Super Touring is IT

[pkeane2]

Thanks Tom, I am back under a new name. STU is going to be a good class.

Jhooten, the rules say you can peice part the dash back in. PK

[pkeane2]

Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

[xr4racer]

Peter, nice to meet you at the SCCA "meeting" at the PRI in Fla. I think once people understand that this is by far the easiest way to go National racing it will takeoff. Most on this site already have an eligible car, now you can do many other modifications and race at a different weight. How many years have some IT racers wanted IT to be a national class? I never did, but for those that did here is your chance. If there are 175 or so entries (2.5 per National) for STO and the same for STU in 2009 the classes will be included in the 2010 Runoffs at Road America. I would think that for IT people who normally race at Road America this is a no brainer. It will be tough to get entries this year because the Runoffs can not happen until 2010, but if some people enter their home track national races for more track time the Runoffs in 2010 will finally have IT cars.

Matt Miller

[JoshS]

I've gotta disagree, Matt.

This isn't a national IT class. It's one thing to "give it a go" in your IT car, but as soon as some cars built to the ruleset show up, it will cease to be fun. Actually converting an IT car to the ST rules in order to compete with those people would be very expensive and then you wouldn't have an IT car anymore.

With all due respect, Peter, I can't understand why the board would think that creating a new ruleset (and then re-creating it 2 years later) is more likely to result in some form of successful jolt to the national program than just allowing a bunch of existing well-built cars, that are built to a well-regulated ruleset, and driven well by active club racing members into the national program. The math just doesn't work for me.

[Knestis]

I've gotta disagree, Matt. ...

And not surprisingly, "me too!"

Any analysis of options, costs, whatever has got to compare apples and apples - 100%, top-flight cars. Either (a) the category will be a flop, in which case it won't matter; or (b) it will be a success - at which point people will want to be competitive. Competition drives costs to competitive right up to match the guy/gal who's willing to spend the most dough.

K

[xr4racer]

I did not want IT to go National, look at what happenned in Spec Miata. The first year SM was a national class there were tons of cars, then the reality set in. It became apparent to many that it was not that fun running 20th-dfl at nationals and it would take a whole lot of money to move up. Throughout the season entries dropped because many figured they would not accumulate enough points to go to the runoffs. The haves stayed in nationals and the have nots returned to regionals over the last few years.
I am only saying that if someone wants to try a national or just run at their hometrack more than at the regionals it is now a possibility. Also since NASA decided to take their Championships a couple of thousand miles west away from their recently grown base in the Midwest, this may give many NASA drivers a chance to run with th SCCA since many of their cars are beyond IT prep rules.
I also know that like in the SM case once real STO and STU cars show up the cost to be competitive skyrockets. Maybe over the next few years people will build purpose built cars to the rules and the class will succeed. If that happens what is wrong with the plan. We need all of the entries we can get.
The move to Topeka and the economy has decimated national racing in the Great Lakes and Northeast. It only takes 5 entries per national to make it one of the most successful National classes.
The best change is that the new rules are written to allow the STO class to run without SIR's ( which I deal with in GTL). It is very easy for someone that has a car that they want to modify more than allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock to run faster and still run Nationals

matt

[JoshS]

The best change is that the new rules are written to allow the STO class to run without SIR's ( which I deal with in GTL). It is very easy for someone that has a car that they want to modify more than allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock to run faster and still run Nationals

matt

But who are those people that want to do that? I keep my fingers pretty close to the pulse of the SS/T community and a think a huge majority want to restrict changes and make things cheaper. They're not looking for a place to make more mods to the same car and still play (except for the C5 Corvette guys who want to switch to a brake package that will last more than half a weekend.) SS guys don't even want to adopt T rules because they don't want to pay for shocks!

I just don't know where the cars built to that rule set are going to come from. I hear you that MAYBE you could get some east coast NASA crossover. Is that enough for a new national class?

[Z3_GoCar]

I've gotta disagree, Matt.

This isn't a national IT class. It's one thing to "give it a go" in your IT car, but as soon as some cars built to the ruleset show up, it will cease to be fun. Actually converting an IT car to the ST rules in order to compete with those people would be very expensive and then you wouldn't have an IT car anymore.

With all due respect, Peter, I can't understand why the board would think that creating a new ruleset (and then re-creating it 2 years later) is more likely to result in some form of successful jolt to the national program than just allowing a bunch of existing well-built cars, that are built to a well-regulated ruleset, and driven well by active club racing members into the national program. The math just doesn't work for me.

