Printable View
August 2011 Prelims are out: https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=29505
But I bring to your attention within the Tech Bulletins a new published philosophy for the Super Touring category, to replace section 9.1.4.A in its entirety. See Super Touring item #5.
Discuss.
GA
Greg, mind contrasting the old vs the new in a cliff notes version??
Old basically says the cars are 'similar to World Challenge', new describes them without using WC verbiage, as well as describing each individual class prep (since they're more than just three different levels of the same prep). It also clarifies a point of confusion by noting that STO cars are specifically classed where as STU/STL are "catch-all" as long as they meet the basic requirements.
It also specs a new upper displacement limit of 3.2L for STU, so that we can dispense with the ongoing requests for 3.2-ish liter explicit allowances, and also opens the door for "pony car" explicit allowance with some restrictions.
Or, you can just read it for yourself. ;)
GA
I did. But I don't recall the old verbiage. If it was there, sorry!
All in all, good progress.
You lazy bum... ;)
OLD
A. Purpose
Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. The intent of this category is to allow a level of preparation for cars similar to that of World Challenge cars. No chassis or engines older than 1985 will be eligible, except that cars from model runs began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of any car.
Vehicle modifications are limited to those listed herein. Unless a particular modification or part is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car.
Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.
NEW
9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOT-approved tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of any car.
Super Touring Over (STO) vehicles are high-performance GT and exotics over 3.2 liters. STO vehicles are explicitly approved for competition; to be eligible for STO competition, a chassis and maximum engine displacement must be listed as a specially-approved combination in the STO "Approved Cars and Engines" table.
Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose performance cars of 3.2 liters and under. Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from "Pony Cars" or "American Iron" with stock camshaft lift at a heavier weight will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstances. Spec lines are not required for STU eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
World Challenge vehicles compliant to a SCCA Pro VTS may be approved on a case-by-case basis for STU. See the STU "Approved World Challenge Cars" table.
Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore "tuner" class with engine displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO. As with STU, spec lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
Alternate allowances may be approved on a case-by-case basis for individual vehicles that do not meet these parameters; see "Alternate Vehicle Allowances" tables. Engines components from these approved vehicle allowances may not be installed in other chassis without specific line-item approval (e.g., the STU 3.8L Mustang engine may not be installed into a Ford Focus).
Vehicle modifications are limited to those listed herein. Unless a particular modification or part is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car. Some amount of latitude will be considered to facilitate engine installations, however if extensive modifications are required it is recommended to seek clarification from the Club Racing Board. Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.
Each class will have a baseline target power-to-weight ratio. Weights may be adjusted or cars may be subject to changes in intake restrictors to meet these targets. Cars may be required to carry data acquisition equipment for review of performance.
Welll, THERE's the problem, LOL. I never noticed that little paragraph!!
One thing I just noticed is STU now lists cars up to 3.2L, but there's no updated displacement/weight chart to go with the 3.2L change.
I'll get a clarification on that. Our first draft submission of the new philosophy to the CRB also came at the same time as a proposed STU rule change to 3.2L for 2012. We were asked to re-write them both together into the new philosophy, so I expected that to get approved as a rules change for 2012. Seeing this approved as effective 8/1/11 was unexpected.
If this stands through the final publication of Fastrack then it's a straight 1.1lbs/cc formula (see 9.1.4.2.G) so 3100/3200cc will be 3410/3520 pounds, respectively. I've also got in a request to remove (as redundant) the existing 3.01-3.2L allowances from the table, which will effectively increase their classified weights but give them the full STU prep allowance. - GA
Pardon what I assume will end up being a Dumb questions but
In this statement
In 9.1.4, STU, Alternate Vehicle Allowances table, delete "Mazda MX-6 (World Challenge)" listing. [See Table A.]
"Table A" can be found where? I looked in the GCR but saw no mention of the MX-6 in the table under STU.
Page 472 in the July PDF of the GCR. The car was "misclassified" in that allowances table as a "World Challenge MX-6, and was redundant to the correctly-classified "Mazda 6" in the World Challenge Table A allowances.
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
This sentence combination seems to be illogical:
"Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from "Pony Cars" or "American Iron" with stock camshaft lift at a heavier weight will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstancesAmerican Iron cars will have engine displacements over 5L, in fact, they start at 5L. So the first sentence says they will be considered, the second says that no engines over 4L will be allowed under any circumstances hence negating the first sentence.
It's simply a descriptor of American "pony cars", more specifically those of the ~3.8L variety. If you think it's inappropriate or incorrect, it's easy to change/delete, just make a good suggestion.
I'd suggest:
Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from domestic "Pony Cars" will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstances.
Noted!
Looks like a nice change on the rear aero package for STL.
Sorry about resurrecting an old thread, but this line from the GCR raises a real question: is my '66 Mustang eligible for ST with an appropriate corporate engine, under this provision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
And if so, why have the 1985 rule at all? I'd like to race my ITC '72 510 in ST, but can't due to this restriction. I am not interested in Prod or GT, but STU or STL look inviting.
No, unfortunately. The oldest Mustang eligible for STx is the Third Gen, from 1979-1993.
