March 2012 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Prelims are up:

2/10/12- Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/assets/February2012meetingMarchFastrackPrelimMinutes.pdf)
2/10/12- Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/assets/TB12-03prelimFebruaryMeetingMarchFastrack.pdf)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still nothing on 240SX in ITS or C4 request in ITR.

Clarification on STL intent: Reciprocating piston engines. Congrats for clearing up the intent, big boooo for unnecessarily limiting the class options. Still don't get it. Some will say it's a 'displacement' thing but that's bunk. An IT-spec 13B fits PERFECTLY into the 1.8L weight/power targets - if not a touch low.

On edit: Can someone run their ITR-spec S2000 in STL? The chassis is banned under STL prep but allowed under new rule:


In seciton 9.1.4.B, clarify the third bullet point, second sentence as follows: "GCR listed IT cars with reciprocating
piston engines of 2 liters and less engine displacement, 1985 and newer, may compete in STL under their current IT
specifications."

[Greg Amy]

Congrats for clearing up the intent, big boooo for unnecessarily limiting the class options. Still don't get it.
Two points:

- We both agreed that rotaries exceed 2L when compared to equivalent displacement*, and
- All three non-turbo rotaries are actually classified in STL at specified weights.** And, due to the weight increase on all piston engines effective March, they're getting an additional break.

If you want to argue the finer points of the philosophy of the category, that being DISPLACEMENT-based classification, then you simply can't dispute that the rotary engine would otherwise be ineligible for STL due to displacement. If you want to argue the fine points of the philosophy of the preparation regs for Super Touring, that being some level of internal engine modification, then you simply can't dispute that the rotary engines would clearly be ineligible based on power output.

As neat as they are, the rotary engines have always been the epichodroidal peg trying to fit into a square hole.

GA

* See this month's GCR Technical Glossary request to specify the assumed displacement of the rotary engine. It's just codifying what we're already doing in other classes.

* Note we added the Renesis to STL this month, albeit at a very high weight (220hp stock?)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well I can argue all day that the exclusion of the engines, in IT prep, is stupid. A simple allowance at an APPROPRIATE weight, balloons legit car choices. But so be it. The intent of the class is clear. FWD Honduhs. :)

[lateapex911]

Two points:

- We both agreed that rotaries exceed 2L when compared to equivalent displacement*, and
- All three non-turbo rotaries are actually classified in STL at specified weights.** And, due to the weight increase on all piston engines effective March, they're getting an additional break.



I know Greg has nothing against the rotary, as he's often stated he'd love to do a serious IT7 effort, (if they weren't 10 years past their prime, etc etc) but, clearly the STAC needs to look up "hypocritical".

If we take #1, they don't fit because their equalized displacement is too large, to be true, then why are they classed at all!?
And if we take #2, they don't fit the prep allowances of STL, to be true, then why are they classed at all?

I feel it's a cloaked classification designed to promote "national dipping" without the fear that these dippers (participation numbers boosters) will be a threat to the 'regular', or dedicated STL cars.
As proof of my theory, I bring this to your attention:


* Note we added the Renesis to STL this month, albeit at a very high weight (220hp stock?)

Yup, the STAC will class a car that doesn't fit their requirements, but only at silly why bother weights...because it will bolster the class numbers. That's rather self serving, no?

[lateapex911]

Also, re STL, did the CRB jump the shark here??
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)

Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)

[Knestis]

Sorry - I'm confused. Where's the bulletin about the Fit...?

K

EDIT - Never mind. Found it.

[Dano77]

It would be a lot easier and more tranparent if you just said NO F****** ROTARY'S rather then try and say" Look we added weight to the Piston cars and not the rotary,that good huh?"

Dan

[Chip42]

Still nothing on 240SX in ITS or C4 request in ITR.


the C4 was approved, I don't think we reached a concensus on the 240sx but I have to check my notes. some decisions appear to not have been sent up to the CRB before their meeting but evidence on the committee forum is that they have been sent up. maybe look for them in April.

FWIW, I'm sorry about that.

