PDA

View Full Version : STL engine builds?



Pages : [1] 2

coreyehcx
11-11-2011, 12:11 PM
I was curious if anyone has completed an actual STL vehicle specifically built for the class?

I'm finishing up my own and I'm curious to see what type of power some of these engines will be making. I hope to dyno mine at some point in the next few months (b18b/civic) ans was looking for something to compare to.

Thanks

Greg Amy
11-11-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't think there's any 10/10ths builds out there yet. But when/if STL goes National the floodgates will open!

I think our target (I'll have to check) for whp/wt is right around 12, so if you're around there you're in the ballpark (and don't hold me to that number as a hard fact). Generally speaking, the larger-displacement cars will not be able to take advantage of the cam lift and compression ratio rules as much as the smaller ones can, so that should help a lot. - GA

TStiles
11-11-2011, 01:04 PM
Here's some insight in regard to where the miata guys think they will come in :

http://mazdaracers.com/topic/201-miata-stl-builds/

Mrsideways
11-11-2011, 01:06 PM
The car I want to build on paper says about 200-210whp and 2340lbs mid engine. But I have a STU car so it's just bench racing.

coreyehcx
11-11-2011, 02:34 PM
Thanks Greg,

I'm not holding you to anything because I know its changing all the time.

By my calculations which could be wrong, would put me at ~195 whp which would seem to be pretty difficult within the rules for my specific motor(my choice to use it I know).

2340/195 = 1 HP to 12 LBs

I have seen a lot of non VTEC 1.8 B18 motor dynos and build outs and that seems like a difficult number to hit with a 10/10ths build.

I'm assuming my current build is probably around a 160ish whp. I guess 190 is possible and I wont know until I dyno my own build which is probably a 6 or 7/10ths build.


Thanks guys for the additional posts I just saw. I'm just trying to see where people might be at to see if I need to go the distance on the few things I skimped out on. I'm new to club racing and look forward to it all in 2012.

The things I didn't have done were gasket matching, overbore, blueprint and balance, and left a little on the table in terms of lift @ .423, .413.

This is a dynojet from an almost identical build as mine except I have a better header, compression ratio is 9.2:1 and mine should be right at 11.0:1 limit.

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1592/b18bbcdyno.gif


I'm just looking for help/knowledge, I'm not trying to start a debate or an argument about engine allowances or anything.

Thanks again.

Greg Amy
11-11-2011, 02:53 PM
What B18 engine are you building? Maybe the Integra B18A1/A2 from the Integra? That dyno chart shows "B18A", which is a Japan-only engine, not really related to the US-market B18s...The Integra B18s are reportedly hitting high 130s whp in IT trim, and that's before the cams and compression allowed in ST...they've left almost another point-and-a-half compression, and a good bit of lift and duration, on the table.

I'm running the B18C1 (Integra GSR engine) and I'm hoping to hit that 195hp number; any twin-cam head should get pretty close.

coreyehcx
11-11-2011, 03:12 PM
B18B1, I tested it for the first time at Roebling this past weekend so its finished for the most part. I'm assuming that's what they tested (B18A1) and if not the differences between motors are .2 in compression between USDM/JDM. Those motors are identical outside of that so they are related just like a JDM B18C-non R and a USDM B18C1.

I need to try to find these IT B18A/B1 specs to see how they are making the power and go from there. I looked at the Ruck ITA integra end it says 150 hp I just dont want to assume whp.

Going from 130ish to 195 is a pretty big jump from cams and a point and a half of compression. I can see it happening with a ported head on the B18B1 since the airflow for that head is pretty dismal.

I wouldn't imagine you plan on discussing how you plan to hit those numbers with the B18C1? :)

Greg Amy
11-11-2011, 03:42 PM
Ah, but head porting is not allowed in ST Light...

The B18C1 is reportedly making 175-ish whp in ITS trim, and it has another half-point of compression and some cam tuning to go (but not much in the intake lift; that's already at .423"). The nice thing about when we ran that engine in ITS was that I noticed the thing would pull all the way up to redline, and feel like it wanted to go more. So we'll throw valve springs and retainers to take advantage of that, do the overbore, add some compression, do some cam tuning on duration (and add lift on the exhaust), use adjustable cam gears, windage the bottom end, and stick the intake some place where it's very, very cool...tune the Hondata to sweeten the pot and couple it to Type R gears and a numerically-high final drive I think we can get there.

All it takes is time and money, right...?

GA

coreyehcx
11-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Definitely, time and money in the development is probably where a decent amount of power is hiding. I made very good power with a B18C1 I built just as a track day vehicle.

I see that motor (B18C1) being able to get there, I'm just having doubts on my selection after seeing these numbers for whp/wt.

I know there are some extra little things I can do here and there outside of oversized pistons etc. I guess if I cant get it close, I could always use most parts and swap them over to the VTEC motor that fit.

I'm really over thinking this, I could have a 10/10ths build and not be competitive due to my own abilities lol.


Thanks for this, pretty good thread.

Here's some insight in regard to where the miata guys think they will come in :

http://mazdaracers.com/topic/201-miata-stl-builds/

shwah
11-11-2011, 04:20 PM
I'm running the B18C1 (Integra GSR engine) and I'm hoping to hit that 195hp number; any twin-cam head should get pretty close.

No VW group motor will. Not without porting, or allowing non US market NA 20v motors.

Chip42
11-12-2011, 01:14 AM
"L/LU" suffix (mid 80's to early/mid 90's era) toyotas won't either. but the non USDM ship has sailed, apparently.

Corey, we've talked offline, but I think there's a lot of small change you can pull together on that B18B, and if you decide to go balls out on it that small stuff would add up to a pretty good gain. likely not as much as a good header over a crap one, but gains. and there's the real consideration that most "known gains" are from all out drag / drift type unrestricted builds or some kid with a new cam, a blowmolded case of sockets and a camera who swears up and down that he's only seeing 3hp, yo. either way, the formulae we deal with in IT and ST are restrictive in ways that traditional engine builder logic is still seemingly oblivious to. doesn't make the knowledge wrong, but it doesn't make it right, either.

your car runs well, and there's a lot left in the package - from the loose nut to the tires. develop that and build in iterations.

coreyehcx
11-12-2011, 03:01 AM
I need to go get it dynoed and go from there.

The motor feels good, maybe it makes more power than my estimate.

I have a few small cheap items I can do to generate some additional power too on top of what we discussed.

Rabbit07
11-12-2011, 05:33 PM
I wanted so badly to get Non-USDM Engines in ST, but the CRB would not have it. Actually I think that everyone on the STAC wanted Non-USDM engines. We'll keep trying, but I worry that we need a huge change of the guard on that one.

Happy Racing

coreyehcx
11-12-2011, 08:33 PM
In my case by using a jdm head increases airflow by about 29 cfm putting it just a little behind a B16 head.

lateapex911
12-12-2011, 02:08 PM
I keep thinking about STL, and the relatively small number of car/engine combinations that could yield really competitive fruit. Seems everything I think of (other than the known core cars like the CRX, Integra, etc) has a "gotcha".
I'm not a Prod guy...I still have a distrust of the 'system' and the abuses it's shown over the years, and the all the whining of the Prod guys over their world and crap has soured me. So that's not a National racing path for many.
ST is objective, and that's similar to IT, which I helped get rolling in that direction. It's new, fresh thinking (well, in a National category), and has an approachable (sort of!) ruleset.

But finding a RWD car that could be competitive, even as a thought experiment, has proved impossible.
My latest "Hmmmm, I wonder?" idea:

The new Subaru or Toyota BRZ/ FRS thing. 2.0 litres, 170-ish hp stock, RWD, and it looks like a good basic platform.

OK, the $$ aspect is nuts, but assuming wrecks become available in a year or so (or less, LOL), what could that engine make? Are my calcs right that it would currently weigh 2665?
I KNOW theres some "gotcha" that will make this car unacceptable, LOL. What am I missing/

Ron Earp
12-12-2011, 02:32 PM
I
OK, the $$ aspect is nuts, but assuming wrecks become available in a year or so (or less, LOL), what could that engine make? Are my calcs right that it would currently weigh 2665?
I KNOW theres some "gotcha" that will make this car unacceptable, LOL. What am I missing/

Seems heavy compared to the uber-Hondas.

Why does the RX7 weigh the same as it does in ITS trim, 2680 lbs? That seems mighty heavy for a 180 rwhp car with a horsepower curve resembling more of a spike than a curve.

Greg Amy
12-12-2011, 02:36 PM
Seems heavy compared to the uber-Hondas.
Same exact weight as any other allowed 2L RWD Honda... ;)


Why does the RX7 weigh the same as it does in ITS trim, 2680 lbs?
Intentional, to keep STL from poaching away ITS drivers. It was a double-dipper "gimme", not an intended performance evaluation.

GA

lateapex911
12-12-2011, 03:10 PM
Same exact weight as any other allowed 2L RWD Honda... ;)


Intentional, to keep STL from poaching away ITS drivers. It was a double-dipper "gimme", not an intended performance evaluation.

GA

So, are you inferring that the Toyobaru won't be allowed???

Greg Amy
12-12-2011, 03:14 PM
So, are you [implying] that the Toyobaru won't be allowed???
I cannot imagine how you inferred that. Methinks you're degrading to the "black helicopter" side...

TomL
12-12-2011, 09:36 PM
Intentional, to keep STL from poaching away ITS drivers. It was a double-dipper "gimme", not an intended performance evaluation.

GA
Huh?? As Ron noted above (and has been noted many times previously), setting the RX7 weights at their IT level makes little sense given the STL philosophy - basically "IT-with-engine-mods". All the non-rotaries get more horsepower from cams and compression and many of them get weight reductions, while the rotaries get -- absolutely nothing. Based on your 12lb/whp baseline, the ITS RX7 ought to come in at maybe 2160 and the ITA RX7 at around 1560 (!!). Plus RWD adder, of course. So the rotaries are at an absurdly high weight if the stated philosophy were being followed. (2680 vs 2225 for 13b and 2280 vs 1600 for 12a.)

But of course it isn't. But the "keep STL from poaching ITS" rationale is laughable. Considering practically every STL eligible car is an ITS (or A or B), why is it necessary to give RX7s such "special" consideration? Is any one worried about poaching Miatas (or CRXs or Integras) from ITS or ITA? It seems the real reason is that, for whatever reason, some people don't want rotaries in their class (except as IT level field-fillers). If that's so, why not just be honest and allow them in as IT cars along with the SMs and be done with it, instead of pretending they are being admitted to the class on the same basis as other cars?

Or am I supposed to be thankful that the request to increase the weight of the rotaries got turned down? :)

Andy Bettencourt
12-12-2011, 09:59 PM
So Tom, we have to realize (even though I am not sure where it's printed) that this is a piston-based class. The rotories were allowed in to fill fields and give racers a place to try a National class (even though STU already allowed that). They were weighted intentionally high so as not to become competitive. We have to accept that is the direction of the class and not try and force the rules to 'make sense' - meaning they are in there on a peripheral basis so we have to keep that in mind.

The larger fear is that if you set the weight properly (at the 1.8 weight) for the 13B, it will find it's way into a Miata and dominate. Remember, conceptually, this is a FWD piston-based engine swap class with parameters to allow other platforms with penalties.

Greg Amy
12-12-2011, 10:45 PM
All the non-rotaries get more horsepower from cams and compression and many of them get weight reductions, while the rotaries get -- absolutely nothing.
You're mistaken, Tom. The 12A and 13B get to "Street Port" (same exact mods as in E Prod), at which point they're fully compliant to run in STU. If you want to weight less and more mods, we very much encourage the 12A and 13B to come play in STU.

Modified rotaries have pretty much zero chance of playing in STL at either a lesser weight or with mods (please read my signature below). If you still think that's laughable, feel free to make a request to the CRB that they strike the rotaries entirely from the STL allowances (you wouldn't be the first.)

GA

TomL
12-12-2011, 10:46 PM
OK, I'd never seen that stated as a criterion, but if it is why wasn't that stated up front. The assigned weight makes it clear that it was intended that rotaries were not to be competitive (as I was complaining about, obviously). But my question is, "why shouldn't the rotaries be classed on a competitive basis?" Or put another way, if someone puts a 13b into a Miata (classed at the same lb/hp as any piston engine) and wins, what is the problem? Or is this the same problem that there was with putting Mustangs and Camaros in IT - there's no rational basis, it just "doesn't look right"?

TomL
12-12-2011, 11:16 PM
Greg, obviously the rotaries can play in STU, but with the rules as written, the cost of building a proper STU car is substantial (dare I say ridiculous?), since you get totally redesign the suspension, do major body mods, etc., in addition to developing the engine.

I'd be interested in running STL with an upgraded engine in an IT-level chassis, just like anyone else gets to do. No major expense beyond the engine upgrades, and I can be reasonably competitive. (Yes, I know that engine development is expensive if I want to win Nationals, but I can get 90-95% of the way there for not much money). I could understand keeping rotaries out if they would produce significantly more HP than a 2 liter piston engine, but that isn't the case - a street port 13b shouldn't make much if any more than a good 2.0 liter. If that's the case, I ask again, what reason is there for not assigning the rotaries a weight that is the same as for a piston engine of the same power? Or is in fact there no reason beyond, "it doesn't look right". (or "this is a piston engine class", even if we never said so)

Andy Bettencourt
12-12-2011, 11:16 PM
OK, I'd never seen that stated as a criterion, but if it is why wasn't that stated up front. The assigned weight makes it clear that it was intended that rotaries were not to be competitive (as I was complaining about, obviously). But my question is, "why shouldn't the rotaries be classed on a competitive basis?" Or put another way, if someone puts a 13b into a Miata (classed at the same lb/hp as any piston engine) and wins, what is the problem? Or is this the same problem that there was with putting Mustangs and Camaros in IT - there's no rational basis, it just "doesn't look right"?

Well some of us have been preaching that if this class is to succeed, it needs far more diversity. The IT (internally unmodified) 13B in well-tuned preparation will churn out 180whp. That is WELL within the 1.8L weight and HP targets. Why they won't allow it? No real good answer has been forthcoming and frankly I can't think of one.

Look at STL like this and you'll be a lot happier: It's NASA Honda Challenge by SCCA with some provisions for other cars to compete in a peripheral fashion. :) Seriously, it's a piston-based swap class conceived for FWD, and compensated for RWD.

Rabbit07
12-12-2011, 11:31 PM
I am not trying to contradict Greg here, but the way I remember the 13b getting classed was this. A couple of STAC committee members have personally seen 13b RX7s making around 181 whp. Our bogey in STL is 100hp per liter. A 2.0 liter with 200 crank should be around 170-180whp. The 13b was set at the 2.0l weight plus the RWD adder. Anyone that feels this weight is in appropriate please send some data and a letter and we will look at it. I actually think that either an RX7 or Miata with a 13b in STL will be competitive.

TomL
12-12-2011, 11:35 PM
Thanks Andy. And I'll take your advice and just forget the whole thing.

If I may ask, is this coming from the CRB (or BOD) or from the STAC?

Ron Earp
12-13-2011, 12:11 AM
Well some of us have been preaching that if this class is to succeed, it needs far more diversity. The IT (internally unmodified) 13B in well-tuned preparation will churn out 180whp. That is WELL within the 1.8L weight and HP targets. Why they won't allow it? No real good answer has been forthcoming and frankly I can't think of one.

I too think it needs diversity. I think there was great opportunity to have a multi-marquee class with higher than IT-prep sans the crazy Prod crap. But various rules such as the displacement cap and no model for various engine architectures, coupled with the age limits and the SCCA's obsession with over/under classes and a seemingly chassis/engine bias mean the class is predominantly a import FWD fest.


Look at STL like this and you'll be a lot happier: It's NASA Honda Challenge by SCCA with some provisions for other cars to compete in a peripheral fashion. :) Seriously, it's a piston-based swap class conceived for FWD, and compensated for RWD.

Thank you. I now understand.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Thanks Andy. And I'll take your advice and just forget the whole thing.

If I may ask, is this coming from the CRB (or BOD) or from the STAC?

It's coming from me. Just read the threads on this board and others and form your own opinion. I have NOTHING to do with this class if you thought I did.

Chris: 181whp is pretty damn close to your 100hp/L target at the 1.8L weight. Why assign it the 2.0L weight? (forgetting for a second that somewhere it is written this is a piston-based class). Besides, IT-built 1.8L GSR Teg motors are already at that target - BEFORE additional STL prep allowances. The HondAcura powerplant clearly exceeds the target yet the 13B is saddled into no-mans land.

Wait, are the class targets based on WHP or crank HP? Has to be WHP or else the Teg is around 120hp/liter at the crank assuming 185whp on the light side.

Rabbit07
12-13-2011, 12:20 AM
The numbers are Crank.

On the Honda's remember the cam lift limits. The GSR is close even stock and the K20 is over the Limit. This was intentional.

It is impossible to see every possible combination that could come out of this. What really ticks me off is all the negitive talk about how it's a Honda class, and it's a FWD class. I am seriously looking at building a 99 Miata for STL. I see no reason why this car couldn't run with Greg's GSR. I still think a DOHC Neon can make the power needed to compete. I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

R2 Racing
12-13-2011, 01:07 AM
By my calculations which could be wrong, would put me at ~195 whp which would seem to be pretty difficult within the rules for my specific motor(my choice to use it I know).

2340/195 = 1 HP to 12 LBs

I have seen a lot of non VTEC 1.8 B18 motor dynos and build outs and that seems like a difficult number to hit with a 10/10ths build.


The Integra B18s are reportedly hitting high 130s whp in IT trim, and that's before the cams and compression allowed in ST...they've left almost another point-and-a-half compression, and a good bit of lift and duration, on the table.


I need to try to find these IT B18A/B1 specs to see how they are making the power and go from there. I looked at the Ruck ITA integra end it says 150 hp I just dont want to assume whp.
Why don't you guys just ask? :023: 150whp for an ITA Integra (B18A1/B1) has kinda been "the norm number" for years. "High 130s whp" would be dog meat at their 2600lb weights.

I have no idea what the B18A1/B1 is allowed to do in STL, but my FP B18A1 most certainly doesn't make 195whp. That's a 11.5:1 compression and .450 valve lift build, with a stand-alone ECU, IT port matching and intake manifold rules, pimpy exhaust, cold air intake, .040" overbore, balance, blahblahblah. I have started on a brand new FP B18A1 build for 2012, which I do expect to be better than my current one, but still ain't gonna be 195whp! I'd bet that's possible with the B18C1, but that engine also isn't going to make near the torque of the B18A1/B1. That'll be your tradeoff. I'd expect about a 15-20whp difference between the two, but probably a 15-20wtq swing too, but in the opposite direction.

Z3_GoCar
12-13-2011, 01:30 AM
I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

A well executed e46 should get close to 2340lbs with composite hood and trunk allowances and reduced wire harness. I know for a fact that the M42 swap would not be difficult to perform in a race car, heck the same transmission was used in the 325 version.

lateapex911
12-13-2011, 01:34 AM
Chris, I'm either hopeful or skeptical, LOL.

To ME, it's a specific power class. if you can make a lot of power for the displacement, you have a good start. Adda decent chassis, and you can compete.

Since cams are limited, (equalized across all manufacturers) and displacement (vis a vis weight) and compression are limited (and equalized, essentially), and exhausts are free, (therefore equalized) it comes down to the head flow and intake.

