New STL Fan

Had the chance to run Maximum Attack Motorsports' '99 Civic Si in STL at the NJMP Majors weekend, and LOVED IT.

The car is pretty well prepped, still with a 1.6. It's 200# fat but we were in the ballpark, just a few tenths off the new class lap record set by the Flatout rotary Miata. Finished 2nd both days, with Sunday being a pretty close deal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEEZLPg5-w

EDIT - attempt at the class leader starts about 22:30 in the video.

The car was fun to drive, quick, and as troublefree as an IT car. We put some tweaks on the set-up over the course of the weekend, and added the rear wing after the first practice session, and it pretty much went where we wanted.

I'm a fan.

K

Awesome. We need to find more power out of the 13B to compete at 2700+lbs. Not sure whats left in it.

That's great news. More motivation to keep plugging away at the 2000 Si. STL was what finally pushed me to keep it and move it away from SSC trim. Big fields in STL are more motivation.

Im curious why the ST classes dont follow IT classing a bit more. For instance, the ITS field is broke between STL and STU. However there is little chance a car meeting ITS classing would stand a chance in STU. Rich Walke's ITS RX7 turned STL car is nicely competitive on a national level, but if I wanted to do the same with my E30 BMW 325is which runs similar lap times to Rich's car, I can only run STU.

It looked like a great class at the Sprints this weekend, but after flipping through the rules I'm more confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowmann

Im curious why the ST classes dont follow IT classing a bit more

---

I'll give it to you straight: ITx classes are explicitly allowed into STL* as a way to attract entries and to bring attention to the Super Touring category. There has never been any intention to make ITx classes competitive in STL or STU, and I doubt there ever will be. ITx is simply being given a place to play; nothing more, nothing less.

As such, no cars in ITS or ITR that exceed the basic class philosophy of STL (e.g., >2L) will be allowed into STL.

Please review my signature. Then read it again. Now, once more please.

GA

* Absent the GCR requirement for a lateral dash bar and front cage legs -- which are optional in ITx -- most ITx cars that are eligible now would be compliant under the STL/STU regs. Same goes for Spec Miata. But because of that cage requirement they had to be explicitly added in order to be able to compete in STx.

[Greg editorial note] Crap, I accidentally used my magical admin powers and hit edit on his post instead of quote...sorry about that! Please re-type? I'll reply with what I was able to save...[/Greg]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowmann

My point is, if they're equal in ITS why would it not be so in STL?

---

Because your BMW has a 2.5L engine. The class limit is 2.0L

And I'm not being flippant. That is exactly, completely, 100% why you are not allowed to compete in STL. We don't really care about performance potential; we recognize it's not likely to be competitive against "true" STL cars. That's beside the point.

Quote:

---

Would there be a large objection, based solely on the fact that it's not less than 2.0 liters, to the BMW classed as an alternate allowance similar to that of the ITS RX7 with ITS weight and prep in STL?

---

Yes, there would be.

Get <2.01L engine and you're in.

GA

* Note that you are not the only one that recognizes the inconsistency about how a 13B engine is actually rated at 2.6L per the GCR. In a 2L piston-engine class. Don't bother, you're preaching to the choir on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

* Note that you are not the only one that recognizes the inconsistency about how a 13B engine is actually rated at 2.6L per the GCR. In a 2L piston-engine class. Don't bother, you're preaching to the choir on that one.

---

This.

That was my rambling point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowmann

Im curious why the ST classes dont follow IT classing a bit more.

<snip>

It looked like a great class at the Sprints this weekend, but after flipping through the rules I'm more confused.

---

Because it is a different category. it is Super Touring, not Super-Improved Touring.

you can run a lighter weight in STU because you have a two valve motor, check the gcr but i think it;s around 2425# or something like that. I think a 2500# E30 325is in STU would be a great regional STU car, unless a full tilt boogie national car and driver shows up, but you typically don't see those cars come out for regionals except for a rare occasion.

I'm very surprised more (non-miatae) ITS cars are not running at Majors and Super Tours in STU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS154

I'm very surprised more (non-miatae) ITS cars are not running at Majors and Super Tours in STU.

---

Basic problem is that there's not a whole lotta <2L non-miatae ITS options out there...Integra GS-R, Ford Focus SVT, Honda del Sol and Civic Si...that's about it. And, IMO, they're not competitive in ITS, so they typically don't build them.

well, Eric said STU so the 2.0L limit is not important. other than the really big engines in ITS (TR8 and V6 pony cars) and the old datsuns still running around, most of the comon cars can run STU (FC RX7, the list you gave, miatas, KA24-DE power 240SXs, late Z31 300ZXs). so can a lot of ITA cars that are over displaced for STL (focus RS, 240SX with KA24E, BMW E30 325e, etc...)

Right! Sorry, missed the STU reference (STL thread, yo!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Because your BMW has a 2.5L engine. The class limit is 2.0L

And I'm not being flippant. That is exactly, completely, 100% why you are not allowed to compete in STL. We don't really care about performance potential; we recognize it's not likely to be competitive against "true" STL cars. That's beside the point.

---

...coughSTUCamaro....coughSTUMustang.....

As the man (generic) said, rules are rules...until they're not.

Having driven one of the largest engines in ITA, I feel your pain. We were in the same boat. ----- We even ran ITS with the car once, but that's another story.


13B is called a 13B for a reason... 1.3L. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRallo

13B is called a 13B for a reason... 1.3L. :D

---

Can I "call" my engine 0.9L? 'Cause if that's all it takes...

(Google it.)

Correct me here Greg but common thought process:

Even though the 13B may have 1300ish cc's of actual volume it acts like a 2-stroke. So they class it effectively as 2.6L because it has twice as many power strokes per revolution as a conventional piston engine...1 power stroke per rotor every revolution whereas the CPE has 1 PS every other revolution.

By that reason, the 325's M20 normally called 2492cc motor is actually a 1247cc's because that's what it uses in one revolution of the crank, so it's STL legal then :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Even though the 13B may have 1300ish cc's of actual volume it acts like a 2-stroke. So they class it effectively as 2.6L because it has twice as many power strokes per revolution as a conventional piston engine...1 power stroke per rotor every revolution whereas the CPE has 1 PS every other revolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

By that reason, the 325's M20 normally called 2492cc motor is actually a 1247cc's because that's what it uses in one revolution of the crank, so it's STL legal then :lol:

---

Right!

And if one wants to get pissy about it...go read the GCR Technical Glossary definition (which I don't agree with, and tried to get corrected...)