Well, what do you think? if you have a strong position one way or another, I'd like to know. and I bet others, up to and including the PTB, would as well.
Printable View
Well, what do you think? if you have a strong position one way or another, I'd like to know. and I bet others, up to and including the PTB, would as well.
Yes. The big first assumptions of the class - as I understand them - would be in no way compromised by this approach.
K
ON EDIT - My answer might be different for STU vs STL.
I said no. What problem is this 'solution' fixing? I am not sure any. Are you opening up a market of engines that will equalize the power/cc issue?
Is it neccessary? What beneifts does it provide? Does it have the same effect for all manufacturers or just the ones 'you' (the collective you) like?
For a rule change like this, I like to hear WHY, instead of WHY NOT. (Looking at this from an STL point of view)
First, I'm not an expert. And second, I'm only concerned with Hondas. Plus, I'm certainly biased a little. :)
That said.
Why not?
The K20a and K20a2 are almost identical. Most of the parts can be mixed and matched. Same with much of the B series stuff. One could build a JDM spec K20a engine using a K20a2 US block and few (if any) would know any better...
That's what I'd do...
Policing would be a B-itch.
I bet if I stuck an SR20DE in my 240SX, I could go all season locally without anybody even batting an eye. Why? Cause it says Nissan on the valve cover and it bolts in stock. (The car came with this engine in every other country it was sold.) I can provide a bazillion pictures of this engine in this chassis, including a service manual in Engrish with drawings of this engine in the chassis and everything.
The guys in tech can't possibly know every car and every US engine that's on the market, so it's nearly impossible to police this kind of stuff.
I haven't been asked to lift my hood by anyone since I got my logbook for the car back in May. Of course I've only run regionals so far, but it's not like I'm an also-ran. I've finished in the top 5 overall and won STU in all but one race to date, as well as set track record at MSR-Houston.
Nonetheless, I could have been running a freakin Chevy V8 in the car all season and nobody would know..
But am I for non-US engines? HELL YES. Nissan's engine options under 3L are crapola for the US. everything is a long-stroke truck engine, or an ancient iron block designed in the 60s. for a supposedly modern class and philosophy, Nissan is stuck with engines from the stone ages.
Do I realize it would open up the class to all kinds of other uber-engines? You betcha. Bring 'em on.
Let's go back to the rules when they were originally made for the class: (This is STU-specific..)
Normally aspirated:
Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement
Go.
Turbo?
stock turbo for the engine it came on. no conversions.
pick a tranny, 6 spds max.
weight is based on inlet restrictor size placed in turbo.
Go.
For whatever engine you have, you must a factory service manual in English in your possession.
Very simple to police. All of the components are easy to measure and/or verify with a factory manual. Voila. :)
Policing is 100% moot. Tech has NOTHING to do with legality. There is no difference between STx with non USDM stuff and IT right now. It's up to the competitors to know their competition. It's also a punk move to run something illegal like that. You want your ashtray that bad? Please.
Not 'why not'. WHY? The first real reason I heard was to provide a selection that was much better suited to 'racing'. I'll buy that some.
Mostly I just see it as providing SOME a better choice and not all. I like rules that help or hurt everyone.
Dont' have a coronary over there-- just voicing my opinion here. We're all allowed to do that, no?
The only time I've lifted the hood on my car at the track is to check the fluids. nobody has looked under my hood or even asked. If they did, I've got nothing to hide. My car is 100% within the rules and I plan to keep it that way, competitive or not.
If I were the cheating type, it would be easy to do and not get caught- at least for a while.
Why not have ANY motor of the displacement allowed by the class? Want a 2L Honda in your Dodge, why not?
If the Honda has non-US engines of similar displacement that fit the rules, but the VW does not, why should the VW be limited? Why shouldn't the VW be allowed to run a Honda motor of displacement that fits the rules?
Now that would just be silly.
