April 2012 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Man, we're slipping around here...

April Fastrack
Preliminary Minutes/Tech Bulletin
3/9/12- Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/assets/MarchMeetingAprilFastrack2012PrelimMinutes.pdf)
3/9/12- Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/assets/TB12-04PrelimMarchMeetingAprilFastrack.pdf)

[CRallo]

yourself included... Wait, you were probably "testing us" weren't you?!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ya!!!! Clarified right out of double dipping. No ITR 2L and under cars. Ugh.

Is there any way someone from the ITAC can find out where the Vette classification is? Right now we aren't even going to be in the ITCS for the first points race on a request sent in November.

[Greg Amy]

Ya!!!! Clarified right out of double dipping. No ITR 2L and under cars. Ugh.
Yeah, sorry about that. We're still trying to get buy-in on allowing the S2000 chassis into STL, but that won't help you with the F20 engine, which will likely stay bannificated...maybe if/when we get buy-in on increasing the RWD we can re-think that ITR exclusion. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah, sorry about that. We're still trying to get buy-in on allowing the S2000 chassis into STL, but that won't help you with the F20 engine, which will likely stay bannificated...maybe if/when we get buy-in on increasing the RWD we can re-think that ITR exclusion. - GA

So out of curiosity, why would that matter? At 3005lbs, the ITR version would still be 170lbs heavier than a 2.0L STL car at a 5% RWD adder...which is 238lbs heavier than it's current config.

Is it debatable that any 2.L or under ITR car exceeds the expected performance envelope of STL? The P/W's don't show it.

[Dano77]

Hey Wait a minute, The 12a has to stay at a stock motor with stock outputs in STL. Thereby remaining a totally un-competitive car/chassis for that class.

Yet the STO first gen car can run a GT2 motor????????

Still not getting the rational that a 25 year old car is scaring the Honda guys.

[23racer]

Decent decision on my car. I only have to add 250 lbs to it to run with you guys. That is doable and won't totally emasculate the car. I think that I will have to check the SCCA schedules to see what events I can go to. Pretty decent, Solomon like, decision.

Thanks again to everyone involved. I guess that you could put me down as the rare satisfied customer.

Eric

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess that you could put me down as the rare satisfied customer.

Eric

Oh, there are plenty of good decisions that happen every day. Just like in the real world, they get no press and we bitch about the stupid stuff. :)

[CRallo]

pretty boring read for us IT guys... :/

[Andy Bettencourt]

pretty boring read for us IT guys... :/

Must not have been any letters to go over....:shrug:

[CRallo]

Must not have been any letters to go over....:shrug:

Maybe I'll write a couple then. Aftermarket engine mounted accessory brackets anyone? ohhhhhhhhh! I DO need to write a letter!! GM V8 Pony cars are heavy... (Wrong stock hp was used) and of course all my links to support that were on my old computer which just died... Don't think I had EI favs backed up :/

[CRallo]

and is no ITR in STL REALLY an issue? Go play with your ITR buddies that are DD'ing in STU! You'll still trounce plenty of other DD'rs from S, A and B...

[CRallo]

Must not have been any letters to go over....:shrug:

reprocess the ITA 240sx at %25? :D


speaking of which, wasn't something happening with the 'S car?

[JeffYoung]

We debated the ITA 240sx at length. It stays at its current weight. We had two dyno data points for the ITS motor, and it loses 50 lbs.

We recommended the C4 with the torque adder and the DW adder. This was done two months ago, not sure what the hold up is.

We made numerous other recommendations to the CRB over the last few months so not sure what the hold up is or what's going on. Chip and/or myself will check.

[Knestis]

>> This was done two months ago, not sure what the hold up is.

I won't name any names but their initials are C, R, B. :)

My SINGLE biggest issue while on the ITAC was the CRB filibuster. There's a cultural inclination there to ignore things they don't want to do and hope that they die on the vine. Timely up-or-down decisions should be SOP.

K

[JS154]

Decent decision on my car. I only have to add 250 lbs to it to run with you guys. That is doable and won't totally emasculate the car. I think that I will have to check the SCCA schedules to see what events I can go to. Pretty decent, Solomon like, decision.

Thanks again to everyone involved. I guess that you could put me down as the rare satisfied customer.

Eric

Here are some National events to consider : NHMS Rational April 21, Nelson Ledges Double May 26-27, Mid-Ohio Double June 1-3, Lime Rock June 23, Watkins Glen July 7-8.

[Greg Amy]

Full April 2012 Fastrack

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

Ok, this one caught me off guard:

2. #7615 (Club Racing Board) S2000
In section 9.1.4.3.D.1, remove the Honda S2000 ineligibility as follows: Honda S2000

Looks like effective 3/30 the S2000 chassis is eligible in STL. Unfortunately, the F20 engine is still excluded. K20, anyone?

[coreyehcx]

Wow, the K20 is actually a better platform to work with and is easily mated to the s2000 transmission.

I hope everyone that was crying about this sacks up and builds one now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow, the K20 is actually a better platform to work with and is easily mated to the s2000 transmission.

I hope everyone that was crying about this sacks up and builds one now.

It's not about one single desire for a build, it's about a consitancy in the rules.

