PDA

View Full Version : STL Chassis Builds?



Andy Bettencourt
01-05-2012, 04:22 PM
OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

JS154
01-05-2012, 04:27 PM
OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

Andy put the 2.4L TSX motor in it and run in STU!

mossaidis
01-05-2012, 06:03 PM
OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

Most likely a custom. Lots of sources. My first stop for shopping would be crower. you may also have different options for valvetrain including other options like vtec killer cam.

lateapex911
01-05-2012, 08:30 PM
OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

It could play....until they exclude it.....
I mean, they exclude the S2000 chassis...so I'm thinking they just didn't think of the NSX.....
:shrug:

Andy Bettencourt
01-05-2012, 09:27 PM
Well we can't wait around waiting for chassis to be excluded. I really wanted an FD RX-7 with a 13B but the power to weight is in ITS land, not ITR land where it needs to be.

It's a HP to CC class, excluding chassis is dumb and I will be pissed if it happens. There is nothing that I have read that tells us to write in and tell them about our mouse-trap so they can approve the configuration for fear of it being too good and them not thinking it through. They should reintroduce the S2000 chassis and forget that rule.

Greg Amy
01-05-2012, 11:03 PM
I'm chucklin', 'cause you two guys simply just don't "get" Super Touring Light. Seriously. You won't even play in your own sandbox (when was the last time either of you actually raced in your respective ITA/IT7 classes?) and yet you want to Internet-pretend to piss in other people's sandboxes...it's actually entertaining.

The exclusion of the NSX chassis is already in progress...as is the RX-8. First, work on getting your respective IT cars' engines running. Then, if you really want to come play in the ST sandbox, we'll be glad to welcome you, with pretty much whatever it takes to get you motivated (within reason). Just let me know what it takes...what it's really gonna take, not what it's "Internet-gonna take"...

GA

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 08:04 AM
Follow up:

Ultimately, the "exclusion model" is doomed to fail. According to Greg's Tip#1 for writing a rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779), no small group of persons can ever think of all possibilities. And, as we all know and as Andy is demonstrating (I know he's just trying to get a rise out of us) racers will be racers and will look for loopholes to jump through, despite being obviously contrary to philosophy and intent.

These characteristics are simply incompatible, and may ultimately lead to an "inclusion model" for chassis (though that's not being seriously discussed yet). However, certainly speaking for myself only, I can say with confidence that I have zero reservations about supporting ex-post-facto exclusions of chassis that I don't see as meeting the class' philosophy. So - and the whole point of my posting above, for everyone else's sake - I'd suggest not getting too clever without asking first...just food for thought. - GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm chucklin', 'cause you two guys simply just don't "get" Super Touring Light. Seriously. You won't even play in your own sandbox (when was the last time either of you actually raced in your respective ITA/IT7 classes?) and yet you want to Internet-pretend to piss in other people's sandboxes...it's actually entertaining.

The exclusion of the NSX chassis is already in progress...as is the RX-8. First, work on getting your respective IT cars' engines running. Then, if you really want to come play in the ST sandbox, we'll be glad to welcome you, with pretty much whatever it takes to get you motivated (within reason). Just let me know what it takes...what it's really gonna take, not what it's "Internet-gonna take"...

GA
Overall a really stupid post Greg. You don't really need to worry why or why not I 'won't play in my own sandbox' even though you fully know that 1. I blew a hole in my block at VIR last year and haven't been motivated to fix it because 2. the ITA competition where I choose to run isn't exciting to race with especially with cars currently being sold, fixed etc. Hell, I even pressured Lawton to run the Saturn at the NARRC so I would be motivated to get the car fixed or rent one. Had the car Steve has for sale ready to pick up. Nope, Mini. As is typical, your post is more style than substance.

If you can't see what it's gonna take, you haven't been paying attention. Class the 13B at a fair weight and eliminate the chassis cut-off dates. That is a HUGE step. If YOU really want to generate some quality interest in the class, fix the rules...or at least post the fact that you can exclude a chassis at any time and it would be smart for competitors to write in and get a feeling on what they think they want to build. The real beef is that the 2012 Nationals season is up and running and the rules for this shiny-new Runoffs-eligible class are posted...yet cars that could be getting bought and/or built could still be excluded. If you don't see that as a real problem, I can't help you one iota.

RX-8 now? I would also go at the FD RX-7 too. How about the MX-5? It's an RX-8 under the rear and just as good as anything under the front.

Lots of us that wanted IT to go National are taking a SERIOUS look at STL because it encompasses cars and motors we are familiar with at a reasonable prep level. That should be obvious, but right now you have Honda Challenge with a sprinkle of 'the Miata is the car for the class IF someone does what nobody has ever done' on top.

