favor of allowing brake upgrades up to a specific set of parameters.

In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

Chip42
01-13-2011, 10:08 AM
100% agree with the 2 posts above. displacement + cam and CR limits = expected power. go to town. will probobly need some verbage to keep ITI / "motorcycle" throttles out (rare in automotive production applications, even in japan) or that all intake passes through a single inlet of max XXX in2. too limiting as is.

ditto STU. what's good for one is good for both in this case (with seperate but "equal" rules governing boost). I really appreciate the breakdown given by tGA and Chris above - I recognize the challenge that reining this thing in must be. again though - basic mechnaical limits on dispalcement, cam, compression, and inlet area for NA, some simple adders for driveline config, and let it shake itself out. personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#. I don' tknow about boost, but the current stock engine + restrictor to weight seems like it has the ability to be tuned to the NA cars pretty easily (the means are simple,the data and confidence to make the decisions obviously less so).

greater alternate parts allowancse and international OE motors have to be considered lest the cream of the US market offerings will rise and the classes will become the one-make series feared.

on edit - I think I'd even be open to "strokers" and the like - again, displacement to weight,so why not?. displacement is easy enough to verify, and requiring stock components just makes tech's job harder while limiting viable options in class.

plus it lets me have my JDM 3rd gen 3SGE (which, BTW, would get CRUSHED under the current rules, even though it would be illegal...)

Matt93SE
01-13-2011, 12:29 PM
personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#.

although I agree with everything else you've said, I have to respectfully disagree here. The 1999 VTS for my car is "stock engine, euro cams, 225 width tires on 17x7 wheels, stock transmission." Yes, I can go either STU rules OR VTS, but compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!
But yes.. for a class that was initially intended for ex-WC cars, they're sure doing a good job of killing that with removal of the VTS allowances.

Greg Amy
01-13-2011, 12:46 PM
The 1999 VTS for my car...compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!
Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU. Even if one were to accept that STU was/is a place for ex-WC cars, one cannot subsequently conclude that STU is a place for all ex-WC cars throughout history to be competitive. It's just not realistically possible, especially with a car such as yours with limited engine and transmission modifications.

Said differently, STU will give you a place to play for your old WC car, but the performance focus/goal is more toward what WC Touring looked like in 2009.

My suggestion is to remove the euro cams (unless they meet the STU specs) and begin developing the car to STU specs. I'm guessing you're probably lighter that way, anyway.

GA

lateapex911
01-13-2011, 12:58 PM
When I first heard the proposal for a class based on WC cars, I asked, 'OK, but, exactly how many of those ARE there, and of those how many will show UP regularly!?" My thinking is, not that many.

My next thought was, "And if so, then what period are you going to allow, because the rules differ year to year, not to mention car to car. heck, Even the same MODEL car had varying rules from team to team!"

Then it was suggested that they'd open up to other makes and models. (Which I thought was an obvious necessity), but that brings up the third dimension in complication, how do you set rules for THOSE cars? I'd guess, that you'd choose a middle point of performance for the WC cars, reign in the fast ones, loosen up on the slow ones and align the rules package with that middle set that will race essentially unaltered.

But yea, what a labyrinth of confusion ....it's certainly conceivable in theory, but tricky in actual execution.

Naturally I like the idea of "Process adders" for STL... ;)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

Chip42
01-13-2011, 01:41 PM
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.

Matt93SE
01-13-2011, 04:17 PM
Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU.
[snip]
GA

Greg, I agree and was just mentioning that for the sake of mentioning it. the specs for ex-WC cars from 10 years ago are worlds apart from a car ran last year.
this is not such the case for IT and many other classes in SCCA that have had the same basic rulset for a decade.

As for my car, it's prepped within STU rules- I obtained a VTS for the 240 when I was initially considering running the car for ideas on how they were built. then I laughed at the prep compared to current WC cars and started scouring the STU specs again for places I could improve the car for the fewest thousand Benjamins.
and no I'm not worried about being nationally competitive right now. probably (most likely) never will be, but I'll do the best I can with the budget I've got.

coreyehcx
01-13-2011, 07:28 PM
In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

This was my problem and why I chose STL, it would cost me more money to drop down to ITB where I was originally intending on running.

Rabbit07
01-13-2011, 07:44 PM
For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

coreyehcx
01-13-2011, 11:22 PM
I would be for non usdm motors for everyone. I know atleast in the Honda world JDM motors have more availability,lower price, and better performance than USDM.