What has more potential: An STL, purpose built K20-powered S2000 at 2850-ish lbs or a full IT-spec F20 S2000 at 3005lbs?

To me, the answer is clear. Yet for some reason, the STAC just revoked 2.0L ITR cars eligibility under the IT clause.

[Greg Amy]

What has more potential: An STL, purpose built K20-powered S2000 at 2850-ish lbs or a full IT-spec F20 S2000 at 3005lbs? To me, the answer is clear.

Me too: the F20.

The 200hp-stock K20 from the RSX-S is already at max-allowed compression ratio for STL and will have to de-cam to be compliant to the STL regs. The 240hp-stock F20 from the S2000 can increase compression another 1/2 point per the ITR regs (to over a point more than STL regs currently allow) and can run stock cams that are already oversize per STL regs.

But you already knew that...

GA

[JeffYoung]

Just to clarify, this was not it at all. We had an internal snafu and our last two months' worth of recommendations apparently did not get to the CRB.

Chip and I are taking steps to correct.

Not the CRB's fault at all.


>> This was done two months ago, not sure what the hold up is.

I won't name any names but their initials are C, R, B. :)

My SINGLE biggest issue while on the ITAC was the CRB filibuster. There's a cultural inclination there to ignore things they don't want to do and hope that they die on the vine. Timely up-or-down decisions should be SOP.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Me too: the F20.

The 200hp-stock K20 from the RSX-S is already at max-allowed compression ratio for STL and will have to de-cam to be compliant to the STL regs. The 240hp-stock F20 from the S2000 can increase compression another 1/2 point per the ITR regs (to over a point more than STL regs currently allow) and can run stock cams that are already oversize per STL regs.

But you already knew that...

GA

I think if you asked the Honda guru's, they would tell you otherwise. This K20 is like some sort of super-sauce, even with a de-camming apperantly. No personal dyno data to back it up but we will have an ITR K20-powered RSX to examine soon.

Even if the motors could see the same peak HP, the F20 would still be 130-150lbs heavier once a new RWD factor of at least 5% gets put into place.

But bottom line, the chassis nonsense is fixed a little bit. Now to get to work on the age limit on drivetrain only, any chassis! :)

[Greg Amy]

I think if you asked the Honda guru's, they would tell you otherwise
They those "gurus" are truly Honda Purple Kool-Aid fools. Seriously so.

GA

[coreyehcx]

I guess Im drinking kool aid....and a fool

[CRallo]

I'm not stepping in that pile.

[Greg Amy]

I guess Im drinking kool aid....and a fool
So you're telling me that given a choice between an ITR-prepped F20C (240hp stock, +1/2 point compression to 12.2:1 and stock "STL-oversized" cams) versus an STL-prepped K20 (200hp stock, no more compression at 11:1, de-cammed to .425 valve lift max), both with IT-level head, intake, and exhaust prep, both installed into the same Honda S2000 chassis, and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

First off, they wouldn't weight the same, and that's the point here. Right now isn't there's about a 300lb difference, soon to shrink to around 130lbs.

Second, isn't it possible that motors of similar size, compression ration and cam specs respond differently to intake, exhaust and A/F tuning? Sure it is...possible. The people in the know seem to think the K20 has a better upside. And even if it was dead even, the IT car would still weigh more.

And that brings me back to the original point, STL cars need not be afraid of 2L IT cars in any shape or form because they don't match up spec for spec.

I guess to compare to a Teg: 2460lbs with 195whp vs. 3005lbs with 215whp

I'm a RWD guy so I know what I would go with but I'm not sure it would be a winner against top builds and top drivers.

I'll do some more research and find out exactly WHY the Kool-Aid is so good.

[Racerlinn]

"Walsh presented update on progress with SAE regarding safety standards and SAE becoming a safety certification body. Any possible agreement would be an expected 3-5 year process. Walsh and Merideth will pursue finding the path and then handoff to staff for follow through. "

????

[Greg Amy]

Andy, Super Touring Light isn't about Improved Touring cars; it's about Super Touring Light cars. Everything else that's allowed in there is grid filler*.

And, as grid filler, whether or not it will be competitive in STL is wholly irrelevant: if there's even a miniscule chance that it may be competitive, it will be excluded. Reasonable people will agree that it's debatable that the ITR S2000 can be somewhat competitive in STL. Ergo, it's excluded.

In no case should/will any alternately-allowed class be given the opportunity to overshadow the base class. It should not even be remotely considered. If you like the base class, then build for the base class. Otherwise, you're grid filler, plain and simple.

If you want to race STL, build an STL car. We'd love to have you on board. But if all you're looking to do is double-dip, you have to make that compromise to build to ITR specs and double-dip in STU.

GA

* I personally define "grid filler" as giving other classes another place to play, both for experience purposes (e.g. IT cars racing Nationals) and for extra track time (e.g., SM cars double-dipping at a National event). It absolutely does not hurt that it also benefits Super Touring Light (and sponsoring regions) by increasing participation numbers; in fact, there would be no reason for STCS/CRB to allow/encourage it unless it was mutually beneficial.