So, knowing that, what ARE the potential candidates?
My list:
Various Hondas (I can't keep the numbers straight). But the 1.8 in the Teg and the CRX motor seem to be 'breathers' that can hit the targets.
Mazda?? Can a 1.6 make 160? or the 1.8 make 180???
Toyota? Hmmmm, not familiar with any that have any real hope, but maybe I missed one.
BMW. You say an M42. (whats that?)
Nissan?
Dodge: You say a Neon motor? 2.0L? Is that the 150Hp stock one?
Then Subarus new 2.0 170hp flat four maybe?

So the short list in my mind: (with your suggestions: Hondas, Dodge 2.0, BMW M42, Mazda, and Subaru.

For chassis, I guess it's a Miata, Neon, CRX, Integra, Civic, and maybe the new Toyobaru BRZ/FRS?

What else?

Non starters:
Rotaries: here's the conflict I see. The 13B in ITS form runs with the Teg in ITS form, making 180WHP max. But in STL the Teg gets more allowances. So, if the second gen 13B weight is correct in STL, then are you (the STAC saying that you expect STL to be about ITS speed? (and obviously, we could deduce you all think the Tegs classification in ITS is too heavy)
I'm trying to get creative and think of others. Alfas? Hmmm, some interesting choices, but I THINK they are all too old. Porsche? All the 911s are too big displacement. All the others are too old except for the 924, with it's 2.0L but, that will never make the power.

So, what else is there guys?

And:
What do we expect to see at the wheels for:
The CRX engine?
The Teg engine?*
The Miata engine?**
The neon engine?
The BMW M42?

*Edit: Thanks Kevin. Your build (LP Prod) sounds close to STL. And you're saying you make between 150 and 195. But not 150 and certainly not 195. ;) **And for giggles, ISC says an ITA Miata will make "around 135" at teh wheels in ITA trim. So, thats about 165 crank. Is that fair? If so, will it gain 15 in STL build?

Z3_GoCar
12-13-2011, 02:18 AM
M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/metric-mechanic-m42-and-m44-engine-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.

lateapex911
12-13-2011, 03:09 AM
M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/metric-mechanic-m42-and-m44-engine-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.
Hmmm, well, the 170 is for a 2.0L motor. And, there's a LOT in there that won't fly. As you say, the heads ported (6% better flow according to them), they're using non stock rods, pistons, valves, valve springs and more.

So, if thats the best I think it's an uphill battle at 2665lbs.... compared to a CRX at say 600 pounds less,

Greg Amy
12-13-2011, 08:11 AM
To ME, it's a specific power class.
That's not an opinion, Jake, it's an overt, effectively-written-to-the-regs fact. It's intentional, and you'd have to be blind to not see it.

- The whole category is engine-centric (go read the STO rules, see where it compensates weight for chassis.)
- Weight is based solely on displacement.
- There is no attempt, nor even an implied attempt, to make various engines equally competitive.
- Ergo, the engine with the highest power-to-displacement ("specific horsepower") will have the advantage. Some will win, many will lose.

That is the CORE of Super Touring. No ifs, ands, or butts.

The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)? Shocked, I am. And there's no allowance for design of head/cams. So which engine you gonna pick? Does the Miata 1,8L makes higher specific horsepower than the Mazda 1,6L? So, which one you gonna pick?

What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Andy's "sarcasm strategy" to see if he can change our mind about what the class is all about, is, ironically, spot-on. If you read what the rules say, and not what you want them to say, you'll see that, in effect, he's pretty much spot-on. There's not even an attempt to hide the fact that this is a small-displacement class that will tend to cater to higher-specific-horsepower engines. And it's no coincidence that most of the available chassis are FWD simply because that's what kind of platforms you'll find these engines over the last 20 years. In that regard, it's a pretty unique class in SCCA. If you prefer bigger displacements and RWD, STU is a great class for that. If you're just a big fan of Big Bore, STO beckons (and could really use the entries.)

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Oh, by the way, read my signature.

GA

P.S., Jake, the rotary engine is dead. Done, toast. It's so toasted that some Guatemalans are making a trek up here to visit your garage and do the rosary over the various shapes in the dirt on the housings. I can understand your frustration, though; some guys were asking how come we don't classify the steam engine, but we responded with "thank you for your input..."

P.P.S., By the way, that was a joke.

P.P.P.S., Read my signature.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 09:07 AM
Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B. It may be 'dead' but no more dead than anything else that is out of production. It's a non-starter. It's a PERFECT fit for the 1.8 weight.

Chris - help me understand the targets. If the math is supposed to be 100hp/L at the crank, I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing. The Honda 1.8 VTEC's blow that number out of the water...Hit me with some examples of engines that actually hit the target please.

1.8VTEC: 185-190 whp. That's about 220 crank. That's 122hp per liter.
1.6VTEC: 160-165 whp. That's about 190 crank. That's 118hp per liter.

Or are we using stock numbers as a basis? That would be much closer. 160 for the 1.6, 170 for the 1.8....but that totally leaves everything else WAY down.

Help me understand. It's cold, my brain not worky.

Greg Amy
12-13-2011, 09:15 AM
Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B.
In my opinion:
- Super Touring is a class that allows some engine modifications.
- The "some engine modifications" for rotaries is SCCA's "Street Port"*
- In "Street Port" configuration, the rotary engine is a Super Touring Under engine.

The rotary engine does not fit within the philosophy of Super Touring Light, regardless of whatever way you twist the numbers. STL is a sub-2-liter, piston engine class.

If you want to run the rotary, do it in STU or EProd.

GA

* SCCA Techical Services has a PDF that you can request that details what is involved in "Street Port". Basically, they limit how big you can port it.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 09:30 AM
What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

I think the problem here Greg is that to the outsider, it's NOT a 'set class', meaning that it's a great engine-swap concept. What are the cool combinations? What is possible? How can I be fast and different? It's weight by displacement and anything goes within that displacement (with cam limits for a family). Nobody is asking for a 3.0 in STL, nobody is asking for anything that isn't very reasonable here. The concept that has been told to us, 'piston-based', is well known, but nobody sees any reason to not allow that motor in any other chassis than an RX-7 at an artificially high weight. It makes no sense, especially when it's a new class and it would open up so many more choices.


The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Sort of. The whole FD RX-7 issue is scary. There is no wording and parameters around what chassis' are 'too good' and what are not. Arbitrary at best. Again, more closed doors.


Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.

IMHO the order you have it in is a recipe for failure. People build and choose classes around cars, not motors (unless we are talking GT1 or something). Allowing modern engines in popular chassis - regardless of age - is the way to make this class sing.

The concept is so intriguing that it is generating this kind of thought, and it's a good thing. But the comments that are coming in are ones of potential competitors facing walls that nobody can see real reasons for them to be there.

Having been on many committees, I am sure a lot of this grey would be easily explained over a beer or 4 but it's not coming through yet here IMHO.

Z3_GoCar
12-13-2011, 10:54 AM
Here's what I don't get, why ban the Honda F20 in STHonda (whoopse I mean STL)? If everything that's not a Honda is already not compettive; why make it appear that it may possibly have a chance? Just rename it ST Honda and Let Pete Cunningham have it all.

Ron Earp
12-13-2011, 10:56 AM
Okay, so rotarties are not invited, period. I think that is a strategic mistake but it is stated STL is a sub-2L piston engine class.

But why let the ITS RX7 run at its ITS weight? Somewhere it was written the intent was to prevent poaching of ITS entries. That seems a bit counter-intuitive as the best way to prevent poaching ITS entries is to simply not allow the car to run in the class at all. Indeed, it is clear that class isn't receptive to rotary engines. Was the allowance made to bolster STL entries and get the class off the ground? Seems like a logical path to start a fledgling class although it could have an impact on existing classes.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 11:16 AM
Okay, so rotarties are not invited, period. I think that is a strategic mistake but it is stated STL is a sub-2L piston engine class.

But why let the ITS RX7 run at its ITS weight? Somewhere it was written the intent was to prevent poaching of ITS entries. That seems a bit counter-intuitive as the best way to prevent poaching ITS entries is to simply not allow the car to run in the class at all. Indeed, it is clear that class isn't receptive to rotary engines. Was the allowance made to bolster STL entries and get the class off the ground? Seems like a logical path to start a fledgling class although it could have an impact on existing classes.

Of course it was Ron. Double dippers artificially raise entry numbers promoting National status. What we have to understand is that currently, it was an 'allowance', not intended to be competitive.

I don't get the 'poaching' thing either. I actually call BS. If the rules are better than IT and draw some people from another class, all you have done is created a better mouse-trap for that racer. What is that bad? Finally a National class that has very similar chassis prep rules to IT...it could be so big.

Ron Earp
12-13-2011, 12:10 PM
Finally a National class that has very similar chassis prep rules to IT...it could be so big.

If the SCCA would remove its head from its ass over the "National" and "Regional" distinction of classifications, allowing some of these legacy poorly subscribed classes to die, then we'd all be better for it.



I don't get the 'poaching' thing either.

Poaching or class bolstering, depends on what side of the fence you are on.

Matt93SE
12-13-2011, 12:15 PM
Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.


New class, new philosophy. Try something different for a change! you might just find out you like it! :D
If you get mad at SCCA, you can always go play in Performance Touring.

Chip42
12-13-2011, 12:34 PM
The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)?
all B engines are DOHC. the B18B1 is non VTEC with OK breathing. the C1 is VTEC with long ports and good torque (P72 head) the B16/17/18C5 have a very good flowing head (P30/PR3) and VTEC, the B18C5 has hand polished ports IIRC. There are also very good flowing non-USDM non VTEC heads, as Corey has mentioned. major geometry differences between 16/17/18 are in the stroke and RSR, while the 20 does increase the bore and has a number of block differences.

best intake is the B16A2/3 and 17, and B18C5.

the B20 is a "truck" motor for the most part and sometimes has crap vtec more like that in the conomy civics. this is why B18 head on B20 block setups are popular.

also, FWIW, there are 8, 12, and 16 valve versions of the D series, with VTEC only on the intake side of some 16 valve setups. all are SOHC except the D16A1 (1st gen 'teg) which is non VTEC. most of the VTEC setups in the D series are tuned for efficiency, the good ones are the Z6 (92-95 Si/EX) and the Y8 (96-00 EX), the Z6 having the better head. the best head in the bunch is probobly the D16A6 from the 88-91 CRX Si and 90-91 Civic EX and Si. Best intake is the Y8.

FWIW I think the MZR-LF 2.0L mazda motor stands a chance, but any platform it goes in will obviously be heavy. the 2ZZ-GE Yamaha/Toyota (Celica GTS, lotus Elise) should be strong, too. maybe a nissan SR-20DE. maybe.

pretty much nothing else has a chance in L, yet.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 01:10 PM
New class, new philosophy. Try something different for a change! you might just find out you like it! :D
If you get mad at SCCA, you can always go play in Performance Touring.

It doesn't work like that Matt. I either pick a class I like, then look for a car (like ITR) or I pick a car I like and look for a class. I don't pick an engine, then car. And I submit that in IT and NASA PT, it's very similar. Who are we trying to attract with a 'business' model like this? Guys who love their engines?

The sheer amount of motors that could provide the appropriate power to weight right now is VERY limited...and so will the class. I just don't see any way around it. Even if the Miata can make the HP one guy predicts, it's a two dog hunt. Profit? I think not.

Still want to understand the crank vs WHP target numbers. I don't get it.

Andy Bettencourt
12-13-2011, 01:12 PM
FWIW I think the MZR-LF 2.0L mazda motor stands a chance, but any platform it goes in will obviously be heavy. the 2ZZ-GE Yamaha/Toyota (Celica GTS, lotus Elise) should be strong, too. maybe a nissan SR-20DE. maybe.

pretty much nothing else has a chance in L, yet.

That 2.0L MZ I am willing to bet you is cammed beyond spec in order to make 205whp in Grand Am trim...AND it's a grenade. I can get the cam specs we are running now from Sunbelt. That GTS motor is legal? Thought it wasn't.

lateapex911
12-13-2011, 01:40 PM
It doesn't work like that Matt. I either pick a class I like, then look for a car (like ITR) or I pick a car I like and look for a class. I don't pick an engine, then car. And I submit that in IT and NASA PT, it's very similar. Who are we trying to attract with a 'business' model like this? Guys who love their engines?

The sheer amount of motors that could provide the appropriate power to weight right now is VERY limited...and so will the class. I just don't see any way around it. Even if the Miata can make the HP one guy predicts, it's a two dog hunt. Profit? I think not.

Still want to understand the crank vs WHP target numbers. I don't get it.

Well, Andy, the class will only be limited if the guys running want to be competitive. As a national class, yes, it's more likely that you'll get guys who want to win.
Now, who knows, it might attract guys who love engine swaps for the sake of doing it, and are less concerned about their competitive level. But I know what it costs to go racing, and I personally don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight. Been there, done that.

Greg, I GET the way it works. I'm saying that to MY eye, that's the way the class works. To OTHERS, it might be a fun swap class. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.
So, to me, the Specific output is the crux...... if you want to be competitive, assuming the class has entries to compete with. Given that, I'm trying to develop a list of candidates. I'm trying to educate myself. Simple as that.
I GET that the STAC doesn't want rotaries in STL if they could be competitive. I GET that. I didn't say a peep about it on my last post.

I'm just trying to figure out what you guys on the STAC have in mind. What you're expecting. The vision. What you expect to 'see' in a year or two. What cars, what power levels, how many, etc.

JS154
12-13-2011, 04:44 PM
So, knowing that, what ARE the potential candidates?
My list:
Various Hondas (I can't keep the numbers straight). But the 1.8 in the Teg and the CRX motor seem to be 'breathers' that can hit the targets.
Mazda?? Can a 1.6 make 160? or the 1.8 make 180???
Toyota? Hmmmm, not familiar with any that have any real hope, but maybe I missed one.
BMW. You say an M42. (whats that?)
Nissan?
Dodge: You say a Neon motor? 2.0L? Is that the 150Hp stock one?
Then Subarus new 2.0 170hp flat four maybe?

So the short list in my mind: (with your suggestions: Hondas, Dodge 2.0, BMW M42, Mazda, and Subaru.

For chassis, I guess it's a Miata, Neon, CRX, Integra, Civic, and maybe the new Toyobaru BRZ/FRS?

So, what else is there guys?

And:
What do we expect to see at the wheels for:
The CRX engine?
The Teg engine?*
The Miata engine?**
The neon engine?
The BMW M42?



B16A2 has good power and a lower race weight.
--

BMW M42 won;t have the output to weight to compete with the Honda engines. It would be cool to drop one into an E30 M3 Chassis.

SVT Focus could be a player.

Isuzu/Geo Storm possibly

maybe an early mr2

all are going to have a hard time against the hondacuras and mazdas

perhaps limit max rpm for the class?

lateapex911
12-13-2011, 04:54 PM
B16A2 has good power and a lower race weight.
--

BMW M42 won;t have the output to weight to compete with the Honda engines. It would be cool to drop one into an E30 M3 Chassis.

SVT Focus could be a player.

Isuzu/Geo Storm possibly

maybe an early mr2

all are going to have a hard time against the hondacuras and mazdas

perhaps limit max rpm for the class?
"Good power" is what??
An E30 M42 would be an expensive way to be non competitive! LOL
Early Mr2 would weigh about 2125. Not sure if it could get that low. But, even if it could the AW11 guys will tell you, I think, that there's no way that car can make 160Hp. IT versions struggle to hit 110....

StephenB
12-13-2011, 06:20 PM
can any model Mazda RX? run a piston engine such as a miata engine and run in stl?

Stephen

JS154
12-13-2011, 06:38 PM
"Good power" is what??
An E30 M42 would be an expensive way to be non competitive! LOL
Early Mr2 would weigh about 2125. Not sure if it could get that low. But, even if it could the AW11 guys will tell you, I think, that there's no way that car can make 160Hp. IT versions struggle to hit 110....

yeah too bad non-USDM engines such as the 2.0L S42, the 2.0L S14 or the 2.0LN45 or the 2.0L P45 (all B20 versions) are not allowed, that would be cool, as would allowing some of the cool JDM engines that are out there. But it is what it is.

Chip42
12-13-2011, 07:12 PM
That 2.0L MZ I am willing to bet you is cammed beyond spec in order to make 205whp in Grand Am trim...AND it's a grenade. I can get the cam specs we are running now from Sunbelt. That GTS motor is legal? Thought it wasn't.

it isn't specifically illegal, but it does need to have some lift chopped out of it to be legal. I figured the MZR-LF was the least grenadeish of the family, what with the goog RSR and shortish stroke. my thinking was re: the heads being pretty modern and good, though I don't have hands on with them.


Early Mr2 would weigh about 2125. Not sure if it could get that low. But, even if it could the AW11 guys will tell you, I think, that there's no way that car can make 160Hp. IT versions struggle to hit 110....

a cam and compression would help us a LOT!!! but you wont get the output of a B16 and really can't make the weight, like you say. 2ZZ (1.8L) or 3SGE (2.0L) swaps would do, and the mills both have the architecture to work well. kits and/or know how exist for the swaps, too. the 2L would be a heavy pig though and the USDM versions wont make the grade. the JDM version from the 1997-ish MR2 G-Limited (NA) is where it's at but...

either way, despite my love of the car, the AW11 MR2 isn't the caliber of chassis you need in thsi class (and barely so for IT!)

coreyehcx
12-13-2011, 10:54 PM
Has anyone completed a true engine build yet?

Greg, how is your setup coming along?

Ruck, thanks for the input. I think I can get to an acceptable whp level even if its not 195.


I should be completed and headed to the dyno soon.

lateapex911
12-13-2011, 10:58 PM
it isn't specifically illegal, but it does need to have some lift chopped out of it to be legal. I figured the MZR-LF was the least grenadeish of the family, what with the goog RSR and shortish stroke. my thinking was re: the heads being pretty modern and good, though I don't have hands on with them.



a cam and compression would help us a LOT!!! but you wont get the output of a B16 and really can't make the weight, like you say. 2ZZ (1.8L) or 3SGE (2.0L) swaps would do, and the mills both have the architecture to work well. kits and/or know how exist for the swaps, too. the 2L would be a heavy pig though and the USDM versions wont make the grade. the JDM version from the 1997-ish MR2 G-Limited (NA) is where it's at but...

either way, despite my love of the car, the AW11 MR2 isn't the caliber of chassis you need in thsi class (and barely so for IT!)

Chip I understood the head and intake to be issues on the first gen MR2 motor (AW11), so I was thinking, even with cams and compression, it was anon starter.

What about the 2ZZ in a second gen MR2??

coreyehcx
12-13-2011, 11:10 PM
What about a late gen vvti 1ZZFE?

It looks to be around the same crank hp as a b18b.

Chip42
12-13-2011, 11:18 PM
Chip I understood the head and intake to be issues on the first gen MR2 motor (AW11), so I was thinking, even with cams and compression, it was anon starter.

What about the 2ZZ in a second gen MR2??

Jake, head / ports are far less than optimal. True. Intake is, oddly, too big in stock form. Cams do get a very positive response up to about 140-160 hp, at which point its a whiz bang. But with a spec cam and compression, the 4AGE will never touch the B16 which has the same bore stroke and general architecture (dohc 16v 4cyl, distributed spark driven off ex cam and belt driven cams)

2zz in a mkII? Should be 2400#, doable. Sounds like a fun winter project. Who's buying? MkIII is probably the best option though.