Hey Josh,

For us it might actually break even being ITR or going full bore STU:

STU:
2795 * 1.1 = 3075

ITR:
2800lbs

That's a 275lb weight break for not running cams, or getting a rear wing, or a custom multi-link. In the case of a 2.5, the break is definetly for STU where STU and ITR e-36 325 are both 2750, and with a 330 is close to the same at 3278.

[JoshS]

James, you have to assume that the "real" STU car that shows up is the best package for the ruleset, not the same car as your ITR car. It'll probably be something around 2000cc (2200 lbs) that makes the same or more power as an ITR car (up to about 250hp), and it'll handle way better, have a much stiffer chassis, and have aerodynamic aids.

It doesn't matter what ITR car shows up against that thing ... the ITR car won't win.

[titanium]

Super Touring is IT?
Answer - NO

Can you take your ITO, ITR, ITS, ITE, and run with a World Challenge GT or TC?
Answer - NO

As an IT racer that raced in the very first BP race at Sebring in January '07, and the very last one in November '08, I can tell you there is no way you can kid yourself in to thinking that you have any shot against a current WC team.

Brandon Davis is reported to have spent 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS of his own money building & developing EACH MUSTANG.

However, if you accept that you dont have a chance on outright speed, you can have a pretty good time and win some races when the WC teams dont show or break.

Also, you get to do some pretty cool mods to your car that IT racers can only dream about. Such as: Strech the wheelbase. Custom design your own rear suspension and not have to worry about using roll bar padding as your bushing material and an ifninite number of attachment points on your roll cage.

One side benifit to racing in BP/STO, I get a lot of compliments on my Mustang from 'ordinary' people at the track.
No 'ordinary' person ever came up to me an said, 'nice RX7'.
('ordinary' = non-racer)

[Z3_GoCar]

James, you have to assume that the "real" STU car that shows up is the best package for the ruleset, not the same car as your ITR car. It'll probably be something around 2000cc (2200 lbs) that makes the same or more power as an ITR car (up to about 250hp), and it'll handle way better, have a much stiffer chassis, and have aerodynamic aids.

It doesn't matter what ITR car shows up against that thing ... the ITR car won't win.

To get the full allowance of the rules, you'd have to start out with either a solid axle or semi-trailing arms, then transplant the rear suspension from a formula car ( fabricated suspension option.) The car would need a two liter option too. There's not a weight break for front wheel drive, so that's probably out at the 250hp level (maybe.) The stated purpose for allowing WC/TC cars, would also put them at a distict disadvantage too. According to the current VTS sheet for the TC e46 325 it should weigh 2750lbs with a speced stock cam, and ferrous flywheel, same as an ITR e36 325. Rules are silent on intake manifolds, so that's got to remain stock, and fuel injectors have to be in the stock location. So probably, unless the motor makes close to 200hp stock (probably with revs) there's not much chance for a 2liter making 250hp with cam and porting allowed and stock cranks. So I doubt there's an ideal car according to the current rules, but a Z3 coupe with an M-42 transplant and a fabricated rear suspension might be close.

Short of that, I say we could probably take'em.

[Knestis]

Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

The politicking is in the class's very existence. It's a solution to a problem that hasn't been clearly defined. Or maybe (a) it just hasn't been explained, or (b) I'm just slow to catch on. And to be fair, my bias - based on my experience - is that classes that get created to "give XXX a place to race" don't generally have much success. Include in that, classes that exist but get other cars catch-all'd into them.

Classes that are thought out with some kind of strategy in mind - or changes that are strategic responses to new opportunities, like the superbike-based DSR movement - hang in there.

Ultimately, I'll bet that the genesis of BP/DP can be traced back to a tiny handful of drivers who had the ear of someone with clout, and said, "Gee, I think it would be really awesome if I had a place to race this cool bastard car that I bought. Oh, yeah - and it would be a plus if I could do Nationals and get to go to the RunOffs." SURELY, it wasn't the result of someone sitting down and doing an analysis of how many ex World Challenge cars were sitting idle, and deciding that there was a better-than-even chance that they'd strum up enough of them to make a viable category.

I say this because the class was still brand new when people started tossing in other options to fill the fields - namely, IT. Now a name change. It just wasn't very well planned out, was it?

K

[mustanghammer]

Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.

Peter,

I have looked over the STU rules with respect to my 1st Gen RX7 and would like to see clarifications in some areas. Since these are not necessarily yes/no answers where can I send my questions?

For the record I still think that a full build RX7 EP car is allot cheaper than a full build RX7 STU car. However, some of the ST induction, suspension and brake allowances are interesting for someone just wanting to go faster than they do in IT.