The cynics among us seem to think it's only about that last point. It's not. And even if it were, "so what...?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which all makes sense. The point you are missing is that all 2L ITR cars are 'grid filler' too, which I am trying to show on paper. STL is going to be more grid filler than real STL cars anyway.

But, as you said, IT cars are invited as a peripheral entity. They won't, and don't, have to 'makes sense'.

[coreyehcx]

So you're telling me that given a choice between an ITR-prepped F20C (240hp stock, +1/2 point compression to 12.2:1 and stock "STL-oversized" cams) versus an STL-prepped K20 (200hp stock, no more compression at 11:1, de-cammed to .425 valve lift max), both with IT-level head, intake, and exhaust prep, both installed into the same Honda S2000 chassis, and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

I didn't say that anywhere Greg.

I was under the impression that ITR cars were going to be excluded anyway.

F20C in STL trim vs a K20A in STL trim is what I'm talking about. Yes I would go with the K20 in that situation.

The F20C has many examples of losing power when they are modified with simple things like intake, header, and exhaust.

Cam lift
F20C .498"/.459"
K20A2 .483"/.431"

Running those at the .425 lift limits, which one potentially has more to lose.

K20s respond very well to modifications which is well documented and F20s do not. There is a lot more support out there for the K series engines as well and a lot more development going on with them.


Call it koolaid or whatever you want, some of you act like elitist snobs.

[Greg Amy]

F20C in STL trim vs a K20A in STL trim is what I'm talking about.
That has nothing to do with the above conversation, and thus nothing to do with my Kool-Aid comment.

Andy has a burr under his saddle to get the ITR-prepped S2000 in STL as an alternate category vehicle. Thus our debate involves the potential of the ITR-prepped F20C versus the STL-prepped K20A. Andy and I disagree on that performance potential (even when considering the ~150# differences in prep weight).

The ITR-prepped S2000 will not be approved to run in STL. The F20C will not be approved to run in STL trim*.

GA, who may be considered an elitist snob, but at least he pays attention to the point of the conversation...


* As much as absolutes such as that can be counted on in SCCA...

[TStiles]

That has nothing to do with the above conversation, and thus nothing to do with my Kool-Aid comment.

Andy has a burr under his saddle to get the ITR-prepped S2000 in STL as an alternate category vehicle. Thus our debate involves the potential of the ITR-prepped F20C versus the STL-prepped K20A. Andy and I disagree on that performance potential (even when considering the ~150# differences in prep weight).

The ITR-prepped S2000 will not be approved to run in STL. The F20C will not be approved to run in STL trim*.

GA, who may be considered an elitist snob, but at least he pays attention to the point of the conversation...


* As much as absolutes such as that can be counted on in SCCA...

Greg , Sorry if I'm plowing old ground here , but are you saying the ITR prepped AP1 S2000 running in STL is an overdog ?

I don't know if it's an overdog , but it might be the EZ button for a guy like me that wants to do STL , but has limited engine mechanical talent.

I'm a RWD guy , the ITR AP1 S2000 seems easier and maybe more cost effective than a full tilt boogie Miata build.

[Greg Amy]

Greg , Sorry if I'm plowing old ground here , but are you saying the ITR prepped AP1 S2000 running in STL is an overdog ?
No, I'm not saying I think the ITR-prepped S2000 is an "overdog", but I do think the level of performance is such that it could give significant grief to legitimate STL cars (and could even consistently win races given the current infancy of the class).

Therefore, it's reasonable that it should be excluded.

GA

[coreyehcx]

I wasn't trying to get into your conversation with Andy. I guess that is how it played out and I wasn't paying attention to the point.



This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement), opening up the double dipping issue with certain cars way over STL limits, and the inclusion of the s2000. When is the inclusion of the ITR happening or did I miss that one? Maybe the Lotus will be on board by the end of the year too.

I have been on board until these recent issues. I have a car, I plan to race it in STL this year. I will have to take a look at things at that point to see if I want to continue with it or the organization at all.

These are the types of things that make people look to other organizations. I know this is not a concern at all for any of you that complain of losing members or gaining them.

[Knestis]

... This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement) ...

Huh? How does B-Spec fit into the ST conversation? ST "Ultralight...?" There's exactly no way that the curve can be shifted to reasonably accommodate BS cars.

FWIW, I get Greg's point. It's necessary to define what is at the core of any rule set, at least in the rules-making paradigm that we apply in SCCA (i.e., not time-indexed or NASA PTx solutions).

K

[JS154]

I wasn't trying to get into your conversation with Andy. I guess that is how it played out and I wasn't paying attention to the point.



This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement), opening up the double dipping issue with certain cars way over STL limits, and the inclusion of the s2000. When is the inclusion of the ITR happening or did I miss that one? Maybe the Lotus will be on board by the end of the year too.

I have been on board until these recent issues. I have a car, I plan to race it in STL this year. I will have to take a look at things at that point to see if I want to continue with it or the organization at all.

These are the types of things that make people look to other organizations. I know this is not a concern at all for any of you that complain of losing members or gaining them.

The changes to base weight calculations were done to account for the indisputable fact that cars from manufacturers are getting heavier and heavier each year, and will only continue to do so with the ongoing mandated requirements of increased rollover anti-roof-crush reinforcing, crumple zones etc etc.

example: in STU the 2.0L cars already cannot get within 300# of target weight.