[TStiles]

Let's see if I can figure this out , with the new weights :

- a - I can run my ITA 95 miata in STL @ 2380# , spend nothing in development , and be able to wait and see if STL is going to get competitive in my Division

- b - I can build a 99 miata motor to STL spec ( $ 5K ) , still be down on power to the Hondas , add more weight to my car @ 2491# , and have a one class car.

I'm not sure if the floorpan of a miata can support all that weight :D

Let's just say the extra 90# is making my decision easier

[RacerBowie]

Let's see if I can figure this out , with the new weights :

- a - I can run my ITA 95 miata in STL @ 2380# , spend nothing in development , and be able to wait and see if STL is going to get competitive in my Division

- b - I can build a 99 miata motor to STL spec ( $ 5K ) , still be down on power to the Hondas , add more weight to my car @ 2491# , and have a one class car.

I'm not sure if the floorpan of a miata can support all that weight :D

Let's just say the extra 90# is making my decision easier

90 pounds? OUCH. Damn, I was thinking the same thing, but that's ANOTHER 100lbs in the floor... that's a little scary. Hmmm

[coreyehcx]

Also, re STL, did the CRB jump the shark here??
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)

Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)


Im not understanding this decision...and I just had a terrific experience with my SCCA drivers school which had changed my opinion on SCCA. uggh

[JS154]

Also, re STL, did the CRB jump the shark here??
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)

Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)

Given the brand-newness of the national status of the class, and the increasing trend of newer cars from manufacturers getting heavier and heavier, it makes sense to set/modify the entire class weights at the very start so that future adjustments - class or individual -can be avoided. For example, a 1991 BMW 318is weighed what, about 2600#? The smallest BMW available now weighs well over 3000#.

It's a fact of life - cars are getting bigger and heavier. Chassis rollover anti-crush standards are going to add more weight to the bare chassis from all manufacturers, and with many cars already having a difficult time getting down to weight, this looks like a valid attempt to solve that *now* so it doesn't have to be done again in a few or a number of years.

For those who have already built a to-the-limit STL car and have worked hard to get down to class weight, they still have the advantage of being able to place ballast anywhere they like. (Ballast rules IIRC are different in ST vs IT).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry - I'm confused. Where's the bulletin about the Fit...?

K

EDIT - Never mind. Found it.

Are we already trying to find landing places for B-Spec cars in 3 years when the series is dead?

[Knestis]

Are we already trying to find landing places for B-Spec cars in 3 years when the series is dead?

Maybe but if so, I think that's a GOOD thing rather than a bad thing. It borders on a strategic view of how classes tie together. Recognizing, of course, that a B-Spec car should slot easily into IT.

On that last point, it would be good for the ITAC to proactively get them listed as they come of age.

K

[coreyehcx]

Given the brand-newness of the national status of the class, and the increasing trend of newer cars from manufacturers getting heavier and heavier, it makes sense to set/modify the entire class weights at the very start so that future adjustments - class or individual -can be avoided. For example, a 1991 BMW 318is weighed what, about 2600#? The smallest BMW available now weighs well over 3000#.

It's a fact of life - cars are getting bigger and heavier. Chassis rollover anti-crush standards are going to add more weight to the bare chassis from all manufacturers, and with many cars already having a difficult time getting down to weight, this looks like a valid attempt to solve that *now* so it doesn't have to be done again in a few or a number of years.

For those who have already built a to-the-limit STL car and have worked hard to get down to class weight, they still have the advantage of being able to place ballast anywhere they like. (Ballast rules IIRC are different in ST vs IT).

Why STL? How does that group of cars fit in STL at all? I can see a Honda Fit with a K20 at the appropriate weight but not one without a motor transplant.

STL is a place ex WC cars 2.0l and under can play right?


I'm under weight and I haven't even done a lot of modifications allowed for Super Touring like carbon fiber hoods, lexan windows, and etc. Yes I can still do those things with an additional 90 lbs and relocate weight to areas I would rather have it but still.... I'm not sure how a B Spec car fits into Super Touring.

I can see how it could fit into IT as knestis pointed out..

