Going to beat Pam to the punch this month, as we have a lot of changes in ST that will generate discussion...
11/14/13- Preliminary Minutes
11/14/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
Printable View
Going to beat Pam to the punch this month, as we have a lot of changes in ST that will generate discussion...
11/14/13- Preliminary Minutes
11/14/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini? Not sure how we catch a Solstice without fuel. Have one and building a second one so curious.
You didn't. Injectors are free in STx, it was struck as a redundant note.
Back story is that there used to be a line there where a combo of some pulley (JCW?) required stock injectors, and one pulley (stock?) allowed open injectors, but when that combo was removed the redundant note was not.
- GA
Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?
Production
1. #12279 (Philip Royle) Allow IT cars to run in Production in IT trim
Thank you for your letter. Add 9.1.5.B5.: 5. Any Improved Touring car meeting all the requirements of ITCS 9.1.3 may compete in the Production class in which the same make, model and engine displacement car is classified. For Improved Touring cars competing in Production, the level of preparation and modifications will be as determined by ITCS 9.1.3 and not by PCS 9.1.5. This is intended to allow Improved Touring competitors to become more familiar with Production to assist them in determining whether to modify their cars to meet the requirements of PCS 9.1.5 and also to permit Improved Touring competitors to compete in all events open to Production cars.
the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?
Also why more weight for the RWD? didn't a FWD qualify 3 and 4 at the runoffs?
Good to see my request got through.
Why the hell is someone asking for a VW Passat to be classified in Touring 4?
Early (1997) Type R B18C5s were hand-ported from the factory. Subsequent B18C5s were subject to a CNC clearance process (something that typically may be part of a good IT/STL-level engine build anyway). The CRB would not approve (and I would not have supported) the engine if we allowed the factory porting in, since it would not be able to be scrutineered (what part was done by eunich ex-Ninja Shinto monks, and what was done by the competitor?)
That note is an exclamation/clarification that the ported B18C5 engine will not pass scrutiny in STL. Any porting work, factory or otherwise, is prohibited. If you've got a hand-ported '97, you'll need to either get one that is not ported and/or start with a replacement casting (e.g., B16A/A2/A3 head).
- Greg
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The CRB requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?
---
Bring it on into ITS with 205 stock hp @ 3175 lbs and some 15" wheels. Hoosier guys will love it.
tGA - stupid (maybe?) question:
STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
e.g. the B18C5 has a 2% penalty. if RWD this would be chart *1.055*1.02 (1.0761)or *1.075?
at 1800cc this is 2430 chart, 2615 as successive, 2612 as summed.
I recognize it's 3lbs in this instance, but that's enough to get bounced at impound.
I would disagree, Eric. STx is an engine-centric category, and the engine weight is the baseline for everything. Additions for specific engines should be factored into that baseline. So IMO you'd tally up all the stuff for the engine, and that's now your new base weight for the chassis it's installed into.
Example: B18C5 Type R engine installed into an S2000 chassis. Engine is 1.8L so 2430 pounds. B18C5 get +2%, so 2479. Gets installed into a RWD S2000 chassis, so +5.5% over 2479, thus 2615#.
If there's reasonable disagreement in this, then it's something we should clarify/codify.
- GA
don't wait for disagreement, codify it NOW before there's a problem. again, that problem is AT WORST 3 lbs with a 2% engine modifier but if this system becomes a more common practice, you could expect that delta to grow.
and as I said above, 3 lbs is enough to bump you at impound, and it's 3# higher the tGA way than the tEH way. just state the order of operations, and do that every time you add percent weight changes to other allowances.
Yes, you beat me to the punch. The revised Prelims are now up.
...are posted:
http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472
So it was requested that the renisis to be eliminated from STL but it looks like it just lost weight and then they added a restrictor? And the type r engine that races in ITR with the renisis is being added?
Greg, can you clarify? I am searching for an auto rx8 to possibly do a few swaps to run in STL but again I am thinking of sticking to IT until STL gets sorted out in a few years.
Thanks, Stephen
Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?
Lemme try! Before Greg gives us the real info:
Stephen - yes on your two comments. Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.
The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set? Interesting.
Chuck - your fully IT compliant car can run in STL provided it meets the engine size requirements (non ITR) no matter what rule is or isn't specifically compliant in STL. It just has to be 100% IT with no mixing and matching or rule-sets.
On edit: I wouldn't put a dime into an RX8 for STL right now. There is committee issue with the motor design, and RWD adders keep on rising. A good plan would be to run one in ITR for a couple more years and see what happens...but just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).
:happy204:
Odd...I posted a reply earlier and it's gone...
Concur, mostly. However, the CRB chose to plate the RX-8 (no personal idea on its effects) to be able to remove the 100# from it, since we were adding more weight for RWD and it was getting quite piggy (half a ton heavier than the 1.6L CRX).