BPsec has nothing to do with it. It was done to make it easier for future heavy chassis to be able to make weight and avoid the ongoing" my car can;t make weight so gimme a break"

AS Greg mentioned above, it is Super Touring Lite, as in Super touring at a "Lite-er" level of prep - not Light - Lite. it is not Super Improved Touring.

Yes there have been a number of changes to the class and category as of late, but the intent is to get the majority of the changes out of the way early in the infancy of the class/category, so that it doesn;t turn into an annual redo of of minor adjustments.

If there are things about the class you (generic you) would like to see different, or things that have been announced that you disagree with - please - write a letter in, and provide some good info supporting your position.

Personally, I would like to see the allowances for wheel size and ride height and brake rotor diameter to be the same between STU and STL, so people can run the same chassis in both classes without having to buy new wheels and smaller brakes, or vice-versa. But that's my opinion, and it;s not flying so far it seems. But in order for something like those to get approved, there has to be more support for it.


And I still think a B16A2 in a late 80's Civic is the sleeper build for STL.

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW, I get Greg's point. It's necessary to define what is at the core of any rule set, at least in the rules-making paradigm that we apply in SCCA (i.e., not time-indexed or NASA PTx solutions).

K

Of course it is. But it's also obvious that STL is going to ride a wave of field fillers in the form of ITS and SM cars to artificially high car counts. So as long as that is part of your business model, it should be fine to debate where the line for acceptable filler is drawn. I submit that an ITR S2000 (or Celica or RSX or Type R) does not encroach on the top 20% of the targeted performance envelope given the raw numbers.

And I still submit that from what I have read, an STL K20 has more potential than an IT F20 but will report back with more data.

[JS154]

Of course it is. But it's also obvious that STL is going to ride a wave of field fillers in the form of ITS and SM cars to artificially high car counts. So as long as that is part of your business model, it should be fine to debate where the line for acceptable filler is drawn. I submit that an ITR S2000 (or Celica or RSX or Type R) does not encroach on the top 20% of the targeted performance envelope given the raw numbers.

And I still submit that from what I have read, an STL K20 has more potential than an IT F20 but will report back with more data.

I'm not sure I fully understand the "artificailly high car count" argument. If there are 20 entries in STL, and 4 of those are "true STL" cars, there are still 20 entries in the class. Any branmd new class is going to take a while to be well populated, and when multiple makes, engine swpas and drivetrain configurations are all allowed, it;s going to be a a little turbulent getting the rules sorted and balanced at the outset anyways.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure I fully understand the "artificailly high car count" argument. If there are 20 entries in STL, and 4 of those are "true STL" cars, there are still 20 entries in the class.

The point is that STL has, in it's rules, a way to boost it's numbers. Field fillers. These types of cars have been discussed and evaluated to make sure they don't exceed or encroach on the performance envelope of STL. What I am saying is that No 2L ITR car, of which there are at least 4, is in this boat. Just because the class is underdeveloped, doesn't change that opinion.



Any branmd new class is going to take a while to be well populated, and when multiple makes, engine swpas and drivetrain configurations are all allowed, it;s going to be a a little turbulent getting the rules sorted and balanced at the outset anyways.

Yes and no. We could debate how much forethought when into this class, what it's intentional limits were and are and how 'corrections' on the fly could have been avoided by not rushing it.

[coreyehcx]

The changes to base weight calculations were done to account for the indisputable fact that cars from manufacturers are getting heavier and heavier each year, and will only continue to do so with the ongoing mandated requirements of increased rollover anti-roof-crush reinforcing, crumple zones etc etc.

example: in STU the 2.0L cars already cannot get within 300# of target weight.

BPsec has nothing to do with it. It was done to make it easier for future heavy chassis to be able to make weight and avoid the ongoing" my car can;t make weight so gimme a break"

AS Greg mentioned above, it is Super Touring Lite, as in Super touring at a "Lite-er" level of prep - not Light - Lite. it is not Super Improved Touring.

Yes there have been a number of changes to the class and category as of late, but the intent is to get the majority of the changes out of the way early in the infancy of the class/category, so that it doesn;t turn into an annual redo of of minor adjustments.

If there are things about the class you (generic you) would like to see different, or things that have been announced that you disagree with - please - write a letter in, and provide some good info supporting your position.

Personally, I would like to see the allowances for wheel size and ride height and brake rotor diameter to be the same between STU and STL, so people can run the same chassis in both classes without having to buy new wheels and smaller brakes, or vice-versa. But that's my opinion, and it;s not flying so far it seems. But in order for something like those to get approved, there has to be more support for it.


And I still think a B16A2 in a late 80's Civic is the sleeper build for STL.

I guess I dont get why that weight decision wasnt thought about from the get go until BSpec came along. Some of the cars listed were BSpec cars in the notation.

I agree with the B16 in some of the older Hondas and I wouldn't be surprised if some pop up locally...I hope so I can have a few people to race.

I like the idea of the class aligning more with STU instead of IT, everyone says its not IT or Super IT but really some of the rules seem to be IT based.


