Super Touring Rules

Is there a website or link I can go to right now to have a look at the Super Touring rules set as they will be in X months when all the dust has settled? A site with current rules and all the proposed changes? (and yes, I've scanned through the threads here but you know how time consuming that can be with the way we digress in conversations).

I'm just after some basic information to dispel my misconception that this is a class for <2L 4V FWD import cars or expensive Ex-World Challenge cars that I can't afford to race.

...so, no, there isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

...so, no, there isn't?

---

What, a special Super Touring website? Sure, it's the same magical crystal ball as the special Improved Touring web site...

Ron, the rules are the rules, spelled out in that wonderful document, the General Competition Rules. There are no major changes in the works for the philosophy and application of the rules for Super Touring; what you'll see coming down the Fastrack pike for the rest of the year are classifications for cars in STO and STU, and re-writes/clarifications of existing verbiage for STL.

If you have some specific questions I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time trying to play defense against your misconceptions/agenda (no more so than you have spending time dispelling the misconceptions of Improved Touring to your local "utes"...)

:shrug:

GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

If you have some specific questions I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time trying to play defense against your misconceptions/agenda (no more so than you have spending time dispelling the misconceptions of Improved Touring to your local "utes"...)
:shrug:
GA

---

Greg, don't get defensive as I have no agenda. I'm asking the question because I want to learn about the class. I have not been following the threads here and on the brown board about ST and I don't care to try and read them all and piece together what is to change about the class. It is true that I'm not interested in racing a FWD <2L car, but I would be interested in seeing where a domestic 3.8L V6 could play.

This - "what you'll see coming down the Fastrack pike for the rest of the year are classifications for cars in STO and STU, and re-writes/clarifications of existing verbiage for STL."

Was what had me concerned I'd be chasing a moving target if I just read the GCR and didn't read all the threads on the forums. If STO/STU are simply getting new car classifications then I'm probably fine just reading the GCR ST section.

Quote:

---

I would be seeing where a domestic 3.8L V6 could play.

---

In your personal situation, we have an IT catch-all: any car legal for IT is legal to run STU. So, your Mustang is good.

On the other hand, if you want to build a 3.8L Mustang or Camaro specifically to the more-liberal STU rules, we've classified those cars into STU at 3200# (see "Alternate Vehicle Allowances" table at end of STU specs.) Look at that table and you'll see that the precedent has been set for approval of 3L+ requests on a case-by-base basis, primarily based on expected engine output.

Quote:

---

[That w]as what had me concerned I'd be chasing a moving target if I just read the GCR and didn't read all the threads on the forums.

---

We don't have a hard-and-fast output upper limit for STU, right now it's one of those "you know it when you see it" kinda things. But, since the competition weights are based on engine output, the ratios will remain consistent, and outliers will most assuredly be adjusted as needed. In fact, we are using data acquisition on STO at Nationals, and STU is in the pipeline for the same once things start to shake out.

Short of a major shake-up in those P/W ratios (no change currently being considered), I don't see any major changes in the general ruleset.

GA

For a Ford, there's probably not much that's going to change significantly. The big ongoing issue right now is allowance of non-USDM engines and >3L cars into STU with limited engine prep.

Other than that, the rules are pretty much set and only small things are changing.

Edit.. Greg, what kind of target p/w are you looking at for STU? I have a good idea what kind of power I can make with my engine.. wondering if that's going to jive with what the car has to weigh..

So scanning through the rules it appears STU is limited to 3L and six cylinders. However, I see turbocharging is allowed and that engine swaps are allowed, i.e., Acura in a Honda, or one Ford motor into another Ford.

Based on that it looks like it'd be possible to use a say 1998 Mustang (which meets the year requirements) and then put a 2.3L turbocharged Ford Mustang engine (OEM in the SVO Mustang and drops right in) into the chassis, run a 37mm restrictor and have a spec weight of 2770 lbs.

Question from a curiosity standpoint - why is turbocharging allowed but supercharging is disallowed?

That would be pretty sweet! I always liked those SVO's :)

That is a good question... I too would like to know that as well! Now that you mention it, I'm quite curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

...it'd be possible to use a say 1998 Mustang (which meets the year requirements) and then put a 2.3L turbocharged Ford Mustang engine...

---

Note that as of the June(?) Fastrack we also put in a year limit on the engines. This was in response to some guy requesting to basically build an STU 1979 Porsche Turbo using a newer chassis.

So, I don't know if Ford has the 2.3t that late? If so, then yep you can do that.

Quote:

---

Question from a curiosity standpoint - why is turbocharging allowed but supercharging is disallowed?

---

Because turbocharging is a known quantity, supercharging is not. SCCA has charts that say "with this restrictor size you're pretty much limited to that horsepower." We do allow supercharging on a case-by-case basis (see alternate vehicle table) and we tend to put them in intentionally high. If someone takes the time to build one up properly, and provide dyno charts to us, then based on that info I'm confident we'd consider adjustments (that's my opinion, anyway). - GA

The turbo coupe t-bird might hit an eligible year....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shwah

The turbo coupe t-bird might hit an eligible year....

---

Too "old". Last year was 88, last SVO in the Rustang was 86. Not sure I care too much for that engine year rule. No supercharging knocks out the blown 3.8L from the Tbird SC that ran from 89-96.

