Printable View
http://cms.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-feb.pdf
- "Disallow seam welding in STL" rejected. Class philosophy includes things like seam welding, more-than-8-points for cages, Lexan, and plastic hood/trunk.
- "Hinges" added to remove/replace of hood/trunk latches.
- Rewording of metering rule for intake, to "throttling". AFM/MAF can clearly be removed.
- World Challenge cars on VTS allowed, with 5% weight penalty.
- Some rules clean ups.
How about a class philosophy?
:)
hmm..
on the turbo allowance for the A4. I'm not really up on this, and I know Rob May and he's strait up. so I suspect there's a back story here. but it looks to the outsider as even more specific performance adjustments to a class with no established envelope, and that's "danger will robinson" territory. I think publishing a short explanation would go a ways toward removing the smoke and mirrors impression this might give.
VTS cars at the heavier of VTS+5% OR STU chart + 5% seems fair, I'd like to know what weight this translates into for say, an Ex-realtime TSX (2009) vs an STU-spec K24 honda (2640# by chart, so 2772# or more). I was advocating ~150#, so I'm reasonably satisfied with this.
not a whole lot else - weren't we expecting to see STL brake allowances and stuff? and where IS that class philosophy????
Category philosophy, and the actual writing it in words, is next to impossible.
Add to that that this category is really more like TWO categories. (STO/STU, and STL).
Just getting a group to agree, in even vague terms, to a philosophy statement for EITHER of those groups will be very difficult and time consuming. If you can even GET the group to agree....
And getting it down on paper?...for publishing??
That's a tall order, ESPECIALLY for such a new Ad Hoc.
The fact that they are actually discussing it and are aware that it needs to be done is a great step in my book.
I'd suggest that they don't chain themselves to ONE statement though. I really think that STL is unique and different enough that it should be handled differently and that includes some cornerstone and first principal statements.
We are not there yet but I assure you this is being discussed at every level and I believe everyone knows this is of the highest priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt93SE
Quoted for truthiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
You'll see it developing inferentially with rules changes/updates, and we're looking into actually publishing it as part of the rules in 2012. But for now, rest assured all activity and discussion is with this as an underlying factor, the big "elephant in the room".
GA
IIRC, this was because that turbo was allowed on the car for WC, and required an alternate downpipe to make it work. Existing cars could not easily swap the stock turbo back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
Comes out about there, slightly less. We had already talked about this prior to your post, and I used your opinion as a "gut check" to make sure we weren't on alternate realities. Fortunately, we weren't too far apart... ;)Quote:
VTS cars at the heavier of VTS+5% OR STU chart + 5% seems fair...I was advocating ~150#, so I'm reasonably satisfied with this.
My request to allow alternate brakes in STL is still pending and under discussion. We should have an up/down answer next Fastrack.Quote:
...weren't we expecting to see STL brake allowances and stuff?
GA
next jab.. how about the request for SR20DET that I sent in August and was said would be posted in the december fastrack.. the response in Fastrack was "we're still discussing it, hang on."
Sooo.. any updates? :)
I am unaware of any pending discussion regarding the SR20DET. Note that at this point in time, while it's under discussion as part of the overall general philosophy, there's no allowance for other-than-USDM engines...Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt93SE
Send me your letter number and I'll investigate.
GA
At least I had a good chuckle that another person wanted the Boxster S classed.
So, how about some clarity for the 3.2 M3 WC cars. These guys have to run the stock cam or revert to the Vts and run race cams? Methinks it's stock so what does that mean for our NE guys with the quick bimmers? Spend to go slow or ite?
Well, note that you have not yet received a response to your second request. We dispatched that request you saw in Fastrack because it is redundant to your first request.Quote:
Originally Posted by benspeed
Not implying or promising anything, simply noting that your second request is still outstanding.
If you're running WC prep, you can run to the WC VTS and take a 5% hit on the higher of the two weights, VTS versus STU (for the E36 M3, that would be 3200# + 5% = 3360#). If you want to run to STU prep and 3200# on the E36 M3, you have those STU engine limitations.Quote:
So, how about some clarity for the 3.2 M3 WC cars.
Note the cam limitation is on lift only; it does not specify you must run stock cams.