I'm sure this would help out others wanting to be in the class.


I have a question about using a non vtec 1.8, what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? Assuming both motors are built to their fullest potential within rules specs?

Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?

Just curious.

Greg Amy
01-13-2011, 11:30 PM
...what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? ... Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?
Negative, not at this time. However, theoretically, VTEC in and of itself is of no value to power, given both engines are allowed the same limits on compression and valve lift. The differences will come down solely to differences in head design, intake manifold, and throttle body.

GA

coreyehcx
01-13-2011, 11:49 PM
Thanks Greg, I know vtec is not the difference in power but the head flow, intake manifold, and superior flow compared to the non vtec motors head which is where a lot of the power difference comes from.

I won't know until I finish my non vtec build within current specs and with the better torque numbers the non vtec motor makes, maybe it will balance out. The one advantage the non vtec motor has is the fact you can run a decent cam with the .425 lift max which is where the vtec motors are already close to stock at around ~.417 intake.


I would assume there are other manufacturers with similar situations.

Matt93SE
01-14-2011, 10:42 AM
For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

I wrote mine in August. #2428. Looks to have been tabled for the most part. Do I need to start writing once a month?

lateapex911
01-14-2011, 11:33 AM
the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

Agreed. I'm trying to reconcile what I see as a gulf between theory (the classing system) and reality (what we will see in built cars on track)


start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.Eggggsactly what i was thinking.
And I hate to say it, but the SIR thought did cross my mind, but only for a second!

Chip42
01-14-2011, 02:51 PM
SIRs open a big can of worms - but if you are going to make a blankett assumption that XXXX displacement yields NNN hp, then an SIR to displacement arrangement a'la GTL is pretty much the only way to make it reasonably true. given the displacement/weight categorization then simply opening the intake should allow the displacement to hit a physical power limit on its own, though.

I guess it depends on how fast you want the class to be. I am speaking / thinking about STU in particular.

as for policing all of this stuff - the less you require to conform to manufacturer spec, the less you have to police. bore, stroke, cam, CR - easily verified and really the crux of the classification system as I see it. it sounds like the whole thing is being over-thaught. yeah, economics make "stock" more attractive than "open" but the tradeoff is variety of competition. fine line. I don't envy the STAC.

as for letters - I also have a letter suggesting the inclusion of non-USDM engines (along with 11ty other things) but I think I will pen a letter specifically outlining my thoughts on that issue.

Mrsideways
01-14-2011, 04:23 PM
For the most part aren't most if not all JDM engine's only different in a couple relatively minor area's?
ie
Pistons (which can legally be changed)
Rods (which can legally be changed)
Cams (which can legally be changed)
And Maybe intake manifold... which I wouldn't consider part of the engine.

coreyehcx
01-14-2011, 04:41 PM
I only have experience with Hondas but yes that pretty much sums up the differences of jdm motors. Some camshafts could be slightly more aggressive but really the only differences for non usdm motors are they have a bump in compression under the allowed limit since the ITR/CTR motors would be illegal.

There are other differences but more so under the transmissions which doesnt even matter.

CRallo
01-14-2011, 09:25 PM
For the most part aren't most if not all JDM engine's only different in a couple relatively minor area's?
ie
Pistons (which can legally be changed)
Rods (which can legally be changed)
Cams (which can legally be changed)
And Maybe intake manifold... which I wouldn't consider part of the engine.

which manufacturer are you refering to? Some engines were never even available in the US, let alone with different parts...

NTM if you can use the engine as a whole and just drop it in, its a big cost and time savings. AND, Even if you are building one from scratch anyways, it would mean no buying two engines to build one or scrounging for JDM parts at god knows what cost!

You can only change the intake manifold if you are changing driveline configs to allow fitment... IIRC

Mrsideways
01-20-2011, 09:50 AM
which manufacturer are you refering to? Some engines were never even available in the US, let alone with different parts...

NTM if you can use the engine as a whole and just drop it in, its a big cost and time savings. AND, Even if you are building one from scratch anyways, it would mean no buying two engines to build one or scrounging for JDM parts at god knows what cost!

You can only change the intake manifold if you are changing driveline configs to allow fitment... IIRC

I guess I was only thinking Honda. Come to think of it, an RB26 in a 240sx would be kinda cool and MUCH MUCH to fast.
Come to think of it I think it would open up some turbo motors for the miata's easily.