Corey, 1ZZ isn't good for spinning. Should be fine in IT but cammed and whatnot it'll just eat the bottom end. Same with the 2.2L 5SFE from the mkII NA car and camry.

R2 Racing
12-13-2011, 11:52 PM
I have no idea what the B18A1/B1 is allowed to do in STL, but my FP B18A1 most certainly doesn't make 195whp. That's a 11.5:1 compression and .450 valve lift build, with a stand-alone ECU, IT port matching and intake manifold rules, pimpy exhaust, cold air intake, .040" overbore, balance, blahblahblah.
I don't know why I typed 11.5:1, as that's incorrect. The FP classification is 12.0:1.



The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)? Shocked, I am.
You're so not a Honda guy....

These are all 1.8L, DOHC engines:
B18A1 - non-VTEC, and produced from 90-93.
B18B1 - exact same as a B18A1, but produced from 94-01 with a little more exhaust lift, 1mm bigger throttle bore, OBD2, and +2hp & +3tq.
B18C1 - the "GSR" VTEC version, with +30hp over the B18A1/B1.

coreyehcx
12-14-2011, 12:28 AM
I don't know why I typed 11.5:1, as that's incorrect. The FP classification is 12.0:1.


So where are you at with that setup? (Im guessing 170 based off your site)

STL is at 11.0:1, .425 lift, port matching/gasket but no additional mods to the intake. So I would assume those increases alone would produce pretty decent power on a b18a/b1 with that type of compression and lift for FP.

I would have thought you could be at the 200+ mark with the allowances in FP but I guess not.


b18b1 had different fuel maps on the factory tune as well to help produce the additional power :).



I just thought about the bastard rare b17a1 vtec motor. edit: i saw what i was looking for on this.

mossaidis
12-14-2011, 10:45 AM
^ b17a1 I *think* hits the sweet weight min spot for my EG. Rare is an understatement.

Greg Amy
12-14-2011, 10:56 AM
You're so not a Honda guy....
:shrug: :)

Thanks for the schoolin'.

Greg, how is your setup coming along?
I'm not planning on any engine changes this coming year, built too many this last year. Might work on a better intake/exhaust but the focus is to get the car down to its minimum weight, work on chassis and aero, and qualify to attend the 2012 Runoffs.

^ b17a1 I *think* hits the sweet weight min spot for my EG. Rare is an understatement.
2210# min weight, 160/117 hp/tq stock. Probably a revver? Can it be built from scratch from common other Honda parts?

Then again, the B16A2(?) from the Civic is 160/111 hp/tq stock, more readily available, DEFINITELY a revver, and you can weigh 130 pounds less... (back me up on my data there, "Honda guy"... ;))

GA

coreyehcx
12-14-2011, 12:30 PM
Rod stroke ratio is 1.63 on the b17a1, 9.7:1 compression compared to the b16a2's 1.75 r/s and 10.2:1 comp so it should stand to gain more by getting to the 11.0:1 limit. The revving is going to be similar with the allowances on the motors and the r/s ratio still keeps it in the spinner zone.

The heads are pretty much identical with the same pr3 cast and it has all the lego compatibilities as the whole B series family.

It would be a very interesting choice, they only made I think 5k total 92-93 gsr's so sourcing these engines is a problem and they have a higher premium because of it.

It is not impossible to source a short block, get a pr3 usdm head and go to town.

Is it worth it over the b16? Probably not once the additional weight is added for the extra 100cc's. I have not seen very many b17a1 builds over the years so Im not really sure what they are capable of, they could possibly be a decent option for this at the weight given.

Chip42
12-14-2011, 02:00 PM
2210 lbs (1.7L) vs 2080 lbs (1.6L) - if you cant get your car down to 1.6L weight, the B17 IS THE way to go, adds less than a 1.8, keeps the "ITR" head and high specific output (class driver) and will make slightly more power than the 1.6. soup, as they say.

lateapex911
12-14-2011, 02:04 PM
Wait, the ITR is specifically disallowed......because it has too high of a specific output. (Which is due to the head and intake and cams), but using the head is okey dokey??

Error 404: logic not found???

Greg Amy
12-14-2011, 02:12 PM
Error 404: logic not found???
Error 505: Logic flies over head.

Type R engine raw output is above class envelope. If it were all about specific output* then we'd allow in the 8.4L Viper, which to STL standards would have to weigh 10,920 pounds (+2.5% for RWD...;))

GA

* YOU ("royal you") are inferring the specific output as a requirement or "standard" for excellence and/or limits in the class. The regs do not imply that in any way.

R2 Racing
12-14-2011, 02:18 PM
So where are you at with that setup? (Im guessing 170 based off your site)

STL is at 11.0:1, .425 lift, port matching/gasket but no additional mods to the intake. So I would assume those increases alone would produce pretty decent power on a b18a/b1 with that type of compression and lift for FP.

I would have thought you could be at the 200+ mark with the allowances in FP but I guess not.
More than 170whp, no where near 200whp. The highest output all-motor B18 I've ever built was a JDM ITR B18C engine, with CTR pistons and shaving for ~13.0:1, leaded race gas, complete aftermarket intake manifold, Hondata S300, pimpy exhaust, a huge, lumpy cam, and a valvetrain that let it rev to the moon. It did 201whp.



2210# min weight, 160/117 hp/tq stock. Probably a revver? Can it be built from scratch from common other Honda parts?

Then again, the B16A2(?) from the Civic is 160/111 hp/tq stock, more readily available, DEFINITELY a revver, and you can weigh 130 pounds less... (back me up on my data there, "Honda guy"... ;))

GA
Corey & Chip got it. If I could reach minimum weight for the B16, I'd pick it. If not, go with the B17. Yes, the B17 is real tough to find.

Jake - saying the B16 & B17 heads are "ITR heads" isn't exactly right. The molds are very similar, to say that they do indeed flow well, but they don't have the machining done to them that the ITR head does. The GSR B18C1 head is the "bastard child" of them all, with a totally different manifold bolt pattern and worse flow.

mossaidis
12-14-2011, 02:36 PM
In that vein, I think a CRX with a built B16 would do some damage in STL - it's been said before. I just invested $5K on a 10/10th ITA motor build and accessories (D16z6) so I don't see myself building a full STL B16 or B17 anytime soon. Given that fact I am now engaged, soon to be married and thinking about buyin a place in NYC... gulp... it may be 5 years or so. In the back of my head though, I wonder what would be the whp if we took my IT D16z6 motor, placed a (edit) CAI, .425 crower cam, ~11:1 pistons (less head shave) and alum flywheel in it. 173 whp based on 12 lbs/1 whp? no way... that's should be B16 territory as that's ~195 chp. Lots of torque from a STL D16? yup. It would be fun at shorter tracks.

Getting down to weight (2080) on a STL EG involves all the lexan and carbon fiber fixings, so 190 lbs less than non-ballasted IT weight.... more $.

JS154
12-14-2011, 03:25 PM
What consitutes an engine swap as long as engine and chassis manufacturer are the same?

OK some are easy, like Honadcura, Toylexus, and Infinissan.

But what about GM stuff? Saturn/Pontiac/Chevy? Considered the same manufacturer?

Or what about the Pontiac Vibe/ Toyota Matrix?

Ford/Mazda?

Ford/Merkur?

VW/Audi...Porsche?

BMW/Mini? Tritec (manufacturer of engines for the 1stgen BMW Mini's) is now owned by FIAT. A Mini engine in a FIAT - hey I think I just solved the B-Spec FIAT problem!


Mercedes/Chrysler?

Plymouth (Conquest or Laser)/Mitsubishi (Starion or Eclipse)

GM/Suzuki?

GM/Isuzu...but Toyota now owns a portion of Isuzu...the Isuzu Trooper and Rodeo is a shared platform with the Honda Passport and Acura SLX...

GM/Saab...Subaru? (9-2X, the Saabaru) ...but Toyota now owns a portion of Subaru as well...

Oh Pleiades, this is getting complicated!



And now, for something completely different....

If we start with VW Group (Lamborghini and Audi and Porsche), but recall Porsche did the development work jointly with Mercedes on the E500 (cool car!) and there's the Mercedes/Daimler/Chrysler connection....and the Chryser/Plymouth Prowler came from that marriage...and Mitsubishi jointly developed the Starion/Conquest with Plymouth (Chrysler)....Mitsubishi is also involved in OEM production of Nissan vehicles, (Nissan is owned by Renault, and Daimler and Renualt make engines for each other). If we look a little further, we can see that the Nissan Pulsar and the Holden (GM) Astra are the same....which now also ties into the GM/Isuzu joint manufacturing. Going back to the Isuzu/Honda joint manufacturing....

Dammit, I'm putting a Honda B16A2 engine into a Porsche 924. It may need a different intake manifold with individual throttle bodies to fit though...

In all seriousness, I think the engine and chassis manufacturer definitions could use a little clarifying as to what's really allowed.

coreyehcx
12-14-2011, 03:27 PM
I just want to clarify that the head is not an "ITR" head.

Chip, don't say that word or those letters!

JS154
12-14-2011, 03:39 PM
Actually, now that I think of it, a Cayman 2.7L engine in an Acura NSX would be a great car for STU!

Greg Amy
12-14-2011, 03:39 PM
What consitutes an engine swap as long as engine and chassis manufacturer are the same?
It's a fine question, one that we've debated within the committee. We got a request mid-year about the compliance of putting a VW engine into a Porsche. That led to a lot of "tree falls in the woods/makes a sound" discussions and in the end we said, "sure, if you want to put a VeeDub 4-cyl in your Porsche 944, have at it."

:shrug:

Now, does that allow one to put a Lexus V6 engine into a Lotus Exige or Pontiac Vibe because the car originally came with a Toyota engine? That's a good question, one I don't have an official answer for. But in my opinion, I'd suggest two things to consider:

- Is there a direct familial or structural relationship between the chassis and the desired engine to install? For example, I suggest - as an opinion - that since there is no direct structural or familial relationship between Lotus and Toyota (as far as I know), then that Lexus V6 into an Exige install would be non-compliant. However, there is/was a relationship between Porsche and Volkswagen.
- Ask first. Don't go through all that time, money, trouble, and effort just to get protested and lose on appeal. The VW/Porsche example shows that the CRB is reasonable on the idea/ideal, so in this case it's best to ask for permission instead of forgiveness.

This probably shouldn't be a game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon)"... - GA

Ron Earp
12-14-2011, 10:47 PM
What consitutes an engine swap as long as engine and chassis manufacturer are the same?

Why does the engine and chassis manufacturer have to be the same? An engine is an engine is an engine, it doesn't know who made it or what chassis it is powering. If the class is about displacement/weight then it seems like if you wish to run your Honda motor in VW chassis then it should be fine.

Andy Bettencourt
12-14-2011, 11:30 PM
Still hoping someone will clarify the 100hp/liter target.

WHP or Crank?
Examples of cars that fit this target with some math?

Thanks.

Knestis
12-14-2011, 11:46 PM
Why does the engine and chassis manufacturer have to be the same? An engine is an engine is an engine, it doesn't know who made it or what chassis is powering it. If the class is about displacement/weight then it seems like if you wish to run your Honda motor in VW chassis then it should be fine.

That question follows logically AFTER, "Why no JDM or Euro market engines from the SAME manufacturer?" There's no good answer from the CRB on that, so far as I can tell. The official line is crapola.

K

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 12:25 AM
That question follows logically AFTER, "Why no JDM or Euro market engines from the SAME manufacturer?" There's no good answer from the CRB on that, so far as I can tell. The official line is crapola.

K

Exactly.

dickita15
12-15-2011, 08:21 AM
Why does the engine and chassis manufacturer have to be the same? An engine is an engine is an engine, it doesn't know who made it or what chassis is powering it. If the class is about displacement/weight then it seems like if you wish to run your Honda motor in VW chassis then it should be fine.

There is a class for that, it is called CSR.:D

Greg Amy
12-15-2011, 11:51 AM
Wait, the ITR is specifically disallowed......because it has too high of a specific output. (Which is due to the head and intake and cams), but using the head is okey dokey??

Error 404: logic not found???
Follow up on this, I had a conversation with Jake last night, I wanted to make sure there are no other misunderstandings. Need some Honda Guy backup to make sure this is correct...

The GS-R's B18C1 engine is from the B-series family (obviously) but has that "bastard" head that Kevin described. It's a poor(er) design, not as good flow and it's coupled to a less-than-optimal variable-flow intake manifold with butterflies.

When Honda built the Type R's B18C5 engine they used the same bottom end basic design as the GSR engine but slapped on the superior B16 head, with better flow characteristics. More importantly (in my mind) the ITR got a 4-port, large plenum, no butterflies intake manifold and bigger throttle body. Because of the difference in the head, that intake manifold will not fit on the GSR head, but Skunk make a "repli-manifold" that will:

http://store.skunk2.com/engine-tuning/pro-series-intake-manifolds/pro-series-intake-manifold.html

So if you see that on my engine, you know I'm'a cheatin'... ;) No clue why Honda went with that "bastard" head, maybe it was an initial B-sereis design that they later improved upon.

So, Jake, that B16/ITR head is NOT legal on the GSR, but it is the stock head design for the B16 engine.

GA

mossaidis
12-15-2011, 11:54 AM
(part joke) Dear Nissan guy, google.com is our friend. Signed, Honda guy level 1. (Ruck us Hondaguy level 8+)

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



"Its additional horsepower, which is 25 more than the 170-horsepower Acura Integra GS-R, is the result of key technological achievements such as:

High-compression, low-friction pistons,
High-performance camshafts and valve gear.
Larger throttle body and single-port intake manifold (http://www.andysautosport.com/intake_manifolds.html),
Hand-polished intake and exhaust ports
High-volume induction and exhaust system (http://www.andysautosport.com/performance_exhaust_systems.html)
The engine also features Programmed Fuel Injection (PGM-FI), a highly rigid crankshaft (http://www.andysautosport.com/crankshafts.html) with eight full balance weights, a crankshaft reinforcing bridge, an oil cooling system and oil jet piston cooling, twin-spring intake (http://www.andysautosport.com/cold_air_intakes.html) and exhaust valves, a highly rigid integrated aluminum die-cast engine stiffener, and a number of other technologies to increase performance (http://www.andysautosport.com/performance.html) while maintaining reliability and durability, along with smooth operation."

EDIT More head differences...

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=27&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=gsr+and+itr+head+difference&tok=SsECNR-65b4AMf8UnsM-Sg&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=gsr+and+itr+head+difference&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=d6f4b804f9f84a38&biw=1280&bih=851

for sure, combustion chamber differences.

Greg Amy
12-15-2011, 11:58 AM
(part joke) Dear Nissan guy, google.com is our friend. Signed, Honda guy level 1. (Ruck us Hondaguy level 8+)
Dear Honda Guy: please Google the term "same bottom end basic design".

Signed,

Nissan Guy

;)

On edit: as I recall, the bottom end was improved primarily to handle the increased RPM. The extra top-end power comes from the slightly-increased compression but most of it from the superior head, intake manifold, and cams. That head will apparently bolt right on to the GSR bottom end and vice versa...

mossaidis
12-15-2011, 12:07 PM
(Eric Cartman voice) "Basic differences" are not same when it comes to ST rules young man... you have A LOT to learn about SCCA. uh... tree huggin hippies.

Differences between GS-R and ITR short block assemblies. Bore and Stroke Dimensions might be the same, but that's about it.

http://www.itrsport.com/technical.html#crank


So, Jake, that B16/ITR head is NOT legal on the GSR, but it is the stock head design for the B16 engine.GA

This is true. Now that I have wasted valuable forum place and viewer time, I will get my first cup of coffee. :)

coreyehcx
12-15-2011, 01:50 PM
Greg, you guys have it correct. FYI you can get oem heads from endyn from the pr3 cast non ITR.

I can touch on a couple of things.

The butterflies in the manifold were also on the h22 prelude vtec motor and is used for more torque in city/lower rpm driving and also supposed to improve fuel efficiency until vtakkkk.


The gsr head is not as bad as people make it out to be, the combustion chambers have been quenched so if you swapped a b16 head on your gsr you would have a decrease in compression stock for stock. The b16 head flows about 5 cfm better than the gsr so its not terribly different. The intake manifold stock for stock is the issue between the 2 in my opinion (b16a3 is the best under ITR).

FWIW

The one thing people don't realize is the intake side of the gsr head was designed to accept the inverted manifolds design. The runners need to be properly angled where they meet the head, AEBS actually was proven to make more power over the skunk/ITR style manifolds. I used this on my built gsr motor I had with a lot of success.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 08:31 PM
Still hoping someone will clarify the 100hp/liter target.

WHP or Crank?
Examples of cars that fit this target with some math?

Thanks.

It's. Crank. What math do you want?

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 08:52 PM
It's. Crank. What math do you want?

Wow, that is pretty sweet! A Honda B18C1 only needs to pick up 10hp over 100% stock numbers to meet the class target!
Too bad a Mazda BP4W needs to pick up 40hp:023:
Too bad this isn't designed to be a Honda only class, it would make a great one:dead_horse:
Turning my STL Miata into a LP prod car just looks better by the minute

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 09:03 PM
What is the stock cam lift of the B18?

What we knew of the hondas is that they were all very close to the class limit. Ergo not much to gain from the cams.

Many of the other engines will gain in spades with the camshaft changes.

You also can't get too crazy with duration becaue compression is limited to 11:1. To much duration and you don't get any cylinder pressure.

coreyehcx
12-15-2011, 09:10 PM
If you look at the discussion at the beginning of this thread we are discussing whp and not crank.

What am I missing?

If the 1 hp per 12 Lbs (195 for 1.8) is for crank output then I'm worrying over nothing.



Edit: B18 what?

Non Vtec B18B1 has a lot to gain from its stock compression and cam lift.


B18C1 cam lift oem is very close to the limit... I can add the specs in a few mins.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 09:17 PM
If you look at the discussion at the beginning of this thread we are discussing whp and not crank.

What am I missing?

If the 1 hp per 12 Lbs (195 for 1.8) is for crank output then I'm worrying over nothing.



Edit: B18 what?

Non Vtec B18B1 has a lot to gain from its stock compression and cam lift.


B18C1 cam lift oem is very close to the limit... I can add the specs in a few mins.

I can tell you with a great amount of confidence that the expected Target is 100 HP per liter "crank" for STL and 120 for STU. And for those that care STO is the wild west ;-)

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 09:20 PM
So a b18c1 is only expected to make a gain of 6% crank over bone stock?:shrug: What is the hp gain factor used for that engine in ITS? If 180 crank is really the number, someone has really screwed up.
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 09:28 PM
So a b18c1 is only expected to make a gain of 6% crank over bone stock?:shrug: What is the hp gain factor used for that engine in ITS? If 180 crank is really the number, someone has really screwed up.
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!

That seems a bit dramatic don't you think?

bamfp
12-15-2011, 09:31 PM
If 180 at the crank is the target for the class then the GSR engine should not be allowed. I am getting 170+ at the wheels out of an ITS preped GSR engine.

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 09:37 PM
That seems a bit dramatic don't you think?

The more I stew over these power numbers the more rediculous your 180hp crank number seems. So no I dont think it was a bit dramatic. It is a Honda class plain and simple. I screwed up and built a car for a class it will NEVER be competitive in with the current rules and current rulers of the class. I will continue to race in STL up to the point that full built Hondas start to show up and are untouchable in a straight line.. At that point I will convert to production.