[lateapex911]

Practically speaking, a Honda Fit with its original engine isn't an STL candidate, methinks. One with an engine swap, (a main cornerstone of the category/class), well, maybe. Of course, with a larger STL engine, maybe it COULD make weight.
Regardless, I applaud the CRB for thinking of down the road scenarios. Maybe a B-spec car exists that is prohibitively heavy, even with a swap, who knows.

But, it's the manner in which the change was made that I question. I wish they had gotten input form the members.
Hey, it's fine to change things, but I don't see the rush to do it immediately. I think a member advisory would have served notice that it was being considered, and would have gotten valuable input.

I'm guessing/hoping the STAC would have preferred that route, which is an important part of a committees policies and procedural methods.

[JS154]

I can see a Honda Fit with a K20 at the appropriate weight but not one without a motor transplant.

STL is a place ex WC cars 2.0l and under can play right?


I'm not sure how a B Spec car fits into Super Touring.

..

These points bring up a very good point...

Super Touring is really an ENGINE class, not a car class.

The class is based on displacement to weight. Since engine swaps are allowed, 3 different 2.0L engines installd in three different chassis must all weigh the same. (excluding chnages for FWD/FWD strut/etc type adders.)

The chassis really shouldn't matter. Granted, an NSX with a B16A2 engine on 7" wide rims is not really going to be fast and will probably look a little funny, but (aside from the current exclusion of the NSX chassis) it's going to come down to the highest specific output engine in the best handling chassis.

FWIW, the Mini in B-Spec is the only chasssi I know of with independent rear suspension and the FIAT is the only one with 4-wheel disc brakes.

If the cars can be made to handle - one of the advanatages of these newer small cars is going to be aerodynamics - small frontal frontal area and low cD.

[Andy Bettencourt]

(aside from the current exclusion of the NSX chassis)
I didn't see that in the latest FT...how about the FD RX-7?

[forestdweller37]

90 pounds? OUCH. Damn, I was thinking the same thing, but that's ANOTHER 100lbs in the floor... that's a little scary. Hmmm

111 lbs. Don't forget the +2.5% modifier for RWD. :D

[JS154]

I didn't see that in the latest FT...how about the FD RX-7?

OK maybe I made a mistake about the NSX being excluded....

regardless, an NSX with a 1.6L and 7" rims...is going to look funny. Dunno how fast it may really be.

[CRallo]

tGA had said it was going to be exluded...

[Chip42]

FWIW, the Mini in B-Spec is the only chasssi I know of with independent rear suspension and the FIAT is the only one with 4-wheel disc brakes.

If the cars can be made to handle - one of the advanatages of these newer small cars is going to be aerodynamics - small frontal frontal area and low cD.

Kia Rio5 also has 4 wheel discs, and direct injection. beam rear though.

and many of these cars have HUGE frontal areas compared to the mainstay era hondas. but yeah, Cd tends to be low.

[jumbojimbo]

...FWIW, the Mini in B-Spec is the only chasssi I know of with independent rear suspension and the FIAT is the only one with 4-wheel disc brakes.

MINI Cooper also has 4-wheel disc brakes?

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK maybe I made a mistake about the NSX being excluded....

regardless, an NSX with a 1.6L and 7" rims...is going to look funny. Dunno how fast it may really be.

Why a 1.6? 2.0 baby!!!

[JS154]

Why a 1.6? 2.0 baby!!!

look at the specific output of the B16A2 vs the 1.8 or 2.0, and the weight factor.

I'm calling the B16A2 engine as the one to have. Stick it in an 87 Civic and ballast for balance.

What would be really great is if non-USDM engines were allowed - there's all sorts of cool engines that we didn't get here in the states.

[Chip42]

eric, I'd like you to meet the choir.

choir, this is eric.

[CRallo]

But then it wouldn't be a FWD Honduh class!


Joking (not funny to joke about the truth?) aside:

I still say this is a must for the class. And it's better considered now than later... speaking of writing letters...



look at the specific output of the B16A2 vs the 1.8 or 2.0, and the weight factor.

I'm calling the B16A2 engine as the one to have. Stick it in an 87 Civic and ballast for balance.

What would be really great is if non-USDM engines were allowed - there's all sorts of cool engines that we didn't get here in the states.


eric, I'd like you to meet the choir.

choir, this is eric.