But Ron has a point. We draw lines between "makes perfect sense" and "silly" all the time (see also, WASHER BOTTLES). They are arbitrary. That's why it's so damned important to get the first principles clear before the details are decided. This is (again, as I understand it) a pounds-per-cc class. At that point, who cares where the engine came from?
K
Matt, no issues. Many of us hate it when the 'policing' flag is thrown. It's just not applicable. We can ll do that stuff now. We have to police ourselves.
Again, in order to get my vote, I like to see a real rason TO do it...because in this case, you are creating a situation where finding specifications in order to prove legality will be much harder.
My vote is NO. We have a few people stating that their US engine could be replaced for 1000 with a JDM-yo whatever and they could make a million hp and run for 12 years etc etc!! I read it as "I can win with this engine and not spend alot!!" Then somebody will go out and find some obscure (read:expensive) euro spec RS500 what-have-you and kick their butt, then we add weight to them or something to slow them down. That was already mentioned somewhere on this board. This is the "case by case basis" I have heard about. Then try to put the cat back in the proverbial bag.
Open up ignitions, air intakes etc. keep the compression and cam specs, go out develop them and run em!! Keep the US engines!!
Rant off!! Anybody have any valium??
*IF* non-USDM engines were to be allowed in Super Touring, approval would be on a case-by-case basis and only after receipt of clear technical documentation of the engine(s) (e.g., supporting FSM data). It would not be a willy-nilly Wild West blanket approval of any random engine you'd like to try.
GA
reasons to: lack of viable entries for STL that don't say "honda" on the valve cover. seriously, the only real option seem to be a Toyota 2ZZ-GE or some 2L motors (SR20DE, MZR LF/Duratec, 2.0L Ecotech) and MAYBE a 1.8L mazda BP, or BMW. the new fiesta motor might give ford a 1.6L worth considering. this is not a growing segment, in general, in the US. diversity in the class will need more options.
STU - less of a need, however a number fo popular options exist and are well documented. because americans had to have torquey motors, the standard motor in the rest of the world was typically one a bit smaller and often much more suited to what we are doing here.
existing cars - there are JDM/EDM swapped cars runing around in track day clubs, marquee clubs, and NASA. some of these would make good entries for ST. we aren't hereing their votes if they aren't yet members, either.
reasons for, under "why not":
class concept APPEARS (no philosopphy yet published) that displacement is close to directly proportional to power under a blanket CR/valve lift scheme. country of origin of the motor doesn't matter in this scheme, why should the market it was sold into?
for SOME makes this could lead to affordable, reliable engines that fit well into the general scheme. some of these are evolutions of USDM motors (SR20DET, RWD SR20DE, SR16/20VE, 4A-GE 20V, later 3S-GE toyotas,...) others were never sold here at all (RB25DET, VW V5s, the rumored physics inverting rally homologation motor made of gold, whatever). speclines can be used to put over/unders at a weight in line with their actual power output.
reasons against:
"unnecessary" which I think depends on what car is in your garage
the arms race to import the physics inverting motor from above.
My biggest issue is the potential lack of availablity of the specs for competitiors to police each other.
then support case by case allowance with sufficient US language documentation being a prerequisite. I think everyone on the FOR camp would be in support of this compromise.
IMO, that's just as nonsensical as allowing the physics-defying uber motor above.. Almost every JDM engine I've seen used in the states has a pretty popular following and easily available documentation. I'm sure there are always exceptions, but the internet is a wonderful thing when used for more than just porn and arguing on forums. :D Information is easy to come by if you know where to look.
Yes, I'm looking with that slant in mind.
Pretty much the same could be said for European cars as well, and I'd venture to guess most German or Italian makes have manuals available in English as well. Of course I could be wrong there, but I'd guess with Great Britain right next door, the manufacturers would supply service manuals in multiple languages.
What other cars would you expect to see in the class aside from US, Japanese, and European makes? I'm not expecting to see anything Russian or Arabic or Piglatin show up to race since those cars weren't available for sale in the US and thus violate rule #1.