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 09:38 PM
If 180 at the crank is the target for the class then the GSR engine should not be allowed. I am getting 170+ at the wheels out of an ITS preped GSR engine.

Thank you!!!! my point exactly.

bamfp
12-15-2011, 09:41 PM
I found all the parts to build a B16 to put in my 95 Civic. Now if I only had the $$$.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 09:47 PM
The more I stew over these power numbers the more rediculous your 180hp crank number seems. So no I dont think it was a bit dramatic. It is a Honda class plain and simple. I screwed up and built a car for a class it will NEVER be competitive in with the current rules and current rulers of the class. I will continue to race in STL up to the point that full built Hondas start to show up and are untouchable in a straight line.. At that point I will convert to production.

Well since I am one of the "Rulers" I guess it is a bad idea for me to build a Miata for STL? Crap! I better sell that thing today and go buy a Honda.

The point is we have to start some where. Don't fret, cars must hit the track and start racing each other before any opinions can really be taken to heart. As a comittee the STAC will help to monitor the class through the use of SCCA Data boxes. So please race your car, continue to develop you package, and run some nationals where we might get a chance to pull some data. Most of what I have read on the forums since this class went national is mostly speculation and rhetoric.

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 09:58 PM
Well since I am one of the "Rulers" I guess it is a bad idea for me to build a Miata for STL? Crap! I better sell that thing today and go buy a Honda.

The point is we have to start some where. Don't fret, cars must hit the track and start racing each other before any opinions can really be taken to heart. As a comittee the STAC will help to monitor the class through the use of SCCA Data boxes. So please race your car, continue to develop you package, and run some nationals where we might get a chance to pull some data. Most of what I have read on the forums since this class went national is mostly speculation and rhetoric.

One of the other "rulers" has openly stated that no single car/engine adjustments would be made. If the 1.8 miata is too heavy, all 1.8 cars will get a weight break. If the 1.8 miata doesn't make enough power, all 1.8 cars will get an increase in power etc. Until spec lines are implemented and concessions are givin to individual cars based on actual needs, the playing field will be unlevel. The current rules just dont work, not only is Honda the highest potential power (by a large margin) it also gets to weigh less than the miata since it is FWD.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 09:58 PM
As a side note one of my fellow STAC members has a GSR. He and I have talked at length about this. He is convinced he is going to get his ass handed to him by a Miata.

So you have the Miata guys complaining that the GSR is going to murder them, and the Honda guys say that we are going to have to do something about the Miata!!!!!!

Wait till I build a full tilt boogey 13b powered RX8?

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 10:15 PM
As a side note one of my fellow STAC members has a GSR. He and I have talked at length about this. He is convinced he is going to get his ass handed to him by a Miata.

So you have the Miata guys complaining that the GSR is going to murder them, and the Honda guys say that we are going to have to do something about the Miata!!!!!!

Wait till I build a full tilt boogey 13b powered RX8?

Has this fellow STAC member built an all out STL engine? light weight forged rods, custom lighweight pistons, special thin low tension rings, optimized valve springs, custom ground cams designed to work with the one best cylinder head and intake manifold found when flow testing several dozen, countless hours of dyno tuning, tuned exhaust and intake on said dyno? Or is he running a pretty much stock original honda engine with better valve springs and some off the shelf bolt on's?
If the later is true, he is gonna get his ass handed to him by a properly built well drivin Miata. If the former, the Miata will look like and ITC car in a GT1 race.

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 10:17 PM
BTW, bring on the RX8, under the current stupid rules for rotarys this will be even more of a pig than my Miata.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 10:22 PM
From the ST rules;

"

Each class will have a baseline target power-to-weight ratio. Weights
may be adjusted or cars may be subject to changes in intake restrictors
to meet these targets. Cars may be required to carry data acquisition
equipment for review of performance. "

So with all this hard work on your BP, how much power are you making?

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 10:23 PM
BTW, bring on the RX8, under the current stupid rules for rotarys this will be even more of a pig than my Miata.

If the rules are so stupid, why did you build a car for the class? The core of the rules has not suddenly changed since it went national?

tyler raatz
12-15-2011, 10:36 PM
If the rules are so stupid, why did you build a car for the class? The core of the rules has not suddenly changed since it went national?

I built the car knowing that when/if the class failed or just plain sucked, I could easily unbolt my 200-300 pounds of ballast, bolt on radial slicks and change the engine and go to EP or FP. It would not take alot of work to convert to prod, and I could sell my STL spec engines to someone else wiiling to try.
I am no longer going to post any power numbers seen or expected for my engines until convinced I am done and have found 100% of the available power. Once I have maxed out the package, my dyno numbers, build specs, tuning specifics etc will be available to anyone who wants them. I refuse to have anyone tell me my car is not competitive because I have not gotten 100% out of the engine.

JS154
12-15-2011, 11:12 PM
I can tell you with a great amount of confidence that the expected Target is 100 HP per liter "crank" for STL and 120 for STU. And for those that care STO is the wild west ;-)

So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.

Rabbit07
12-15-2011, 11:16 PM
I can't stress enought that the target is a starting point. We looked at this as objectively as we could and said it should be about "x".

It's a target, but it's a moving one. Again, we need cars built and racing each other before this really washes out.

bamfp
12-15-2011, 11:49 PM
So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

Rabbit07
12-16-2011, 12:09 AM
So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

Weight and/or restrictors can be used. That being said, we all hope that we can avoid specline restrictions or allowances in STL.

JS154
12-16-2011, 01:02 AM
So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

Easy. Just make sure you don't finish first by a lot. Or Third. At. All.

Robbie
12-16-2011, 01:11 AM
So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.
I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.

JeffYoung
12-16-2011, 07:40 AM
Still an open question per Greg (which is fine, just want to hear what the STAC thinks aobut that issue at some point).

Greg Amy
12-16-2011, 07:48 AM
Still an open question per Greg (which is fine, just want to hear what the STAC thinks aobut that issue at some point).

...that no one (ah-HEM!) has submitted a request on so we can discuss it...

Chip42
12-16-2011, 09:01 AM
I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.

just run the Celica's 3SGE. If they allowed the removal of the turbo you'd want an alt intake. the 2 motors are basically the same, there are some revisions like oil squirters but those could be added. not to beat a dead horse but the 3rd gen 3S from the JDM MR2 really would be the easy button, it has a revised intake and oil pump / circuit (same block) over that in the US 3SGE, everything else is 100% ST legal changes as far as I can tell.

Knestis
12-16-2011, 10:02 AM
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K

Greg Amy
12-16-2011, 10:12 AM
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K
Your truthiness is quote-worthy. - GA

coreyehcx
12-16-2011, 10:54 AM
I think our target (I'll have to check) for whp/wt is right around 12, so if you're around there you're in the ballpark (and don't hold me to that number as a hard fact). Generally speaking, the larger-displacement cars will not be able to take advantage of the cam lift and compression ratio rules as much as the smaller ones can, so that should help a lot. - GA

Greg, I'm just trying to get an accurate take on this.

Above, earlier in the discussion you listed an "estimate" of Whp which is different obviously than Crank.

Rabbit07 is adamant this "estimate" is crank?

I'm just trying to see which is correct.

Rabbit07
12-16-2011, 11:03 AM
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K

This is the expectation. We have the power to adjust, that does not mean that this is the prudent thing to do.

Bring your cars, lets race, then you can bitch a scream about how un fair it is. Before that it's just talk.

I know Greg and I are going to race in this class. If I run a Mazda and He runs and Acura, what will you say when they play nice?

Greg Amy
12-16-2011, 11:12 AM
Forget all the discussion about targets, ratios, horsepower, crank, wheel, whatever. It's all a fantasy.

There are zero (none, nothing, nada) documented hard or soft limits/targets for any of that. Here's what's documented, right at the beginning of the Super Touring Category Specifiations:

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO.

And later in the regulations:

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.

And, later in the STL regs:

The engines from the following cars are ineligible for STL:
Honda S2000, Acura Type R

Turbocharged engines are not permitted in STL.

...from which one can quickly infer that the 190hp (of the ITR) and more is not "acceptable", and stuff smaller than that is "acceptable."

That's it. Nothing more. That's all there is, laid out in black and white (well, red and white in the 2011 version). There's nothing in the CRB's or the STAC's "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook"* about any kind of ratio guidelines. Anything else is either a fantasy or someone else's internal guidelines on what they think should be in the class. Or, maybe they're just inferring from existing information, just like you are.

You guys are getting your panties all in a twaddle about the existence of some secret backdoor deals going down; I can understand that, given my long-term history of this org. However, everything you need to know about this class is right there, downloadable in all it's glory in PDF format.

Read it, then you can choose to participate or not.

Your call.

GA


* That's a joke. There really isn't a "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook. It's actually a "double super-secret backdoor deals rulesbook". It could be in there, I suppose, but I haven't seen that one since I'm not part of The Inner Circle...yet...bwuhuhuhuhuh...

mossaidis
12-16-2011, 11:27 AM
Forget all the discussion about targets, ratios, horsepower, crank, wheel, whatever. It's all a fantasy.

There are zero (none, nothing, nada) documented hard or soft limits/targets for any of that. Here's what's documented, right at the beginning of the Super Touring Category Specifiations:

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO.

And later in the regulations:

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.

And, later in the STL regs:

The engines from the following cars are ineligible for STL:
Honda S2000, Acura Type R

Turbocharged engines are not permitted in STL.

...from which one can quickly infer that the 190hp (of the ITR) and more is not "acceptable", and stuff smaller than that is "acceptable."

That's it. Nothing more. That's all there is, laid out in black and white (well, red and white in the 2011 version). There's nothing in the CRB's or the STAC's "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook"* about any kind of ratio guidelines. Anything else is either a fantasy or someone else's internal guidelines on what they think should be in the class. Or, maybe they're just inferring from existing information, just like you are.

You guys are getting your panties all in a twaddle about the existence of some secret backdoor deals going down; I can understand that, given my long-term history of this org. However, everything you need to know about this class is right there, downloadable in all it's glory in PDF format.

Read it, then you can choose to participate or not.

Your call.

GA

It's quote-worthy, except for the last part.

Andy Bettencourt
12-16-2011, 11:38 AM
Describe STL: ITA weights, ITS power, and ITR speeds.

Principle is cool.

Chris, just because Greg thinks the Miata will compete doesn't mean jack-squat. Any theory is predicated on expected hp levels. The target HP Tyler is hoping for is WAY beyond anything that the interweb has produced and I wish him luck. The Honda's are much better known. In order to be in the ballpark, the Miata is going to have to find (goal being 180whp) EIGHTY crank hp from stock with the cam and compression bumps.

Like I said before, even if the 1.8BP motor from Mazda can make decent gains and in a good chassis it can compete, it's only a two horse race.

Edit: AND - if you and Greg run around and play nice together on-track, I won't so much care, I would need to see the numbers. Right now, Greg is still in development and is running ITS times so it's really impossible to see any data until we compare the stat sheets.

Edit-Edit: I believe enough in the LAP SIM stuff to suggest that at these power levels, there should be a 5% difference in FWD-RWD given the same front suspension design.

Math example:

GSR 1.8 into a HondAcura with double wishbone fronts: 185whp. THAT is the target everyone is looking at when deciding to build. In order to hit that number, what will a RWD 1.8-based car have to make for power to be on par? How about the 1.6's? Let's do some math.

mossaidis
12-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Mickey wondering if STL is some deep seeded urge and "secret" way to get other manufacturers other than Honda and *maybe* Miata to produce small displacement, higher hp, freer breathering engines in the US. hmmm...

Also, remember that rods, vales, valve springs, flywheel/clutch are free too.

Rabbit07
12-16-2011, 12:02 PM
Riddle this to me regarding the BP Miata;

A SM can make 131 WHP through 41mm restrictor.

I know of ITS Miatas that have made north of 160 WHP with stock cams and .5 increase in compression ratio.

How can a major increase in cam shaft, compression, lighter flywheel, lighter rotating assembly, stand alone engine management, not make atleast 180 WHP?

Knestis
12-16-2011, 12:31 PM
Chris - you are contributing to the theoretical noise. We don't know as much as we think we know, starting with the power and legality of those ITS Miatae. If you play the game, everyone else will be allowed to play the game, and you suggested above that we should go racing and complain later.

K

Rabbit07
12-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Chris - you are contributing to the theoretical noise. We don't know as much as we think we know, starting with the power and legality of those ITS Miatae. If you play the game, everyone else will be allowed to play the game, and you suggested above that we should go racing and complain later.

K

Damn you for making sense!:D

Andy Bettencourt
12-16-2011, 12:43 PM
Riddle this to me regarding the BP Miata;

A SM can make 131 WHP through 41mm restrictor.

I know of ITS Miatas that have made north of 160 WHP with stock cams and .5 increase in compression ratio.

How can a major increase in cam shaft, compression, lighter flywheel, lighter rotating assembly, stand alone engine management, not make atleast 180 WHP?

Because nobody has done one. A well known builder up here had ideas on what an ITA motor COULD make given what he saw from unknown engines and SM 'data'. Guess what? SAME NUMBERS as I make and have been quoting. These things are just not linear. The ISC cars make ~ 155whp on a 'regular dyno', not the optimistic one they use to tune. I am not sure what is possible because I have never done one but I can tell you that traditional upgrades don't take effect like some other motors. Stand alone engine management is the big HP bump in these motors and it's included in the IT number already. Build one. I can't wait to see the results. If it makes the number, you have a second legit choice.

Run the math, in order for a Miata to be equal to a 185whp Honda on paper, what will it have to make?

Greg Amy
12-16-2011, 12:52 PM
Because nobody has done one.
Lots of truthiness going around today...


....I have never done one but I can tell you ...
Damn. And you had me at the first sentence...

Andy Bettencourt
12-16-2011, 12:59 PM
The whole point is that even IF the Miata proves to make the power (those of us with actual IT build experience know those limitations) it will still only be one of two choices.

OPEN UP THE CLASS to the 13B and older chassis with modern motors. This will at least get people interested in exploring options. People looking from the outside in see that they need 185whp in a FWD car and at least that out of their RWD to be close on paper.

Yikes.

Z3_GoCar
12-16-2011, 01:21 PM
Edit-Edit: I believe enough in the LAP SIM stuff to suggest that at these power levels, there should be a 5% difference in FWD-RWD given the same front suspension design.

Math example:

GSR 1.8 into a HondAcura with double wishbone fronts: 185whp. THAT is the target everyone is looking at when deciding to build. In order to hit that number, what will a RWD 1.8-based car have to make for power to be on par? How about the 1.6's? Let's do some math.

Easy, 5% of 185 is 9.25 -> so let's just round it to 10hp -> so any 1.8 liter rear wheel drive platform will have to make 175hp at the wheel.

JS154
12-16-2011, 02:22 PM
Easy, 5% of 185 is 9.25 -> so let's just round it to 10hp -> so any 1.8 liter rear wheel drive platform will have to make 175hp at the wheel.

Just to provide info, not asking or suggesting that this is or should be allowed:

175 at the wheels: This is about as much as a BMW S14 2.3L can make under the STL ruleset because of the cam lift restrictions, maybe 182 at best on a well built fresh motor. That would require weighing 2990#. At Watkins Glen, that would be a lap time of around 2:15-2:16, and at mid-ohio around 1:44-1:45. NHMS would be around 1:15 (remember 7inch rims not 8)

If STU cam lift specs were allowed on an other wise STL BMW S14 2.3L engine, then 205 at the wheels is a realistic max. That would translate into appx 2:39-2:40 at RdAm.

I've done some investigating - the Toyota 3S-GE was run in WC-TC - a private entry with Toyota factory support. The engines all blew up. All of them. So on paper it might make sense, but in the real world...maybe not so much.

Side note - It seems to me the ITR and S2K - don't have a place to be competitive in either STL or STU. (Can't get down to weight in STU)

Anybody know what the reasoning is behind not allowing turbo cars in STL at all - not even 2wd turbos?

Ron Earp
12-16-2011, 09:37 PM
OPEN UP THE CLASS to the 13B and older chassis with modern motors. This will at least get people interested in exploring options.

I agree but 40-50 posts ago it was explained this is a "< 2L Tuner class". It is an arena for <2L FWD cars to race and compete.

Andy Bettencourt
12-16-2011, 10:21 PM
I agree but 40-50 posts ago it was explained this is a "< 2L Tuner class". It is an arena for <2L FWD cars to race and compete.

Funny, 13B is 1300cc's. :023:

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 10:26 AM
We have the power to adjust the 13b and the 12a. However, until we have some real world on track data, there is no current desire to adjust them. Like I have said before, We looked at the numbers chose a weight. I know I have driven some really fast ITS RX7's, so I don't see how these cars won't be competitive? If they aren't then we can always give them a weight break.

JeffYoung
12-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Chris, you seem like a great guy and really appreciate you posting here on ST matters. I'm building my LAST two engines for the TR and starting to think aout what's next with their really being three options:

1. A modern IT car (S or R);
2. An STL car; or
3. A V8 thingamajig for the N-word club.

When I read something like the below, I get spooked about STL. Badly. I thought the classing "intent" behind STL was to be even MORE objective than IT. Meaning a straight formula with no subjective adders like we have.

Now the below suggests not only is the classing not entirely objective as (I thought) advertised but "real world on track data" will be used to adjust weights and subjective "feel" about whether a car can be competitive is driving weighting decisions?

While I get and appreciate Greg's reasoning as to why the 13b RX7 went into STL at the ITS weight with no real ability to increase performance, objectively speaking it looks odd that the ITS Integra goes into STL (a car roughly equal to the 13bRX7 in ITS) at something like 300 lbs less and with the ability to improve on the already stout 175ish whp figure they are making?

And we are justifying this because you drove a few fast ITS RX7s and think they can be competitive?

I'm seriously not trying to bust your chops but truly trying to understand the philosophy behind weight setting in this class.


We have the power to adjust the 13b and the 12a. However, until we have some real world on track data, there is no current desire to adjust them. Like I have said before, We looked at the numbers chose a weight. I know I have driven some really fast ITS RX7's, so I don't see how these cars won't be competitive? If they aren't then we can always give them a weight break.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 11:00 AM
Un true. Data does not lie. We are not talking about results. We are talking about hard data. This is very objective. It is easy to calculate the Power level of a car by how it runs in a certain distance. Particularly regarding a dyno pull like Road America. Really all we are concerned about is are the cars working together as expected or not. No special favors, no deals, etc....

On edit; If the 13b or 12A looks like it isn't working as a similar weighted piston engine, then it can be adjusted. Proof is gonna be in the pudding.

On Edit Part Deux; We objectively selected the weights on the Rotaries from known power numbers. That is why we feel they are correct. Again because we had an expected power output per liter. Nothing more or less.

JeffYoung
12-17-2011, 11:05 AM
Hard data like what?

How are you going to correct for air temps, humidity, grip levels, etc.?

So what you are saying is that the objective displacement based formula can be modified via time/distance on track horsepower calculations??


Un true. Data does not lie. We are not talking about results. We are talking about hard data. This is very objective. It is easy to calculate the Power level of a car by how it runs in a certain distance. Particularly regarding a dyno pull like Road America. Really all we are concerned about is are the cars working together as expected or not. No special favors, no deals, etc....

JeffYoung
12-17-2011, 11:08 AM
This one still gets my goat.