[coreyehcx]

I'm all for JDM, EDM motors for the class and I drive a Honda. If all the motors meet the rules laid out who cares...

I wouldn't call it an all Honda class anyway, I think Miatas will do very well.


Anyway, I guess there is no reason in sending in a letter about reversing this B Spec thing is there?

[lateapex911]

But then it wouldn't be a FWD Honduh class!


Joking (not funny to joke about the truth?) aside:

I still say this is a must for the class. And it's better considered now than later... speaking of writing letters...

Well, write away, but, it's been discussed several times according to the STAC representatives who post here, and the STAC was in favor, but, for some reason I don't get, certain members of, or the CRB as a whole is against it.

[lateapex911]

I'm all for JDM, EDM motors for the class and I drive a Honda. If all the motors meet the rules laid out who cares...

I wouldn't call it an all Honda class anyway, I think Miatas will do very well.


Anyway, I guess there is no reason in sending in a letter about reversing this B Spec thing is there?

Thats a curious point.
I don't think the 1.8 will match the Specific output of some of the Honda motor combinations. But, the Mazda is a superior chassis. So yes, I think it has a very good chance.

BUT: Referencing other threads here, it's been brought up numerous times that the RWD adder is thought to be way low by the STAC (2.5%), and certain members want it increased. I think I can find posts to the effect of Greg wanting as much as 7%.

So if THAT happens then I'm not so sure I'd be the first on my block to build a Miata.

Secondly, the Miata is an odd duck. I've asked numerous times why the S2000 is banned, yet the Miata isn't. Makes ZERO sense to me physically. One would think the Miata should be banned as well, OR the S2000 allowed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Secondly, the Miata is an odd duck. I've asked numerous times why the S2000 is banned, yet the Miata isn't. Makes ZERO sense to me physically. One would think the Miata should be banned as well, OR the S2000 allowed.

And they obviously talked about banned chassis with the lifting of the restriction on the Type R as a chassis. So still no NSX or FD RX-7, 300ZX, Porsche 911 or ANYTHING that people could Frankenstein?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So I think it would be cool to double dip our ITR S2000 in STL in full IT trim. Seems 100% legal as:


In seciton 9.1.4.B, clarify the third bullet point, second sentence as follows: "GCR listed IT cars with reciprocating piston engines of 2 liters and less engine displacement, 1985 and newer, may compete in STL under their current IT specifications."

This is much like the SM to IT rule that was attempted to pass a couple years ago. Even though some allowances for SM were NOT legal for IT, the rule suggested that SM cars, in FULL SM prep, would be specifically legal for ITA, including the 99+ cars that were not even on the spec line.

So even if this chassis is not allowed in STL in STL trim, it is specifically allowed in IT trim. Still off in the power to weight department but it will be fun.

[Ron Earp]

So still no NSX or FD RX-7, 300ZX, Porsche 911 or ANYTHING that people could Frankenstein?

No. No cool cars. FWD Hondas. Got it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

No. No cool cars. FWD Hondas. Got it?

LOL Maybe I worded that wrong. Still NO restrictions on THOSE cars I listed! I would infer that if they addressed the Hype-R, they will leave the cars I mentioned alone.

[lateapex911]

Actually, Andy, I've been thinking.

Why not run the ITR S2000 in IT trim as the rule states its allowed in IT trim ONLY. So, that includes 8.5" wheels. Which are a lot better than 7". Now, it's a but tubby, because in STU it would weigh 2770, but the wheels will go a long way to make that up. And if the STAC make good on it's promise to (double) the RWD weight adder, (making the STL S2000 2825, lets say) that won't affect the ITR car either...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake, spot on. It will be a fun car to run with the quick STL boys.

How about this for a Frankenstein daydream:

911 Carrera Club Sport clone, back dated with the 911S's 160hp 2.0. With all the allowances for cams, compression, intake and TB/carb...

Wait. My bad. Sorry, only 4-bangers regardless of cc's. Ugh. Literally just noticed that. Idiot.

[lateapex911]

Jake, spot on. It will be a fun car to run with the quick STL boys.