I vote yes. It would enable a broader range of marques to be class competitive. More options, more racers, more interesting to participate or watch.
I could see the need for approval following documentation of tech specs, but failed to vote that way.
I believe we are over thinking this.
Why can't a person select XYZ parts from across the globe if it fits the basic outline:
Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement
There was a simple genius in the first rule-set that I found refreshing. Now we are set on dorking things up. Aren't there enough dorked up classes already?
I've stated over and over again- this is SUPER Touring. :dead_horse:
If Matt builds the worlds most bad-ass Nissan with fancy parts from South Africa and dominates, well SUCKS to be me. Back to the drawing board and I'm gonna find more juice in my Hondog.
This isn't spec miata.
This isn't Improved Touring.
Super Touring may not be for everyone.
don't worry.. I'm not looking for badass. I'm looking for the cheapest way to not get left behind like I am now! I don't plan for the car to be a barn-burner-just tired of being outrun by Spec Miatas with my truck engine.
As it stands, it's a multi marque open to all class, based on the blindness of the classing system, which is X displacement = Y weight. (with cam lift limitatons across the board)
Limits that are placed after that premise, only serve to remove the basic "open to all" premise. UNlike IT's basic "BIG" caveat, which stated, "In IT there is no guarantee of competitiveness", competitive equality is expected...yet, due to the fact that actual horsepower is related to much more than just displacement, competitive equality will be in extremely short supply with such a lopsided ruleset.
The STAC needs to do everything in their power to either remove artificial horsepower limitations, or add a "We're not interested in multi marque even steven racing" in the cornerstone statement.
I wish I could be as succinct as Jake.
The following appear to be strongly held convictions or unshakable paradigms among some membership and the PTB
1 - a motor is a specified assemblage of parts, and mixing and matching on a production based class is not only unthinkable, but hard to police.
2 - such a thing needs policing (more so than bore, stroke, CR, valve lift, weight, etc...).
3 - that allowing competitors to break conviction #1 will mean crazy cost escalation and thus kills the class before it gets off the ground (this may well be true).
4 - that the rest of the world gets BETTER motors than we do, frequently, and that US racers must make due with their preferred marque's offerings to the average american vs. the average car buyer in whereveristan.
5 - That non-US engines do not have readily available parts lists, are rare, and expensive, and that allowing them is akin to breaking coviction #1.
I think at this point EVERYONE involved understands the limitations of the weight by displacement theory. NO ONE I have talked to wants to get into a production-like situation where weights are set willy nilly and cries of favoritism are rampant. there's a sincere desire to control costs (well, outside of gearboxes and shocks) by limiting what can be done to a motor - so no forged cranks or whatever.
There's an attempt here to balance the relevance (identifiable cars, from known manufacturers), accessibility (cost containment, a bar that does not appear out of reach), and regulatability (cost concerns and convictions lead to more angst here than might be waranted) of the class.
I for one support same brand/OEM swaps ONLY as they do provide some degree of category relevance to the manufacturers, and thus might lead to their involvement and/or support. I recognize the difficulty there with all of the mergers and acqusitions that have traded brands between OEMs in the last decade (is a volvo a ford? is a Geo prsim a toyota? the MB/chrystler/mitsubishi/kia/hyundai DSM/GEMA saga).
I support case-by-case approved out of market motors. this allows the needed supply, slows the arms race escalation, and keeps the desired documentation standards in place.
I support the "stock head and bottom end" philosophy of cost containment, and am willing to have spec line alternate weights as the limitations or advantages of a particular mill are recognized, so long as it is done more like IT (when it works) than prod in that it is open, repeatable, and not obviously subject to favoritism.
A big thanks to tGA/Chris C/Peter K/the rest of the STAC for putting up with the chatter - I know their intentions are good, and while nothing is ever perfect in the eyes of everyone, I believe they are trying, and I think that most of them and most of us are REALLY on the same page. I know there's more good things coming.