I have written in already on some aero changes, so I will see how that goes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I still think a B16A2 in a late 80's Civic is the sleeper build for STL.

I thinks its THE build for STL! Power to weight is there over everything else...

[Greg Amy]

Just because the class is underdeveloped, doesn't change that opinion.
I *completely* agree with you on that, Andy. Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries and the "it's a field-filler class" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If/when this class becomes a full-built strong-field National class of epic participation, then maybe my stance on the "ITRS2k" will soften. But not now, not today.


...and how 'corrections' on the fly could have been avoided by not rushing it.I can tell you from personal experience, as someone that has been pushing for National status on this class all last year, I was more than a bit surprised that we got it for 2012. But regardless, until that happened, no one gave two s***s about the class. Where were you all last year, complaining about the details in the rules, beating on your chest about allowing in the ITRS2K, and being an overall "pain in the ass" ;) sometimes about STL? Fact is, you - and most others - did not care one whit about STL because it was a Regional class. And because of that, a lot of this stuff went unnoticed and ignored. It actually took the change from Regional-Only status in order for the class to get the attention, and these details noticed. If the class had stayed Regional, nothing would have changed and we'd be making the same arguments but a year (or whenever) later if/when it finally became National.

As I've said many, many times, Greg's #1 Rule for Writing a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779) is "You can’t POSSIBLY think of all situations". Problem is, only now is the crowd starting to pay attention. What you are witnessing is the "crowd-sourcing" of a class. It's frustrating, but I kinda like it.

So all this is less a reflection of the maturity of the class, and more a reflection of the status of the class, the latter of which driving the former. It's a pain that we'll need to go through and resolve, but when it's done I think we'll have something pretty good.

Well, at least I'm hopeful! :happy204:

GA

[dickita15]

CRB announce new “terminator” rules policy:
For all future new classes rules will be developed in real time, on the fly and then when perfected will be sent back in a time machine so a “perfect” rule set can be unveiled from the start.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can tell you from personal experience, as someone that has been pushing for National status on this class all last year, I was more than a bit surprised that we got it for 2012. But regardless, until that happened, no one gave two s***s about the class. Where were you all last year, complaining about the details in the rules, beating on your chest about allowing in the ITRS2K, and being an overall "pain in the ass" ;) sometimes about STL? Fact is, you - and most others - did not care one whit about STL because it was a Regional class.

GA

And that's how you develop a class, right? Regional for enough time it takes to iron out the kinks, lock in your concept, and fix the mistakes. THEN National. Once you punch a ticket for the Runoffs, you need to have your shit together.

Such a new and promising concept needed more time to germinate before it went under the microscope. When the CRB/BoD approved STL for the Runoffs, they effectively said it was ready for prime time.

PS: And I 'beat my chest' about allowing the ITRS2K because at first it wasn't legal, then it was, then it wasn't...all within a couple of months. So The STAC sparked the interest and the concept, then took it away because the decision was in haste. So with piqued interest, you examine the concept or all IT cars 2L and under in STL...and it's sound.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I *completely* agree with you on that, Andy. Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries and the "it's a field-filler class" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


GA

Only half true. If IT cars overshadow REAL builds, then you are correct. That would be a misclass. If fully developed IT cars overshadowed partial builds, then only the short-sighted, or those looking to cherry-pick a Runoffs medal, would give up.

[lateapex911]

Greg, whadya mean nobody's been paying attention until it went national? You've been saying I've been a pain and a thorn forever. ;)

[mossaidis]

"Screw ya guys.... I'm goin' home"

[JohnRW]

CRB announce new “terminator” rules policy:
For all future new classes rules will be developed in real time, on the fly and then when perfected will be sent back in a time machine so a “perfect” rule set can be unveiled from the start.



Witness.

[ShelbyRacer]

Must not be working, or they'd have gone back and broken your computer before you could post that.

[DavidM]

reprocess the ITA 240sx at %25? :D



We debated the ITA 240sx at length. It stays at its current weight.

I tried. Still haven't seen dyno data supporting the weight. :shrug:

[Bill Miller]

Only half true. If IT cars overshadow REAL builds, then you are correct. That would be a misclass. If fully developed IT cars overshadowed partial builds, then only the short-sighted, or those looking to cherry-pick a Runoffs medal, would give up.

That was my take on it.


No, I'm not saying I think the ITR-prepped S2000 is an "overdog", but I do think the level of performance is such that it could give significant grief to legitimate STL cars (and could even consistently win races given the current infancy of the class).

Therefore, it's reasonable that it should be excluded.


Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries

Greg,

I agree w/ Andy, if the performance potential of a fully developed ITRS2K (or any of the 2L ITR cars) meets or exceeds the defined performance potential of a fully developed STL car, the IT car should not be allowed to compete in STL. The way I read your comments though, you don't think that would be the case.

What is it that really drives people to do full-tilt builds? It's because they want to do well, and they know that they other guy is going to take full advantage of the rules. That's the way it should be, and I think that fosters great competition. But that's why you've got $20k+ ITB builds and and $30k+ ITA builds, etc.