Edit: A follow up to your follow up post...what 'philosophical statement' excludes chassis of 'X' capability? And how does the Miata fit and others don't? In Solo, the MX-5 is classed with the RX-8. Guess what wins? This is what I see in the GCR:


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. As with STU, spec
lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any
vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible
for this class.

If the actual philosophy that you speak of was written someplace then I would understand, but not agree with it. That is a huge difference than what we have now. To use your own terms, you have an 'internet philosophy', not an real one that is documented in the rulebook.

/broken record

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 09:57 AM
Andy, think about what STL is, not what you want it to be. And ("/broken record") if you don't like what it is, then write a request to the CRB (no one that is bitching in this thread has written a request to the CRB. NO ONE.)

As for what I personally consider philosophically-correct cars for STL, ITA is a great baseline. If it's in ITA/B/C, or maybe SSC, it's a good fit in STL. If it's in ITS or ITR, it's a better fit in STU (it's certainly debateable if the GS-R and/or K20-powered cars are appropriate for STL, but we're talking chassis here, not engines).

If you guys classify the FD RX-7, RX-8, Acura NSX, and/or Integra Type R in ITA, I'd reconsider my position on those cars' appropriateness for STL.

IMNHO, of course.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 10:49 AM
Andy, think about what STL is, not what you want it to be. And ("/broken record") if you don't like what it is, then write a request to the CRB (no one that is bitching in this thread has written a request to the CRB. NO ONE.)

As for what I personally consider philosophically-correct cars for STL, ITA is a great baseline. If it's in ITA/B/C, or maybe SSC, it's a good fit in STL. If it's in ITS or ITR, it's a better fit in STU (it's certainly debateable if the GS-R and/or K20-powered cars are appropriate for STL, but we're talking chassis here, not engines).

If you guys classify the FD RX-7, RX-8, Acura NSX, and/or Integra Type R in ITA, I'd reconsider my position on those cars' appropriateness for STL.

IMNHO, of course.

GA

Ok, let's talk about this. Your train of thought is what I respectfully think is holding us all up. The class is a cc/weight class with limits on cam specs. I buy into that 100%. But at the end of your post, you name 3 cars to exclude because of chassis, then one because of engine. A cars IT class is based on power potential, not chassis so to use that as a basis for philosophy I think is foolish. If the NSX had a 130hp motor, it WOULD BE in ITA.

So to exclude it, when it would meet the very core of what the class is based on, a 2.0 piston 4 cyl, seems rediculous, especially considering this 'chassis overdog' concept is not only not written anywhere, but not consistent given what IS allowed.

Not arguing what I think the class should be, just saying that given the rules and lack of firm intent statement, it seems like you are flying by the seat of your pants and creating a perceived performance envelope as you go, all while using IT as a false floor to stand on.

I think it would really be great to publish in the next Fast Track some of these philosophies so guys like me, who are looking for something new, and who are taking calls from local customers and friends all across the country about their 'next thing', have a better understanding, in writing, about what we can do. That's not too much to ask I don't think.

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 11:12 AM
We published a brandy-new philosophy mid-2011; that's what you see in the opening paragraphs of the STCS (compare it to the January 2011 GCR version). Apparently, it's lacking in this area. This is obviously a topic that deserves clarification of intent, or at a minimum maybe even a complete re-think to the intent itself.

Take some time to put something together and send it in.

GA

StephenB
01-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Based on your recent comments I am confused...
Why can't I take my RX8 and put a miata engine in it and run? Based on the rules as written why wouldn't this be a legitimate option? (I get why you wouldn't want to run a Renesis since they make to much power.) Why not allow those other "excluded" car chasis if they swap to an engine that fits the class?

FYI, as the rules are written now I CAN run my RX8 with the renisis engine and be completly legal.

Stephen

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 12:10 PM
Why can't I take my RX8 and put a miata engine in it and run? Based on the rules as written why wouldn't this be a legitimate option? (I get why you wouldn't want to run a Renesis since they make to much power.) Why not allow those other "excluded" car chasis if they swap to an engine that fits the class?
Because we want to limit the class to lower-performance chassis, regardless of installed engine. See Lotus Elise/Exige, Lotus 2 Eleven, and Honda S2000 exclusions (with more to come). This is no different our limiting the class to lower-performing 2L-and-under engines, and exclude turbos and the Type R.

If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.


FYI, as the rules are written now I CAN run my RX8 with the renisis engine and be completly legal.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

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 01:00 PM
If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.



So the issue here IMO, and with the S2000, FD RX-7, RX-8 etc, is that none of these cars are any better than the Miata and MX-5 when prepped to STL rules. What makes the Lotii so good is (lack of) weight, high end RR shocks, weight, adjustable suspension and weight. It's a false truth when you then equip a Miata with the same shocks, same adjustability and then take away 100% of the power to weight advantage the Lotus comes with from Hethel.

