PDA

View Full Version : Some things got missed



Rabbit07
10-29-2010, 12:27 PM
FYI,

The final drives and differential rules for STL will read like the ones for IT.

There are no turbos cars, Lotus Elise's or Exige's allowed in STL.

The weight of the 12A in STL is incorrect.

These things were overlooked.

Prof. Chaos
10-29-2010, 01:20 PM
:happy204:

And not to :dead_horse:, but has anyone thought about the possibility that people (like me) will run STU with an STL car next year because they don't see a point in going from one Regional class to another Regional class?

With these new "Rationals" (National and Regional races running at the same time), is there a way to run STU but pay extra to get STL credit? Otherwise, I'm guessing I'm just screwing myself for the future by running STU rather than STL.

G-Man
10-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the info and clarification.
Is the new/correct weight for the 12A available?

dickita15
10-29-2010, 04:13 PM
:happy204:

And not to :dead_horse:, but has anyone thought about the possibility that people (like me) will run STU with an STL car next year because they don't see a point in going from one Regional class to another Regional class?

With these new "Rationals" (National and Regional races running at the same time), is there a way to run STU but pay extra to get STL credit? Otherwise, I'm guessing I'm just screwing myself for the future by running STU rather than STL.

Sorry Philip, if you have a rational in your area you will have to chose if you are running the regional or the national. You can not get credit fir two different race by being on the track once. Now it STU and STL were in different race groups you could run the National in STU and then run the regional in STL thereby helping STL build the numbers.

shwah
10-29-2010, 05:20 PM
Can you remove a turbo from a turbo motor and run it?

Rabbit07
10-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Was there a non turbo version?

CRallo
10-29-2010, 06:15 PM
intersested to know the 12a weight... and how we are supposed to make it faster :/

Rabbit07
10-29-2010, 07:22 PM
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the info and clarification.
Is the new/correct weight for the 12A available?

The intended weight was to be the 2600 including the 2.5% adder.

shwah
10-30-2010, 01:25 AM
Was there a non turbo version?
Can you remove the turbo from a motor and run it?

Rabbit07
10-30-2010, 11:19 AM
Can you remove the turbo from a motor and run it?

Honestly if there is an engine that meets all the requirements I can't see anything in the rules to prevent it? Some could argue that if the engine was only available with a turbo, that makes it a turbo engine which isn't permitted.


If you don't mind me asking, what do you have in mind?

mossaidis
10-30-2010, 01:23 PM
Audi 1.8T?

shwah
10-31-2010, 01:03 AM
VW/Audi 1.8t. The 20v head is probably the only shot a VAG car has in this type of format. It was sold in NA form elsewhere, but only with a turbo here.

Also, why no wheel fans? These cars will be faster than an IT car with the same weight and brakes, but have less options for brake cooling. Seems odd.

Rabbit07
10-31-2010, 12:41 PM
In regards to brakes, the current consensus is to let the class get going and see where there is a need. One example we discussed was say a Ford Festiva with a 2.0 engine might really need bigger brakes, or a 1st gen Honda with a 1.8l might need bigger brakes?

shwah
10-31-2010, 11:12 PM
That does make it inconsistent with what IT cars can do today. I don't know if crossover is intended/expected in the beginning, and I know very few IT drivers take advantage of the allowance, but it is a difference.

lateapex911
11-01-2010, 02:03 AM
In regards to brakes, the current consensus is to let the class get going and see where there is a need. One example we discussed was say a Ford Festiva with a 2.0 engine might really need bigger brakes, or a 1st gen Honda with a 1.8l might need bigger brakes?

No.
Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.

Wheel fans, cooling allowances, fine. (But better in the ruleset from day one)

Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them. Time and again, people say they like consistency and stability in their racing classes and categories.

A fiesta needs bigger brakes? Well, duh, then chose a different ride, or put a smaller engine in it. Caveat emptor.
But don't as the keepers of the class, decide a year or two to just say, "OK, brake packages are allowed". (And use the dreaded safety card as justification) It changes the competitive balance, it throws away peoples investment, and it alienates the subscribers.

"Oh, now I need to run bigger brakes? (because, if they are allowed, and i want to win, I have to keep up with the Jone's, it's the rule of racing_)..well, now those wheels I invested in are too small, so THAT money and all the tires and testing are out the window, I need all new wheels and tires" etc etc.

And once that stuff starts, it's a slippery slope. IT has been around since 84 or so...and it's arguably one of the top two or three categories in the club. Rule changes come about based on technology shifts. The forefathers laid down a pretty good foundation, and major changes have been avoided wherever possible.

