Proposed change to TIR table....

I'm possibly encouraged by the proposed change to the TIR table for STU. But I find the notes wording confusing:

“Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must deduct 2 mm from this table.”

It could be argued that "deduct 2mm" may mean use the weight of a 2mm smaller TIR. Instead I'd propose the following wording:

Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must either reduce their TIR size by 2mm for a given weight, or keep the same TIR size and increase base weight to the equivalent of a 2mm larger TIR.

Either that or put an asterisk TIR size in the chart for Turbocharged AWD/RWD STU cars.

I'm sure the STAC/CRB is opened minded on it - after all, we want to get it "right" - but I'm just not sure how that's really any different. Whether you pick a weight and then a TIR then reduce the TIR by 2mm for AWD/RWD, or if you pick a TIR then the weight then reduce the TIR by 2mm, what's really the difference?

We just want to ensure the intent is clear: regardless of what line you pick, if you have RWD or AWD you'll have to use a TIR that's 2mm smaller based on the minimum weight of your car.

GA

Add another column to the same table showing either:

separate FWD and AWD/RWD weights with one TIR diameter,
OR
show one weight listing with a TIR diameters for FWD and for RWD/AWD.

It just makes it all that much clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

Add another column to the same table showing either:

---

No, I don't think we want to get into that (IMO). That table is purely to spec baseline TIR vs weight; if we added in another column then we need to add in all the other class adders/subtractors such as struts, moved suspension points, and so forth.

I may, however, look into summarizing all the adders/subtractors into a common area at the end. - GA

I think you're overhtinking it at that point. the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.
want to make absolutely clear on it? then stick a big bold disclaimer above or below the table mentioning these are the baselines and all other adders/subtracters still apply.

[QUOTE=Matt93SE;342955the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.[/QUOTE]
The TIR/weight chart? That has absolutely nothing to do with any specific engine or chassis. That chart simply says that if you're running a turbocharged engine, you must weigh XXXX pounds when running a YY mm TIR. You get to pick. All the new reg does is reduce that TIR by 2mm with a RWD or AWD car. - GA

Here's an idea instead of singling out two types of drive systems, why not single out the lone exception. IE... reduce the sizes in the TIR chart by 2mm and then state the Fwd chassis get to open up the TIR size by 2mm, for a given weight?

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

---

Send the turbos packing? :D

So, Greg, tell me, if Marc was running a 32 mm already @ xxxx weight, that means he will now have to be 32 and xxxx plus the 200 lbs or so( two steps up the table)?

Yes. Given that scenario he could either run the 2012 weight with a 30mm TIR, or keep his 32mm TIR and run the weight of the 34mm TIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JIgou

Send the turbos packing? :D

---

So, if we get a repeat performance of turbo run-away at the run-offs again would you consider sending the turbo's packing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

So, if we get a repeat performance of turbo run-away at the run-offs again would you consider sending the turbo's packing?

---

Purely a personal opinion, but "no". Turbo engines are coming to the fore in the new car market - especially low-displacement ones - and if you send them packing, where else in the SCCA can they come and play?

Nope, I suggest this is a process we'll need to continue to tweak until we get it "right" (or at least "close"). - GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Purely a personal opinion, but "no". Turbo engines are coming to the fore in the new car market - especially low-displacement ones - and if you send them packing, where else in the SCCA can they come and play?

Nope, I suggest this is a process we'll need to continue to tweak until we get it "right" (or at least "close"). - GA

---

You think the tubo guys will like being slowed down to EP lap times? Then you think us N/A guys are going to wait around while you didle with the TIR size to weight chart to slow them to that point? If none of the N/A guys show up next year there'll be what... maybe 5 STU cars? I know that Royle's already gone to EP, so has Matt, Rosenburg's sold his car. Not that it matters much, but I'm just this close to going EP too, STU's about to do an ITR in So-Pac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

You think the tubo guys will like being slowed down to EP lap times? Then you think us N/A guys are going to wait around while you didle with the TIR size to weight chart to slow them to that point? If none of the N/A guys show up next year there'll be what... maybe 5 STU cars? I know that Royle's already gone to EP, so has Matt, Rosenburg's sold his car. Not that it matters much, but I'm just this close to going EP too, STU's about to do an ITR in So-Pac.

---

Yes.

What else do you suggest we do, James; ban turbo cars entirely? Isn't that more than a bit self-centered and unrealistic? If E Prod is such the perfect answer, why didn't you go there in the first place many years ago? Honestly, James, in my personal opinion the foot-stomping and whining has gotten to the point where I'm thinking "hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass"...

There's a reason you're racing Super Touring, whatever it is, and that's the goal we're trying to hit. And threatening to leave won't change that effort (ask your California T1 Corvette drivers how that worked out for them).

GA

P.S. Read my sig...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Yes.

What else do you suggest we do, James; ban turbo cars entirely? Isn't that more than a bit self-centered and unrealistic? If E Prod is such the perfect answer, why didn't you go there in the first place many years ago? Honestly, James, in my personal opinion the foot-stomping and whining has gotten to the point where I'm thinking "hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass"...