In the C&D Lightning Lap series, the Lotus doesn't do anything special outside of it's awesome power to weight. Cars of equal P/W with even 'lesser' suspensions can lap as fast. Add to that the cars come with R-compounds further exemplifies that if you evened up the 'prep' AND the power to weight, it would be just another double-wish-boned RWD car.

And if you use the CRX/Civic theories on speed, the MX-5 would be a better platform than an RX-8 because of wheelbase given they use essentially the same bits.

So at the end of the day, which I will include in my letter, I think these exclusions are based in total falsehoods given what is already allowed (Miata and MX-5) and the assumption that equality in equipment and power to weight will be achieved. If the committee wants to stand up and say that they think the RX-8 is better than the MX-5, I will accept that, but sure would like to hear why they think so.

At the end of the day, I really do believe that the original concept for the class was for FWD piston-engined cars based on cc to weight. Quickly realizing that was just Honda Challenge and the pool of interested parties was small, a door was opened, slightly, for other stuff. And that other stuff has to stand in the corner and wait before being told they can actually stay or they have to leave. Not in the interest of a great big party, but because the party-designers never really wanted a big party. They just figured they had bought too much beer and needed some more people to pay to get in and drink...but once the beer is gone, everyone out! :)

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 01:13 PM
It's a false truth when you then equip a Miata with the same shocks, same adjustability and then take away 100% of the power to weight advantage the Lotus comes with from Hethel.
You will be shocked to read that I completely agree with you. And Andy, given my history with/position on/admiration for the Miata, you should not be shocked to read that were it up to me, I'd recommend either going to a much larger weight differential in STL for RWD or excluding the Miata and variants entirely.

As I said, "be careful what you ask for".


GCR overrides all those conversations. I just re-read the rules and nothing says rotaries are not allowed.
I think you missed what I wrote above...

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...)
...and you know me, the rules nerd I am, that I'm in agreement with the letter of the rules. If someone wants to push the subject and enter an RX-8 into STL based on a 1300cc classified weight, I'll be glad to help with the inevitable protest appeals process, which would result in an apparent "tradition" getting codified in the GCR.

GA

JS154
01-06-2012, 01:21 PM
I don't think excluding chassis makes any sense for STL for a couple reasons.

-The published philosphy is clear that any chassis/model run manufactured from 85+ is eligible for STL.

-Best way to prohibit class growth is have the overriding potential of what chassis' might be ineligible next year or forward.



I think the best and easiest thing to do would be to leave the chassis selection free, and limit the engine choices only. That way you only have spec lines for engines.

Other wise the class will be spec-line hell between engines and chassis.

The magic and attractiveness of this class is the open ruleset regarding chassis and engine combos. To restrict chassis IMHO, is a big mistake.

I say allow the S2K 2.0L engine with restrictions. Same with the ITRSX-R engine. The same way the BMW N55 3.0l single turbo engine in STU is allowed - with restrictions.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind restricting cars for some ambiguous reason in a class that is clearly designed as open to all cars. Restrict the engines not the chassis.

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 01:25 PM
You will be shocked to read that I completely agree with you. And Andy, given my history with/position on/admiration for the Miata, you should not be shocked to read that were it up to me, I'd recommend either going to a much larger weight differential in STL for RWD or excluding the Miata and variants entirely.

As I said, "be careful what you ask for".




I'm not shocked that you can see what is in front of you and I'm sure you aren't shocked that I suggested a bump from 2.5% to 5% on the FWD-RWD adder based on what we did in IT. What we need is more written rules and less grey-area intent back-pedaling.

It seems a shit-ton more thought and effort needed to be done on the front end before sending this class out to the GCR with National status.

On your 'be careful what you ask for' statements, they classifications still have to make sense to get competitors. Telling us that the FD RX-7 is now allowed at 3000lbs with a 13B with IT prep allowances doesn't do ANYTHING. You can say all you want how the 13B is classed, but for all intents and purposes, it's not because it can't make more than 1.8L power without porting allowances so it's conceptually dead.

Geezus my letter is gonna be long and boring.

JS154
01-06-2012, 01:31 PM
Because we want to limit the class to lower-performance chassis, regardless of installed engine. See Lotus Elise/Exige, Lotus 2 Eleven, and Honda S2000 exclusions

Who is "we"?

What is the justification for this?

What is gained by excleuding certain chassis, especially in STL? In a small displacment to weight class such as this it's all about specific engine output, not the chassis.


(with more to come).

I can't think of a better way to stifle class growth from the outset.



This is no different our limiting the class to lower-performing 2L-and-under engines, and exclude turbos and the Type R.