Hypothetical:
Your JDM yo SR, ZZ, zxy whatever has a forged crank and my USDM acme doesn't. Why can't I upgrade to a like weighted forged crank for mine, and forged rods too? In the name of keeping costs down by not having to build a new motor everytime mine grenades, because of a cast crank.
Remember some manufacturers have a whizzbang JDM-yo engine, some don't. Is it fair than the Honda, Nissan, and Toyota guys can go to Japan and get a motor but the BMW guys can't?
Or what about the Cosworth engine that came in the Euro whatever?
bring
it
on
seriously, are we going to argue against the foreign motor because it's built better???? not it's physics inducing uber HP numbers, but because it might last while some penny-pinching, rough cast USDM pig iron crap doesn't?:blink:
I GET a cost escalation argument, but this is the first time I've heard it argued that a rule couldn't pass because it would save people money...
Besides, what BMW could POSSIBLY be competitive in STL????
Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.
I believe the M10 will actually respond quite well to ST rules. That in a 84 318i chassis would be fairly decent. Suspension has been figured out, brakes are decent, engine is bulletproof.
But, now I'm looking at the S14 that was in the M3, or maybe a Cosworth YBF from an RS escort!! I figure a $15k build on a S14 motor will be good for 350-370hp.
Well for $75k euro's you could have an ex-Zinardi car:
http://www.racecarsdirect.com/listin..._Car_WTCC.html
But shipping from Turkey would be on your dime, and looks like a bunch of lead would be needed to make weight.
BTW, I don't think this should be legal to race in STx
Actually it won't need weight!! Its a 2 litre at 2116 lbs with the carbon bodywork! SCCA weight would be 2200 with driver and I'm only 295. If I could get down to 84 lbs I think it could be competitive!!
Actually it shows as being 1155 kg with driver, thats 2546 lbs!!
Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?
My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.
for U and O I completely agree. but the rulesmakers have stuck to an IT mindset on so much of the STL rules that they have kept it from "being" ST while also made a real IT-STL transition very expensive (chassis and cage work, and lots of it).
I'd fully support making STL the same rules as STU, with lower prep limits to the motor, no turbos, and more weight/cc. but that's not what it is. nor is it IT+. it's both, depending on what discrete rule you are reading. and that's pretty much it's greatest failing outside of the lack of diveristy expected at the pointy end.
Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.
GA
I guess brakes stand out as the biggest IT mindset holdover. - we've discussed this and I think we're in 100% agreement. maybe make them smaller than U, but give class-wide maxima rather than what came on the tub.
suspension in STL is more likely to be FWD than anywhere else so the ability to have drop spindles/ball joint spacers and bump steer correction, and a mechanism to try and correct or tune scrub would be very helpful. yeah it adds costs, but that ship sailed with seam welds and wings.
weight adders/subtractors for FWD/RWD should be exactly as in STU. the 2 classes should have the same rules with different maxima and weight/cc tables. if it's desired, keep dry sumps and turbos out of L. but other than that - there shouldn't be a difference. the classes should be as simillar as ITS and A, even if the IT and ST category rules are completely different.
Guys,
To make this official, I wrote a letter last month to request JDM engines with documentation. I think it is good ffor the class, but not all involved do.
Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)
But, I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request. This policy should be public information, and available to all on the website, and anyone should be able to determine whether their request will be granted just by reading it.
I say this for a number of reasons, but a major one is the SCCA PTBs historical insistence on refusing to make a standard and stick with it, and the resultant messes that our classes become. (Look at IT to see all the work it took to get back to actual performance envelopes for each class, now imagine if those were thrown away and classing was done as it was, on hunches, feelings and arguments).
Secondly, constituents will have no reason to even THINK there can be any monkeying around with the request. it won't be subject to a certain committee persons bias.