GA
I just don't understand why. engine displacement - look at chart - get weight, race. who cares if it ever displaced that much in a car sold in america or not?? the rules spec CR, lift, and weight by displacement and don't take ANY other engine characteristic (STL valve count differences excluded) into account - TB size, head flow, shrouding, RSR, B:S, whatever. we can verify lift, CR and displacement EASILY, in impound, with simple, common tools. And in many cases it's minimally invasive (valve cover and spark plugs)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
intakes, non-US market engines, ignitions, etc... should ALL be open UNLESS the motor is from a specline, in which case it must conform to that line. keeping conformity to all stock specs (except those specifically open/different in the STCS) and then saying the nissan, ford, VW, and toyota, etc... of 2.5L should all be making the same power is patently ludicrous. yeah, they'll probably be close - but there's no way to be sure. keeping the
bore, stroke, deck height, heads, etc... as factory or with allowed porting DOES provide for variation and should be controlled for the sake of cost containment - but how doe s aRHD only motor or one not sold in the US for whatever reason take away from this? mandate english language, manufacturer published basic engine specs to ensure the competitor isn't "making" a motor (cost control) but otherwise let them in.
it will cost me the same to get a NON US toyota gen 3 3S-GE 2.0L non-turbo motor from a 94-97 celica or MR2, WITH A TRANSMISSION, as it will to convert my USDM Gen 1 86-89 celica motor to shim under bucket (already this way in gen 3) so that I can use the cams allowed in STU. other than that, it's a different intake, SMALLER head ports, and oiling and other minor changes that are basically irrelevant in the eyes of the ST rules. it made a not scary high ~170hp from the factory, and there are THOUSANDS of them out there. why is this not allowed??? it's just friggin stoopid.
The CRB. As I understand it, the CRB had concerns regarding being able to properly police it, to ensure legal parts are being used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
You should keep in mind that the current configuration of the rules is a lot like IT, where it's allowances from stock. What you are describing is a system that uses baseline build limitations from which anything not specified is allowed.
Given the former, you can see why JDM engines were not allowed; for example, if you use a JDM engine, how can we ensure you're using the stock throttle body? Head casting (better flow from JDM)? Crankshaft (lighter, more/fewer counterweights?) Etc.
The basis of your idea(l) is under discussion for 2012.
GA
Thanks Greg - always appreciate you posts - and I may even have some hope for the Boxster! (full disclaimer recognized :-)
Good to hear the BMW guys can still run - I have lead for sale....
I'm sure there are allot of good and cost effective reasons for allowing a specific JDM or Euro spec engine to be used. From a rotary perspective there were some interesting offerings that never were imported here as well.
All that said, I don't support the use of Non-USDM engines in STx both accross the board or on a case by case basis. Sorry, but I don't care how much this rule costs some of you.
the cost will be both to the competitor and to the class. if johny X has to rebuild his motor every 3 races in lieu of importing a very robust motor making the same power, or billy Q can't find a motor within the rules that will make the power required of the class, then both will likely burn out themselves and drop out.Quote:
Originally Posted by mustanghammer
yeah - there are a lot of cars/motors that were sold here that will make good STU cars. there are a lot of foreign market motors that fit as well. in some cases, these are more plentiful, more robust, more affordable, or simply better offerings for a particular manufacturer. the parts are verifiable, the documentation is available in english, and there's not a single reason that makes sense that I can think of why they shouldn't be allowed other than xenophobia or ignorance on the part of the PTB and some of the membership. I don't want to seem insulting to other members - but I think this is a case of a concept and a rule set that that are at odds with one another.
EDIT - there's a large body of JDM/euro market motored cars out there. some of them are race cars. some are track day cars. some of both are looking for a place to race. they fit within the STU rules or are close enough to be converted without a large amount of investment. why should we tell them no? because a crankshaft might not be the part that came with the motor, as originally installed in some car the tech guy never heard of? bore? check. stroke? check. documentation? check. verify dims and, if it's really bugging you, have a part shipped from the country of origin. these parts are avaialable through a lot of dealers and there are pro shops that can get them for you. it's no harder than a BMW ETA cam for reference in IT.
I understand the desire to have OEM parts with limited mods to keep costs down. the above is as practical as anything else we have in a non-spec saeries in the club, and it opens the entries up for STU. at least it removes barriers to existing / near existing cars.
First, ignore rotaries, they are an entirely different genre, and each is rather unique, even within that genre. They will have to be treated as special cases individually, so, including them in any argument against non USDM engines is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by mustanghammer
Second, the BIG issue here is that the class weight setting system is set up on a theoretical basis, but the rules are limit everyone to real world parts. Parts that influence potential power.
Those are completely at ODDs with one another.
The allowance of non USDM engines would be a step in the right direction, IMO. I 'get' the concern for policing things, but, I think that concern overstated. As Chip points out, requiring English language documentation is appropriate.