Beyond that STU allows bigger brakes, if I'm not mistaken, so for those who are hung up on tossing parts at the car, they can choose that class.

dickita15
11-01-2010, 05:49 AM
IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

Greg Amy
11-01-2010, 08:50 AM
Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.
A big +1 on that sentiment. The time to get the fundamentals right is at the beginning; you can tweak the details later. Allowing alternate brakes is decisively NOT a "tweak".

I'm on record as supporting alternate brakes with a rotor size limit; in that same mindset I'm for allowing alternate control arms with no attachment point modifications.


Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them.

That does make it inconsistent with what IT cars can do today.

Two very good points. I'm going to start a new thread about this idea, I think it should be hashed out.

GA

lateapex911
11-01-2010, 02:07 PM
IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

As a guy on the BoD, I think that you should understand very well the classes future....and I suspect that if you don't, it's not for your lack of trying. The cornerstone philosophies should be decided on now, allowing them to develop over the years can be disastrous.

Am I reading yours and Chris's posts, that these "allowances" may come on a car by car basis?

Andy Bettencourt
11-01-2010, 02:50 PM
IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

And here is my recommendation:

DON'T try and balance the class. Stick with your weight-CC classification and let the market determine what is popular etc.

DO consider safty related allowances etc that can be applied across ALL classes.

The SECOND you take a class that has a simple and clean classification process and start throwing help to cars based on on-track performance is the moment that people walk away.

Greg Amy
11-01-2010, 03:01 PM
^^^ Ding, ding!

I don't want comp adjustments. I don't want tacit "guarantee" of competitiveness while saying there's no guarantee. I want a straight-up throw-down fight, even if it means I make the wrong choices (e.g., don't count out the Miata and/or some other combination we haven't thought of yet).

I want to know the rules going in, and I don't want them to change unless the organization decides to apply those changes across the whole spectrum equally, and with very much aforethought before doing it.

There's the rules, get 'em right, let's go racing.*

GA

* I'll give you the first year, maybe two, to get the rules "right"; I'll give you the chance to make intelligent wholesale changes. For example, I want alternate control arms and alternate brakes (both with limits) and I'll continue to lobby for those across the whole spectrum. But once those decisions are made and we're where we want to be, I want the rulebook tossed into a lockbox, never to be touched again...

Matt93SE
11-01-2010, 08:54 PM
First couple years? For those of you that have been paying attention, B and D Prepared have been around a while. That turned into STU and STO, which has been around a couple years. The only new thing is STL, which is a 'sterilized' version of STU.
And yes, the STAC has been changing rules that have drastically affected competitors. 2009-2010 rules state "Any engine from the manufacturer". Woohoo! Nissan can finally compete! We're not stuck using a cast iron truck engine that costs $15,000 to build and lasts 3 races on a set of bearings.

oh wait.. now here come the 2011 rules where "Only North American" engines are allowed. Nissan hasn't sold a GOOD RWD sub-3L engine in the states in decades. I personally know of 3 people who were building cars with the SR20 in them that can't race due to the rule change.

STU also 'lost' 2" of chord length on their rear wings with the 2011 rules. APR makes a special version of their GTC-200 specifically for the class. IT's 48" wide with a chord length of 8.75". 2010 rules were 48" x 10.5". 2011 Rules are 48.25" x 8.5". There goes another $1000 I've invested into the class that I have to try and sell on ebay at a loss. Not to mention manufacturers like APR that made an investment to build a part they can't sell now.

lateapex911
11-02-2010, 01:31 AM
That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

Knestis
11-02-2010, 08:31 AM
...trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future.

That's exactly the opposite of what should apply, if a weight/displacement formula is a first assumption. I don't LIKE the fact that it's going to leave some cars out in the cold but it's inconsistent to use a formula AND try to balance based on on-track performance with competition adjustments (bleah!). That's the worst of both worlds.

If there's any inclination to go that route, chuck the pretense of formulaic considerations and admit that success will result in weight penalties.

Instead, make the stoppers formulaic as well as the parts that make them go.

** Displacement = weight
** Max brake size
** Max number of gear ratios
** Max size of aero add-ons

Everything has to bolt to the stock shell.

Go.

K

Rabbit07
11-02-2010, 10:11 AM
That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

Jake,

I will try to answer questions. right now I am preping 3 cars to go down to the ARRC, so my answers will like come next week. We a watching what is being said and seeking input.