GA It's not a spec-line class, it's a weight to displacment class open to pretty much any chassis, and it is contrary to the published philosophy of the class.

JS154
01-06-2012, 01:32 PM
We published a brandy-new philosophy mid-2011; that's what you see in the opening paragraphs of the STCS (compare it to the January 2011 GCR version). Apparently, it's lacking in this area. This is obviously a topic that deserves clarification of intent, or at a minimum maybe even a complete re-think to the intent itself.

Take some time to put something together and send it in.

GA
For quick reference, here it is:

9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOT-approved tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of any car.

Super Touring Over (STO) vehicles are high-performance GT and exotics over 3.2 liters. STO vehicles are explicitly approved for competition; to be eligible for STO competition, a chassis and maximum engine displacement must be listed as a specially-approved combination in the STO "Approved Cars and Engines" table.

Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose performance cars of 3.2 liters and under. Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from "Pony Cars" or "American Iron" with stock camshaft lift at a heavier weight will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstances. Spec lines are not required for STU eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.

World Challenge vehicles compliant to a SCCA Pro VTS may be approved on a case-by-case basis for STU. See the STU "Approved World Challenge Cars" table.

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. As with STU, spec lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.

Alternate allowances may be approved on a case-by-case basis for individual vehicles that do not meet these parameters; see "Alternate Vehicle Allowances" tables. Engines components from these approved vehicle allowances may not be installed in other chassis without specific line-item approval (e.g., the STU 3.8L Mustang engine may not be installed into a Ford Focus).

Vehicle modifications are limited to those listed herein. Unless a particular modification or part is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car. Some amount of latitude will be considered to facilitate engine installations, however if extensive modifications are required it is recommended to seek clarification from the Club Racing Board. Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class 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.

JS154
01-06-2012, 01:43 PM
If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.

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

The Exige I think is the outlier example of a potential category killer chassis. The Elise could be allowed but limited to stock engine with intake restrictor and/or no aero and/or a specific chassis weight

Why is the S2K an overdog chassis? (compared to say, a Z4 BMW with an STL sized engine?)

Again, allow the chassis but don't allow any aero bits, or require the chassis run heavy regardless of installed engine.

Another option would be to have an adjuster for MID engine rear drive cars.

I get that not every car is ever guaranteed to be competitive...but at the same time, there are certain cars that are inherently going to be turned into race cars... especially if they ahve a good place to race. S2K and Elise and BMW 3 series are perfect examples of that.

that way the Fords and BMW's aren't overly penalized (which are already non-competitive compared to the Hondacuras BTW)

Chip42
01-06-2012, 04:58 PM
on the subject of "uber chassis" (and I'm in the Andy B camp on this one) how can you defend the restriction on the Integra Type R? In what way is it functionally different from a GSR or LS integra with STL allowed modifications? 5 lug wheels abd bigger bearings? because that's all I can think of. It's easily the silliest of exclusions, though the RX8 chassis is a close second.

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 04:59 PM
We're discussing removing the ITR chassis from the "exclude" list.

mossaidis
01-06-2012, 06:30 PM
on the subject of "uber chassis" (and I'm in the Andy B camp on this one) how can you defend the restriction on the Integra Type R? In what way is it functionally different from a GSR or LS integra with STL allowed modifications? 5 lug wheels abd bigger bearings? because that's all I can think of. It's easily the silliest of exclusions, though the RX8 chassis is a close second.

all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR... :)

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 06:49 PM
all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR... :)

And a car that IS classed...the MX-5

StephenB
01-06-2012, 06:52 PM
And a car that IS classed...the MX-5

Which is the same chasis as an RX8...

Stephen

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 07:07 PM
Which is the same suspension as an RX8...

Stephen

Fixed. Chassis is different.

JS154
01-06-2012, 07:31 PM
all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR... :)

And the Focus
And the Mini
And the BMW E36/E46/Z4
Toyota MR-S

lots of IRS eligible cars in STL

mossaidis
01-06-2012, 07:47 PM
I was comparing the Type-R (ITR) with the GSR (ITS) suggesting that outlawing ITR cars will do you no good since TSX (most likely ITS) and older Acuras (ITA) also have multi-link rear as well....

Thank you, you guys took it one step further

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 08:20 PM
So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.

325
328
330
E30 M3
Z3's
Z4's
E36 M3
Preludes
Is300
SC300
300ZX with SR20!!!!!!!!!!!
New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

lateapex911
01-06-2012, 08:20 PM
Seems to me that STL is in some sort of weirt quasi not here not there state right now. The rule say nothing about chassis designs that are not allowed, but certain cars are excluded, yet others, that are functionally and basically the same ARE allowed. Somebody tell me the difference between, say, the Mazda MX5/Miata suspension, and the S2000. Or the RX-8 ? All RWD, all IRS, Yet one is out, the others are in but know we hear the STAC doesn't like the RX-8. And "longer wheelbase on the S2000" isn't a reasonable differentiation. If it is, it needs to be in the STCS. As a generic limitation: ALL cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded. Or, if we want to play favorites, ALL RWD cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded.