WHY?

When we were looking at Lapsim, I discovered that the only "input" into the program for "FWD" was checking a box that said that. I sent an e-mail to the company that makes the program and asked them to explain what this changed in the program. No response. No one on the ITAC was ever able to explain how Lapsim modelled the FWD "deficit," what factors it used, etc. It just spit out differing lap times with no explanation.

You want to talk about black box car classing/weighting, that's about as black and box as it gets....lol....


.

Edit-Edit: I believe enough in the LAP SIM stuff to suggest that at these power levels, there should be a 5% difference in FWD-RWD given the same front suspension design.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 11:11 AM
SCCA Data boxes in cars at the same event, during the same race. This is what the CRB has been using to check parity in all the classes for the last several years. It has worked quite well.

JeffYoung
12-17-2011, 11:15 AM
So this is going to be a rewards weight class? Meaning that if someone performs well versus other cars at a particular event, there will be a weight adjustment?

Maybe that works well for Prod, GT, Touring, etc. but I'm pretty sure most IT guys would want nothing to do with that.


SCCA Data boxes in cars at the same event, during the same race. This is what the CRB has been using to check parity in all the classes for the last several years. It has worked quite well.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 11:23 AM
Not even. But if a car looks like it is an over dog you will need to look closer.

No rewards weight in club. I have this conversation a lot with many people in club racing. There are some really smart people volunteering in this club on the committees and on the CRB. These are racers, engineers, race car builders, etc.

I can tell you without a doubt that the members of the STAC are some of the most objective people I have ever had the honor of spending time with.

On the Rotaries what do you propose we do? If they are not where they should be as Andy has said, should we stick to our guns? Never change anything and let them not compete if that is the truth?

Dave Gomberg
12-17-2011, 11:30 AM
So this is going to be a rewards weight class? Meaning that if someone performs well versus other cars at a particular event, there will be a weight adjustment?

Maybe that works well for Prod, GT, Touring, etc. but I'm pretty sure most IT guys would want nothing to do with that.
How is this fundamentally different than the ITAC being able to adjust the horsepower improvement factor away from the assumed 25-30% when evidence is presented? The STAC might use a different sort of evidence, but I don't hear them saying they plan to do wholesale adjustments.

Dave

JeffYoung
12-17-2011, 11:34 AM
I have no doubt about the dedication and good movitations of the guys on the STAC.

I still see a lot of contradiction in both your post above and in what I thought was the philosophy for this class, versus what may happen in practice. I do think some of it is you guys bumping up against the fact that you need some ability to deal with the unexpected overdog. We do it with dyno data and power expectations. You guys do it with on track data but it's all the same.

I would suggest to you though that you be up front about this as soon as possible and as often as you can. People need to know what they are getting into.

The RX7? I have no idea really other than it is clearly heavy vis a vis its competitors in ITS that are moving into STL.

I wish you guys and the class the best but I think the very narrowly defined competitive performance envelope you have come up with and at least the appearance that only a Honda/Acura chassis/engine combination is going to work is really going to hamper things.

We've had enough trouble getting ITR up and running where at least on paper there are 15-20 cars that should have a shot.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 11:41 AM
Greg and I both had posted earlier the section that mentions that we have a power to weight expectation and that cars may be required to install data boxes. Is that not up front? If not maybe we need to look a bit closer at how it reads. We all look at the rules so long your eyes start to miss things.

Greg Amy
12-17-2011, 11:43 AM
Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows

When I'm posting on this forum, I'm speaking for myself ("see my sig", blah, blah, ad nausea). Unless I specifically say something like "this is a fact" or it can be reasonably implied as such, it's just that: an opinion.

Chris' posts should be inferred exactly the same.

That said, I will not personally (read: opinion) support individual "competition adjustments" in Super Touring Light. IMO, this class is that it is, all there in black and white. It's certainly possible we could adjust adders/subtractor percentages (e.g., RWD v FWD - which I personally think is too light - or FWD struts) and it's always possible (but not even being CONSIDERED at this point) to add general adjusters based on other physical characteristics.

But I will personally oppose comp adjustments on individual cars, engines, and stuff like that. I was attracted to STL as a competitor both because of the general ruleset and the clear-cut "here's the rules, pick your poison" attitude. "It is what it is".

Again: general adjustments, I'm open-minded. Individual car classification/adjustments? I'm out.

Andy, one last time: I personally don't see the rotary as within the philosophy and intent of STL. We "include" the rotary IT cars at their current IT weights, and if you want to "seriously" play within the ST ruleset (are you even thinking of participating in this class?) we give those engines very good (and competitive) places to play in STU at a modification level comparable to the remaining Super Touring philosophy. The listed inclusion of the rotary engine in STL in unmodified spec is, IMO, comparable to allowing IT and SM cars to come play "without guarantee of competitiveness", and is in there to cover the obvious answer that you pointed out, that the engines are already sub-2-liter (yes, we know about the Renesis.)

Continuing to ask "why?" is not going to change the answer.

But I find it extremely encouraging that all of you are finding this new class attractive enough to actually "give a shit" about how cars are classified in it. Keep going, there's some good points in here.

GA

tyler raatz
12-17-2011, 12:14 PM
Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows

When I'm posting on this forum, I'm speaking for myself ("see my sig", blah, blah, ad nausea). Unless I specifically say something like "this is a fact" or it can be reasonably implied as such, it's just that: an opinion.

Chris' posts should be inferred exactly the same.

That said, I will not personally (read: opinion) support individual "competition adjustments" in Super Touring Light. IMO, this class is that it is, all there in black and white. It's certainly possible we could adjust adders/subtractor percentages (e.g., RWD v FWD - which I personally think is too light - or FWD struts) and it's always possible (but not even being CONSIDERED at this point) to add general adjusters based on other physical characteristics.

But I will personally oppose comp adjustments on individual cars, engines, and stuff like that. I was attracted to STL as a competitor both because of the general ruleset and the clear-cut "here's the rules, pick your poison" attitude. "It is what it is".

Again: general adjustments, I'm open-minded. Individual car classification/adjustments? I'm out.

Andy, one last time: I personally don't see the rotary as within the philosophy and intent of STL. We "include" the rotary IT cars at their current IT weights, and if you want to "seriously" play within the ST ruleset (are you even thinking of participating in this class?) we give those engines very good (and competitive) places to play in STU at a modification level comparable to the remaining Super Touring philosophy. The listed inclusion of the rotary engine in STL in unmodified spec is, IMO, comparable to allowing IT and SM cars to come play "without guarantee of competitiveness", and is in there to cover the obvious answer that you pointed out, that the engines are already sub-2-liter (yes, we know about the Renesis.)

Continuing to ask "why?" is not going to change the answer.

But I find it extremely encouraging that all of you are finding this new class attractive enough to actually "give a shit" about how cars are classified in it. Keep going, there's some good points in here.

GA

With this being said, I am almost 100% certain that I am done with STL. As long as there is a member of the STAC driving the class overdog car and openly states that he will "oppose comp adjustments on individual cars, engines, and stuff like that" I will take my car elsewhere.
Thanks for making this an easy decision Greg.

Greg Amy
12-17-2011, 12:26 PM
With this being said, I am almost 100% certain that I am done with STL. As long as there is a member of the STAC driving the class overdog car and openly states that he will "oppose comp adjustments on individual cars, engines, and stuff like that" I will take my car elsewhere.
Thanks for making this an easy decision Greg.
Extreme Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows, seriously switching off STAC mode.

Tyler Raatz, you're a whiny bitch. You're threatening to quit again? How many times is it now this year, between here and the Spec Miata forum? I've lost count.

The rules have not changed one whit since you originally "threatened" to build a full-up car for the class (back when no one else was building a car for it and the pickins was easy). Not one bit, dude. And yet, all of a sudden, now that others are interested in joining the class and it goes National you're quitting again? All of a sudden, even though the regs have not changed, you're a victim and someone has some tin-foil hat conspiracy against you?

Really?

I guess I missed it, but what was the answer when you volunteered your knowledge and experience for the Super Touring Advisory Committee...?

Buh-bye and you're welcome. Door--->butt, don't let it hit on the way out.

GA, wondering what in the hell burr gets under some peoples' saddles some times...

tyler raatz
12-17-2011, 12:46 PM
My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

R2 Racing
12-17-2011, 01:08 PM
It's a target, but it's a moving one.
Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that. :lol:

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

Knestis
12-17-2011, 01:28 PM
Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that. :lol:

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!


True.

True but increasingly debatable in its substance.

Not true.


K

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2011, 01:57 PM
This one still gets my goat.

WHY?

When we were looking at Lapsim, I discovered that the only "input" into the program for "FWD" was checking a box that said that. I sent an e-mail to the company that makes the program and asked them to explain what this changed in the program. No response. No one on the ITAC was ever able to explain how Lapsim modelled the FWD "deficit," what factors it used, etc. It just spit out differing lap times with no explanation.

You want to talk about black box car classing/weighting, that's about as black and box as it gets....lol....

Simple Jeff, because it's a well-known modelling program that HAS TO BE better than a 100% SWAG that was used. The adders SEEM to be good, and we have always said they are perfectly imperfect as long as we use them consistently. When you have the luxury of using this AND it seemingly is in line with what you think you know, I would use it every day and twice on Sunday.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that. :lol:

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

LOL!

Foot in mouth.

What I intended that to mean was the following;

There was an expected target. What that target was is irrelavent. If the real world shows that it is something that is greater or lesser than the target, so be it.

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2011, 02:10 PM
Greg,

I will ask the question until I get ANY answer. I don't understand why it doesn't fit the philosophy of the class? If the technology can cross over in ported and non-ported form, why the heck not allow it and open up the options for people who may want to build? It all goes back the the potential for success here. Without more options than what is clearly the obvious choice, it's a non-starter IMHO.

I am interested. I really wish IT would go National but I guess that's dead. I think it would be great to put a 13B in my car but I have no desire to build a grenade in piston format - that most all of us without Honda's will have to do. I have customers who want to build new cars every year and they ask me all the time about classes, potential double dipping and crossover to Nationals. One just bought a donor for ITR in a car I submitted for classification on their behalf last month.

The criticism from everyone here is, I believe, from the heart. I am not a guy who cries every time the SCCA adds a new class because I think they (we) do it to try and make the Club more attractive to new members and the retention of members. It seems like the majority of folks here think the current philosophy of much too limited. Take it for what it's worth, agree or disagree, put it on the table on a con-call and see what everyone else thinks. That's it.

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2011, 02:12 PM
There was an expected target. What that target was is irrelavent. If the real world shows that it is something that is greater or lesser than the target, so be it.

Fair enough, but as has been proven, the targets aren't solid. The Honda's significantly outperform the target and the 12A and 13B's were weighted using the target so they are defacto outclassed.

Of course, that is all moot if the CRB/STAC want to play the 'philosophy' card that seeming doesn't make sense to anyone yet.

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2011, 02:14 PM
Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that. :lol:

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

Kev,

Let me ask you this question:

If you walked the field this year at Nationals, would you expect a pat on the back in the offseason or a lead/RP trophy? I suspect we all think the latter. Are we wrong?

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2011, 02:17 PM
My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

SO this is where the rulesmakers have a problem. Some of us want ultimate stability, some like Tyler want adjustments to fix the fields. It's a lose-lose for the PTB.

I think the thing that was so attractive in the beginning about STL was it's raw approach to classing and the 'create your weapon' coolness. It still is I think.

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 02:18 PM
My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

Tyler,

Please don't take your car elsewhere. Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. I want to know too, but if it is as Greg suspects, "An over dog!" Then I will be the first one to look at adjusting the RWD adder. We as racers all want what we consider a fair shake. What a fair shake is can be very subjective. If I had a dime for every "In my garage" comment I have heard I would be rich. The CRB has listened to the STAC sell STL and they inturn sold it to the BOD. All involved want nothing but to see it succeed.

lateapex911
12-17-2011, 05:03 PM
Error 505: Logic flies over head.

Type R engine raw output is above class envelope. If it were all about specific output* then we'd allow in the 8.4L Viper, which to STL standards would have to weigh 10,920 pounds (+2.5% for RWD...;))

GA

* YOU ("royal you") are inferring the specific output as a requirement or "standard" for excellence and/or limits in the class. The regs do not imply that in any way.

Greg, it sorta is. it's a 1.8 that makes too much power. So it's specific output is too high. You've already limited displacement.
The bottom line here is that:
Cars get weighed by displacement.
With weights being equal for each displacement, advantages go to the car with more power (all else being equal)
All engines the same size don't make the same power.
People race to win.
Ergo, this is a specific output class...assuming people want to win.
yea, the Regs don't SAY that, but in the end that's the bottom line...

I get what you are saying, and am happy to learn that the parts that make the Type Arrrr so special isn't the head.

So, am I to understand that if Borgward makes a super car that is over the hp limit of STL, that it would be illegal? And the engine and it's components would as well?


More than 170whp, no where near 200whp. The highest output all-motor B18 I've ever built was a JDM ITR B18C engine, with CTR pistons and shaving for ~13.0:1, leaded race gas, complete aftermarket intake manifold, Hondata S300, pimpy exhaust, a huge, lumpy cam, and a valvetrain that let it rev to the moon. It did 201whp.



Corey & Chip got it. If I could reach minimum weight for the B16, I'd pick it. If not, go with the B17. Yes, the B17 is real tough to find.

Jake - saying the B16 & B17 heads are "ITR heads" isn't exactly right. The molds are very similar, to say that they do indeed flow well, but they don't have the machining done to them that the ITR head does. The GSR B18C1 head is the "bastard child" of them all, with a totally different manifold bolt pattern and worse flow.
Ok, thanks for that info...


Tyler,

Please don't take your car elsewhere. Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. I want to know too, but if it is as Greg suspects, "An over dog!" Then I will be the first one to look at adjusting the RWD adder. We as racers all want what we consider a fair shake. What a fair shake is can be very subjective. If I had a dime for every "In my garage" comment I have heard I would be rich. The CRB has listened to the STAC sell STL and they inturn sold it to the BOD. All involved want nothing but to see it succeed.

See, THIS comment makes me nervous.
If I were on the STAC, I'd be researching and quantifying the FWD/RWD difference. Heck, I'll volunteer to do that if you want. ANd I'd propose the result of that research be drafted into policy.

But what i hear you saying is that if a Miata does well, you guys will change the RWD adder. Ouch. That statement suggests that the other objective aspects of that particular car are being overlooked, and EVERY RWD car is getting a weight addition.

I personally would like some objective adders in the process to seperate what makes a good chassis and a bad one, etc.

(Makes no sense to me how the S2000, for instance, is banned, but the Miata is ok. Both or neither. )

Knestis
12-17-2011, 05:33 PM
... Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. ...

Ack! The number of ways this is wrong scares the bee-jeebers out of me. :o

K

Rabbit07
12-17-2011, 05:46 PM
I personally would like some objective adders in the process to seperate what makes a good chassis and a bad one, etc.

)

Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

lateapex911
12-17-2011, 06:24 PM
Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

Chris you never heard ME say "consistent rules", LOL
(I think its early in the game and there is way too much here thats not quite figured out.)

The "ADDER" is broken because it's the ONLY adder. Yet the RWD aspect is only ONE aspect thats different between the two cars. It COULD be that Car A's suspension is far superior to Car B's, and the difference is the result of that. So applying a penalty to ALL cars that share only one aspect (and not the aspect responsible for the actual difference) with the 'overdog' essentially banishes the rest to uncompetitiveness.

lateapex911
12-17-2011, 06:42 PM
Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows



Andy, one last time: I personally don't see the rotary as within the philosophy and intent of STL. We "include" the rotary IT cars at their current IT weights, and if you want to "seriously" play within the ST ruleset (are you even thinking of participating in this class?) we give those engines very good (and competitive) places to play in STU at a modification level comparable to the remaining Super Touring philosophy.
Keep in mind that the ST category is unlike that of, say, IT, where class to class rules are consistent. In ST, the basic premise varies from STL to STU to STO, and the rulesets are vastly different. I'd like to suggest that for a LOT of people, the STL ruleset is the sweet spot. So, sending folks up the line isn't exactly a apples to apples switch. (Heck I think there should be an STM. Same rules as STL, but 2.0-2.8 litres or something like that)


The listed inclusion of the rotary engine in STL in unmodified spec is, IMO, comparable to allowing IT and SM cars to come play "without guarantee of competitiveness", and is in there to cover the obvious answer that you pointed out, that the engines are already sub-2-liter (yes, we know about the Renesis.)

I think it's one of those things where it might be better to just piss or get off the pot so to speak. The cars were classed at their IT weights. Look at the 12A. 2280lbs. Oh joy, I can bring a car that the fastest guy in the country can make run a little faster than ITB cars, and I can go race it in a class with cars that should be going ITR speeds. Lets face it, thats just throwing a bone...and while it's better for the 13B , it's still not a 'even up' classification. It's good for the class in it's early stages as double dippers and opportunists can help get the numbers up. But I'd prefer that if the cars are in the class, they be given a fair shot.



Continuing to ask "why?" is not going to change the answer.

GA

Knestis
12-17-2011, 06:47 PM
Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

If you (collectively) had hundreds of examples of Integrae and Miatae, that might be a sensible course of action. If the decision gets made based on some handful of car-driver combinations - and it will - you're not fixing it; you are breaking it worse.

K

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 09:51 AM
You can not fix which is not yet broken.

Except the rotary numbers clearly are. But if you want to 'limit' their competitiveness because it's a piston class, you are on track.

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 09:55 AM
So isn't this a great way to game the system? Develop, develop, develop. Hide your best stuff. Year 1 and maybe 2 you run your 'mule' stuff. Year 3 you get your 'correction' and you bring out the big guns. You win the Trophy. You get a negative adjustment the following year.

It's EXACTLY like every other National class sans SM, SRF and FV...coincidentally the most populated in the SCCA....hmmmm. Maybe guys with an IT mentality (like me) just aren't cut out for the big leagues. It's too much BS.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 12:08 PM
Sorry, incorrect. It is only "better" if we understood what it was doing, and we didn't. And still don't.

It's like accepting dyno data without any idea what dyno was used, the correction factors, etc.

Truly one of the oddest experiences I had on the ITAC. Everyone is sharp, smart folks, smarter than me, and yet we trust a program that has a box you check for "FWD" to adjust weights when we had no clue -- ZERO -- what or how or why the program modelled the FWD deficiency.



Simple Jeff, because it's a well-known modelling program that HAS TO BE better than a 100% SWAG that was used. The adders SEEM to be good, and we have always said they are perfectly imperfect as long as we use them consistently. When you have the luxury of using this AND it seemingly is in line with what you think you know, I would use it every day and twice on Sunday.

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 12:21 PM
Sorry, incorrect. It is only "better" if we understood what it was doing, and we didn't. And still don't.

It's like accepting dyno data without any idea what dyno was used, the correction factors, etc.

Truly one of the oddest experiences I had on the ITAC. Everyone is sharp, smart folks, smarter than me, and yet we trust a program that has a box you check for "FWD" to adjust weights when we had no clue -- ZERO -- what or how or why the program modelled the FWD deficiency.

If we didn't put any faith in stuff you didn't fully understand, we would never leave the house. ;)

JS154
12-18-2011, 03:55 PM
So isn't this a great way to game the system? Develop, develop, develop. Hide your best stuff. Year 1 and maybe 2 you run your 'mule' stuff. Year 3 you get your 'correction' and you bring out the big guns. You win the Trophy. You get a negative adjustment the following year.