Cheers

lateapex911
11-02-2010, 02:27 PM
Jake,

I will try to answer questions. right now I am preping 3 cars to go down to the ARRC, so my answers will like come next week. We a watching what is being said and seeking input.

Cheers

Excellent! Yea, I knew you were ARRC bound, but didn't know about THREE cars, good luck!

quadzjr
11-02-2010, 04:10 PM
I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors as they already do in GT. I can see why thy didn't, but it would of brought a few other marques into the light (as mentione before nissan, toyota, ford, possibly chevrolet) in GTL instead of just Honda's and Maybe a well built miata.

Greg Amy
11-02-2010, 04:57 PM
I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors...
"I've been told" that non-USDM engines could be allowed on a case-by-case basis, you just need to submit a very detailed VTS along with your request. The implied reason they were blanket-eliminated was due to lack of specs for them.

IMO, it would also help your case to describe the differences between that engine and its closest USDM cousin, and don't forget it needs to conform to the compression/cam rules.

GA

Matt93SE
11-02-2010, 06:35 PM
I'm still waiting to hear back from the CRB about "JDM engine request #1" on the SR20. I'll report back when I have findings. Been waiting on a response since August. :)

StephenB
11-02-2010, 08:10 PM
To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do.... Allow IT to go National?...

I haven't posted anything ever about STL but I do lurk :) I hear several comments like the one above but I just dont get it. How is STL even remotely close to IT? I read the rules and to me limited prep seems way closer to IT and requires way less $ money to do if I wanted to go national. I don't see anyway to be remotely competitive in STL with an IT car and if you do make all the modifications to allow you to be somewhat competitive you can't run in IT. So to me I just don't get how this allows IT drivers to suddenly "go national racing" now. Possibly the idea is to allow current IT drivers to run in a completely different class if they want to... same as going to production, with the difference being that its a different class with a new/different classification process allowing for different modifications than those in production.

Am I missing something?
Stephen

Matt93SE
11-02-2010, 08:58 PM
Anything allowed to run IT is allowed in STx, so running a fully prepped IT car just means you have a barely-prepped STx car. They'll be slow, but they fit within the STx ruleset. This allows them to run national races in STx, but they're not going to do well against real competition.

But yeah.. basically it's a chance for the IT guys to double-enter or to go to Nats and get their butts spanked by the guys who spend a lot of money.

StephenB
11-02-2010, 09:17 PM
Anything allowed to run IT is allowed in STx, so running a fully prepped IT car just means you have a barely-prepped STx car. They'll be slow, but they fit within the STx ruleset. This allows them to run national races in STx, but they're not going to do well against real competition.

But yeah.. basically it's a chance for the IT guys to double-enter or to go to Nats and get their butts spanked by the guys who spend a lot of money.

Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen

Matt93SE
11-02-2010, 11:32 PM
Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen

If you want to look at it that way, sure... As long as the car you're looking to run has a spec line somewhere in Prod... do ALL IT cars have a spec line in Prod?

lateapex911
11-03-2010, 02:39 AM
Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen

"Just add slicks"....that's not cheap. They say the IT cars...all of 'em, can go play in STx. Of course, the competitiveness of that depends on the field that shows up....just like it would be if you ran an event in Prod.

I haven't checked in awhile, but don't you need a fuel cell in Prod too? So, right there, you've got $1600 or so to dip your feet in prod.

Hey, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea, but...we've heard the IT cars running in Nationals as a 'reason" for STx to be. (or, more exactly, one of) Now, somebody official could come on here and set me straight, and that would be great.

I was just throwing out concepts and things I've heard.

CRallo
11-03-2010, 08:18 AM
and a real fire system if you don't already have it, if I'm not mistaken...

Dano77
11-03-2010, 09:20 AM
You dont have to run slicks,tires are per GCR requirement. dosent say slicks

Fuel cell not required if plastic tank mounted between frame rails forward of rear axle.

Fire system should already be there,you have a kid now. DO IT RIGHT

Dan 77 IT7

eprodrx7
11-03-2010, 09:23 AM
Running an IT car in prod does not require you run slicks. In fact if you look at competitive SM times at the Glen (2:18 - 2:19) and look at FP times from this years National it would have put that SM in the top 5! Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!

Greg Amy
11-03-2010, 11:02 AM
...the STAC has been changing rules that have drastically affected competitors...STU also 'lost' 2" of chord length on their rear wings with the 2011 rules...APR that made an investment to build a part they can't sell now.


Target $1000-1500 for a custom wing.
OTOH, the APR GTC-200 sells for $625 online.