Sounds ridiculous though, doesn't it?

This makes no sense to me. IF the Mazda MX5 is kosher, then so should the S2000.

So, I understand the whole, "We can't think of every car, we have to handle things as they come up" concept....but, it's avoiding the main issue. It shouldn't be that car is a problem, it should be that technology is a problem.

Or WHY is this car that you want to exclude a bad seed?? What physical issue is the cause of the hate??? THATs what needs to be determined. This isn't easy though, and it's really the heavy lifting part of the job for the STAC.

Now, on the other hand, it sounds as though, with Greg repeating, "Be careful what you ask for", that the STAC isn't likely to open up the category to be logical and let chassis with the same basic components as the ones already allowed in. Will the decision be to further limit the choices?
Will the answer to my question of "If the Miata is allowed then why not the S2000 (or RX-8)??" be: "Good point, lets exclude the Miata"???

I understand Gregs response to some questions: If you don't like it, go to STU.
But the disconnect I see is that STU is really another category. The ruleset is rather different. People race rulesets. IT is popular because it's an attainable ruleset, and there are plenty of car choices, and there are good options in nearly every class.

I think the STL ruleset is quite attractive to many, but as it's playing out, it's rather exclusionary, and that's a shame, in my opinion.

If I were King, I'd add elements to the ST rules:
-I'd do a hard study on the RWD weight adder. (yes, I think I might increase it a tad)
-I'd look at chassis/suspension differences that, within the allowable ST race prep ruleset make a difference, and i'd address those globally in the rules.
-Personally, I'd allow rotaries in UN ported. It's well known what they make, and they have a strong following. So what if parts are scarce? What's it going to hurt to have a diverse grid, with a 12A Miata? If they owner can't find parts when it blows, it's his problem. We know dam well the things make 148 (or so) crank, and about 127 (or so) at the wheels. Back out the math, and class it. Same for the 13B. They aren't pistons, so don't treat them like they are. !t's an easy classification to get right.
-And if I were REALLY king, I'd seriously consider allowing ITBs. Already injectors and engine management are allowed, and the intakes are the bugaboos of so many candidates...why not just let the actual parts meet the classing structure? Even the playing field.

But that's me. I think the class should be, as it appears in the rules ("Any car that is under 2.0 litres", essentially) Inclusionary, rather than EXclusionary.

lateapex911
01-06-2012, 08:22 PM
So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.


New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

Haha...imagine how dumb that would look on rims half as wide as stock, LOL. Like it's on space savers!!!

JS154
01-06-2012, 08:29 PM
So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.

325
328
330
E30 M3
Z3's
Z4's
E36 M3
Preludes
Is300
SC300
300ZX with SR20!!!!!!!!!!!
New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

and every single one of those chassis' with an allowable STL engine will be a heavy slow slug - before the RWD penalty is applied.

That's a whole host of perectly good "touring car" chassis that have no reason or business being built for STL.

lateapex911
01-06-2012, 08:51 PM
Yea, I think the point is, to my way of thinking, that you can't just say. "This chassis is Ok, and this one isn't".
You can't say, "Nothing from ITS or ITR"...
That's ignoring that IT is a HP based classing system. The same chassis COULD run in ITR, ITS, ITA and ITB. Think of a Miata with a 2.5L motor making 245hp, the current ITS version, the current ITA version, and a older 1.3 motor, making 110, for ITB.

Z3_GoCar
01-06-2012, 08:56 PM
The four cylinder Z3's kosher because it's an ITA car and less than 2.0 liters (if only it'd even make power, I think Kesler has already shown it won't), but the same chassis with a wider rear subframe won't because it's an ITR car??? While the 318 was the exact same motor in the same chassis as the 325/328, only these have multi-link.

Rabbit07
01-06-2012, 08:57 PM
:birra:

Andy Bettencourt
01-06-2012, 09:02 PM
and every single one of those chassis' with an allowable STL engine will be a heavy slow slug - before the RWD penalty is applied.


IF they couldn't get down to weight. If they could, then they would be fine - except we don't want those chassis, because they are in ITR!!!! Ugh.

Like Jake said, if we are afraid of Miata's, then just outlaw RWD with DW's at all 4 corners instead of a dynamic exclusion list for cars that can actually compete. If you want this to be a FWD under-2L tuner class, MAKE IT ONE! Stop jerking us all around and sink or swim on your original concept instead of trying to fill fields with half-baked classifications (12A/13B).