It's EXACTLY like every other National class sans SM, SRF and FV...coincidentally the most populated in the SCCA....hmmmm. Maybe guys with an IT mentality (like me) just aren't cut out for the big leagues. It's too much BS.

There was a World Challenge tema that did that. They kept collecting concessions throughout the season and installed them all near the end. They started cleaning up, and they got in big trouble with SCCA Pro for it.

Knestis
12-18-2011, 05:59 PM
If we didn't put any faith in stuff you didn't fully understand, we would never leave the house. ;)

...particularly if you knew how much engineering gets done with systems very much like LapSim. You don't have to knock a skyscraper down to have a pretty damned good idea what kind of forces would be required to do so.

K

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 08:17 PM
There's actually a pretty decent amount of disagreement over whether FWD is a hinderance in race applications especially at varying power levels. It would have been nice to know -- well I'd say imperative -- what assumptions, etc. this program used in making the calculations it did. We had no idea.

This was less like saying "the engineering behind that skyscraper must be sound since it is standing" and more like "Yaweh kicks Allah's ass."

But I digress. Water under the bridge. Back to the STL discussion.


...particularly if you knew how much engineering gets done with systems very much like LapSim. You don't have to knock a skyscraper down to have a pretty damned good idea what kind of forces would be required to do so.

K

red986s
12-18-2011, 08:21 PM
Would it be too complicated to treat STL like World Challenge as far as parity is concerned? If a particular car begins to dominate the class ballast is added to that car for the next race. Removed when the car falls back, etc, etc throughout the season. Just thinking out loud.

Knestis
12-18-2011, 08:28 PM
Would it be too complicated to treat STL like World Challenge as far as parity is concerned? If a particular car begins to dominate the class ballast is added to that car for the next race. Removed when the car falls back, etc, etc throughout the season. Just thinking out loud.

WC adds weight to individual driver/car combinations, which makes SOME sense if it's the same people meeting weekend after weekend.

K

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 08:54 PM
There's actually a pretty decent amount of disagreement over whether FWD is a hinderance in race applications especially at varying power levels..

'Whether'? How many 'real' racecars do you know of that are FWD? I wonder why...hmmm.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 09:04 PM
You're thinking too narrow.

How many "real" race cars do you know that have the motor over the drive wheels. Hmmmmmm.......I wonder why.

red986s
12-18-2011, 09:08 PM
WC adds weight to individual driver/car combinations, which makes SOME sense if it's the same people meeting weekend after weekend.

K

I understand what you're saying but don't we all usually see the same drivers in our reg/div race after race? Sure you'll have an out of division driver here and there but IIRC that wouldn't effect divisional championship points, right?

Maybe it doesn't have to be weight, it could be win a race lose a couple positions the next race. I figured why penalize all cars across the board (i.e. Honda Civic) because one owner dominates. Impose it on that particular driver/car. In moderation of course (10#, then 20#, etc).

Matt93SE
12-18-2011, 09:24 PM
Why penalize one driver because he knows how to build, setup, and drive his fully-funded car, when he's out there beating the pants off a bunch of half-prepped and poorly driven cars?

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 09:29 PM
Agreed. And when the only other alternative is "rewards weight" based on performance at a single straightaway at Road America that's looking like a hell of a Hobson's Choice.


Why penalize one driver because he knows how to build, setup, and drive his fully-funded car, when he's out there beating the pants off a bunch of half-prepped and poorly driven cars?

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 09:41 PM
You're thinking too narrow.

How many "real" race cars do you know that have the motor over the drive wheels. Hmmmmmm.......I wonder why.

Nope, the process actually accounts for mid-rear.

We will agree to disagree that the LapSim was a bad move simply because we don't understand fully the algorithms. It supported a hypothesis, we were close with our SWAG and we made a small adjustment. I still think it was 100% the right thing to do.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 09:45 PM
Still thinking about it too narrowly.

Put FWD/RWD/mid engine aside. Do you agree that having the motor over the drive wheels can be an advantage in some instances (and I'm not just talking about in the wet)?

And let's at least be clear before we agree to disagree. It's not that we didn't fully understand the LapSim algorithms. We had no clue -- zero -- what the program was doing or not doing. And we still used it to set weights.

NOW we can agree to disagree. :)


Nope, the process actually accounts for mid-rear.

We will agree to disagree that the LapSim was a bad move simply because we don't understand fully the algorithms. It supported a hypothesis, we were close with our SWAG and we made a small adjustment. I still think it was 100% the right thing to do.

red986s
12-18-2011, 09:50 PM
Why penalize one driver because he knows how to build, setup, and drive his fully-funded car, when he's out there beating the pants off a bunch of half-prepped and poorly driven cars?

To keep the competition close and not have one car/driver dominate a class. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong these penalties wouldn't be permanent (all season) just a race or two. Like I said think WC. Just throwing ideas out there for the folks who are worried one car/engine/layout will dominate STL.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 09:52 PM
Honestly, ugh.

So I tow to Nashville to get some points, and run against 3-4 cars that are not very competitive. I get slapped with 100 lbs. I come back to CMP and face a 15 car field with 8 cars that are top notch, and I have 100 lbs on the car because of Nashville?

Appreciate the thoughts but just don't see how this will work.


To keep the competition close and not have one car/driver dominate a class. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong these penalties wouldn't be permanent (all season) just a race or two. Like I said think WC. Just throwing ideas out there for the folks who are worried one car/engine/layout will dominate STL.

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 09:56 PM
Still thinking about it too narrowly.

Put FWD/RWD/mid engine aside. Do you agree that having the motor over the drive wheels can be an advantage in some instances (and I'm not just talking about in the wet)?

And let's at least be clear before we agree to disagree. It's not that we didn't fully understand the LapSim algorithms. We had no clue -- zero -- what the program was doing or not doing. And we still used it to set weights.

NOW we can agree to disagree. :)

If by 'some instances' you mean things like 'initial turn-in response' or 'more stable under power' and the like, sure. But I'm not sure your point. Overall, FWD is NOT optimal for a racing application. I am not sure how that is debatable.

We used the Sim to validate where we were and a hypothesis that it might not be enough. Coincidentally(?) it independently supported those thoughts.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 10:01 PM
My point is pretty simple. In situations where we have sub 200 whp cars on what are basically racing slicks. the advantage of having the weight over the drive wheels can overcome the disadvantage of having the drive wheels doing both steering and "driving." It can provide significantly more off the corner grip than a front engine/RWD car especially when conditions are slick -- heat, oil, damp, etc.

I was too ill informed at the time the big push was on to put the FWD deduct in place. There is a lot of debate over this and the old mantra about "all real race cars are RWD" as proof of the advantage of RWD is disingenous. IN REALITY, when given a clean slate, designers do not go with a front engine/rear drive concept. They go with a rear engine design which combines the advantages of both RWD/front engine and FWD/front engine.

In my opinion, we blew it. There really isn't an advantage/disadvantage to FWD (I think the pluses and minuses cancel each other out) at these power/grip levels.

I'm still at a loss as to what we validated with LapSim or what our hypothesis was. We basically just accepted what the program had to say without any question. Yes, I'm obsessed with this...lol....

Ron Earp
12-18-2011, 10:03 PM
Reading through these various threads on STL (ST) over the last few months leads me to believe that much about the class is uncertain. There seem to be more than a few inconsistencies in the philosophy of the ST as well as the technical details surrounding the classing of certain cars.

I do believe the class is well-intentioned, but as a perspective participant it seems to me it is too narrowly defined. I'm more than a bit apprehensive about how the competition adjustments, or whatever they'll be termed, will be implemented. I'll be watching from the sidelines but I'm nowhere near as excited as I was months ago when I first learned about it.

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 10:12 PM
My point is pretty simple. In situations where we have sub 200 whp cars on what are basically racing slicks. the advantage of having the weight over the drive wheels can overcome the disadvantage of having the drive wheels doing both steering and "driving." It can provide significantly more off the corner grip than a front engine/RWD car especially when conditions are slick -- heat, oil, damp, etc.



What are you citing as data to support this?

A tire only has 100% grip. If the fronts are using all of that to corner, then shift weight OFF of them to try and accelerate, it's not optimal. Slower corner speeds (less than 100% of the tires ability) are needed to then apply another force at once WHILE also increasing weight transfer to the opposite end.

Wait, now I get it...you don't like the SIM output because you don't BELIEVE it! :) That Lucas smoke is damaging. LOL.

Cheers bro. VIR in March again. Beers and debate! :)

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 10:15 PM
Dave, sorry, missed this post.

It seems to me to be a "trigger level" difference. Somewhere in the posts above, I did acknowledge that we are seeing with Greg and Chris here is, I think, the realization that you have to have the ability to deal with the overdog.

For us on the ITAC, my personal opinion is that the "evidentiary standard" required to adjust a car away from 25% is much higher than it was in the past and I think that is a good thing.

More importantly, it's done on a national basis with the stated goal of having at least five data points before we can make a change. There are problems with that, but the "good" of it is we avoid the "he pulled me down the backstraight at Road Schmugalugifucus" weight adjustments.

Like Ron's post above, I was initially interested in this class. The narrow displacement limit and the even more narrow group of cars and chassis that appear competitive have made me less interested. Weight adjustments based on data from one straightaway at Road America pretty much seals the deal for me.

I wish ST well. It is a cool rule set and I'm not upset or anything about the direction it's taken -- I'm just one guy with a creaky old IT car...lol.....but like Andy said above, for folks used to IT and the very strong institutional bias against making weight adjustments based on on track performance, a lot of what was discussed above is contrary to a core fundamental for car classing that we are used to.

Again, best wishes to Greg and Chris and I hope ST is successful. They've done good work with it.


How is this fundamentally different than the ITAC being able to adjust the horsepower improvement factor away from the assumed 25-30% when evidence is presented? The STAC might use a different sort of evidence, but I don't hear them saying they plan to do wholesale adjustments.

Dave

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 10:18 PM
Let's go back to the basic point.

Do you agree that weight over the drive wheels can be and advantage? If we can't get you to understand that point, then we'll just have to wait until March and those beers....lol....

Seriously, you coming down? I've FINALLY gotten in the 16s at VIR and with the new motor and shock package will be shooting for 15s. Might even have a shot at beating you....lol....


What are you citing as data to support this?

A tire only has 100% grip. If the fronts are using all of that to corner, then shift weight OFF of them to try and accelerate, it's not optimal. Slower corner speeds (less than 100% of the tires ability) are needed to then apply another force at once WHILE also increasing weight transfer to the opposite end.

Wait, now I get it...you don't like the SIM output because you don't BELIEVE it! :) That Lucas smoke is damaging. LOL.

Cheers bro. VIR in March again. Beers and debate! :)

red986s
12-18-2011, 10:18 PM
Honestly, ugh.

So I tow to Nashville to get some points, and run against 3-4 cars that are not very competitive. I get slapped with 100 lbs. I come back to CMP and face a 15 car field with 8 cars that are top notch, and I have 100 lbs on the car because of Nashville?

Yes Jeff, no one person would be allowed to dominate the class. 100 lbs? No, 50 lbs maybe and like I said it doesn't have to be a "weight" penalty. It could be adjusted position, restrictor, whatever.


Appreciate the thoughts but just don't see how this will work.

Just trying to think outside the box. :D

lateapex911
12-18-2011, 10:57 PM
Yes Jeff, no one person would be allowed to dominate the class. 100 lbs? No, 50 lbs maybe and like I said it doesn't have to be a "weight" penalty. It could be adjusted position, restrictor, whatever.



Just trying to think outside the box. :D

Sounds socialist!

If somebody is dominating, then I guess I better earn more money, tell my wife we're not going on vacation this year, build a better car and get my crap together and bring more speed. Or talent. Or all of the above.
Now, if the CAR (ie a Teg or Miata, or whatever) is dominating...ALL OVER, race after race, and there are objective reasons identified as to WHY the car is dominating, THEN I suggest the objective reasons need to be considered for adjustment/equalization.*

But if a PERSON dominates, and he's getting weight slapped on him, I'd hand him the trophy if I beat him. Cuz it's BS that he's being handicapped. Not a fair fight. I only want to win a fair fight, not some handicapped deal.
But that's me.

IF you have a very tightly run closed series (like a pro series, with limited car choices and drivers), AND it's being run to entertain an audience, then sure, I can see some form of 'equalization". In IT, I could see this for series' that support Pro Racing events. We ran a 3 race IT series at Lime Rock a few years ago, that supported various pro events. That could work ...but I'd do some qualifying results juggling**. I'm not going to make amateurs start bolting in weight blocks....

**I'd take the top 6 guys, say, and make the pole sitter draw a number. Between 1 and 6. If he draws five say, either 5 guys draw straws or numbers for starting position, or they just reverse the top five starting positions.

My take is that the STAC is loath to do any form of diddling. They seem fine with this being essentially a one Make class. Or, maybe a class that has a very limited number of choices to win

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 11:20 PM
Let's go back to the basic point.

Do you agree that weight over the drive wheels can be and advantage? If we can't get you to understand that point, then we'll just have to wait until March and those beers....lol....

Seriously, you coming down? I've FINALLY gotten in the 16s at VIR and with the new motor and shock package will be shooting for 15s. Might even have a shot at beating you....lol....

I agree it can be. But a 'net' advantage? Nope.

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 11:23 PM
Yes Jeff, no one person would be allowed to dominate the class. 100 lbs? No, 50 lbs maybe and like I said it doesn't have to be a "weight" penalty. It could be adjusted position, restrictor, whatever.



Just trying to think outside the box. :D

Why can't any one person dominate? That box you speak of is no place for me. Congrats, your good at what you do, let's bring you back to everyone else so they don't have to be as good as you. Ugh.

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 11:25 PM
Explain to me how you reached that conclusion (no net advantage) using suspension design, tire width, varying tire grip levels (Toyo v. Kumho v. Hoosier), track adhesion levels, horsepower levels, driver skill, setup skill, and the speed of an African Swallow shitting on an ITB Volvo.....lol...

And now that we have finally acknowledged FWD ain't all bad, show me your calculations detailing the extent of the disadvantage over the advantage at varying horespower levels, tire sizes and grip levels.

Then, explain how your calculations justify a deduct for FWD cars vis a vis sub 200 whp RWD cars with front engines.

Show your work!

Starting to see the problem with LapSim? :)


I agree it can be. But a 'net' advantage? Nope.

red986s
12-18-2011, 11:34 PM
Sounds socialist!

:lol: It does.


But if a PERSON dominates, and he's getting weight slapped on him, I'd hand him the trophy if I beat him. Cuz it's BS that he's being handicapped. Not a fair fight. I only want to win a fair fight, not some handicapped deal.
But that's me.

I wish I had suggested "If you win, the next race you have to hold a beer in your left hand" instead of weight. Don't focus on that. It's only one of many ideas.


**I'd take the top 6 guys, say, and make the pole sitter draw a number. Between 1 and 6. If he draws five say, either 5 guys draw straws or numbers for starting position, or they just reverse the top five starting positions.

There ya go! That's a good one!

Okay getting back in the box now. :D

Andy Bettencourt
12-18-2011, 11:47 PM
Explain to me how you reached that conclusion (no net advantage) using suspension design, tire width, varying tire grip levels (Toyo v. Kumho v. Hoosier), track adhesion levels, horsepower levels, driver skill, setup skill, and the speed of an African Swallow shitting on an ITB Volvo.....lol...

And now that we have finally acknowledged FWD ain't all bad, show me your calculations detailing the extent of the disadvantage over the advantage at varying horespower levels, tire sizes and grip levels.

Then, explain how your calculations justify a deduct for FWD cars vis a vis sub 200 whp RWD cars with front engines.

Show your work!

Starting to see the problem with LapSim? :)

My stuff is simple physics...plus I asked you to support your conclusion first. I must have missed that.

Are you telling us that you think FWD is equal to RWD (given as many equal variables as possible)? You are trying to confuse the witness with completely irrelevant data - driver skill? Really? Come on. That is why I think LapSim is an interesting exercise, because it takes all those BS variables out - or else it would be impossible to come to a conclusion.

red986s
12-18-2011, 11:49 PM
Why can't any one person dominate?

I give up, why can't any one person dominate?


That box you speak of is no place for me.

Different ideas from the old line of thinking? But yeah, I noticed this from your comments.


Congrats, your good at what you do

???


let's bring you back to everyone else so they don't have to be as good as you. Ugh.

Okay thanks for your input. (ugh)

JeffYoung
12-18-2011, 11:54 PM
My stuff is simple physics too. Weight over the drive wheels equals more grip.

I don't have to show any numbers. My position was we couldn't quantify this accurately and we shouldn't try. You guys are the ones who came up with 2% here and 3% there. Justify it with numbers.

I'm not saying that FWD is equal to RWD. I am saying:

1. Justifying the FWD deduct because "all real race cars are RWD" is a fallacy. Most purpose scratch built race cars have their engines over the drive wheels. Like FWD.

2. Using a program like LapSim to quantify all of the assumptions I listed above requires you to understand what, how and why LapSim is doing things. We had no clue.

3. I can use modeling software to try to quantify aero advantage. I mean, I can take the CD and the frontal area of an RX7 or an Integra and use simple physics to show you me and the old Z cars are at a significant disadvantage to the newer models.

The real question is when should we do this (adders/deducts) and what should we use to quantify them?

Here, in retrospect, it's pretty clear to me we jumped on an assumption that is not correct (that FWD is always at a disadvantage to RWD) and then used a program we had no clue how it worked to quantify that assumption.

Another analogy. If LapSim had a box that said "Crappy Aero," we checked it, and it gave a 2% weight break to older cars that kinda sorta matched up with some real world lap time data we had, would you consider that a valid process for weighting cars in IT?


My stuff is simple physics...plus I asked you to support your conclusion first. I must have missed that.

Are you telling us that you think FWD is equal to RWD (given as many equal variables as possible)? You are trying to confuse the witness with completely irrelevant data - driver skill? Really? Come on.

Ron Earp
12-19-2011, 12:35 AM
That is why I think LapSim is an interesting exercise, because it takes all those BS variables out .

Really?

You don't know what LapSim does when you click "FWD". It might be that when you click it LapSim simply creates a lap time based on (0.691s + AverageLapTime) to obtain the lap time. Ain't any modeling going on there, just a scalar based on what someone perceives to be fact. That is the root of the discussion that Jeff is trying to get to, what do we "know" LapSim is doing?

Chip42
12-19-2011, 02:27 AM
the FWD/RWD debate really burns me. scratch built race cars put the engine in the MIDDLE to reduce the polar moment and get the lump out of the way so the suspensions can have more design freedom. They drive the REAR wheels because it offers handling advantages over FWD in a variety of ways (FACT). weight distribution will tend to be a rear biased but generally not by more than 10%, typically less.

scratch built racecars also don't have to put up with the street car cost, complexity, and packaging compromises that IT/ST and Prod cars must start out with. so it's kinda a BS basis for an argument. find me a scratch built race car with mcstruts, a spare tire, seating for 4, and a cargo hold to match. I'll wait.

and as much as it is a fallacy to site the miata as an example of all RWD machines (awesome suspension design and weight distribution with the compromises being to cargo and occupant room, an atypical scenario in street cars of this price range), it is equally fallacious to look upon 90's honda products as typical FWD (far better than average suspensions and great motors that are also lighter than most of their rivals' drivetrains). mid engined cars tend to be even more exotic, but that doesn't mean they are all formula cars with fenders - most of those in club racing share more of the compromises of the standard econobox than does the miata.