How about this for a Frankenstein daydream:

911 Carrera Club Sport clone, back dated with the 911S's 160hp 2.0. With all the allowances for cams, compression, intake and TB/carb...

Wait. My bad. Sorry, only 4-bangers regardless of cc's. Ugh. Literally just noticed that. Idiot.

REally!? Sheeet. Never realized that. :shrug:
I was shooting the poo with Greg the other day, (Poor guy, he gets an earful sometimes!) and I was blue skying about possible odd and unthought of combinations, like that old nineties Mazda 1.8L V6 from the MX-3 in a Miata. I researched it and it made 130hp at 6500, and 115 Tq at 4500, so so much for THAT idea!. Anyway, Greg never said, "Only 4 cyl cars, dumbass!"....

Pity.

The 911 idea. Yea, I thought about that exact combination. Well, sorta. you're thinking of an earlier 911S engine but that one is carbed (Webers). The Mech injected version is a 170Hp version. Of course, pre '73 ratings aren't always SAE net, so that power might not be apples to apples to a newer Honda.

Now, making enough to match the output of a Honda motor might be a bitch, even with cam and compression allowances. (I don't know that S cams lift off the top of my head, but it was known to be a cammy motor)

then there's weight. It would need to be (at todays RWD adder), 2770, which is a bunch over stock! (well, stock for a 70's S, !)

[bamfp]

Doesn't the engine have to be 1985 and newer as well?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doesn't the engine have to be 1985 and newer as well?

On edit as was pointed out to me:


From opening paragraphs, "Purpose and Philosophy"

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).

NO idea why but there it is. SO many unnecessary restrictions.

[CRallo]

THIS



NO idea why, but there it is. SO many unnecessary restrictions.


And in response to the year thing: This 1985 thing reminds me of that alleged quote from a CRB/BOD member regarding pony cars in ITR...

[JeffYoung]

I'm actually in favor of the year restriction. You do have to make a call if you want your class to focus on modern stuff, or be more "vintage."

That impacts a lot of your rule making. 85 forward, you don't generally have to deal with the carb brigade asking for weight brakes, or drum brakes or (for the most part) live axles, or requests for alternate parts because stuff is NLA, etc.

[callard]

Andy and Jake's mention of Porsches got me thinking. The 1985 Porsche 911 (6 cylinder) is a 3.2 liter air cooled engine. That engine takes its roots back to the 2 liter air cooled engine from 1964. Over the years refinements (compression, cams, induction systems) improved on the original 130 SAE HP. The best was probably the 1973 RSR with well over 220 HP. Then again, that didn't include the cams and compression that Porsche used for racing. Alas, 6 cylinder.
Now in 1985, Porsche also made a 924S with a 944 2.7 liter 4 cylinder engine. The 1985 tub was the same as the 1977 - 1982 US 924 tubs. In the 77-82 924 cars, there was a 2 liter Audi block with either Audi or Porsche heads (931 turbo). So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:

[lateapex911]

Andy and Jake's mention of Porsches got me thinking. The 1985 Porsche 911 (6 cylinder) is a 3.2 liter air cooled engine. That engine takes its roots back to the 2 liter air cooled engine from 1964. Over the years refinements (compression, cams, induction systems) improved on the original 130 SAE HP. The best was probably the 1973 RSR with well over 220 HP. Then again, that didn't include the cams and compression that Porsche used for racing. Alas, 6 cylinder.
Now in 1985, Porsche also made a 924S with a 944 2.7 liter 4 cylinder engine. The 1985 tub was the same as the 1977 - 1982 US 924 tubs. In the 77-82 924 cars, there was a 2 liter Audi block with either Audi or Porsche heads (931 turbo). So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:

Not if the engine wasn't used in the car in 85 or up*,...and D Prod parts? Likely non starters. Gotta use the stock manifold, OR if you are converting a FWD engine to RWD (or vice versa), I guess you can ask them if you could run something else, then THEY (STAC? CRB? both?) will decide if that's okey dokey. That's my understanding of it based on discussions here.

* I missed the year prohibition on engines as well. That eliminates early Alfa engines.....