I'm inferring the date rule is there to restrict the category to later-model cars; probably the same reason Improved Touring did the exact same thing with its "no car older than a 1968 model" when the category was created in ~1985* and then proceeded to never update that restriction going forward...
Coincidental that you should bring this up; I've actually been thinking the last week or so that it's more appropriate to have this date limit rule move forward with time, something along the lines of "current year plus 25 years).Yeah, it'll exclude cars eventually, but if the goal is to keep the category "fresh", it's needed.
GA
* Actually, when the IT category was first proposed in 1985 the date limit was 1970, only 15 years difference. Today you can almost race a car in IT that's half a century old...
On edit: since IT is now allowing V8 engines into ITR, and the first gen was in production through 1973, and since the 1968 carburated 302 put out about 230hp/300tq, sounds like a nice fit for ITR...
Thanks for the rapid reply, Greg. There are plenty of places to race a '66 Mustang, so no surprise there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I'm not sure I agree that the goal was ever to keep the category "fresh", though. I was on the CRB when BP and DP were approved, and my recollection is that 1985 was chosen simply as when EFI came into common use. We had no clue how popular the category would become, and thought no one would be interested in running an older car. Since there are no competition adjustments why not delete the "age limit' altogether? That way every IT car has a place in Nationals other than Prod or GT? After all, those categories don't seem to be suffering from allowing older cars.
I don't claim to know the reason for the 1985+ plus rule, but I think that it, or better yet a moving range such as "30 model years prior to the current GCR calendar year" are essential to keep this category relevant.
the last thing the SCCA needs is another place to run a 50 year old car. In fact, I think ALL CLASSES in the GCR should consider something of the sort (not including SRF and other popular, 1-make classes), and that SCCA should start growing "the vintage program," if needed, to catch all of the stuff that falls out of the bottom of club racing. then maybe we'd pick up other vintage racers from the many vintage clubs out there, and run a new series (pro, club, vinatge, solo, rallycross, PDX). No one gets left out, we bring in more members, and the "club racing" side stays current, helping it to seem more palatable to "the kids." win-win-win.
I really don't think that's a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
IT cars (going back to '68 apparently) would still be able to run, so all that would do would hurt people who built older, (lighter, inexpensive to acquire) cars specifically for ST.
If the idea is to somehow require people be building modern touring cars - for what it costs to build one of these things, they can go buy a seat in a pro car for a year for less money. That's not going to grow the class.
Also, my car is 25 years old as of this July. It is a perfectly good, competitive STU car. It was not inexpensive to build for this class either. I would be... less than excited... if I had to sell it or find another venue to race it next July.
I think it would be perhaps better to focus on getting the class participation up amongst pure ST cars (what are the numbers when you take out the crossover SM/SSM/IT/T2/T3 cars) there's what, appx 14 STU cars for next weekends race at Sebring, and only 3 of them are true STU cars? I thought the Easy Points National was at NHMS in April, not Sebring in January. Too bad it's such a long cold tow for me.
freshness will come from people buying ex WC-TC cars, not from kicking out current competitors.
Or the 69 Z28 with the 302 DZ engine at 290/290, JL-8 4wheel disc brakes and factory spoilers. Guldstrand still sells road racing leaf springs and shocks for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I could not be more against that. Where would these cars go once they age out? Just looking at a couple of cars (so admittedly this may be a general statement), you can't take an STL car to FP or an STU car to EP without building a completely new motor because STU and STL use all new engine rules that allow greater cam lift and compression than in Prod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Also, if STU, STL, and STO were created to welcome cars in from the likes of NASA and other competing organizations, we shouldn't go chasing them back a couple of years later.
They'd go to Prod, where old race cars go to die. :p
New race cars, too Matt....Toyota Yaris in HP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt93SE
Actually, no they would not go to Prod. There are allowances in ST that do not fit in Prod. For example - ST allowances for inner fender pannel changes are not legal in Prod. So aged out ST cars might not have anywhere to go.
Put me down as strongly against changing the age limit in ST. I am building an 83 RX7 and all of the fab work is done. It took me two years to get to this point.
One of the reasons I selected ST over Prod is that I felt that the engine swap rules would allow me to keep an old chassis competitive.
Scott, what engine will you be running??
To start with, a 13B with an IDA for now. Basically an E Production engine. I studied a Renesis swap but decided a carb'd motor fits my budget better at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
So how competitive are you expecting the package to be?? What weight does the car run at?
Are you considering stl?
2300lbs as of the last weight adjustment....it magically keeps decreasing. In MiDiv I expect this package to be competitive. At the Runoff, which is not a goal of mine, probably not unless Justin Pritchard drives the car :)!Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
STU has been my focus all along. When I started down this road STL didn't exist and when it did, the early STL rules were decidedly aniti-rotary. If I were starting this project now, I think I wold give STL a serious look. But I have gone way past that now.
To my original objection to a change in age limits, ST is not about the chassis it is about the engine. Engine technology will advance and ST gives the competitors a chance to use it. Does it hurt the club if I evently put a 21st century power plant in my 20th century car?
Who benefits from a "fresh" crop of cars in ST? What is the goal here?