That's a good point...anyone care to offer why the wing size was reduced in STU, from 48x10.75 to 48.25x8.50? Is there a specific reason for that change, say, because the STAC is aware that this size is commonly supplied?

I'm just curious as to the basis/discussions behind the suggestion of "hey, let's reduce the rear wing size from this year's rules".

GA

StephenB
11-03-2010, 11:54 AM
"Just add slicks"....that's not cheap. They say the IT cars...all of 'em, can go play in STx. Of course, the competitiveness of that depends on the field that shows up....just like it would be if you ran an event in Prod.

I haven't checked in awhile, but don't you need a fuel cell in Prod too? So, right there, you've got $1600 or so to dip your feet in prod.

Hey, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea, but...we've heard the IT cars running in Nationals as a 'reason" for STx to be. (or, more exactly, one of) Now, somebody official could come on here and set me straight, and that would be great.

I was just throwing out concepts and things I've heard.


Jake, sorry to quote you, I didn't mean that it was your thought or philosophy. I just wanted to pose the question since it is rumored and posted here often by several different people. To me ST seems farther from IT than production and IF SCCA wants to tap into the current IT car participation then I think they should promote IT cars running in already existing classes rather than adding more. I personally love IT and I have no interest in production and less interest in ST however I get how another person may find the class interesting with the freedom of engines and other things like wings and such. It appears to be a much different class than what we have had in the past and if it helps SCCA grow and appeals to others then I fully support it and wish the class well.

Stephen

StephenB
11-03-2010, 12:29 PM
Running an IT car in prod does not require you run slicks. In fact if you look at competitive SM times at the Glen (2:18 - 2:19) and look at FP times from this years National it would have put that SM in the top 5! Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!

Hey john get back to work :) Just kidding... see you soon!

Glad to see your still lurking with the IT guys and gals, eventhough your now a professional racecar driver with a professional championship win under your belt!

Stephen :)

Dave Gomberg
11-03-2010, 01:57 PM
That's a good point...anyone care to offer why the wing size was reduced in STU, from 48x10.75 to 48.25x8.50? Is there a specific reason for that change, say, because the STAC is aware that this size is commonly supplied?

I'm just curious as to the basis/discussions behind the suggestion of "hey, let's reduce the rear wing size from this year's rules".

GA
That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave

Greg Amy
11-03-2010, 02:01 PM
:happy204:

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!

Except nobody has a real ITA Miata eligible for FP. :)

Matt93SE
11-03-2010, 07:31 PM
That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave

Care to site a source for that? I'm definitely glad to hear it, but would like to know the source of that info.

I was really curious as to why they would leave the front splitter the same size on STU (they decreased it on STO), and reduce the rear wing for STU to align with STL. That just seems to be arse-backwards thinking. which I guess is something I should be smart enough to expect from the CRB :rolleyes:

JoshS
11-03-2010, 07:33 PM
Care to site a source for that? I'm definitely glad to hear it, but would like to know the source of that info.

I was really curious as to why they would leave the front splitter the same size on STU (they decreased it on STO), and reduce the rear wing for STU to align with STL. That just seems to be arse-backwards thinking. which I guess is something I should be smart enough to expect from the CRB :rolleyes:

Careful there, the guy you're talking to *is* the CRB.

Greg Amy
11-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Careful there, the guy you're talking to *is* the CRB.
Yup, Dave's on the CRB, so it's safe to call him good for his word.

GA

lateapex911
11-03-2010, 07:46 PM
i got a chuckle from that series of posts. Classic.

eprodrx7
11-03-2010, 09:42 PM
Andy don't you guys have one? An ITA Miata that is. Why wouldn't it be a contender?

Matt93SE
11-03-2010, 10:19 PM
Careful there, the guy you're talking to *is* the CRB.

Heh.. Umm hi Dave, My name is n00b. :D
Sounds like your word IS the source. Good enough for me. :)

mossaidis
11-03-2010, 10:20 PM
I with Jake on this one. :)

Matt93SE
11-03-2010, 10:26 PM
I'm glad y'all got a kick out of me sticking my foot in my mouf. :)

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2010, 11:01 PM
Andy don't you guys have one? An ITA Miata that is. Why wouldn't it be a contender?

It might be but nobody wants to build a 1.6 ITA car. All the 'real' ITA cars are 1.8's...and those are EP! I bet a 1.6 ITA car would rip it up at LRP.