If you've set the STL performance level above that of ITR (and that's what I understand the case to be), the only reason anyone building an STL car should worry about an ITRS2K (or any other ITR car) is because they haven't done a 10/10ths build. If I built an STL car, and was getting beaten by guys in IT cars, it would be one of two things, 1) I didn't make a 100% effort, or 2) it's the nut behind the wheel.

I seem to recall that a couple of years ago you were wringing your hands at the possibility of taking an IT car to the Runoffs and grabbing an STU medal since STU was so new and there weren't many (any?) serious efforts out there. This seems to be exactly what you're against happening in STL. Not for nothing, but it's got a bit of a "not in my back yard" ring to it.

If you set the performance target of STL above IT, and you're going to let IT cars run, then let them run. Tell anyone w/ an STL car that complains about being beaten by an IT car to step up their game. Having (more) cars to chase will motivate people to work harder on their programs.

[CRallo]

First he wants every car in the class possible for numbers and now he is being picky... :p

[ShelbyRacer]

I'm not sure that the performance target for ST*L* is really beyond that of ITR. Think about how fast many of the cars in ITR *could* be. They would not be an issue, however, for STL, since they are all greater than 2.0L displacement.

Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.

If the S2K stands out from the list above by a large margin, then that raises other questions. On the surface though, all of the ITR cars should have *similar* performance envelopes, so if we're concerned about one being a possible overdog due to a loophole, then shouldn't the loophole itself be closed, rather than posting a guard there and turning away a select few?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure that the performance target for ST*L* is really beyond that of ITR. Think about how fast many of the cars in ITR *could* be. They would not be an issue, however, for STL, since they are all greater than 2.0L displacement.

Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.

If the S2K stands out from the list above by a large margin, then that raises other questions. On the surface though, all of the ITR cars should have *similar* performance envelopes, so if we're concerned about one being a possible overdog due to a loophole, then shouldn't the loophole itself be closed, rather than posting a guard there and turning away a select few?

So that's the point Matt, we are debating the 'closeness' of the ITR peformance envelope (11.25lbs per crank HP) vs STL which by all estimations is around 10.25lbs per crank for the best of breed.

[JeffYoung]

Isn't there more to it than that?

Alternate suspension pieces?

Brakes?

Wings/aero?

Cages?

Wheel/tire size?

So the performance advantage for an STL car should extend beyond just hp/weight right?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn't there more to it than that?

Alternate suspension pieces?

Brakes?

Wings/aero?

Cages?

Wheel/tire size?

So the performance advantage for an STL car should extend beyond just hp/weight right?

Yes, adding to the power to weight advantage there is:

Rear aero
Lightened flywheels
Alternate transmissions/gearsets from within same MFG
Any diff (no mention of OEM case requirement)
Additional allowances for camber
Brake upgrades

The only thing 'better' in ITR is the 8.5 vs 7.0 wheel width allowance.

[DoubleXL240Z]

How long has it taken for ITR cars to beat ITS cars? Seems that many S
cars are at or faster than R cars, with 8.5 wheels, more power etc. Even at the ARRC, what is the diff between the top cars? :dead_horse:
This is in response to the ITR vs STL concerns.

[ShelbyRacer]

Andy, I guess I was trying to reason it through "out loud" to make sure I fully understood the issue.

That said, my quick estimations of power with STL allowances seemed to be pointing at around 11-12 for p/w ratio. My thought process is that the cars in ITR with that low of a displacement are probably optimized pretty well from the factory in many ways, possibly putting them at a significantly better starting point than many other STL cars.

I guess my other question is- would the S2000 with a different engine be a player in STL at full development?

One final observation- since you're saying the ITR S2K can't run STL (which could be linked to the fact that the engine is disallowed), shouldn't the Teg also, since its engine is disallowed? And, should the engines of the other sub-2L ITR cars be banned?

[Ron Earp]

Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.


Be a lot easier to defend it being a "<2L FWD Honda engine swap class". It'd be more consistent and maybe reasonably accurate.

[Andy Bettencourt]

One final observation- since you're saying the ITR S2K can't run STL (which could be linked to the fact that the engine is disallowed), shouldn't the Teg also, since its engine is disallowed? And, should the engines of the other sub-2L ITR cars be banned?

So in a previous Fast Track, the STAC allowed all 2L and under IT cars (+13B and 12A even though they are considered 2600cc) in their 100% IT configuration, in STL. When they figured out that included all the <2L ITR cars as well, they pulled the plug and then specified ITS-ITC (again with 13B and 12A allowances as specific weights).

So there are no ITR cars, in IT spec, allowed in STL. Nothing to do 'specifically' with the allowed or not allowed engine, but apperantly with the 'closeness' of the performance envelope. That is what I am debating here. A really good, but not great, STL entry would be a double dipping ITR S2000...non-so-coincidentally one I have access to.

So again the debate is if a 99% developed (no such thing as 100%) ITR car is about 90% of a 99% STL car, then what's the harm? Will they win races? YES - not because they have the better potential, but because they are already built. Runoffs win? Come on. Only if a bunch of underdeveloped cherry-pickers show up thinking they are getting a medal with STL cars.

And to answer your other question, I am not sure if an S2000 with the K20 would be a player against the 1.6 and 1.8 weighted cars but from my research it actually is a BETTER choice for STL than the ITR car given HP, TQ, brakes, aero, etc and a much lighter weight min.

