Printable View
Rules state something like IT cars may run at IT specs > does that include IT weight or the heavy STL weight?
ITB Golf at 2369? or IT weight of 2280 ( not sure if thatis right)
ITS Miata @ 2515 or IT weight 2375
Thanks, MM
I have a few guys looking at renting the cars for STL points.
I have no interest in the class overall.
I do like the max tire rules tho. well done.
MM
To run as an IT car in STL you must meet 100% of all IT specs, including weight. Any deviations from any IT spec and you must run to STL specs.
- GA
Thanks, that makes the most sense.
The STL rules don't specifically mention the IT RX8 like they do the RX7, but based on the "IT clause" would an 8 built to IT spec be legal?
STL regs allow 2L-and-under ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC cars. The RX-8 is an ITR car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark18
So...no.
Greg Amy: I thought I finally had a handle on the STL rules/specs. With your last response to CLARK18, I'm CONFUSED. Specifically, If the RX8 is an ITR classed vehicle and would not be allowed to run STL, why was it allowed to run STL at the Runoffs? If this vehicle was allowed to run I can only conclude that it was in full STL trim but its performance was far and away above other STL vehicles. Therefore, there is something I'm missing(additional information). Can you provide any info as to that vehicles' configuration such as which rotary engine(Renesis, 13B, 12A, 20B), and the required weight. Further, are there any plans or actions to reclass the RX8 to STU where IMHO it should be?
Mister Two, the RX-8 ran as a full-boat STL specs car. Allow me to clarify.
For the IT part of this discussion, I'm referencing this reg, on the table on page 564 of the November GCR:
ITS, ITA, ITB, or ITC vehicles with a reciprocating piston engine of 2L or less engine displacement. (1985-) / Must completely conform to ITCS specifications.
This means that any 2L or smaller IT car - except ITR cars - can race in STL using their ITCS specs*. Since the IT-spec Mazda RX-8 is in ITR, and it's a rotary engine, it is not eligible for inclusion in STL under the IT allowance.
However, scroll down to the next page in that same table, and you'll see that the Mazda Renesis engine is explicitly allowed into STL at 2970 pounds (almost 300# more than a 2L piston engine). Further note that STL is an engine-centric class, meaning we do not restrict much access to what chassis you can install these allowed engines into, only to add weight for RWD and subtract weight for FWD struts. Therefore, the Mazda RX-8 chassis is allowed - with the RWD adder - and it can run the Renesis engine with a base weight (before RWD adder) of 2970 pounds.
"So then", you may ask, "why not run ITR-spec RX-8 in STL?" Good question, and it's for a few reasons:
- The RX-8's ITR weight is too low at 2850; in STL, with the RWD adder, it currently must weigh 3074;
- Max wheel size in STL is 17x7; ITR allows 8.5" wide wheels;
- The stock brakes on the Mazda RX-8 exceeds STL's maximum rotor diameter allowance of 290mm;
- I'm guessing the ITR RX-8 uses tires that exceed STL's 225 section width maximum.
If someone is willing to change these items to comply with STL regs - as did the Huffmasters - then they can run in STL in the RX-8. But then they would no longer be compliant to ITR.
Make sense?
As for the Huffmasters' RX-8, I don't disagree with you that this should be an STU engine. Despite the significant weight disadvantage, what we're dealing with here is yet another Miata-like combination of a decent engine and a fantastic chassis with excellent balance, braking, and handling. The STAC/CRB recognize how well it's doing, and are considering adjustments. Nothing has yet been decided, keep eyes open for the next couple Fastracks.
- Greg
* In reality, this reg really only applies to the Integra Type R, Acura RSX, and Honda S2000.
So you are basically saying it is unlikely the STAC would consider allowing the ITR 8 to run in STL? It seems reasonable as the ITR 8 would be like limited-prep STL so it should be able to run lighter; it would have no aero, worse suspension and gearing, etc. The brakes would be larger but stock, not aftermarket like the STL car runs. The tires could be a bit larger too, but not much over the STL 225 so the advantage would be minimal.
IMO, the chances are damn near zero that the CRB will ever allow and ITR car to compete in STL using IT prep; the performance potential of ITR is too close to STL*. We already had that argument over the ITR RX-8 (and Type R, and RSX, and S2000) a couple years ago.