Greg Amy
11-04-2010, 07:02 AM
I'm glad y'all got a kick out of me sticking my foot in my mouf. :)
Hey, this is the Internet: NO ONE gets a "pass". ;)

GA

eprodrx7
11-04-2010, 09:16 AM
Well I know that your Miata is a competitive ITA car and the ITA Glen track record is 2:17 or so. We can assume that your car should run the same or close. Check EP times from this years National, 2:17 would have been good enough for a top five finish!

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 12:52 PM
Excellent! Yea, I knew you were ARRC bound, but didn't know about THREE cars, good luck!

Well I would say the other two cars had better weekends than mine. Congrats again to Rob Huffmaster, whos car three days earlier was in about 100 pieces on the floor of my shop. Ray didn't do to bad either with a 2nd in STU.

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 01:16 PM
That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

Ok, as promised.

The goal in short is this. STO: World Challenge GT cars and similar to have a place to play in SCCA Club racing. You guys might not see it, but we spend lots of time dealing with these cars (as I wipe my brow). STU: World Challenge touring cars and similar, with hopes of catching some cars from obscure classes outside of the SCCA, ie Honda Challenge, PCA, BMWCCA, etc. STL: Cars similar to STU with a lower level of prep, IT style cars with some tech issues cleaned up, attractive to younger perspective racers because it pulls from a newer pot than another certain regional class. Please don't get me started on the Miata thing.

We spoke about 10-15 good cars for STL the other night at the T5 party in Atlanta. Guess what, they weren't all Honda's and Mazda's. At first glance it seems that way, but when you look deeper they start to appear. The best one I heard was a 2ZZ powered MR2 spyder.

When I was in high school we were putting 427s in Pintos and Mustangs and loving every minute of it. A young perspective racer today may not have even been born when a Pinto was new. They want to swap a K20 into their CRX, which by the way was built before they were born. STL is similar to IT, but in incorporates ideas like engine swaps and wings, and carbon fiber hoods. These are things that whether or not they make the car go faster they are cool and provide hope. That hope is one thing that does attract racers to any class. The hope that they could be competitive, the hope they could win. Whether any of us like it or not, people are hung up on things like; Battery relocation, washer bottles, and the requirement to have a heater core that doesn't have any water in it. And yes folks, some people want to know that after they have spent 4 years and countless dollars developing a car.....that if it is not competitive they may get an allowance to help them compete.

Start throwing tomatos now.:024:

Ron Earp
11-08-2010, 01:42 PM
Whether any of us like it or not, people are hung up on things like; Battery relocation, washer bottles, and the requirement to have a heater core that doesn't have any water in it.

Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?

In the end I think STU will draw off participants from IT and IT will suffer as a result.

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 01:50 PM
Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?

In the end I think STU will draw off participants from IT and IT will suffer as a result.

Good question, I am not sure. ST as a category also allows for National competition, which will also naturally pull some competitors from IT.

lateapex911
11-08-2010, 02:23 PM
Ok, as promised.

STL: Cars similar to STU with a lower level of prep, IT style cars with some tech issues cleaned up, attractive to younger perspective racers because it pulls from a newer pot than another certain regional class. Please don't get me started on the Miata thing.

We spoke about 10-15 good cars for STL the other night at the T5 party in Atlanta. Guess what, they weren't all Honda's and Mazda's. At first glance it seems that way, but when you look deeper they start to appear. The best one I heard was a 2ZZ powered MR2 spyder.

I'd love to hear the list. My biggest concern is that (from what i've read, so far, and obviously, that's preliminary and based on opinions) the candidates with true potential are all FWD, and Honda or maaaybe Mazda. And it's less than a handful. To me, that seems like less than what we have now in IT as far as possible winners.


When I was in high school we were putting 427s in Pintos and Mustangs and loving every minute of it. A young perspective racer today may not have even been born when a Pinto was new. They want to swap a K20 into their CRX, which by the way was built before they were born. STL is similar to IT, but in incorporates ideas like engine swaps and wings, and carbon fiber hoods. These are things that whether or not they make the car go faster they are cool and provide hope.
I don't have a problem with any of that. But, I'm concerned with the hybrid nature of the classing structure. The displacement method assumes the builder has control over all aspects of breathing. The horsepower based system (as in IT, takes into account the rulesets inability to modify horsepower affecting components. yet this ruleset, leaves in place important horsepower affecting componentry, YET, uses a displacement method of classing. You said there were 15 good options, (I hope so, that would be great) but I'm worried that you have 1 foot in one world, and the other someplace else, and it's going to be difficult to walk. I'd be interested to hear why you just didn't go all in and allow some form of open intake. We are a RACING club, and I fear this category is going to wind up a one trick pony with a bunch of 'cool' but uncompetitive cars....