[ShelbyRacer]

NO idea why but there it is. SO many unnecessary restrictions.

"Because all the old crap is supposed to be in the other Production classes."

Regarding the "1990 restriction", from a former CRB member to Jeff Zurschmeid and I at the 2005 Convention. Jeff was chairing the B/D Production Task Force (which eventually became ST) and I was a newly added member. Granted, that may be slightly paraphrased, but you get the idea. I was asking why something like my 1985 Shelby Charger wasn't going to be included... At that point, nothing before 1990 was to be allowed, and any proposal that said otherwise was dead at the door.

We were told that our proposed rule set would be "impossible to manage" and that "current or recent World Challenge cars are the core, any other included cars are just fluff."

It is truly nice to see that ST has become the class that was envisioned by that committee in 2005/6.

[lateapex911]

Matt, I remember talking to peter Keane about this years ago, and the concept had a strong foundation in the whole World Challenge thing. I remember saying, "Really? How many World Challenge cars ARE there!? And from which year? They're ALL different...even during the SAME year! If you could make a ruleset that allowed MOST of them, how many is that actually? And of those, how many will show up to run?? Seems like there's just not that many out there...certainly not enough to form a whole class around".

Peter of course was like,
"Well, I know a couple guys...."

Seemed way too exclusive to me back then. Needed to be totally INclusive.

[JIgou]

Matt, I remember talking to peter Keane about this years ago, and the concept had a strong foundation in the whole World Challenge thing. I remember saying, "Really? How many World Challenge cars ARE there!? And from which year? They're ALL different...even during the SAME year! If you could make a ruleset that allowed MOST of them, how many is that actually? And of those, how many will show up to run?? Seems like there's just not that many out there...certainly not enough to form a whole class around".

Peter of course was like,
"Well, I know a couple guys...."

Seemed way too exclusive to me back then. Needed to be totally INclusive.

And, perhaps more important: How many of those cars that were left were still in a condition to be raced? To me, "Rode hard and put away wet" summarizes Word Challenge, especially in the "popular" years.

[ShelbyRacer]

Well, the other part that gets forgotten was that they wanted a class where an "amateur" could build and run a *current* World Challenge car, so that hopefully they'd enter the pro race "when the big show came to town."

Jake- that's why it failed in the beginning. The more that Greg and the STAC work at it, the closer it gets to what Scotty White and I tried so hard to push back then. Our entire thought process was simple: What are the performance parameters of World Challenge (since that was supposed to be the core), and how can can we let the average enthusiast run a car that *they want to run* that will perform within that envelope? We were specifically told to write rules that were permissive versus restrictive, and when we did just that, several CRB members, a few BoD members, and one member of the National Staff shot it down as being impossible to manage.

Does the current STAC have an impossible task? I'd say no. Certainly difficult at times, but they seem to manage it well. And, it seems that people are responding positively. It's amazing how much gets done once you get past the fact that it can't be.

[JS154]

So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:

not quite.

IT cars meeting their IT specs can run in ST, but *any* deviation from the IT specs requires following the STU rules.

So the only chassis older than 1985 that are allowed under ST are chassis that had production runs starting before that but conitinued after that.

I think a porsche 944 with the 2.5L or the 2.7L engine would be a great car to run in STU. A Mercedes W201 190e 2.3-16v would also be a super car for STU. And a Merkur Xr4ti/Mustang SVo with the Lima engine *with the Cossie DOHC head*(dammit, Euro motor. Arrgh!) would also be a great engine to run in STU.

[JS154]

I guess you can ask them if you could run something else, then THEY (STAC? CRB? both?) will decide if that's okey dokey. That's my understanding of it based on discussions here.