There's a reason you're racing Super Touring, whatever it is, and that's the goal we're trying to hit. And threatening to leave won't change that effort (ask your California T1 Corvette drivers how that worked out for them).

GA

P.S. Read my sig...

---

I'm not being whiney or foot stomping... just letting you know that there's a cliff you're about to go over. Good luck growing a class by telling the participants to "don't let the door hit you in the ass"....

James, look: there are no plans to ban turbo cars from STU. There's not even any discussion of possibly discussing that. It's just not an option on the table.

I understand your (and others) concerns, and the committee is going to consistently adjust the regs to the best of our ability to equalize competition - generally - between turbo and non-turbo cars. But we are not going to ban them from STU. So if you are already convinced that these cars cannot coexist then while I'd really lament losing you, STU is not going to be the class for you...call me next time you're around here, I'd love to have dinner and a beer with you again and we can discuss it. - GA

Instead of slowing down the turbo cars, why not speed up the N/A cars?
the cost of building an N/A engine within SCCA's rules to keep up with a turbo car is pretty asinine.

high compression, big cams, machine everything to the gnat's ass, spin it to 9,000rpm so you can suck it all through a crappy stock intake manifold and throttle body, then blow it all up and rebuild it at $10k a season.
OR
bolt in a bone stock turbo engine from something else and kick ass- reliably?

I know which one I'd rather do.

How about opening up the N/A rules a touch to help out those cars vs. slowing down the turbo guys. This is supposed to be Super Touring after all. modeled after WC Touring cars.. The WC cars have completely custom intake manifolds- some with ITBs- and whatever else you can throw at them. Then the guys building stuff in their garage are stuck with a manifold that can't flow for sheit. when you know you're going to lose with that combination, why bother trying to win?

^^^^^^I like that idea^^^^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamfp

^^^^^^I like that idea^^^^^^

---

I don't. This would require approving and managing individually vehicle prep specs.

Do you trust the same committee that you're blasting above to review, approve, and manage those individual considerations?

Blech!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

I don't. This would require approving and managing individually vehicle prep specs.

Do you trust the same committee that you're blasting above to review, approve, and manage those individual considerations?

Blech!

---

My take is that Matt is talking about wholesale N/A changes, not WC-style individual "give this car one thing, that car a different thing, and that other one something completely different."

yeah - really if a 2.0L engine makes enoguh power to weigh X then you must know what that power is. Just add to the rules "you can run a mainfold of XXX restricted design but otherwise, have fun. oh, and breathe througha hole this big."

give it a weight penalty and a SIR based on displacement so you can play with them, too. just in case.

sounds a lot like what EVERYONE was saying back with they started trying to pull these classes from the trash in mid 2010, an effort that has bared fruit but has yet to seem close to complete. and yeah, I relaize stock everything else now becomes the restriction, and the expectation will be that the heads open up, then the valves, then... you have a displacement to weight class with stock parts rules, expect bitchin.

I was referring to speeding up the N/A cars as a whole. And I am totally against the SIR shenanigans that GT cars are dealing with.

So how you do this is a mystery..
some cars need a better flowing intake manifold and TB, some need head work, some need valves, some need 13:1 compression.

how do you open these rules up without opening the barn door wide for everyone? I don't envy the task.

Last year (or the year before) an idea was tossed around to set wholesale class-wide specs on performance-limiting devices such as throttle body/choke size, cam size, compression ratio (the latter two we already do, of course), etc. In fact, we briefly discussed the idea here on this board, IIRC (anyone want to search?). I don't think the CRB is willing to go that direction right now, especially given we've already made some changes to the turbo cars, but the idea has merit.

But individual vehicle allowances, like what World Challenge did on Mazda intake manifolds (for example)? Blech! - GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

James, look: there are no plans to ban turbo cars from STU. There's not even any discussion of possibly discussing that. It's just not an option on the table.

I understand your (and others) concerns, and the committee is going to consistently adjust the regs to the best of our ability to equalize competition - generally - between turbo and non-turbo cars. But we are not going to ban them from STU. So if you are already convinced that these cars cannot coexist then while I'd really lament losing you, STU is not going to be the class for you...call me next time you're around here, I'd love to have dinner and a beer with you again and we can discuss it. - GA

---

Had a quick talk with John Norris yesterday. He was telling me of the days when he raced turbo's for Mitsubitshi's factory team. He said, "For every method you come up with to limit a turbo, there's a way around it." So, ultimatly if there are turbo cars in the class, then anything else is racing as a back marker.

Are you going to be at the convention, is it still in Veas? I might drop in there because of my activity with our regions TT program, Vegas is s a day trip from my house.

James

Nope, no Vegas for me (unless someone else is buying...?) But I think all of the CRB is going there, and I'm sure you'll find some other STAC guys too (lists on SCCA's web site, behind the member wall). Look 'em up, bend their ears. - GA