That hope is one thing that does attract racers to any class. The hope that they could be competitive, the hope they could win. Whether any of us like it or not, people are hung up on things like; Battery relocation, washer bottles, and the requirement to have a heater core that doesn't have any water in it. And yes folks, some people want to know that after they have spent 4 years and countless dollars developing a car.....that if it is not competitive they may get an allowance to help them compete.

Start throwing tomatos now.:024:

Well, the "get an allowance" aspect is a thorny subject. What kind of allowance? Why? How will they prove they need it? Who decides to hand it out? You know where that goes...straight into smoke filled back rooms with politics and good old boys handing out favors. I'm not accusing anyone on the STAC or CRb, but I AM saying that there is considerable potential for the appearance of less than fair play)

Andy Bettencourt
11-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?


Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

And before you say, 'if it's no big deal, just allow the removal of that stuff...' it's not about one item. It's about everyone thinking something different is 'needless'. If you combined all of those requests, you would have no dashboards, plexi windshields, alternate fenders, and the list goes on and on. We all have our 'line in the sand' - and they are all in a different spot. There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.

Ron Earp
11-08-2010, 03:01 PM
Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.

IF the greatest common denominator was the washer bottle, or the motor mounts, etc. then it'd be fine. But we've shown time and time again, via a variety of means (polls, letters, voting outcomes on IT issues, etc) that the majority of IT racers want some of these rules changed. But the ITAC says no. So, the class doesn't evolve because a few wish to keep the class close to the 25+ year old fundamentals.

Look, I'm not here to argue about it IT. ST seems to be addressing some of the "issues" that IT racers have while providing a backdoor to take some of those racers national. Surely it'll remove some competitors from IT and diminish participation in IT. Just an observation. Good or bad depends on which side of the fence you are headed toward.

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 03:18 PM
Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

And before you say, 'if it's no big deal, just allow the removal of that stuff...' it's not about one item. It's about everyone thinking something different is 'needless'. If you combined all of those requests, you would have no dashboards, plexi windshields, alternate fenders, and the list goes on and on. We all have our 'line in the sand' - and they are all in a different spot. There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.

Andy,

I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.

Andy Bettencourt
11-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Andy,

I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.

So what do you mean by 'status of IT'? If you mean, "I know some guys who would build IT cars if they allowed the removal of the washer bottle...", I call BS.

Now on motor mounts, I voted for those and think it makes sense logically to allow them given the mods currently allowed and teh nature of what we are doing.

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 05:28 PM
So what do you mean by 'status of IT'? If you mean, "I know some guys who would build IT cars if they allowed the removal of the washer bottle...", I call BS.

Now on motor mounts, I voted for those and think it makes sense logically to allow them given the mods currently allowed and teh nature of what we are doing.

Come on, I told you that the washer bottle was :p. I wasn't being serious about the washer bottle. Then engine mounts however........

Dave Gomberg
11-08-2010, 06:13 PM
That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave
This board needs an "egg-on-face" or at least a "really red-faced" smiley because, through a miscommunication, I got this wrong. The current 8.50 inch chord will remain. My apologies for misleading anyone here. (This is why we have a policy of not leaking things until the Fastrack appears and why we're sorry when we bust that policy.)

Dave

Greg Amy
11-08-2010, 06:35 PM
The current 8.50 inch chord will remain.
Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

dickita15
11-08-2010, 06:56 PM
Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

In fairness to the CRB the wing change was put out for member input in the August fastrack although I admit it was part of a very large rewrite. There was certainly plenty of time for member input.

dickita15
11-08-2010, 07:08 PM
Well, the "get an allowance" aspect is a thorny subject. What kind of allowance? Why? How will they prove they need it? Who decides to hand it out? You know where that goes...straight into smoke filled back rooms with politics and good old boys handing out favors. I'm not accusing anyone on the STAC or CRb, but I AM saying that there is considerable potential for the appearance of less than fair play)

Jake, I think it is unreasonable to assume ST will not have competition adjustments. Every class in SCCA with more than one motor except IT has competition adjustments. Some are politically seen by some as politically distasteful as in prod and some are a little more objective (math based) as in GT. Even SM has them.

lateapex911
11-08-2010, 07:22 PM
Dick, I'm thinking that, with a new class, it's a great time to lay the ground work and the parameters. I'd love to hear more about the bigger picture and the plans for such adjustments.

dickita15
11-08-2010, 07:57 PM
Understood and I certainly do not have those answers. My only point is the IT mindset about completion adjustments (bleah) is an oddity in the club. It is great that Chris is being vocal on this forum, maybe he and others on the STAC can provide some insight here at to their vision. Just make sure if they do we all play nice.