On edit: It seems to be all about the closeness of the two classes envelope. The STAC thinks they are either equal (which would be bad) or close enough so that fragile ego's would be damaged enough to hurt growth. They run the show, we stand by their work even if we agree to disagree.

[ShelbyRacer]

Aha, so what I was proposing was already done. That's what I get for using the January version of the GCR (already downloaded), and I must've missed that modification in FasTrack. I guess I should feel good that my thoughts on this were in line with what actually happened, even if I have to be embarrassed that I didn't realize it was a done deal.

That said, I'm still questioning if the other sub-2L engines in ITR should be banned. Obviously, the stock (IT-trim) S2K motor makes enough to require a weight of 3000 lb to make ratio, so its power potential is significant. The Teg Type-R though, is weighted at 2535 in ITR, while the other sub-2Ls are only slightly lighter at 2365 and 2380. The RSX-S comes in at 2665, so if the power potential of the Teg motor is enough to keep it out of STL, shouldn't *at least* the RSX motor also be taken out?

Again, I'm asking the question because *on paper* there appears to be inconsistency (though not as much as I previously thought). There may be real-world scenarios that justify the situation that I'm not aware of. My issue is simple: Consistency is important, but if inconsistencies are necessary (and they are at times), I'd like to know that there's justification.

I think you can blame some of this on the re-genesis of IT. The approach of the ITAC over the last few years, while not perfect, has set an expectation of calculation tempered by reasoning. We've all come to have the expectation that, "Because it just feels right," is not an ample reason for decision-making. As you said Andy, I'm content to agree-to-disagree, so long as I have insight into how we got to the disagreement. I guess I'm also feeling an inexplicable pull towards Super Touring, so I've maybe got a horse (albeit one that hasn't been even concieved yet) in this race.

[JeffYoung]

Good post.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So I am not sure there is an inconsistency...but it depends on how you look at it.

The STAC (IMHO) is not looking at singular cars and their potential when trying to add in field fillers, they are looking at a class of cars. In theory, all the sub-2L cars in ITR should have the same SPEED potential. So they have deemed that speed envelope too close to STL to allow them in. Again, at the IT weight. So it really doesn't matter what motor they have, just that the envelope is too close. I am on record as saying that it shouldn't be too close if calmer heads prevail but I have a potential horse in the race so you have to temper my opinion by that too.

Look, STL NEEDS field fillers to survive. It's just how many you are willing to accept. Plenty of 'real' ITA guys around the US are bent outta shape when they get beaten by SM's but when someone grabs them by the scruff and explains that they are getting beaten by drivers instead of cars, they calm down. I feel this is a proactive move to keep that from happening...however rational it may be.




Aha, so what I was proposing was already done. That's what I get for using the January version of the GCR (already downloaded), and I must've missed that modification in FasTrack. I guess I should feel good that my thoughts on this were in line with what actually happened, even if I have to be embarrassed that I didn't realize it was a done deal.

That said, I'm still questioning if the other sub-2L engines in ITR should be banned. Obviously, the stock (IT-trim) S2K motor makes enough to require a weight of 3000 lb to make ratio, so its power potential is significant. The Teg Type-R though, is weighted at 2535 in ITR, while the other sub-2Ls are only slightly lighter at 2365 and 2380. The RSX-S comes in at 2665, so if the power potential of the Teg motor is enough to keep it out of STL, shouldn't *at least* the RSX motor also be taken out?

Again, I'm asking the question because *on paper* there appears to be inconsistency (though not as much as I previously thought). There may be real-world scenarios that justify the situation that I'm not aware of. My issue is simple: Consistency is important, but if inconsistencies are necessary (and they are at times), I'd like to know that there's justification.

I think you can blame some of this on the re-genesis of IT. The approach of the ITAC over the last few years, while not perfect, has set an expectation of calculation tempered by reasoning. We've all come to have the expectation that, "Because it just feels right," is not an ample reason for decision-making. As you said Andy, I'm content to agree-to-disagree, so long as I have insight into how we got to the disagreement. I guess I'm also feeling an inexplicable pull towards Super Touring, so I've maybe got a horse (albeit one that hasn't been even concieved yet) in this race.

[JoshS]

Andy, how about finding a way to get ITR cars allowed in by increasing the performance gap? Something like, ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars get to compete at their specified IT weight, but ITR cars can compete in their ITR trim, but only at ITR weight + 150?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, how about finding a way to get ITR cars allowed in by increasing the performance gap? Something like, ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars get to compete at their specified IT weight, but ITR cars can compete in their ITR trim, but only at ITR weight + 150?

I know for the S2000 that would be a total of 400lbs of ballast. No thanks.

I know the ITR cars won't beat properly built and driven STL cars but I would certainly like to compete on SOME level. No sense in double dipping like that. I could go to STU and be just as competitive. The way to get quality filler is to have them see a tiny glimmer of light... :)

[Chip42]

easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.

[Andy Bettencourt]

easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.

Unfortunately you are trying to collect 'data' for a National-level decision when run groups are decided Regionally. It would never happen.