Not all classes will have a spot for cars I like. No problem at all with that, but just be what you are and stand tall with it.

Phew. Time for a Yuengling or 4. :)

Greg Amy
01-06-2012, 10:05 PM
:birra:
'Zactly. I've never seen a class "jump the shark" within the SCCA membership as quickly as Super Touring Light. Even Chump Cars and LeMons lasted longer than this one...

Time for another beer.

Rabbit07
01-06-2012, 10:58 PM
Phew. Time for a Yuengling or 4. :)

I love that stuff

Rabbit07
01-06-2012, 11:05 PM
FYI a miata is on the pole for the national tomorrow at Sebring.

bamfp
01-06-2012, 11:19 PM
And he is over a second slower then the pole in SM. So I am guessing that it is not a fully built STL car.

Andy Bettencourt
01-07-2012, 12:05 AM
FYI a miata is on the pole for the national tomorrow at Sebring.

So why is that even a data point when the car is obviously multiple seconds off the pace? Really.

Chip42
01-07-2012, 01:35 AM
Still not getting the STAC's position on the chassis. glad to see I'm not alone. as far as "It's an ITR CAR!!!!" it's just weight. add more, and I can make it an ITS car. similarly S->A, A->B, vice versa, etc... thinking in terms of IT is ridiculous in this setting, just as thinking of Formula Atlantic and Prod cars is ridiculous when discussing IT.


all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR... :)
All 2nd and 3rd generation USDM 'Tegs had independent multilink rear suspension and SLA fronts... just like (and I do mean JUST LIKE) your civic. BAN THE CIVICS!!!!11! Oh, and the miatas.

what's left, B13 sentras?

seriously. Andy Jake, etc... are spot on. this chassis restriction thing is completely* without logic.

*I'll bite on the aluminum loti, that's a horse of a different color in a number of respects, not all of which are lap time related.

coreyehcx
01-07-2012, 02:43 AM
We're discussing removing the ITR chassis from the "exclude" list.

Im against this inclusion.

STL is not Honda Challenge but I wanted to point this out.

HC rules

Legal: An H3 Integra GS-R may be rebuilt from an Integra RS tub. The “advantages” of the RS shell are the lack of sunroof and ABS – both of which may be removed under these rules.

Illegal: An H3 Integra GS-R may not be rebuilt using an Integra Type R shell. The Type R shell has structural reinforcements that are not available on RS/LS/GS/GS-R Integras.

If needed I can provide these structural differences.



If you allow the chassis, it needs to be clear in the rules you cannot run a B18C5 engine or B18C5 throttle body/intake manifold in any chassis. Detuning the B18C5 cam lift would not be enough in my opinion without massively restricting airflow.

The only reasoning to allow the chassis is someone has one, and they want to swap in a B18C1 meeting the current STL specs...back again to the HC rules for chassis advantages.

Greg Amy
01-07-2012, 09:33 AM
The ITR chassis reinforcements are fairly irrelevant in STL, given no restriction on cage points and allowance for seam welding. If we did allow it, the B18C5 would maintain its exclusion in the class. Built to STL prep, the only functional difference between a Type R and a RS-sourced build would be the 5-bolt wheels, for which you'd have significantly fewer (and probably more expensive) options for wheels.

If someone wants to take a rare Type R and put in a K20 or a GSR engine to go run STL, knock yourself out. Silly, but whatever.

And, to the general point (I wonder if we'd like to move these chassis discussions into its own topic, and hash them out further there? Edit: done. - GA) if the only major problem with STL regs is what chassis should/should not be included/excluded, then that's actually not an insurmountable problem. It's something easily discussed, changed (even within the "rules year"), and accommodated.

GA

Greg Amy
01-07-2012, 11:03 AM
So why is that even a data point when the car is obviously multiple seconds off the pace? Really.
Meh, no surprise. There's probably a negative number of "built" STL cars entered and, as we've all tangentially agreed, the Miata out-of-the-box is probably the best chassis out there.

I know Keane's Integra is still in near-SSC trim, as he was asking me just last week about things like springs, shocks, and swaybars. I'm guessing all he did was take out any extra ballast and easily-accessible interior parts and slapped some STL stickers on the thing.

I am surprised, however, that there isn't a larger number of Spec Miatas doing double duty, especially given the new Ho-Hos they're running (which can explain a lot about comparison lap times this weekend...is SM faster this year than last?)

GA

Rabbit07
01-07-2012, 11:51 AM
I know Keane's Integra is still in near-SSC trim, as he was asking me just last week about things like springs, shocks, and swaybars. I'm guessing all he did was take out any extra ballast and easily-accessible interior parts and slapped some STL stickers.