Plus, it would make for significant confusion for scrutineers, just as the inclusion of SMs did.**
- GA
* The key philosophical point here to keep in mind is inclusion of IT cars is not to offer a competitive place for them to play, but simply another place in the Majors (nee Nationals) to play. Further note that, on initial glance, any 2L-and-under IT car is already compliant to STL regs, with the exception that STL requires the lateral dash brace whereas ITx does not...so we specifically call out the allowance of IT cars to both avoid that cage issues and encourage participation.
** SMs are pulling restrictor plates and claiming to be ITS while running de-powered racks and/or other non-IT-allowed mods. When caught they claimed to be prepped to STL specs, but don't meet all those regs, either. It got so confusing that I had to create a "spotter's guide" for scrutineers to be able to figure out what's what.
Greg: Thanks for the info and clarification. FWIW money begets championships AKA speed is money; how fast do you want to go?
Yup. Super Touring - both classes - has the significant potential for some serious mega-bucks. And it becomes real "serious business" when it becomes Majors (Nationals) racing. - GA
I don't see a full built STL RX8 being any faster than an ITR RX8. No gearing advantages, and I am not sure you can get any suspension advantage. Aero ya, brakes I guess a bit better. I think they are doing the right thing staying consistent keeping ALL ITR cars out rather than picking a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark18
I ran mine in STU but it will never be fast enough for that class.
Stephen
STL requires power steering? really? Looped hoses is not legit?
Iwould be surprised if the ST board would make the same mistake that the IT B did.
Never mind on the STL rental thing than. :)
MM
Looping is allowed in STL (I do it). What the SMs are doing is using their SM-looping-allowed power steering racks and removing their restrictor plates for STL, claiming to be ITS cars. But, Improved Touring does not allow PS-looping so they are not compliant to ITS regs. So then they claim they're actually full-up STL cars, but are either running too low (SM does not have a ride height restriction), don't have the lateral dash bar (not required in SM, and/or are doing something else allowed in SM but not STL (such as all the head modifications). Thus my cheat sheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyinglizard
Can't pick and choose within the regs, gotta meet everything in whatever config you choose to run.
- GA
Makes more sense. Good move on the hose thing.
My car has or will have..
looped hoses- yes
no plate - yes
dash bar- yes
cam wheels -yes
header - yes
So needs to be @ STL weight I assume.
Yup.
Back to the STL RX8, I disagree the car needs to be slowed with adjustments. Huffmaster's is a well-driven/prepped car that has been developed over years; basically they spent the money to be STL fast (what some of you pointed out would happen). Their Runoffs times were not much better than other STL cars, and few if any of those cars are as developed for STL. I don't understand penalizing the RX8 because Huffmaster brought a car maxed to the STL rules, and spent the money to win.
I would also wait based on the simple fact that the Runoffs are headed to a track that is so much less HP dependent. STL is a class that will be very track specific in my mind. With cars in the same pocket in terms of HP-to-weight, but at vastly different HP levels, at a track like RA 210-215whp will be an advantage on the big end, even at 3000lbs.
Laguna will be interesting. Torque and nimbleness I think will be the recipe.
[Personal Opinion]
If it were up to me - and obviously, it's not - the Renesis engine would not be in STL at all. It does not meet the philosophy of this class in any regard, be it design (rotary), displacement (2.6L), or power (230hp). In my opinion, the Mazda Renesis engine is simply not an STL engine.
And I'm not opposed to the rotary part; I was the one that championed the 12A and 13B into STL, and allowing the ITA/ITS car in at IT specs. But neither of those have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive, so it was an easy "gimme" to let them come play in STL. The 230hp Renesis? Not so much.
I was vociferously opposed, on philosophical grounds, to allowing in the Renesis when it was initially proposed, even before we had any idea of its potential in the class, and well before we saw any racing results (let alone a pair of Runoffs wins with two different drivers). I continue to oppose its inclusion in the class; in fact, I submitted a new letter after this year's Runoffs requesting it be removed (not expecting that to actually happen, but to generate discussion). Of course, I've been voted down in committee each time.