I see any cam up to 0.600" lift is allowed. Was any consideration given to trying to equate engines with one and two intake valves based on valve curtain area? An engine with one intake valve will need more lift than the two intake valve engine to have a shot at the same amount of airflow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Was any consideration given to trying to equate engines with one and two intake valves based on valve curtain area?

---

No. Those are more "open" classes that will be actively managed via horsepower-to-weight, supported via dyno charts and data acquisition (SCCA owns a dozen or so data acqu boxes that we toss on cars occasionally). If a car cannot make the expected output numbers then they should petition the committee -- with plenty of supporting data -- to get either engine allowances or weight adjustments. But as I noted in another topic, better do all your homework before cryin' to the teacher for grading on a curve... - GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Not sure I care too much for that engine year rule.

---

the point is to keep "modern" drivetrains in "modern" cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Look at that table and you'll see that the precedent has been set for approval of 3L+ requests on a case-by-base basis, primarily based on expected engine output.


We don't have a hard-and-fast output upper limit for STU, right now it's one of those "you know it when you see it" kinda things.

---

Isn't this philosophy different from what many of us here, including yourself, have advocated over the years - set rules with a repeatable classing process? Either the engines are allowed by the rules or they aren't. Otherwise the class is open to various biases and might seem a little Prod-like (from what little I know of Prod).

I'm just collecting all my options for where I might be able to run a pushrod 2V 3.8L six in the SCCA. If I want the car considered I should write a letter I suppose?

Thanks,
Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Isn't this philosophy different from what many of us here, including yourself, have advocated over the years - set rules with a repeatable classing process?

---

It is. But in my defense remember I'm not a committee of one...and other members have made compelling arguments for such allowances.

My primary beef with STx was an apparent lack of a clear philosophy, and thus no clear way for either the STAC or the competitors to make reasonable competition decisions. I was a big proponent of getting that done even before I joined the committee. Toward that end, a lot of good things have come out of the committee this year, we've had a lot of good long-term strategy discussions, and we are now polishing off a new philosophy that we will reveal via Fastrack shortly. It will replace the entire "A: Purpose" section and will define what the committee sees as the philosophy of the category as a whole, as well as the perceived philosophy of each class. This will be the basis for competition decisions going forward and in my mind each and every decision made by the committee will be weighed against this stated philosophy.

As part of this philosophy, we will encompass some of the 3+L engines within a hard-and-fast engine size limit, yet also welcome the existing V6 pushrod engines on case-by-case approval (as is now).

This will all get discussed next concall, so I'm hopeful to get our proposal to the CRB/BoD/membership in the next Fastrack. Be patient, I'm hoping you'll like what you see.

GA

Greg - Just for clarification, if engines like Ron's are allowed, will they be given a weight based on HP/weight or on "power number"/ weight? In some of the earlier discussions, it appeared that "power number" [(HP + torque)/2] was to be used instead of HP. If it is power number, then a relatively low revving engine like the V6 Ford would seem to be at a serious disadvantage.

Tom, I can find that out for you. From memory, I think the pony-car pushrod 3.8s are currently classified at 3200#, about the same as a 2.9L "regular" STU engine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

This will all get discussed next concall, so I'm hopeful to get our proposal to the CRB/BoD/membership in the next Fastrack. Be patient, I'm hoping you'll like what you see.

GA

---

I'll be interesting how this will turn out. I'll be waiting to have a read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomL

then a relatively low revving engine like the V6 Ford would seem to be at a serious disadvantage.

---

That is where I was going with the valve curtain question that I posted earlier. If we allow cams to XXX lift, that is all well and good, but if we don't consider valve area then two valve motors are going to operate at a distinct disadvantage. To make a stab at parity the two valve motors should have a higher maximum cam lift. It is a relatively easy calcluation to make and the class could be based on displacement/valve area with a good chance at parity because we're not limited to stock cam specs.

Ron - cams in STL get more lift AND less weight if they only push 1 valve per cycle (there are rules for 2/3/4+ valve setups). It's a blanket allowance, not based on the shape of the motor, just like TB, intake, and head design are all "equalized" in the rules (by which I mean ignored for effects on overall power potential).

I think they could work something into the STU rules for 2V "equivalency", published or not (STAC: we'd all prefer to see it) that will take this into acount. Just like in IT, the best you can hope for is grouping, not bullseye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Too "old". Last year was 88, last SVO in the Rustang was 86. Not sure I care too much for that engine year rule. No supercharging knocks out the blown 3.8L from the Tbird SC that ran from 89-96.

---

The cutoff year is 1985 for Chassis and Engines. So both of those options would work. So not too old based on the rule book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

No supercharging knocks out the blown 3.8L from the Tbird SC that ran from 89-96.

---

9.1.4.G.17:
"Supercharged cars may be approved on a case-by-case
basis. Contact the Club Racing Technical Office for details."

In fact, we've approved the Chevy Cobalt SC, Loti Exige and Elise SC, Mini Cooper SC, and even Scion TC with the TRD supercharger kit...all with stock camshaft lifts...but I do suggest it would be a long row to hoe to approve a supercharged 3.8L V6 into STU; that smells a lot more like STO.