I do not see how that doesn't resolve the policing issue to a great extent.
Further, the HP levels that have been chosen are very lofty, with only a few engines capable of achieving them, right? Are there many examples of non USDM engines capable of exceeding them?
Regarding rotary engines, I don't see your point as all that valid. Weights are currently applied by displacement to 12A and 13B engines. The Renesis is classed at the same weight as a 13B but has a porting restriction.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
You further seem to indicate that alternate rotary engines could be classed and spec'd on a case by case basis. Is this really what we want to deal with? Especially if this was extended to all of the engine options in the class. Do we really want spec lines that are as complicated as Prod or GT?
Overall, my concern is not with the widely available and cost effective JDM/Euro spec engine. I am not even all that worried about documentation - it can be a requirement that can be enforced. Instead my concern is that there will be a uber powerful, limited production, hard to find, and expensive JDM/Euro spec engine that find it's way into STx. How is this scenario policed and how is this caught BEFORE the engine in the class?
I'm open to ideas....sell me. The arguement that it is "good for the class" is not a good one because an over-dog super rare power plant would be just as bad for the class. So you need to try harder.
given the compression and cam requirements, this doesn't compute with the weight by displacement / Turbo inlet restrictor class philosophy. and that might not be a 100% accurate proposal, but it's pretty reasonable. there's not a lot one can do to make an "uber" engine without breaking some or all of the class restrictions. more likely to be an underdog based on head restrictions and/or intake.Quote:
Originally Posted by mustanghammer
outside of that, IF a motor is discovered to make significantly more or less power, and is legal and built to the 9s, then it should be given an alternate minimum weight (higher or lower, depending). A mechanism to do this already exists in the STCS in the form of speclines. I would argue that these need to be sorted by MOTOR not by the car they came in, but the point remains.
further, I cannot think of a motor from the JDM / euro markets that would make scary power AFTER modifications to conform to the class. even the RB turbo motors, toyota BEAMS engines, etc... will be reigned in. there's nothing really special about them below the piston skirts. I'm willing to be proven wrong, glad to, even. because we have the above method for dealing with the outliers when and if they show up.
frankly, evolving gearbox and stability control systems from the luxo marques scares me more than potential power output under the current rules, even if relaxed a bit. how does one check that stuff without outright banning it? and when does something like a Dual clutch box become "equivalent" to a sequential, which in terms of shift speed it pretty much is. THESE are the great unanswered questions, and for right now I think it best to NOT answer them, but to see how things balances out on track. these items ARE/will soon be availalble in US market offerings.
What Chip said. The biggest issue right now, as far as I'm concerned is that theory isn't matching reality. And that will result in very few cars being contenders.That's not multi marque racing, which an open class purports to be.
Removing some of the real world restrictions is sorely needed. Allowing non USDM components is a good start. Probably not enough, but....
I think that STU will be OK for multi-marque. at least as good as WC ever was - so 6+ makes competitive. I can live with that. but I still want out of market stuff to be allowe dbecause it makes sense, and because it might raise that number by 2. I have a personal motivation, but it's surmountable with extra $$$.
STL really would benefit because the USDM offerings <2.0L is pretty slim (read: honda) but the class allows so much less that you DO run the risk of an Uber moter there. thus the banning of the B18-C5 and the F20. Toyota 2ZZ-GE should be added to that list to be honest. leaves the class with very few real options. but that's :dead_horse:
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean that a Turbo WC car can run it's VTS sheet + 5% but without the STU sized restrictor? And I'm sorry if this has been discussed before but the VTS sheet does not mean they have to run Toyo's does it?
as I understand it, if you run "to the VTS sheet" you run EXACTLY what's on that list (no more, who cares if you run less) and run the greater of VTS indicated weight +5% OR the STU weight +5%. this is NOT well explained for turbos because without an TIR, there's no "STU" weight.
what's your turbo's inlet ID? you could use that I guess. I'd write to the STAC for turbo VTS weight clarification.
Chip's right: it means if you're running on a VTS sheet (including any required restrictors/boost limits), you run that weight +5%. And it's intended that tire make/model is free, not required to be Toyos (VTS does not specify tires, that's part of the appropriate Appendix A).
I'd have to look into the VTS of specific cars, but generally speaking turbo cars in 2009 Touring were classified pretty heavy (the 1.8L A4 was 2900, for example)...add 5% to those and they should not be a factor. But, if we find an outlier, you can be assured it will be restricted in some fashion back into place...