Andy Bettencourt
11-08-2010, 08:15 PM
Understood and I certainly do not have those answers. My only point is the IT mindset about completion adjustments (bleah) is an oddity in the club. It is great that Chris is being vocal on this forum, maybe he and others on the STAC can provide some insight here at to their vision. Just make sure if they do we all play nice.


It's also arguably one of the most successful categories because of that. Just because it's done in other classes doesn't mean you have to use it as a foundation for a fresh new idea. I, like many, submit that if you do use traditional comp adjustments, you will have another undersubscibed failure, ESPECIALLY when you start with a formula-based classing system. Why would I ever build a car for the class if I thought 4 guys in a room with results and video from the Runoffs could adjust my weight based on my success or failures? Create a sound foundation, let it sink or swim on it's merits.

SM works simply because there are only 3 chassis and it's easy to see and understand what changes what.

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 08:45 PM
Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

Well, the short answers is that someone somehow screwed up with the original STU wing size. The STO, ie GT size was used. The STAC became aware of this earlier in the year and used some of the WC cars running in STU to verify the WC touring car wing size. The change was made to insure that the wings were consistant with the Touring cars.

Greg, you are correct on the fact that we can not cover all bases and this is why I always like to bounce ideas off of people just like yourself. We like all the feedback we have gotten.

Matt93SE
11-08-2010, 08:55 PM
Well, the short answers is that someone somehow screwed up with the original STU wing size. The STO, ie GT size was used. The STAC became aware of this earlier in the year and used some of the WC cars running in STU to verify the WC touring car wing size. The change was made to insure that the wings were consistant with the Touring cars.

Greg, you are correct on the fact that we can not cover all bases and this is why I always like to bounce ideas off of people just like yourself. We like all the feedback we have gotten.

The STO and STU wing size were never the same.

I'd love to see where these WC guys are getting wings.
Any chance the variable chord length APR GTC-200 "48" SCCA-spec" wing will be allowed? it's 8.75" in the center and tapers down to 6.75" on the ends, for an average of less than 8.5"

http://www.aprperformance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 09:04 PM
The STO and STU wing size were never the same.

I'd love to see where these WC guys are getting wings.
Any chance the variable chord length APR GTC-200 "48" SCCA-spec" wing will be allowed? it's 8.75" in the center and tapers down to 6.75" on the ends, for an average of less than 8.5"

http://www.aprperformance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36

Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

Matt93SE
11-08-2010, 09:17 PM
Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

Sure! For just a couple thousand dollars. It's okay, it's not THEIR money the SCCA is spending........

Rabbit07
11-08-2010, 09:26 PM
Teching the average cord length is a nightmare. There are wing manufacturers out there because SCCA Touring car teams are still buying them. They are not inexpensive, but available. One difference in Club is we don't require you to have the wing as in Pro.

Greg Amy
11-08-2010, 10:11 PM
There are wing manufacturers out there because SCCA Touring car teams are still buying them. They are not inexpensive, but available. One difference in Club is we don't require you to have the wing as in Pro.
That's not really true, Chris. As of the 2009 PRR there are five "approved" wings in Touring Car, one of which is no longer available (the HPM spec wing from 2005), one that is model specific (the Mugen RSX rear wing), and two more that are built by the teams just for their cars. I don't know the third one, but I'm trying to find it.

Point is, nowhere in the 2009 PRR is there an open "wings must be this size" specification.

As for the 2010 PRR, I'm still scouring through it and the VTS sheets to find where wings are called out for the GTS class. Can't find it. The GT spec are in the PRR (2.12.14.2), and they're also VTS-specific. The call out for approvals for wings in GT is 72" length and 12" chord.

Yeah, the custom-made Dauntless wings are $2500-3000; the easily-available off-the-shelf APR wing that has a max chord of 8.75" - one quarter of an inch more than the current-current STL spec - is $625, including brackets.

Let's not dig our heels in there and be stupid about this...there's a lot of "things getting missed" here that should be open to consideration.

GA

Z3_GoCar
11-08-2010, 10:16 PM
Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

Like I said in my other thread, if I wanted to throw a few $k at a rear wing I'd go down the road to Scaled Composites. I'm sure they have a super-critical, low drag-high down force profile airfoil that would do the job.