Stephen, there are still hurdles to running your ITR RX-8 in STL, primarily brakes too large (front and rear), wheels too large (17x7 max), and tires too large (225 section width max). The transition between ITR and STL is not easy for the RX-8, nor is it intended to be.
B18C5 still has to meet all STL specs, including max valve lift. The 2% was to accommodate that its prepped output will exceed STL expectations (same reason for the plates for the K20 and MZR). If it exceeds it even with the extra 2%, it also risks a plate (I will likely be building and dyno'ing one for 2014, given I sold my B17A1 at the Runoffs).Quote:
The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set?
A bit of a generalized mis-characterization, as the CRB does not knee-jerk lead-trophy Runoffs winners. However, if you lead the Runoffs by half a minute in the only car of your kind in the class, two years in a row with two different drivers, you certainly expect additional scrutiny... - GAQuote:
...just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).
I think ITR to STL was just brakes, and tires... stock parts from an auto and not a huge thing to tackle. I will look into the restrictor. Anyone know who sells them?
I think I well still sit and wait while STL goes through the growing pains and gets a bit more stable.
Stephen
I'm seeing restrictor plates as a growth industry. I think I'll make some...
Chip-
I think the addition of the 4dr EK Civic to ITA might have been botched. Here's the snipit from the prelim tech bulletin.
Just want to make sure that the 96-98 cars don't get stricken.Quote:
1. #12343 (Robert Powell) Classify the 1999 Honda Civic EX / Sedan
In ITA, Honda Civic EX Coupe (96-00), change the spec line as follows:
Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan (99-00)
Chip,
You make them and I will sell them for you :)
So with the changes for next year, what's the hot Honda package in STL...? WWtGAD...?
Assume for a minute that we're talking about an FWD chassis that can get to the minimum weight for the various choices...
K
Final Dec2013 Fastrack: http://www.scca.com/assets/13-fastrack-dec.pdf
Hot "Honda" package in STL? Or hot STL package?
I still think the Miata/RX-8 is the chassis to have. We only added 2% to RWD, and Drago has demonstrated that the Miata 1.8L can make some good power. That ~+50 pounds isn't gonna kill it.
We dropped a restrictor plate on the RX-8, but we also removed 100# (+ the 2%). Mazda has made some very good RWD chassis, and this is one of them. I don't think this plate will hurt the car.
The Honda S2k is now in the mix, but someone is going to have to build an engine that drops the compression ratio *and* reduces the cams. But this engine has a long history of high-revving - just like the Renesis - so this is one to watch.
But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made. The 50mm plate we added to the K20 (60/62mm throttle body stock) should not, theoretically, hurt the power a lot. From what I'm hearing, computer sims showed the throttle body was intentionally oversized to improve part-throttle drivability and had less to do with ultimate airflow (what we're really worried about in racing). *IF* these sims are correct, we're only talking about a 10-ish hp hit on the K20.
And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap. Given the Civic is a strut car, and struts get an additional 2.5% weight break, I'd be tempted to build up a K20-powered Civic Si as my "FWD Honda car to beat". Second Honda choice would be a K20-powered "anything else". Third choice would be a B18C5 (Type R, add 2% weight) or B18C1 (GSR) powered "anything else".
But in the end, I still think a well-built, well-developed, high-quality RWD chassis is still King of the Road. I'm waiting for someone to spend some serious money on an MX-5.
I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque.
Then again, we've approved the VW Euro 2L 4-valve engine, which I've yet to see built... ;)
We'll see, eh?
- GA
You answered my question spot-on, Greg. Thanks.Quote:
...But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made.
K
I am hoping that this year we can close the NA - NB gap for Miata's and 1.6 cars overall, but I have to agree with Greg. If I only had $50K to build a NC...Quote:
GA - "And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap.....
I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque."
Thanks Greg
Right now I do not think a 1.6L anything is going to take it home at a national level. MVS here in the SE is building/built a 1.6L STL miata. He was testing it during the same test day I was at before the SIC. Though he still has more to do for a full STL build, he was at his ITS times.
He is registered in the car at Sebring for the Turkey Trots, so we will see what it can do.
We will see after this year of the displacement multiplier is correct. In theory this year at the runoffs a great handling car should be the ticket. This is where the smaller, light weight, nimble cars should do very well. If not then IMHO the multiplier will need to be looked at if the ticket is still grab a chassis and throw in the biggest motor you can.
In Continental challenge the lower hp MX5s I think finished 1-2 their this year at Seca. So we will see.
I'll disagree; the winner to this years' runoffs will be the torquiest car that handles halfway decently; Laguna is a very hilly start and stop kinda track. If a torquey car can get in front... :026:
Anyone know of possible STL rental opportunities for the Laguna RubOffs.......?
K
Thanks, Greg. All things being equal, I'd be interested in the Honda guy...
K