But that's all water under the bridge now.
[/Personal Opinion, but still not STAC/CRB official position -- see sig]
Whatever the CRB does will be for the good of the class, not for or against any specific car and/or engine. The Renesis in STL is a done deal, the Club is not willing to exclude it. Thus, it is a target for adjustment toward this goal of This is Natio...err, Majors racing just as every other engine is, as the CRB retains the right and responsibility to ensure reasonably-equitable competition. And we're not just POOMA'ing this stuff; we have data from all the top cars from the last two years, so we know where each of them does well...
Again, nothing has been decided, except to consider doing something. Watch Fastrack for the results.
- GA, encouraging everyone to re-read my signature...
(Mickey... nervously thinking and pondering...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
I've walked around MRLS, raced around it on a bicycle, and in a car. I'm sorry, but I beg to disagree. MRLS is a HP track because it's like RA's front straight on every major straight... slow for turn 11, then front straight with a hill in it, slow for turn 6, the the whole straight is a hill, tap brakes for turn 7 and the whole straight is a hill. The secret to faster lap times at Laguna Seca is... Mor Powah/less weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Except that in STL, the formula is Mor Powah, Mor Weight. Someplace like RA is about overcoming aero drag. Weight plays little to no role in that. The climb is theoretically going to make weight count 'cause you gotta put potential energy into all that mass as it gets to the top of the Corkscrew.
K
EDIT - Of course, you get it all back coming DOWN...
K - does that include the additional energy gained for taking the Zanardi line?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB_k_wlr5Bc[/ame]
A ITS Prelude with a 2.3 motor cannot run as a STL? Asking before I start digging.
Thanks Rick
Nope. STL has a 2L limit. 2.3L is STU.Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzlesa
Thanks Greg
Rick, go with a type r and run in ITR as well. I think that is now eligible for STL. Maybe ask Greg first though, kinda confused on if you can do that or not but I think you could. Then we could run together again! :-)
Stephen
Intake cam non-compliant for STL....you could swap them between sessions if you wanted... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
Greg, what would be the weight difference?
Stephen
STL car would be 2430+2% = 2479. ITR car is 2535? Another concern is ITR allows +.5 points compression ratio which would put the Type R at 11.1, over the STL limit of 11:1 (but, in reality, not likely to be "scrutineerable"). Finally, remember that STL allows 17x7 wheels and 225 tires, so the ITR may be over that (though unlike your car, the brakes are fine).
- GA
Wowser... looks like that could be an awesome STL car. I am thinking Geoff may be interested in this. I will chat with him this week!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
also remember that a type R in ITR might be <2.0L but ITR cars aren't allowed in STL in IT trim, no matter what their displacement.
so it's an ITR car
or and STL car
or made compliant to both, which is really not likely given the cam.
Ya that is more complicated. How much power loss is that? (Hp and torque) any rough estimates?
Concur. It's possible to make a Type R compliant to both on all aspects...*except* the camshaft. Ignoring the intake camshaft, you could run 17x7 wheels and 225 tires, and only build your engine to 11.0:1 compression ratio (that extra 0.1 won't make a significant difference.) All those aspects are compliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
However, here's where the conflict in the regs comes with the cams. IT doesn't now allow anything but stock cams, and the stock intake cam on the Type R is about .460" total valve lift (official cam specs show less lift, but that's from 1mm lift measuring for duration). But STL only allows .425" total valve lift. So the IT cam is not compliant to STL regs, and you can't change the cam to the lower STL specs because that would be non-compliant to the IT regs. Otherwise, you could easily double up and run - likely reasonably competitively - in the Majors in STL.
Your next question is, "would you approve the ITR Type R into STL as-is?" No, not right now. Getting the B18C5 approved into STL was a bit of a fight, and there are some that expect it to be an overdog. There's also significant concern about "scrutineer-ability" with the "factory head porting". And both of those concerns have good basis. I suggest that if someone seriously runs one of these in STL for a couple years, we see its progress and get some dyno runs, could re-address it, but not for the next couple racing seasons. Let's let this shake out and see where it ends up.
- GA
Dunno, kinda doubt any Honda fan-bois have reduced the stock cams on their Hype Rs...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB