FYI,
The final drives and differential rules for STL will read like the ones for IT.
There are no turbos cars, Lotus Elise's or Exige's allowed in STL.
The weight of the 12A in STL is incorrect.
These things were overlooked.
Printable View
FYI,
The final drives and differential rules for STL will read like the ones for IT.
There are no turbos cars, Lotus Elise's or Exige's allowed in STL.
The weight of the 12A in STL is incorrect.
These things were overlooked.
:happy204:
And not to :dead_horse:, but has anyone thought about the possibility that people (like me) will run STU with an STL car next year because they don't see a point in going from one Regional class to another Regional class?
With these new "Rationals" (National and Regional races running at the same time), is there a way to run STU but pay extra to get STL credit? Otherwise, I'm guessing I'm just screwing myself for the future by running STU rather than STL.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the info and clarification.
Is the new/correct weight for the 12A available?
Sorry Philip, if you have a rational in your area you will have to chose if you are running the regional or the national. You can not get credit fir two different race by being on the track once. Now it STU and STL were in different race groups you could run the National in STU and then run the regional in STL thereby helping STL build the numbers.
Can you remove a turbo from a turbo motor and run it?
Was there a non turbo version?
intersested to know the 12a weight... and how we are supposed to make it faster :/
Honestly if there is an engine that meets all the requirements I can't see anything in the rules to prevent it? Some could argue that if the engine was only available with a turbo, that makes it a turbo engine which isn't permitted.
If you don't mind me asking, what do you have in mind?
Audi 1.8T?
VW/Audi 1.8t. The 20v head is probably the only shot a VAG car has in this type of format. It was sold in NA form elsewhere, but only with a turbo here.
Also, why no wheel fans? These cars will be faster than an IT car with the same weight and brakes, but have less options for brake cooling. Seems odd.
In regards to brakes, the current consensus is to let the class get going and see where there is a need. One example we discussed was say a Ford Festiva with a 2.0 engine might really need bigger brakes, or a 1st gen Honda with a 1.8l might need bigger brakes?
That does make it inconsistent with what IT cars can do today. I don't know if crossover is intended/expected in the beginning, and I know very few IT drivers take advantage of the allowance, but it is a difference.
No.
Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.
Wheel fans, cooling allowances, fine. (But better in the ruleset from day one)
Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them. Time and again, people say they like consistency and stability in their racing classes and categories.
A fiesta needs bigger brakes? Well, duh, then chose a different ride, or put a smaller engine in it. Caveat emptor.
But don't as the keepers of the class, decide a year or two to just say, "OK, brake packages are allowed". (And use the dreaded safety card as justification) It changes the competitive balance, it throws away peoples investment, and it alienates the subscribers.
"Oh, now I need to run bigger brakes? (because, if they are allowed, and i want to win, I have to keep up with the Jone's, it's the rule of racing_)..well, now those wheels I invested in are too small, so THAT money and all the tires and testing are out the window, I need all new wheels and tires" etc etc.
And once that stuff starts, it's a slippery slope. IT has been around since 84 or so...and it's arguably one of the top two or three categories in the club. Rule changes come about based on technology shifts. The forefathers laid down a pretty good foundation, and major changes have been avoided wherever possible.
Beyond that STU allows bigger brakes, if I'm not mistaken, so for those who are hung up on tossing parts at the car, they can choose that class.
IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.
A big +1 on that sentiment. The time to get the fundamentals right is at the beginning; you can tweak the details later. Allowing alternate brakes is decisively NOT a "tweak".
I'm on record as supporting alternate brakes with a rotor size limit; in that same mindset I'm for allowing alternate control arms with no attachment point modifications.
Two very good points. I'm going to start a new thread about this idea, I think it should be hashed out.
GA
As a guy on the BoD, I think that you should understand very well the classes future....and I suspect that if you don't, it's not for your lack of trying. The cornerstone philosophies should be decided on now, allowing them to develop over the years can be disastrous.
Am I reading yours and Chris's posts, that these "allowances" may come on a car by car basis?
And here is my recommendation:
DON'T try and balance the class. Stick with your weight-CC classification and let the market determine what is popular etc.
DO consider safty related allowances etc that can be applied across ALL classes.
The SECOND you take a class that has a simple and clean classification process and start throwing help to cars based on on-track performance is the moment that people walk away.
^^^ Ding, ding!
I don't want comp adjustments. I don't want tacit "guarantee" of competitiveness while saying there's no guarantee. I want a straight-up throw-down fight, even if it means I make the wrong choices (e.g., don't count out the Miata and/or some other combination we haven't thought of yet).
I want to know the rules going in, and I don't want them to change unless the organization decides to apply those changes across the whole spectrum equally, and with very much aforethought before doing it.
There's the rules, get 'em right, let's go racing.*
GA
* I'll give you the first year, maybe two, to get the rules "right"; I'll give you the chance to make intelligent wholesale changes. For example, I want alternate control arms and alternate brakes (both with limits) and I'll continue to lobby for those across the whole spectrum. But once those decisions are made and we're where we want to be, I want the rulebook tossed into a lockbox, never to be touched again...
First couple years? For those of you that have been paying attention, B and D Prepared have been around a while. That turned into STU and STO, which has been around a couple years. The only new thing is STL, which is a 'sterilized' version of STU.