I think STL and U - and I said this over a year ago in a letter to the STAC, should specline allowed motors and chassis wherever they fall afoul of the target "zone", listing alternate base weights and maybe a cam lift or compression difference from the class norm. increase the base weight of the B18C1 if its so good. lower that of the borgwald I4 if it's remarkably underpowered. maybe list a few chassis with a weight break or penalty if needed. remember that "the car" isn't what was delivered to a showroom - its an engine with a base weight number nominally determined by its displacement, and a box with wheels into which it's bolted.

the classes seem very exciting but not all things are as equal as the rules would require in order to build parity. some ability to class by specifics is needed to keep things interesting and stable long term.

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 02:56 AM
Exactly. And yet we fell into the trap of assuming RWD is always better than FWD and coming up with a black box deduct to "deal with it."

I agree that RWD "generally" is better than FWD. I pointed out what I did above to make it clear that there is far more nuance to the situation than we gave it, or that this thread was giving it.

The FWD deduct is water under the bridge. It's part of the Process and I would not vote to change it. However, it is, in my opinion, a shining example of what NOT to do in creating an adder/deduct which is to make assumptions about various car attributes and then use a process you don't even understand to come up with a number for the modifier.

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 03:12 AM
OK, I won't ask anyone to show me the numbers...

So, all you FWD /RWD debaters, and other smart guys, put a number on the subject:

Tell me the weight you feel can equal a FWD STL car with the same engine. (ignore gearing issues, assume each can be ideal)...in a RWD chassis.
The FWD version will weigh 2350. What weight do you think the RWD needs to be if:

-the car is run at Watkins Glen. For the sake of discussion lets choose a track that isn't a dyno run like Road America, or a bullring like Lime Rock. Lets say Watkins Glen.
-the test is a 10 lap cumulative time. Lets say the "challenge" is the best time for 10 laps. (30 miles or so). So not an enduro, but not a 1 lap banzai quali session either.
-Suspensions are as equivalent as possible....a wash. A great FWD double wishbone front end and good rear.
-Aero will be a wash between the two.

So, if Randy Pobst is driving the 2350lb FWD car, what weight should the RWD car be for Bill Auberlin to run the same total time.

(credit Greg Amy for this little exercise )

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 03:25 AM
How are you going to quantify this is the real question.



OK, I won't ask anyone to show me the numbers...

So, all you FWD /RWD debaters, and other smart guys, put a number on the subject:

Tell me the weight you feel can equal a FWD STL car with the same engine. (ignore gearing issues, assume each can be ideal)...in a RWD chassis.
The FWD version will weigh 2350. What weight do you think the RWD needs to be if:

-the car is run at Watkins Glen. For the sake of discussion lets choose a track that isn't a dyno run like Road America, or a bullring like Lime Rock. Lets say Watkins Glen.
-the test is a 10 lap cumulative time. Lets say the "challenge" is the best time for 10 laps. (30 miles or so). So not an enduro, but not a 1 lap banzai quali session either.
-Suspensions are as equivalent as possible....a wash. A great FWD double wishbone front end and good rear.
-Aero will be a wash between the two.

So, if Randy Pobst is driving the 2350lb FWD car, what weight should the RWD car be for Bill Auberlin to run the same total time.

(credit Greg Amy for this little exercise )

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 05:00 AM
How are you going to quantify this is the real question.

Aww, c'mon, just play along! I just want a bunch of weights from people. You know, Bob thinks the RWD car needs to be 50lbs lighter to be even up, and Frank thinks it needs to be 200 heavier. I just want to get an idea of the crowds ideas. Group think!

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 07:15 AM
I have absolutely no idea. It could be 5 lbs, it could be 200 lbs. If it is a hot slippery race track the FWD car could have the advantage.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2011, 08:23 AM
I give up, why can't any one person dominate?



Different ideas from the old line of thinking? But yeah, I noticed this from your comments.



???



Okay thanks for your input. (ugh)

You didn't read the comments in the context they were meant. 'You' is the collective you. Sanctioning body says, "Congrats, you are a better driver, or better car preparer or better racer" so you get a lead trophy. We do this simply so that you can't perform better than everyone else"

That sucks IMHO.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2011, 08:27 AM
Really?

You don't know what LapSim does when you click "FWD". It might be that when you click it LapSim simply creates a lap time based on (0.691s + AverageLapTime) to obtain the lap time. Ain't any modeling going on there, just a scalar based on what someone perceives to be fact. That is the root of the discussion that Jeff is trying to get to, what do we "know" LapSim is doing?

True, but it makes no sense that it wouldn't take out stuff like driver ability? Of course it does, unless there was a metric for dialing in a quantifier for each subject. IIRC, and we can go back to the posts, but the guy who ran the program created an 'everything else equal' scenario using the inputs he had at his disposal. Not sure what else you want.

Matt93SE
12-19-2011, 09:35 AM
You people make my brain hurt. This is really simple here...
THIS IS NOT IT, THIS IS ST. No car is guaranteed to be competitive in the class. Warts and all.

If you want to make adjustments to your competitors to make your favorite car competitive, then you're looking at the wrong class. Stop trying to fudge the rules to make your Whatsit competitive and built a Thatsit instead because you know it will run up front.

Knestis
12-19-2011, 09:38 AM
On the FWD IT Process issue...

1. Comparing production-based cars, FWD is dynamically a disadvantage on the race track - that's established physics and engineering (applied math and physics), not opinion.

2. The influence of that factor varies with other factors - some that the Process can't control for (and don't TRY, like weather), and one important one that it does consider (power).

3. Given the above, it was desirable to come up with a way to take FWD/RWD into consideration.

4. As has been demonstrated here to good effect, any guesstimates from the crowd are going to be disputed by someone else, so an external, unbiased, math expert was called in - Bosch Motorsport Engineering and their LapSim software.

5. LapSim was not used as part of the Process (as has been incorrectly stated around here). It was used to establish cut points for the IT classes, using estimates of the upper and lower HP limits likely in each, to arrive at the percentage deducts codified by the ITAC.

6. We knew that, like every other aspect of the Process, it was NOT perfect but it met alll of the policy requirements in play.

Talk about weather, "real race cars," and all the rest just muddies the water.

K

Knestis
12-19-2011, 09:48 AM
On "rewards weight"...

"Pro" (read, made-for-TV-spectacle) racing uses that approach because they value spectators over drivers. Club racing HAS neither spectators nor an obligation to encourage the TV idiocracy to tune in.

Racing is about giving every driver the same OPPORTUNITY to be competitive. Rules control the input variables - the size of tire, for example. If everyone is working to the same rules, everyone has the same opportunity. The challenge that is "racing" is therefore building a system that maximizes its outputs (ultimately, speed around a road course) by managing all of the variables that are within the control of the driver/entrant/crew.

The minimum weight of the ITB MkIII Golf went UP this year, and I went faster at the ARRC.

How in the WORLD could that have happened...???

K

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 09:52 AM
Despite how some of my posts might be read (or even state) I tend to agree that FWD is in a technical sense (all else being equal) a disadvantage to RWD in most situations.

The problem is, was and will be quantification.

We can't say that Bosch Motorsports Engineering and Lapsim was "unbiased" and a "math expert" because we have absolutely no idea how they calculated the FWD deficiency. None.

And it absolutely was used as part of the Process. It was used to justify the "guesses" we made on what percentage deduct we should use for R, S and A.

Each of the 'subjective' adders and deducts are problematic to me. That applies to the ones that would affect my car negatively -- the torque adder -- and those that would help, like the live rear axle deduct, or the brake deduct.

Again, this is all water under the bridge. I'm not advocating we do away with this adder. It's been in use for too long and it's clearly not overly disruptive. But I do think the whole story on how it came into being needs to be trotted out as an example of what not to do for "objective" car weighting.



4. As has been demonstrated here to good effect, any guesstimates from the crowd are going to be disputed by someone else, so an external, unbiased, math expert was called in - Bosch Motorsport Engineering and their LapSim software.

5. LapSim was not used as part of the Process (as has been incorrectly stated around here). It was used to establish cut points for the IT classes, using estimates of the upper and lower HP limits likely in each, to arrive at the percentage deducts codified by the ITAC.

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 09:53 AM
Because FWD is moar bettah....:)


On "rewards weight"...

"Pro" (read, made-for-TV-spectacle) racing uses that approach because they value spectators over drivers. Club racing HAS neither spectators nor an obligation to encourage the TV idiocracy to tune in.

Racing is about giving every driver the same OPPORTUNITY to be competitive. Rules control the input variables - the size of tire, for example. If everyone is working to the same rules, everyone has the same opportunity. The challenge that is "racing" is therefore building a system that maximizes its outputs (ultimately, speed around a road course) by managing all of the variables that are within the control of the driver/entrant/crew.

The minimum weight of the ITB MkIII Golf went UP this year, and I went faster at the ARRC.

How in the WORLD could that have happened...???

K

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2011, 09:58 AM
But I do think the whole story on how it came into being needs to be trotted out as an example of what not to do for "objective" car weighting.

And there we will disagree. 1st we guess. Then we use a software program, designed to do exactly what we are trying to do, to validate our guess.

I don't care that I am not a software engineer and I don't know the code. It's supporting data to a guess. BETTER IMHO than just a guess.

Chip42
12-19-2011, 10:11 AM
So, if Randy Pobst is driving the 2350lb FWD car, what weight should the RWD car be for Bill Auberlin to run the same total time.

(credit Greg Amy for this little exercise )

how much hp/Tq? what's the tire size? I refuse to believe that there is a correct generic answer. is the RWD better? theroetically, yes (if the "equal" suspension design is complete crap, I think the FWD actually has the advantage). by how much? too many variables. It works in IT I think in large part becasue the cars are all so IMperfect. there's slighlty less imperfection in STL, and much less in STU. if I had to stick to a swag, I'd use ~4-5% for STL, roughly the same number used in ITS, just because it "seems" to be about right there for largely the same target engine output and chassis but with slightly more weight (so I went down a bit). but I'm not going to say I think it's absolutely right, or right enough for the series.

BUT - Auberlin wont catch Pobst in near equal machines over a race distance. bad example.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2011, 10:17 AM
You people make my brain hurt. This is really simple here...
THIS IS NOT IT, THIS IS ST. No car is guaranteed to be competitive in the class. Warts and all.

If you want to make adjustments to your competitors to make your favorite car competitive, then you're looking at the wrong class. Stop trying to fudge the rules to make your Whatsit competitive and built a Thatsit instead because you know it will run up front.

Matt,

I am not sure, in the context of STL, you are correct. Reading Chris's post is proof.

'Build it, race it, prove it sucks and we will review it'. That ain't warts and all.

Z3_GoCar
12-19-2011, 11:58 AM
One factor that's not being addressed is that it's assumed that all motors of the same displacement give the same power, now how much drivetrain drag is in a FWD vs RWD. It's pretty well understood that the typical transverse system will be 2% better at getting the motor hp to the wheels. So, if you're talking wheel hp that yes maybe 5%, but using motor hp that's narrowed to 3%. Then if the head and intake manifold's are better on the FWD car, if the suspension is multilink instead of struts and triailing arm and/or beam axle. You get a class built for one manufacturer and and a few motor/chassis combinations (ST-H).

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2011, 12:14 PM
One factor that's not being addressed is that it's assumed that all motors of the same displacement give the same power, now how much drivetrain drag is in a FWD vs RWD. It's pretty well understood that the typical transverse system will be 2% better at getting the motor hp to the wheels. So, if you're talking wheel hp that yes maybe 5%, but using motor hp that's narrowed to 3%. Then if the head and intake manifold's are better on the FWD car, if the suspension is multilink instead of struts and triailing arm and/or beam axle. You get a class built for one manufacturer and and a few motor/chassis combinations (ST-H).

So one thing that I would bet bottom dollar that the SIM didn't take into account, like James is saying, it the slight power advantage a FWD car has - especially within our process.

Using the 25%, a car with 140 stock hp should make 175 hp at the crank. That's approximately 143.5whp for a rwd car and 148.75whp for a FWD car.

5whp is at least 5.5 at the crank which in ITA is worth 80lbs.....discuss. LOL

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 03:20 PM
how much hp/Tq? what's the tire size? I refuse to believe that there is a correct generic answer. is the RWD better? theroetically, yes (if the "equal" suspension design is complete crap, I think the FWD actually has the advantage). by how much? too many variables. It works in IT I think in large part becasue the cars are all so IMperfect. there's slighlty less imperfection in STL, and much less in STU. if I had to stick to a swag, I'd use ~4-5% for STL, roughly the same number used in ITS, just because it "seems" to be about right there for largely the same target engine output and chassis but with slightly more weight (so I went down a bit). but I'm not going to say I think it's absolutely right, or right enough for the series.

BUT - Auberlin wont catch Pobst in near equal machines over a race distance. bad example.

Ack!
I forgot to put that in! Power...duh!

OK, the engine makes, in race trim, 200 crank.

Obviously, RWD has another gear set at 90 degees.

And the 'race' is actually just a 30 mile run. Ignore ability to pass, etc. Assume Bot drives that are ideal for the respective car. Name them Jake and Chip. Or whatever!

C'mon guys, toss a number out there!

Ron Earp
12-19-2011, 03:39 PM
Ack!
And the 'race' is actually just a 30 mile run. Ignore ability to pass, etc. Assume Bot drives that are ideal for the respective car. Name them Jake and Chip. Or whatever!


Okay, I'll play.

My thought experiment 30 mile run is long straights with some big/long sweepers. In that case the RWD car will need less weight due to the efficiency of the FWD drive train. I figure ITS cars, and 170 FWD hp and around 164 RWD. 6hp, so about 78 lbs less for RWD if I want somewhat similar lap times.

How'd I do?

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 03:50 PM
:shrug:

Sigh.

LOL.
The Glen, 200 crank. STL.

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 04:05 PM
Not far off of Ron's example really. 200 crank is around 170ish wheel, if not a little low. The Glen seems to be a lot of long straights and fast sweepers.

Work of his example and explain why he is wrong.


:shrug:

Sigh.

LOL.
The Glen, 200 crank. STL.

Ron Earp
12-19-2011, 04:13 PM
The Glen, 200 crank. STL.

Okay, WG. In that case the RWD car will need less weight due to the efficiency of the FWD drive train. I figure STL cars, and 170 FWD hp and around 164 RWD. 6hp, so about 78 lbs less for RWD if I want somewhat similar lap times.

How'd I do?

PS-remind me again how we got off talking about Honda Challenge, err, STL, and FWD modifiers? Why are RX7s allowed in STL again even though you can't build a wankel powered STL car? Oh, wait, to bolster numbers, I remember now.

Chip42
12-19-2011, 04:40 PM
Ignore ability to pass, etc.

STL isn't track attack, it's W2W racing. you ignore passing and you might as well be driving slot cars. part of the reason RWD is "Better" is tire wear is more even and the driver has more line options for passing / blocking. FWD has advantages in passing sometimes just because the line works out more advantageously for them in some corner. match whp/wt in your scenario and I wouldn't call a favorite wihtout more chasis specifics. Given matched crank hp with the likelihood of lower whp numbers on the RWD and I'll agree with Ron - though I still think real world the front engined-RWD car will have a slight advantage.

get over ~200hp and the FWD capabiltiy will start to fall off quickly.

Ron Earp
12-19-2011, 05:11 PM
I figure STL cars, and 170 FWD hp and around 164 RWD. 6hp, so about 78 lbs less for RWD if I want somewhat similar lap times.


Oh, and I'm ignoring how much of a FWD fanboi I am or how much I want my favorite FWD econbox to win in the class.

Knestis
12-19-2011, 06:38 PM
Asking the question differently...

If VW built a rear-drive version of the ITB Golf III, with the same engine and gear ratios and equally crappy suspension all around; would I choose it over the FWD version? Yes.

If the same question were asked of an ITS-power-level car? Hell, yes.

K

JeffYoung
12-19-2011, 06:42 PM
Of course. That is a an easy theoretical question to answer.

The problem is the real world ain't like that. We have 300 cars in the ITCS with all kinds of different suspension designs. Using a "one size fits all" deduct calculated from a program that no one can explain how it works is a huge mistake (in my opinion).

Too lat though. Too many cars classed with it, and its our baby, which is fine. I just hope other classes don't repeat the mistake (in my opinion).


Asking the question differently...

If VW built a rear-drive version of the ITB Golf III, with the same engine and gear ratios and equally crappy suspension all around; would I choose it over the FWD version? Yes.

If the same question were asked of an ITS-power-level car? Hell, yes.

K

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 07:00 PM
STL isn't track attack, it's W2W racing. you ignore passing and you might as well be driving slot cars. part of the reason RWD is "Better" is tire wear is more even and the driver has more line options for passing / blocking. FWD has advantages in passing sometimes just because the line works out more advantageously for them in some corner. match whp/wt in your scenario and I wouldn't call a favorite wihtout more chasis specifics. Given matched crank hp with the likelihood of lower whp numbers on the RWD and I'll agree with Ron - though I still think real world the front engined-RWD car will have a slight advantage.

get over ~200hp and the FWD capabiltiy will start to fall off quickly.

Chip, I understand all that... I'm trying to get to a base answer, and then from THERE we can debates the little stuff.
Chassis specifics? FWD: all independent, double wishbone front, good geometry. Rear also works well at lowered heights with good geometry. RWD Double A arms all around, Assume 55/45 for FWD car and 50/50 for RWD car or close to those numbers.

Ron, I chose the Glen because there are some long corners and some tight ones as well. The toe of the boot is a pretty tight, long, uphill late apexer that exits onto an uphill straight. A the end of that, theres hard downhill braking into a moderate corner.
Would you answer differently for Mid Ohio?? (I'm trying to find a general 'middle ground", not a dyno run or an autocross)

lateapex911
12-19-2011, 07:02 PM
Asking the question differently...

If VW built a rear-drive version of the ITB Golf III, with the same engine and gear ratios and equally crappy suspension all around; would I choose it over the FWD version? Yes.

If the same question were asked of an ITS-power-level car? Hell, yes.

K

OK, for the Golf, you're talking 120hp or so crank? And since you said "yes" how much weight would you add to the RWD car before you said, "hmmm, yea, that's a tough one to choose between, I just don't know which way I'd go"?

And at ITS power levels, "Hell yes" becomes ? weight? (we are at 2350 for the FWD car)

Chip42
12-19-2011, 11:30 PM
Chip, I understand all that... I'm trying to get to a base answer, and then from THERE we can debates the little stuff.

I know you know - hell everyone still reading this thread (all 6 of us) knows. we also all know that there's no answer that is always right. because specifics matter, and the rule is blind to them. I'd take the RWD car so long as it was no more than 10% heavier, that's 235 lbs, just because I think it'd be a better car over the race, even if it din't qualify as well or even win in your hypothetical race.

the IT rules seem to work, and I'll say it again - I think it's because everything is so imperfect that it all works out in the wash. engine swaps and stiffer chassis start to correct for that so ST is less forgiving to hatpulls.

mossaidis
12-20-2011, 12:03 AM
~3400 views... oh yeah... there's more than 6 readers. :)

JS154
12-20-2011, 09:42 AM
Not far off of Ron's example really. 200 crank is around 170ish wheel, if not a little low. The Glen seems to be a lot of long straights and fast sweepers.