So the process is, a letter is submitted to the CRB through the website, and someone at SCCA in Topeka distributes it to the CRB and appropriate Advisory Committee. The STAC for example has a discussion about the request considering factors that may include but are not limited to and in no particular order of consideration or weight or inportance, ...

what is allowed under the rules as written,
what is the philospohy of the class,
what is the intent of the rule in question,
how will the request benefit the class as a whole,
does the request fall under a clariofication/E&O, or does it fall under a rules change, or does it fall under a competition adjustment?

etc etc. A recommendation is then made to the CRB. The CRB then makes their own decision. Any/Most CRB decisions(..still learning as I go here so cut me some slack....) have to be approved by the SCCA BOD. The BOD may approve as is, not approve, or have discussions etc.

the the STAC by it's very nature as an Advisory Committee, can only make a recommendation to the actual decision makers. Sometimes those recommendations are accepted, sometimes rejected, and sometimes sent back from the CRB to the STAC for more input, question answering, clarification etc etc. So that's why something get answered right away and some things take longer.

[JS154]

Jake- that's why it failed in the beginning. The more that Greg and the STAC work at it, the closer it gets to what Scotty White and I tried so hard to push back then. Our entire thought process was simple: What are the performance parameters of World Challenge (since that was supposed to be the core), and how can can we let the average enthusiast run a car that *they want to run* that will perform within that envelope? We were specifically told to write rules that were permissive versus restrictive, and when we did just that, several CRB members, a few BoD members, and one member of the National Staff shot it down as being impossible to manage.

Does the current STAC have an impossible task? I'd say no. Certainly difficult at times, but they seem to manage it well. And, it seems that people are responding positively. It's amazing how much gets done once you get past the fact that it can't be.

There is a lot to work with here, and the complication comes from the allowance of motor swaps while at the same time, trying to reasonably balance out NA engines with FI engines, factoring in FWD/RWD/AWD chassis, as well as large displacements and small displacements. As more and more manufacturers buy ownership interests in each other, do joint chassis and engine development work and platform sharing...suffice to say it's a lot to consider. Scioyotaru FR-S-FT86-BRZ anyone? (12.75:1 compression makes the engine ineligibale for STL and STU, but the chassis is fine....what motors can go in the Scioyotaru? )

that said, I see the potential for the class to be awesome.

[Knestis]

...A recommendation is then made to the CRB. The ad hoc liaison puts his own spin on the recommendation, or filters information to the CRB to suit his desired intentions for the decision. Members of the CRB defer to the liaison and/or those in the group with the most direct knowledge of the category in question. Some members abrogate their responsibility completely. The CRB then makes their own decision - or they don't, and publicly blame the ad hoc for heel-dragging or infighting. Any/Most CRB decisions (..still learning as I go here so cut me some slack....) have to be approved by the SCCA BOD. The BOD may approve as is, not approve, or have discussions etc.

the the STAC by it's very nature as an Advisory Committee, can only make a recommendation to the actual decision makers. Sometimes those recommendations are accepted, sometimes rejected, sometimes ignored, sometimes left under a pile of paper on someone's desk or in an unsorted email inbox, sometimes accepted but sabotaged or circumvented by other decisions, and sometimes sent back from the CRB to the STAC for more input, question answering, clarification, or to be put in line with a preconceived agenda (sometimes of just one or two members) that the CRB doesn't want to take the heat for etc etc. So that's why something get answered right away and some things take longer.

Just a few additions based on experience. Have fun!

:026:

K

[Chip42]

As more and more manufacturers buy ownership interests in each other, do joint chassis and engine development work and platform sharing...suffice to say it's a lot to consider. Scioyotaru FR-S-FT86-BRZ anyone? (12.75:1 compression makes the engine ineligibale for STL and STU, but the chassis is fine....what motors can go in the Scioyotaru? )

that said, I see the potential for the class to be awesome.

I used to see that potential, now I worry. I asked a lot of questions about the crossover potential back in 2010 when I started to get the STU bug (no JDM / other decisions killed it, and I thank them for that - I love IT and am pleased, generally, with the results of the process and some good 'ol hard work).

but also, by the rules as I read them, an over-compression motor as stock may maintain that compression in ST. I'm positive about this for STL. cams can't exceed the maximum, though. also, subaru will be selling an example of the same car, so swap away. a trickier question is something like T5 volvo in a jag, or rotary mustang, etc...


Just a few additions based on experience. Have fun!
At least you aren't bitter about it. :p

[Greg Amy]

Full version is up:

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-march.pdf