GA
No turbo. I was just wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
I've seen you in so many cars I just don't try to assume I know what car you might be taling about. :p
Nope, I drive whatever is offered but no turbo cars are offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
Turbo cars worry me. I've got a solution but it basically involves making them uncompetitive and sending them to STO.
I think you're trying to overcomplicate things. given the inlet restrictors required, there's a definite limit on available power, which is pretty close to the same max power as you could build with an NA engine running the equivalent displacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrsideways
i.e. my 2.4L KA24DE engine *could* be built to 300whp with about $15,000 in work. That would go in my 2640lb car. An SR20DET with 36mm inlet restrictor in the stock turbo (Garrett T28) could theoretically flow enough air to make about 300hp max according to a tech that works at Garrett.
So I wouldn't be too worried about being killed by the turbo engines. You're still limited by the same damn inlet restrictors that the GT guys despise.
See the issue is it doesn't limit the tq. And Tq can be darn near as potent as HP. If you limit boost people figure out a way to hide the amount of boost shown. My personal opinion is we should put a restrictor on the Oil feed line to the turbo it can have all the air it wants... for a few seconds.... :D Kidding!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt93SE
Now here is an interesting Idea. Can you take a Turbo Motor and remove the Turbo and run it under N/A rules. Specific idea I had was a Volvo S80 Turbo motor it's a 2.8L 6 cylinder. The N/A's S80's are 2.9's. Ditch the turbo and put high compression pistons in it and put it in a earlier volvo. Say a 142. Be a TON of work but it's an idea.
Ian,
I think you'll find that an inlet restricted turbo is pretty much a lesser turbo. the TIRs listed inthe STCS and feb 11 fastrack are small. and the weights are large. NA guys should be OK.
I think the solution is relatively simple. (and I know this opens a can of worms). Allow people to Add turbo's then it's a fair game. Everyone gets turbo's if they want em and everyone plays to the TIR game. Would be a heck of alot cheaper to toss a turbo kit and some low compression pistons on the S2000 and run the restrictor to the current weight then to build a $10-15,000 engine at an attempt to hit the astronomic hp # needed for a 2700lbs race weight vehicle + buying another $10k in dry carbon items to get a measly 20-40lbs out of the car. Or doing a K24 swap into it to hit the same hp as the World Challenge cars. And if these TIR's really work it won't matter what size turbo you put on so no need to police that. Put a huge turbo and just deal with lag + no air flow when it coughs on the restrictor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
I really fail to see the difference between allowing an SR20DET swap into a 240sx and allowing another company car with the same size motor to hang the same size turbo on the side of it.
there's a huge can of expensive worms that'd be opened that way.
stock turbos are not optimized for racing. turbos, and their optimization, are an added cost. add to that the full ST(U) engine build allowance and you have a seriously costly playground - and for what purpose? if the sequential gearbox cat weren't already out of the bag, I would think that should be illegal, too, and for the same reason.
I can see you issue with the S2000 - you don't think it will shed enough weight to make the 2.0L min (2200#). out of curiosity - how much power do you think it can make, full build? becasue I figure that to be one of the best 2.0L motors available, period. yeah, it's a shame the car is heavy, but you could change the lump or the car to make it work. eventually, if you go 10/10ths, Id ask for that combo to get some sort of help. not sure how that would work (can't loose weight) but it's a possible option.
The K motors are much better then the F(S2000). The K's get Varible cam timing (via Ivtec) among other things. There have been a lot of people trying to make real hp out of them. The fact is you see fancy engine builds over and over with little results. Without adding stroke or Bore or A LOT of compression just nothing yields you any real net hp. It depends on a Dyno but I'm yet to see one that would be close to STU legal make more then about 240whp on a realistic dyno. The .5pt in compression you can do in STU and the cams will yeild little to nothing. I've seen some extremely high compression cars pop the 300 mark but they were stroker drag motors with 13 and 14:1 compression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
I'm pretty well gutted but haven't done lexan or Carbon Fiber and the car is right at 2600lbs before driver. From what I see the hood is pretty light and you can only get about 10lbs, the trunk can get 15lbs but the dry carbon trunk is $2000. A regular carbon trunk only gets you about 8lbs weight out. The lexan rear window is 8lbs. I figure if I really went nuts and bought all the carbon bits I could see 2500lbs, maybe less if I started over and put a different cage in it. But that's 2500 before driver. Add 180lbs and realistically it'll never get under 2650lbs. The lightest caged S2000 I've seen was 2460lbs + driver and the C-west full carbon fiber car was 2200+driver. So a Full Dry carbon car with EVERYTHING removed would just barely be under weight for the 2.2L motor.