Work of his example and explain why he is wrong.

In STL trim that will be a lap in the 2:12-2:14 range at the Glen.

Andy Bettencourt
12-20-2011, 12:36 PM
In STL trim that will be a lap in the 2:12-2:14 range at the Glen.

ITS record is about 2:14 flat for reference

Knestis
12-20-2011, 01:06 PM
OK, for the Golf, you're talking 120hp or so crank? And since you said "yes" how much weight would you add to the RWD car before you said, "hmmm, yea, that's a tough one to choose between, I just don't know which way I'd go"?

And at ITS power levels, "Hell yes" becomes ? weight? (we are at 2350 for the FWD car)

At the ITB level, 150-200 pounds would shift my thinking - again, ALL other things being equal.

At some point with an S-power car, the amount of weight required to make it work becomes so much that it's not likely to happen. I think I'd be hard pressed to do an FWD S car REGARDLESS, but I confess it's not all about where the driven wheels are.

K

StephenB
01-06-2012, 01:03 PM
Nope. The CRB has declared directly to the STAC (we asked) that rotaries are subject to a 2x displacement multiplier when considered for power-to-displacement calcs (though I can't find it in the GCR anywhere...) As such, none are automatically eligible for STL. To address that, we specifically include the 12A and 13B as part of the STL program, with limited mods and additional weight.

GA

GCR overrides all those conversations. I just re-read the rules and nothing says rotaries are not allowed. It fits all criteria that I could find. It is an IT car and it has under 2.0 displacement as well. The only thing I found was a specific weight for the 12A and 13B. So ALL other rotaries would follow the regular weight classifications as far as I can tell. What am I missing?

The only information I found on pertaining to a Rotary engine... From the GCR:
The Mazda 12A is permitted at 2225 lbs; Mazda 13B is permitted
at 2615 lbs; no porting is permitted in either engine the 5th and 6th
intake port actuators and valves may be removed or disabled.

If that is to exclude other Rotary engines it should add a line to the start of the above rules "Only the following non piston engines are allowed"

Stephen

I guess it doesn't matter, my ITB car is a 2.2 and the RX8 won't be allowed for my brother to double up in it. I guess this class is not something I personally should be following anymore. ITE looks like the best fit. I just wanted to follow-up on why I thought I was correct.

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 01:17 PM
What am I missing?



Nothing in the current document, but like Greg said before, these engines have been considered in the past to be 2X of their displacement because of how many 'power strokes' they can produce in one single engine revolution vs the traditional internal combustion engine.

StephenB
01-06-2012, 01:55 PM
"What am I missing in the GCR" Is what I should have typed.

Stephen

JS154
01-06-2012, 02:34 PM
Nothing in the current document, but like Greg said before, these engines have been considered in the past to be 2X of their displacement because of how many 'power strokes' they can produce in one single engine revolution vs the traditional internal combustion engine.

So the type of engine is adjusted differently based on the number of "power strokes".

OK that makes sense.

Why is the exact same reasoning not applied to AWD cars, which have twice as many drive wheels? (I see this as an STU issue)

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 02:37 PM
So the type of engine is adjusted differently based on the number of "power strokes".

OK that makes sense.

Why is the exact same reasoning not applied to AWD cars, which have twice as many drive wheels? (I see this as an STU issue)

Let me be clear, they typically list the 1.3 Wankel like a 2.6 in classes like this because of it's design and 'how it acts'. We all know it's effectively a 2-stroke. Classes that take those factors into account usually allow porting however, so in this case you get the whammy without the allowance. AWD and forced induction are animals that are very hard to tame as you know.

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 02:59 PM
Someone that knows these engine want to 'splain to me WTF this means and how the math works out...?

GCR Technical Glossary:
Displacement (Engine) – Reciprocating engine: the swept volume of 1 cylinder times the number of cylinders. Rotary engine: the difference between the largest and smallest volumes of the working chamber, times the number of lobes, times the number of rotors.

Sports Racer Category Specs:
Rotary Piston Engines:
Cars with rotary piston engines by the NSU-Wankel patents shall be classified on the basis of a piston displacement equivalent of twice the volume determined by the difference between the maximum and minimum capacity of the working chamber.

And then there's this:

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html

...which explains the 2x multiplier pretty well.

But the "controlling legal authority" on rotaries right now is the GCR definition, which by my calc brings the engine to just over 3.9L...?


Let me be clear, they typically list the 1.3 Wankel like a 2.6 in classes like this because of it's design and 'how it acts'. We all know it's effectively a 2-stroke. Classes that take those factors into account usually allow porting however, so in this case you get the whammy without the allowance.
Which is exactly why I believe that all rotaries are STU engines, with "street port". You get both the whammy and the allowance.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 03:35 PM
Someone that knows these engine want to 'splain to me WTF this means and how the math works out...?

Rotary engine: the difference between the largest and smallest volumes of the working chamber, times the number of lobes, times the number of rotors.


It's a way to calculate the displacement of a chamber (rotor housing) factoring in the amount of sides used to create a power stroke on a single rotor then again the amount of those chambers.

Since the 13B has two rotors with volumes of 654cc's each, it's common to measure the overall volume at 1.3L (1308cc's)...

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 03:38 PM
Since the 13B has two rotors with volumes of 654cc's each, it's common to measure the overall volume at 1.3L (1308cc's)...
Andy, that 654cc is swept volume per lobe, per rotor. Ergo, using the GCR definition it's 654cc times three lobes per rotor times two rotors...or 3.9L.

Using the SRCS, it's 2.6L.

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 04:25 PM
Andy, that 654cc is swept volume per lobe, per rotor. Ergo, using the GCR definition it's 654cc times three lobes per rotor times two rotors...or 3.9L.

Using the SRCS, it's 2.6L.

100% true, but aren't we trying to compare a measurement vs a standard 4-cycle 4cyl? Then, as the link you posted points out, you should only use 720 degrees of rotation, hence the 2.6.

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 04:36 PM
I agree with the 2.6L, that link explained it pretty well. I suggest that the GCR Technical Glossary definition needs to be replaced with the one in the SRCS. I'll actually make that request to the CRB now.

So, Stephen, there you are, that's what we were all missing.

On a related and absolutely, 100% coincidental side note, I heard second-hand that the STL RX8 entry at the Sebring Double National was asked to change his class to STU this afternoon.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 04:38 PM
On a related and absolutely, 100% coincidental side note, I heard second-hand that the STL RX8 entry at the Sebring Double National was asked to change his class to STU this afternoon.

GA

Funny. Keene must have been looking over the list and went to talk to the guy. Gots to clean up the rules boys!!!

Greg Amy
01-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Chassis discussions broken out and moved to:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30056

Chip42
01-09-2012, 08:35 AM
Funny. Keene must have been looking over the list and went to talk to the guy. Gots to clean up the rules boys!!!

turns out the car is Buzz's ITR RX8, complete with renesis. STU was correct per the current rules.

coreyehcx
02-13-2012, 04:41 PM
I figured I might add my recent exp. to this because its relevant to a lot of the conversations we had especially about SCCA/NASA and how welcomed you feel.

I finished the Buccaneer Region DD School at Roebling and had a blast with everyone involved from SCCA. They went out of their way to make us feel like we were customers and wanted which was nice. Adam Malley was really great as well as the other SCCA folks I dealt with.

I did very well with my STL car granted I have more power than a lot of the vehicles out there outside of an EP rx7 in my group.

1:24.8 was my best time per my traqmate, and a 1:25.1 from mylaps so close enough.

I have a lot of areas to improve on still but the Miatas that were out there in various trims were all over me and just barely off my times. I think a SM converted to STL would actually be a very, very strong competitor and it makes me think I should have gone that route.

Or maybe Im just that slow!

Chip42
02-14-2012, 10:47 AM
There's definately more speed to be found in the loose nut and further tuning, but you did well.

coreyehcx
02-14-2012, 11:28 AM
Thanks Chip,

I know there is a lot of speed to be found in the seat! I have been watching as many fast guys in similar cars and think I might have spotted a couple more things.

Back to the original thread topic, motor ripped in current trim. I'm trying to get a dyno soon to see how much it makes and to see if I can squeeze a few more out of it.


Has anyone seen any STL builds out there yet?

lateapex911
02-14-2012, 03:21 PM
Yes, while you might be a great driver, most of us, myself included (I'm no Senna, but I hold a few track records so I'm not a complete moron either) thought we were pretty quick in our school and first few races, but the times still seem to drop from there. There's likely room for growth. ANd the last second or two is tough to find.
Also, Miatas are telepathic. I could get in one tomorrow and be within 98% of that cars fastest possible lap...they're easy to get pretty close. So I imagine you saw that phenomenon as well.
Hang in there and have fun!

Chip42
02-14-2012, 05:24 PM
we saw a guy "telepath" his miata into the trees outside of turn 1/2 in the LAST SESSION OF THE WEEKEND. shame, because it wa sa REALLY nice, FAST car. the miata is definately a hero-maker. it's easy to drive quick, handles very well, and reasonably forgiving. the fact that it's been so well sorted by the likes of ISC/OPM/FOM etc... mean that there's very little that you can't buy to get everything out of the car, other than raw talent in the seat. the student referenced above obviously found out where the limits are, though.

in pro racing bumper cars, I'd take a good FWD car any day. RWD might be faster but it has to get away from the pack on the first lap and FWD is just plain BETTER at that, and at dealing with the jabs. in our type of racing I think the miata is the prime automobile, there's very little out there that's anywhere close to as good (C6 corvette, maybe a lotus, supercars?). everythign else is overly compromised and we don't run in huge mixed make packs with a lot of bumping on a regular basis.

100% agreement on the S2000 though. trying to control costs in ST by disallowing certian chassis is a silly idea. the rules are open enough to allow cubic dollar expenditures in so many places that a civic could easily wind up being worth more in development and engineering costs than an NSX. add a "darn good suspension" weight penalty if you must but let um run what they brung.

coreyehcx
02-14-2012, 05:24 PM
Chip, I feel so bad but I was tearing up laughing just reading that telepath into the trees! I wish I had better video outside of him spinning out behind me.

Thanks lateapex.

The Miata's rolling up on me was frustrating for sure. The racing was fun with them and I lost out to them twice in qualifying not that it mattered for school especially since I was ahead at the end.

It did seem like those guys hopped into rented cars and were very fast with not a lot of experience. I know one of them has some decent exp with track days and he drove his own car so I expected him to be quick because he always is.

The 1.8s couldnt hang in the straights at all but were with me the rest of the way which is totally in my hands. Im a straight wuss going into turn 1 there which is where Im being caught, Im guessing that stretch is easily another second or more shaved off.

God it was fun!


Let the s2000 come play, that motor would cost an arm and a leg to make any power with past where its at basically. Im all for the 7% RWD adder as well as the s2000 suspension penalty if it were allowed lol.

Bob Roth
02-26-2012, 02:32 PM
I don't get the "no type R", No JDM, No S2000 logic in STL when I look at NASA Honda Challenge and think most of those cars are forbidden.

Honda challenge allows US and JDM R's with no modifications. See http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Honda-Challenge.pdf When you can buy 60,000 mile engine/trans swap on EBAY for about $5000 any day of the week. Why would you want to build anything else? http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1311&_nkw=type+r+engine&_sacat=See-All-Categories

I think the big factors to the decision of building a race car are 1) Cost, and 2) Actually liking and being proud of the car that is built.

The JDM motors, the S2000, and the type R's are the Uber cars from Honda. People actually think they are cool. Why SCCA exclude them, especially when they are widely used in the Honda Challenge is a mystery to me.

Just asking the question.

Andy Bettencourt
02-26-2012, 04:41 PM
Bob,

My take as an interested party but someone not involved in any rules is simple: The class has mechanical limits on certain items. They stock variations of those motors exceed those limits so they are out. They have drawn their line in the sand. Having said that:

I am not sure why those motors can't be 'de-tuned' to max spec just like anything can be 'built-up' to max spec.

The chassis thing is still grey to me. S2000 is out but Miata is in? The STAC had a chance to eliminate cars of similar ilk like the FD RX-7 and the NSX last month when they put the Type-R chassis back in play...but didn't. Why? These aren't new questions but have seemingly gone unanswered.

Bob Roth
02-26-2012, 05:48 PM
I appreciate your comment. I make these comments in the spirit of doing what's right in order to give Honda guy's a cheap engine to build, that will be attractive in the used car market when done. For anybody who wants to build a wishbone civic, they will be using the type r hubs, brakes, axles and transmission anyway, why should they not use the JDM engines when they are easily and cheaply available from Japan. (Ps the same is true with the JDM DZ equivalent of the D16 which I bet more than a few guys in ITA are running cause domestic engines are becoming scarce.)

There are four major differences between a GSR and a domestic teg r. Camshaft, factory ported head, Intake manifold/throttle body, and 10.5 compression. The difference between a JDM R motor and domestic R motor is cams, and 11 compression. If someone is worried about the cost of ownership implications of 10,500 rpm B series motors because of the Type R potential, require that these engines be IT spec, 11 - 1 compression max, US or JDM cams. This is what NASA does, problem solved.

Where its a hangup for me is I have a ITR Integra R and I can't enter my car in STLin IT trim. Same is true for anybody with a ITR S2000. We have a national race up in Brainard that has very light attendance that I was planning on just to support the club. Now I realize I can't go.

Here's the real rub, the logical thing to do for most Honda guys if they want to win in STL is build a domestic 2 liter K Si motor which should within rules will put out 225 hp. In IT, my legal motor puts out about 175 to the wheels. The K motor also works with the 6 spd trans vs my 5 speed.
I race aCivic Si in world challenge and I have raced against a Nasa Teg R with a K swap, and a Nasa Civic with a type R swap. If you are serious, the K motor is the way to go.

You use the type r motor in a civic if you want to save money. The JDM and Type R motors are a cheap way to build an excellent honda. Same is true for the S2000 because you can buy a worn car for 10k or less. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Honda-S2000-Roadster-NO-RESERVE-CLEAN-CARFAX-RAG-TOP-LIKE-NEW-LEATHER-6-SPEED-/200719421871?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2ebbcf51af#ht_20030wt_881 All the S2000 is is heavier, larger displacement Miata. Sure it has more HP potential than a 2 liter SI, fine, require IT motor spec, adjust the weight and move on.


Its not like SCCA is banning horsepower. What they are banning is cheap horsepower. Why ban the type r and not the Civic Si K motor too? You will always be able to build more HP with a legal 2 liter K motor. What the club should do is allow the type R and JDM motors and require IT rules US or JDM R cams, 11 to 1 and bump the weight appropriately. Its a cheap reliable motor.

By the way, I didn't answer your question on bumping down to max spec. I agree its possible to drop a GSR head and intake on my car. But it would be a lot easier and cheaper to adjust the 1800 type r weight to be between a GSR and a K civic SI and call it a day. I think it would also attract a lot more Honda's.

Greg Amy
02-26-2012, 06:30 PM
I don't get the "no type R", No JDM, No S2000 logic in STL when I look at NASA Honda Challenge and think most of those cars are forbidden.
We're re-addressing the non-US market engines. CRB last year rejected allowing them on the grounds of scrutineering. We'll try to address those concerns better.


Honda challenge allows US and JDM R's with no modifications.The philosophy of Super Touring is one prep level for all, not a mish-mash of different prep levels for different engines. NASA can do that because they have five classes and specifically classify each engine, and as I understand it they actively manage those going forward. There's only one SCCA STL and the same prep level applies to everyone.

If NASA has found a way to allow S2000 and Type R engines to compete in the same class against Honda 1.5 and 1.6L engines using the same prep level allowances, we're all ears on how to do that.

We had to draw a top line in the performance sand somewhere, and that line is apparently the GS-R engine.


What the club should do is allow the type R and JDM motors and require IT rules US or JDM R cams, 11 to 1 and bump the weight appropriately.
The K20 is not specifically banned, because even though it starts at 200 hp it's already at the class limit of 11:1 compression, will have to actually reduce cam lift to meet the class max valve lift of .425", and at 2 liters displacement the car would have to weigh 260# more than the GS-R engine. The Type R, on the other hand, starts with 190, can add compression from stock, and while it would also have to reduce cam lift it would still weigh the same as the B18C1 from the GS-R.

One can debate that these are comparable, but the CRB has drawn that line in the sand. And, given that people are already whining about how "STL is a Honda class" I highly doubt anyone is interested in changing the regs to offer more higher-performance options for the Honda set.

GA

Bob Roth
02-26-2012, 08:24 PM
Is it a fact that the Type R to IT rules is higher performance than a GSR? I don't think it is. Yes the stock Teg R cam has a .452 intake lift, but the STL class GSR camx can have as much duration as you want. My guess is that a GSR at full build and maximized duration is not much different than a ITR Teg R.

As for the '09 Civic Si K20Z3, it comes with a .483 lift. I guess unless someone wants to do a K20Z3 custom cam build, there's no K20 cams legal for the class. If you see a K20 engine, ask him where his cam came from.

If you are going to let the K20Z3 race, I argue if car counts matter it be wiser to instead just let these cars run in their IT trim and adjust as is prudent rather than force them to take decontenting expense that many won't do anyway. By allowing stock JDM engined cars to run, it allows Nasa honda challenge cars to run. Of you allow ITR class B18C5, and S2000, if you care about car count, its what i would do.

STL will be an engine swap, chassis swap class. For example, if you have a '91 Civic. The B16 '99 civic si motor has far more potential with 33mm Intake, 28mm Ex valves than a CRX D16 with 30mm intake, 26 mm ex. Add in intaker manifolds and throttle body's and its obvious that if somebody is serious and wants to build a 2160 pound honda they will go with the B16 and run type r brakes and transmission.

Now my point is that there are only a few engines that make sense for any size so I say its darn right that the committee should pick the engines for each manufacturer that make the most sense, cost, and build the class around it. If the CRB doesn't want to bother balancing engine potentials, then they had better only allow 16 valve engines that had redlines 6000 or less because otherwise there will always be someone whining that their 5800 rpm redline 1.6 Geo Storm econobox with 28mm intake valves getting spanked by a 8000 rpm redline honda 1.6 having 5mm bigger valves and a heck of a lot better intake.

So, if the CRB is going to have to pick the engines, the committee might as well do it smart. They ought to look at the brands people want to race, Honda, Mazda, BMW, VW, etc and pick obvious combinations that those brand enthusiasts will move to. For Honda, if you want a 1.6 you have a good choice. If you and to build a 1.8 or 2 liter Honda the smart move is to allow ITR engines, JDM and domestic and limit their prep and adjust their weights. Car counts matter, allowing the Nasa Honda Challenge cars to run and letting Honda/Acura ITR class cars built to ITR engine prep will help get car counts. Thats my point.

coreyehcx
02-26-2012, 09:02 PM
By the way, I didn't answer your question on bumping down to max spec. I agree its possible to drop a GSR head and intake on my car. But it would be a lot easier and cheaper to adjust the 1800 type r weight to be between a GSR and a K civic SI and call it a day. I think it would also attract a lot more Honda's.

This is not possible, you would still have a B18C5 block which is not legal.

Also not to be nit picky but the GSR cam lift is not .425 in, its .417 in.

The B16A2 is .421 in.


I agree with JDM engines Bob and think you have valid points in some areas.