Greg Amy
11-08-2010, 10:37 PM
Ok, so I'm perusing the PRR and WC regs from 2009 and 2010. Best I can tell, for 2010 there were basically FOUR prep levels in THREE classes:

- GT, consisting of the big bore cars, lots of mods including wings;
- GTS and TC, two different performance potential classes of cars with limited prep and no wings;
- 2009 PRR-spec WC Touring cars, permitted to run in GTS, allowed to run wings to the 2009 PRR, which consisted only of the five wings I described above.

Ergo...unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly here...there is no World Challenge Touring Car wing size listed anywhere.

What am I missing here...?

GA

Verbiage from "2010 World Challenge Technical Bulletin 1 (http://www.world-challenge.com/files/competitors/WCTB.2010.1.pdf)", January 2010:
World Challenge has been restructured into three classes: Grand Touring (GT), Grand Touring Sport (GTS), and Touring Car (TC). As a result the Authorized Modifications Article has been rewritten, with fewer modifications permitted than in 2009. Many permitted modifications have been moved into the GT Specific Technical Regulations section, to allow vehicles competing in GT the same modifications as permitted in 2009.

Currently the GTS and TC Specific Technical Regulations are relatively short, as the GTS and TC class share essentially the same regulations.

Vehicles built to the 2009 and older TC regulations will be permitted to run in GTS. The additional modifications these vehicles were allowed will be added to their VTS sheets. These vehicles may also be homologated into the current TC class, with fewer modifications permitted.

Verbiage from the 2009 PRR specs (http://www.scca.com/documents/Pro%20Racing/09-prr-article2.pdf), in regard to Touring Car wings:
2.12.1.1.2: TC Rear Wing: The wings on the approved TC list are the only rear wings permitted for use in the TC class. The teams will use the wings and endplates as provided.

2.12.1.1.3: Approved Rear Wing List for the Touring Car class


Company Name: Crawford Composite
Phone Number: 704.483.4175
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: CC612
Drawing Number: CC01

Company Name: HPM
Phone Number: 402.731.7301
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: HPM-9000-AU
Drawing Number: HP01

Company Name: Mugen/King Motorsports
Phone Number: 262.593.2438
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: 84112-XK5-K0S0
Drawing Number: MK01

Company Name: RealTime Racing
Phone Number: 262.268.2000
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: RTR0411H / RTR0411S
Drawing Number: RT01 / RT02

Company Name: Wheels America Racing / Murillo Racing
Phone Number: 707.280.6783
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: WAR1020
Drawing Number: WA01

Matt93SE
11-08-2010, 10:41 PM
In fairness to the CRB the wing change was put out for member input in the August fastrack although I admit it was part of a very large rewrite. There was certainly plenty of time for member input.

In fairness to the competitor, this comment was brought up and submitted to the CRB (by me) on 8-10. It was 'tabled' by the STAC on 8-25, then reviewed by STAC and referred back to the CRB on 9-10. It was finally reviewed by the CRB on 11-3.

So the comments were made months ago. the rules were 'reviewed' and set in stone before the letter was completely processed.

Z3_GoCar
11-08-2010, 11:24 PM
You might want to consider how other organizations handle rear wings. This is from BMW club's prepared class:


3. Spoilers and wings are free providing they do not exceed maximum
body width, are no higher than the roofline and do not extend more
than two inches past the farthest part of the rear bumper as viewed
from above the car.
a. Vehicles with a roofline that extends to the rear for the full
extent of the body may have these devices extend no more
than three inches above the roofline.

Lots of options there.

anthony1k
11-09-2010, 06:48 AM
Yeah, the custom-made Dauntless wings are $2500-3000; the easily-available off-the-shelf APR wing that has a max chord of 8.75" - one quarter of an inch more than the current-current STL spec - is $625, including brackets.

Let's not dig our heels in there and be stupid about this...there's a lot of "things getting missed" here that should be open to consideration.

GA

I agree. This is amature racing afterall. Cost is a factor and must be considered when decisions are made. The goal should be to help the class grow, not kill it before it was even born.

Stan
11-10-2010, 05:20 PM
Yeah, the custom-made Dauntless wings are $2500-3000; the easily-available off-the-shelf APR wing that has a max chord of 8.75" - one quarter of an inch more than the current-current STL spec - is $625, including brackets.

Our custom wings in that price range include spans up to 78", are dual element (IOW...with an adjustable flap), end plates that match up to the rear bodywork, and a carbon rear crush box if needed. Our STU/STL single-plane, constant-profile 8.5" all-carbon wing with mount tabs to your specification is $795.