GA

Try Coil-overs, cams, a non sunroof roof panel, no ballast, header, and F/P regulator. Oh and some time on Irish Mike's dyno. The car is closer than you give it credit.

The Pole time was in the 38's. That's what I would usually run there in my old ITA car depending on weather.

Drago was second and also slower than his SM time. Tells me that it was likely very hot when they qual'd.


Andy, No data point, just mentioning it.

coreyehcx
01-07-2012, 12:41 PM
Greg I agree completely, I was going to add your comment about the ITR being an over priced shell, or that there were only lets call it under 6k made which is probably way too high of an estimate.

I can look at the chassis discussion.

Im still waiting to see some true STL purpose built vehicles that are not just double dipping. I know there are some out there outside of my own which is not a 10/10ths build...but is built for the class.

Greg Amy
01-07-2012, 12:46 PM
The car is closer than you give it credit.
Again, "meh". *I* think the Miata is the chassis to have right now in STL, but unless/until we start seeing some full-tilt-boogie builds, it's not enough information to draw any kind of conclusions...

Love to hear more news about Sebring though, given it's the very first race for Super Touring Light in National racing; anyone have anything substantial?

GA

Greg Amy
01-09-2012, 08:25 AM
Just FYI - and offered completely devoid of intent, expressed or implied - best I can tell the Sebring STL results both days were Miata, Miata, Keane (Integra.)

Don't know the prep levels of any of these cars, so I'm implying no conclusions whatsoever.

GA

Chip42
01-09-2012, 08:44 AM
STL field was light on real STL cars - I think Keane was the only one, though I could have missed something, Aspergren's neon, maybe?

Drago definitely had an SM, sans restrictor(?) SM was taped over next to STL on the graphics package. I don't know what if anything else was done to it.

track didn't seem to be 100%, and it was very warm. nothing unusual.

Andy Bettencourt
01-09-2012, 08:58 AM
So if Drago ran his car without the restrictor, and with the new Hoosier tire, it should have been about as capable as my ITA car. I think he won one and came in second for one. There were mostly double-dipping SM's trying to get some testing in with the Ho-Ho's I bet.

Greg Amy
01-09-2012, 09:33 AM
So Drago was one of the top-two? Why the reports of being 1s off SM lap times? Keane's Facebook page notes that he (Keane) led Race 2 at one point and made a mistake, finishing 3rd.

Kolin was running STU in the Neon.

Chip42
01-09-2012, 10:56 AM
maybe he kept the restrictor? I edited the above post to suggest that - I never saw his hood up.

Peter had a few offs, drivers right in the carousel at least 2x. common error.

Andy Bettencourt
01-09-2012, 03:28 PM
So Drago was one of the top-two? Why the reports of being 1s off SM lap times? Keane's Facebook page notes that he (Keane) led Race 2 at one point and made a mistake, finishing 3rd.

Kolin was running STU in the Neon.

The draft is part of it. It's just one of the data points that we keep harping on where SM times don't translate directly to other classes. We have data that shows solo qual laps at almost 2 seconds slower than when inside a 3-4 car draft at WGI.

RacingmySi
01-10-2012, 08:53 PM
The ITR chassis reinforcements are fairly irrelevant in STL, given no restriction on cage points and allowance for seam welding. If we did allow it, the B18C5 would maintain its exclusion in the class. Built to STL prep, the only functional difference between a Type R and a RS-sourced build would be the 5-bolt wheels, for which you'd have significantly fewer (and probably more expensive) options for wheels.

If someone wants to take a rare Type R and put in a K20 or a GSR engine to go run STL, knock yourself out. Silly, but whatever.

And, to the general point (I wonder if we'd like to move these chassis discussions into its own topic, and hash them out further there? Edit: done. - GA) if the only major problem with STL regs is what chassis should/should not be included/excluded, then that's actually not an insurmountable problem. It's something easily discussed, changed (even within the "rules year"), and accommodated.

GA

I thought in another forum you said that the STL rules were set for 2012 and "are what they are" for this season? Unless of course you mean that the CRB may exclude a car for the 2013 season? I thought about building for STL but not with this leaf blowing going on for a season already underway. I could get get caught with my pants down building according to the rules that appear subject to change at any time even though the philosophy and rules are in the 2012 GCR. No thanks. 2 potential thought they were good ideas are now terrible can get caught with a big cost outlay paperweight ideas.