And yes, the STAC has been changing rules that have drastically affected competitors. 2009-2010 rules state "Any engine from the manufacturer". Woohoo! Nissan can finally compete! We're not stuck using a cast iron truck engine that costs $15,000 to build and lasts 3 races on a set of bearings.
oh wait.. now here come the 2011 rules where "Only North American" engines are allowed. Nissan hasn't sold a GOOD RWD sub-3L engine in the states in decades. I personally know of 3 people who were building cars with the SR20 in them that can't race due to the rule change.
STU also 'lost' 2" of chord length on their rear wings with the 2011 rules. APR makes a special version of their GTC-200 specifically for the class. IT's 48" wide with a chord length of 8.75". 2010 rules were 48" x 10.5". 2011 Rules are 48.25" x 8.5". There goes another $1000 I've invested into the class that I have to try and sell on ebay at a loss. Not to mention manufacturers like APR that made an investment to build a part they can't sell now.
That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.
Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.
To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...
...trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future.
That's exactly the opposite of what should apply, if a weight/displacement formula is a first assumption. I don't LIKE the fact that it's going to leave some cars out in the cold but it's inconsistent to use a formula AND try to balance based on on-track performance with competition adjustments (bleah!). That's the worst of both worlds.
If there's any inclination to go that route, chuck the pretense of formulaic considerations and admit that success will result in weight penalties.
Instead, make the stoppers formulaic as well as the parts that make them go.
** Displacement = weight
** Max brake size
** Max number of gear ratios
** Max size of aero add-ons
Everything has to bolt to the stock shell.
Go.
K
I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors as they already do in GT. I can see why thy didn't, but it would of brought a few other marques into the light (as mentione before nissan, toyota, ford, possibly chevrolet) in GTL instead of just Honda's and Maybe a well built miata.
"I've been told" that non-USDM engines could be allowed on a case-by-case basis, you just need to submit a very detailed VTS along with your request. The implied reason they were blanket-eliminated was due to lack of specs for them.
IMO, it would also help your case to describe the differences between that engine and its closest USDM cousin, and don't forget it needs to conform to the compression/cam rules.
GA
I'm still waiting to hear back from the CRB about "JDM engine request #1" on the SR20. I'll report back when I have findings. Been waiting on a response since August. :)
I haven't posted anything ever about STL but I do lurk :) I hear several comments like the one above but I just dont get it. How is STL even remotely close to IT? I read the rules and to me limited prep seems way closer to IT and requires way less $ money to do if I wanted to go national. I don't see anyway to be remotely competitive in STL with an IT car and if you do make all the modifications to allow you to be somewhat competitive you can't run in IT. So to me I just don't get how this allows IT drivers to suddenly "go national racing" now. Possibly the idea is to allow current IT drivers to run in a completely different class if they want to... same as going to production, with the difference being that its a different class with a new/different classification process allowing for different modifications than those in production.
Am I missing something?
Stephen
Anything allowed to run IT is allowed in STx, so running a fully prepped IT car just means you have a barely-prepped STx car. They'll be slow, but they fit within the STx ruleset. This allows them to run national races in STx, but they're not going to do well against real competition.
But yeah.. basically it's a chance for the IT guys to double-enter or to go to Nats and get their butts spanked by the guys who spend a lot of money.
"Just add slicks"....that's not cheap. They say the IT cars...all of 'em, can go play in STx. Of course, the competitiveness of that depends on the field that shows up....just like it would be if you ran an event in Prod.
I haven't checked in awhile, but don't you need a fuel cell in Prod too? So, right there, you've got $1600 or so to dip your feet in prod.
Hey, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea, but...we've heard the IT cars running in Nationals as a 'reason" for STx to be. (or, more exactly, one of) Now, somebody official could come on here and set me straight, and that would be great.
I was just throwing out concepts and things I've heard.
and a real fire system if you don't already have it, if I'm not mistaken...
You dont have to run slicks,tires are per GCR requirement. dosent say slicks
Fuel cell not required if plastic tank mounted between frame rails forward of rear axle.
Fire system should already be there,you have a kid now. DO IT RIGHT
Dan 77 IT7
Running an IT car in prod does not require you run slicks. In fact if you look at competitive SM times at the Glen (2:18 - 2:19) and look at FP times from this years National it would have put that SM in the top 5! Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!
That's a good point...anyone care to offer why the wing size was reduced in STU, from 48x10.75 to 48.25x8.50? Is there a specific reason for that change, say, because the STAC is aware that this size is commonly supplied?
I'm just curious as to the basis/discussions behind the suggestion of "hey, let's reduce the rear wing size from this year's rules".
GA
Jake, sorry to quote you, I didn't mean that it was your thought or philosophy. I just wanted to pose the question since it is rumored and posted here often by several different people. To me ST seems farther from IT than production and IF SCCA wants to tap into the current IT car participation then I think they should promote IT cars running in already existing classes rather than adding more. I personally love IT and I have no interest in production and less interest in ST however I get how another person may find the class interesting with the freedom of engines and other things like wings and such. It appears to be a much different class than what we have had in the past and if it helps SCCA grow and appeals to others then I fully support it and wish the class well.
Stephen