And the whole point is to allow the double dip. Field fillers aren't there for a single purpose, they double dip as fillers, helping regional $, providing said filler AND adding value to the weekend for the racers.

[Bill Miller]

easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.


Unfortunately you are trying to collect 'data' for a National-level decision when run groups are decided Regionally. It would never happen.

And the whole point is to allow the double dip. Field fillers aren't there for a single purpose, they double dip as fillers, helping regional $, providing said filler AND adding value to the weekend for the racers.

How many of the serious STL cars are going to run Regionals? Unless it's a 'Rational', isn't that the only place you'd have the chance to run STL and ITR together? Look at the other serious National efforts, across all the classes and categories, how many of them run Regionals? Even before things got tight w/ the economy, you didn't see many (any?) serious National efforts running Regionals. I would suspect that it would be even less now, given the state of the economy and the fact that almost all of the associated costs are up (entry fees, fuel, etc.).

Given the few STL cars that might show up at Regionals, I suspect they'll end up w/ the ITR group anyway, so there's probably little chance to double-dip. And ITR guys that take their cars to Nationals don't have a chance to double-dip their, either. Unless they run STL and STU (assuming they're in different run groups). Not to mention that guys running STL cars at Regionals aren't going to do anything to help the National STL participation numbers.

So unless you're in an area that runs combined Regionals/Nationals, the amount of potential double-dipping is going to be minimal. If you need IT cars as field-fillers for STL, you need to get those cars to Nationals for those participation numbers to mean anything.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So up here a Rational is a rarity. We have one coming up in 3 weeks however.

STL and ITR do not run with each other in New England.

[Bill Miller]

STL and ITR do not run with each other in New England.

Andy,

Do you mean that they are not in the same run group at the Regionals?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Do you mean that they are not in the same run group at the Regionals?

Correct.

[ner88]

We here in New Engalnd region do everything possible to allow all classes the opportunity to Double Dip.:rolleyes: At least when possible! (sorry Greg:()

[Andy Bettencourt]

We here in New Engalnd region do everything possible to allow all classes the opportunity to Double Dip.:rolleyes: At least when possible! (sorry Greg:()

Money is out there, grab it!

[Bill Miller]

Correct.

How many STL cars do you think will show up at the Regionals, now that STL is a National class?

And since they're Regionals, can't you guys do pretty much what you want? Kind of like how IT7 started? Just put it in the supps that ITR cars are also eligible for STL.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How many STL cars do you think will show up at the Regionals, now that STL is a National class?

And since they're Regionals, can't you guys do pretty much what you want? Kind of like how IT7 started? Just put it in the supps that ITR cars are also eligible for STL.

I have no idea. What I do know is that SM's and IT cars will be more likely to DD in STL than in STU. Why? Up here, STU runs with must faster classes. Not popular for guys who traditionally DD.

Creating a CLASS is way easier than modifying rules that aren't blessed by the GCR. I would never support something like this locally unless it was in the GCR. It's not fair to the 'real' STL drivers IMHO.

[CRallo]

What about allowing all ITA/S/B/C cars into STL regardless of displacement?

[Bill Miller]

I have no idea. What I do know is that SM's and IT cars will be more likely to DD in STL than in STU. Why? Up here, STU runs with must faster classes. Not popular for guys who traditionally DD.

Creating a CLASS is way easier than modifying rules that aren't blessed by the GCR. I would never support something like this locally unless it was in the GCR. It's not fair to the 'real' STL drivers IMHO.

I can appreciate that. So call it STLR (STL, Regional), and allow the STL and IT cars to run. Don't want this to come off wrong, but now that STL is a National class, anyone that runs at the Regional level either a) isn't 100% committed to their program and is just out to have fun, or b) wants to cherry-pick trophies that mean nothing to anyone but them.

[StephenB]

quick question: in the upcoming a rational at NHMS you can enter the regional stl class or the national stl class. they both run in the same run group but 1 entry is significantly higher than the other... my question would be if the regional stl entries count towards national stl car counts.

Stephen

[mossaidis]

I doubt it

[ner88]

We have three sets of results, regional, National and NERRC points.
There is also a seperate sanctions for the Regional and National.
So, regional car counts won't show up in the National numbers.:blink:

[StephenB]

in that case of bill is on to something. it's a simple win win situation for everyone!

good idea Bill!
Stephen

[Bob Roth]

Andy is right. I see plenty of Central Division nationals where the small bore race field is 20 cars. Maybe you guys on the east coast have problems with too many entrants, but not out here. Since when are field fillers a bad thing?

[JeffYoung]

Right now we aren't even going to be in the ITCS for the first points race on a request sent in November.

[Linkages edited out of Jeff's post by GA]



Which car/request is this? Let me know and I'll see what I can do to expedite it.

[JeffYoung]

Wait...did I just get spamminated?

[StephenB]

Wait...did I just get spamminated?

Yup! ;)

PS: why are you up so early!

[Greg Amy]

Wait...did I just get spamminated?
Hah! ;)

I edited the links out of your post and banninated the user...but had to leave that post, too funny. - GA

[CRallo]

Lol

[Knestis]

The only question remaining is whether Jeff is helping some guy from Nigeria or a computer algorithm.

K