RacingmySi
01-10-2012, 09:04 PM
According to Drago for STL he took out his plate only. He also mentioned that while he took his plate out he didn't make the appropriate fuel pressure adjustment and screwed himself up a bit. He wasn't trying to win STL either, just track time. Keanes car was over 200 pounds heavy, and not fully STL built yet but ran 236's on Sunday and still fast enough for a couple of off's and still finished on the boxes. I didn't think he had coil overs yet either but maybe that is wrong,

Greg Amy
01-10-2012, 09:43 PM
I thought in another forum you said that the STL rules were set for 2012 and "are what they are" for this season?
They are. The Board of Directors of the SCCA has declared that no preparation rules will change within the racing season.

However, that does not mean that competition adjustments cannot be made. From what I understand, while the "rules" will not change (i.e., don't expect to get any alternate control arms approved in 2012) adjustments such as (but not limited to?) weights, restrictors, tire sizes, and classifications/adjustments of cars are well within the authority of the CRB within the competition year. And that goes not just for Super Touring, but for all other SCCA categories as well.

GA

RacingmySi
01-10-2012, 09:55 PM
They are. The Board of Directors of the SCCA has declared that no preparation rules will change within the racing season.

However, that does not mean that competition adjustments cannot be made. From what I understand, while the "rules" will not change (i.e., don't expect to get any alternate control arms approved in 2012) adjustments such as (but not limited to?) weights, restrictors, tire sizes, and classifications/adjustments of cars are well within the authority of the CRB within the competition year. And that goes not just for Super Touring, but for all other SCCA categories as well.

GA

I thought there was a specific rule in the GCR for car classifications that specifically says car classifications by 1 December for the following year yeda-yada, no and car classifications don't happen during the year. I don't recall the BOD/CRB making a car classification in years in fact mid stream. The shit storm this caused before is what specifically led to the rule I mention above and would clearly cause a shit storm in this case.

adjustments for tires, weights, restrictions are made as competition adjustments (this too in GCR), not as a pre-curser for what could be or someone builds it stuff. Big slippery slope STL is and it hasn't even started cept 1 weekend.

Greg Amy
01-10-2012, 10:02 PM
Tim, if that's correct, then it's the responsibility of the CRB/BoD to catch those kind of recommendations. And, in the end, if they happen then they're easily protestable, n'est pa? $25 for the win, baby!

Come play in the small sandbox with us, you'll like it.

GA

Rabbit07
01-11-2012, 09:27 AM
The draft is part of it. It's just one of the data points that we keep harping on where SM times don't translate directly to other classes. We have data that shows solo qual laps at almost 2 seconds slower than when inside a 3-4 car draft at WGI.

I was witness to that this last summer at the Glen. Pesky
sm's. I was glad they split us, I was 1st in SSB and 3rd in SM :D

CRallo
01-11-2012, 10:06 AM
excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!

Greg Amy
01-11-2012, 10:12 AM
excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!
Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... ;) - GA

CRallo
01-11-2012, 10:32 AM
Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... ;) - GA

I've honestly never read the NASA rules. I was mostly just kicking the hornets nest with the comment, however the general displeasure it expressed still stands :p There are always pros and cons and I like alot of what you've done for ST, but in this case, I don't like it. What about adding a penalty to these super cars? or allow things like control arms to help the slow cars? oh wait...

That said there are some core issues in the ST rules that bar existing cars from coming to play and I firmly believe that we risk losing (more) people to NASA. :dead_horse:

In closing, I must remind you that I have already built and raced a car in SCCA competition...

Greg Amy
01-11-2012, 01:04 PM
I know that. And you should be ashamed for letting it sit there... ;)

mossaidis
01-11-2012, 01:28 PM
Greg, keep STL chassis open as described above. It's the right thing to do. Mickey

CRallo
01-11-2012, 02:06 PM
I know that. And you should be ashamed for letting it sit there... ;)

As long as you do too...

But I drove and raced the car THIS year. Not much, but who could blame me when I have all these other shiny things to drive? lol

jdrago1
02-07-2012, 04:36 PM
The draft is part of it. It's just one of the data points that we keep harping on where SM times don't translate directly to other classes. We have data that shows solo qual laps at almost 2 seconds slower than when inside a 3-4 car draft at WGI.


I saw this thread late, don't come by here as often as I should. I did run less plate, same weight.

As far as times being off SM times, not looking at the times, but from memory there were a few factors for sure.

-SM was group one so track was definitely faster.

-I went out with three teammates in SM, by myself in STL. No draft along with many cars at different cars and speeds in STL group slows you up in different parts of the track. Defintely harder to get a clean lap and at Sebring, you only run 5-6 laps a session.

-Best tires were used in SM ( stickers in SM qualifying), not STL( 5 session +).

-Used STL qualifying more as Hoosier tire testing session, typically ran tires with more cycles.

- I think conservatively... a True STL Miata driven by a top 10 guy would have been 2 seconds a lap faster than I was. Best guess anyway.

I think STL is going to be a very successful class. I did not run at Homestead, just Sebring.