August 2010 Fastrack

[GTIspirit]

is posted
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-aug.pdf

Looks like crankfire ignition remains allowed for use by only those cars which came so equipped from the factory, precluding older cars from using this same thing.

Improved Touring
1. #1450 and others (Multiple) Crank trigger ignition inputs

The CRB thanks all who wrote on this topic for your input. No change to the sensor allowance will be recommended at this time.

[Prof. Chaos]

Looking at STL, how do people read the weight rule? Does a Miata sporting the 1839cc motor fall under 1900cc or 1800cc for weight? Either the Miatas shed 40 pounds or gain 90 vs. running in ITA. I assume you round up.

[Dave Gomberg]

G. Weight Requirements
1. Minimum weights for cars with piston engines will be determined by 1.3 lbs/cc displacement for the installed engine (see following table). Displacement is determined by the factory displacement for the installed engine. Cars with 3 valves/cylinder engines may reduce their weight by 1 percent. Cars with 2 valves/cylinder engines may reduce their weight by 2 percent. For weight assignment purposes engine displacement will be rounded to the nearest 100cc (e.g., 2150cc = 2200cc and 2149cc = 2100cc).

So 1839 goes down to 1800 at 2340 lbs.

Dave

[Jeremy Billiel]

I don't get it... Whats the intention of STL?

[xr4racer]

1. To allow many IT type cars to do more modifications and run nationals, without spending the money it would take to run STU.
2. To get more money and cars for the nationals and runoffs.

matt

[GTIspirit]

I don't get it... Whats the intention of STL?

Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight.

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

[Prof. Chaos]

Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight.

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

The way I read the rules, STL is IT only with Production-class motors. I think that's pretty exciting, I'm just wondering who's going to spend the money for a Prod motor for their IT car. It sounds like fun...but it also sounds like I'd be spending another $10k.

[Z3_GoCar]

OOH, engine swaps. S-14 powered Z3 with a two stage dry sump, six speed sequential transmission, or maybe go the other way and swap a 4.9 liter V8 and run STO....

[JoshS]

The weights don't compare to IT weights because IT sets weights by power-to-weight ratios, and ST sets weights by displacement-to-weight ratios.

[Chip42]

Is it just me, or does STL look like limited prep production (pardon me, i mean "prep level 2") trading slicks and flares for limited motor and trans swaps? actually, transmissions are more limited than in prod...

I want calipers (and JDM motors)! I don't see why they stuck to stock brakes, kills the parity other ST classes shoot for. honestly, given the build cost, aftermarket 4-pot calipers would seem reasonable (they are not expensive)and probably safer given the power output and weight likely to occur in small (light) cars with brakes never meant to deal with that workload. Still - the weights are unachievably low for many smaller engined cars. oddly, in an mr2, any STL legal motor swap (1 or 2zz, 3SGE, etc..) would shed weight from the car and add it to the min as raced.

on another note, the clarification to update backdate I requested came back as specline addition rather than small rules creep. kudos for the consistency, but It's gonna get damned hard to keep up with all those specs of otherwise identical cars. there are already inconsistencies to be resolved.

oh - and we killed the ITS civic Si yo ITA thing. huzzah!

[mossaidis]

I am still digesting the proposed ST changes. That is, as I read it, the STAC is trying to bring ITA-B-C cars into the STL fold w/o too many mods. I wonder if this is Nationals way of saying... "ah, if you want to go national, go ST" instead of making IT national. uh.

STO/U rules were clarified and easier to understand. For those complaining with about STL restrictions, can't add a turbo? or go STU with less weight and why not add a turbo as well? I think the idea STL/U is to build class rules w/o having to monkey around with model line specs. Then again, I saw references to [table here] where model line specs would go and I got nervous.

[Gregg]

I am still digesting the proposed ST changes. That is, as I read it, the STAC is trying to bring ITA-B-C cars into the STL fold w/o too many mods. I wonder if this is Nationals way of saying... "ah, if you want to go national, go ST" instead of making IT national. uh.

When speaking of Nationa racing, I've now personally heard Bob Dowie twice say something along the lines of "IT drivers can't go National Racing. Now we've fixed that."
I do find it odd, though that the only two cars specifically excluded from STL are the Honda S2000 and the Integra Type R.

[Knestis]

There's a gulf between "can go racing" and "can compete."

One standard that the ITAC was pretty good about while I was involved, was the "assume people will build to the limit of the rules" rule. If the stated policy purpose of STL is grounded in people doing entry-level, minimum-commitment efforts, that purpose is going to be blown away the minute someone does it right. That happened to IT, it will happen to STL.

If the intent was to let IT cars run Nationals, we were one rule change from allowing that to happen. Gawd, I hate these shenanigans.

K

[JamesL]

Kind of disappointing that open brakes aren't allowed in STL, and the line about "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" is kind of confusing.

If engines and trans can be swapped between STL legal cars, why not simply state that brakes can be as well?

Edit: Also kind of bizarre that OEM ABS is allowed in STO and STL, but not in STU. You would think that all STL cars would, by default, be STU legal... given the way they outlined the rules.

[EV]

Kind of disappointing that open brakes aren't allowed in STL, and the line about "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" is kind of confusing.

If engines and trans can be swapped between STL legal cars, why not simply state that brakes can be as well?

Edit: Also kind of bizarre that OEM ABS is allowed in STO and STL, but not in STU. You would think that all STL cars would, by default, be STU legal... given the way they outlined the rules.

Ya, what does "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" mean. Does that mean that if you can fit accord brakes on a civic (for example), it would be legal, but Brembo's wouldn't be... How odd....

[Knestis]

Ya, what does "alternate brakes from the OEM manufacturer will be considered" mean. Does that mean that if you can fit accord brakes on a civic (for example), it would be legal, but Brembo's wouldn't be... How odd....

It means you need a bud in the decision-making process in order to get your spec line the way you want it.

:026:

K

[EV]

It means you need a bud in the decision-making process in order to get your spec line the way you want it.

:026:

K

This is starting to sound more like the 24 hours of Lemons B.S. inspection. PTE is looking better and better every day.

[erlrich]

I'm starting to think our current CRB is extremely 420 friendly...

[Chip42]

I've been looking at ST for a little while now, and frankly I was upset at first by the limitations and restrictions of STL vs STU - particularly the calipers.

but I started running guesstimates of hp popular engines from IT and the weight of said engines in popular platforms. looks like everythign I can imagine will be 10-11 lbs/hp. brakes and suspension will drive the ideal chassis selection as much as driveline configuration, weight penalties/resductions, and aero. adding open (4 pot max)calipers and a max diameter rotor like in STU would help iron things out even more.

I'm happy with the limited suspension mods, and I think the motor rules are nearly perfect, though as a toyota guy, I would prefer JDM allowance as most of toyota's USDM stuff sucks. at least we can see a path to a MkI MR2 that allows power adders like FP but weight that's approaching achievable and a swap to a head that can make power, even in a 4AGE. factory brakes work well enoguh at this weight. will sure beat mopping up the rear with ITC.


the best part is that (until they start adding stupid spec line messes) the politics are mostly out. this is another reason to just blanket rule the brakes and be done with it. no more car by car guesses and stuborn CRB issues, no big messy updates that always leaves things out. no more guessing. parity of the common dimensions and allow swaps within the brand. strait weight calcs. it's what IT could have been if everyone were ok with pitching 2k at the already insanely expensive motor builds for what amounts to "stock plus". My in-process MR2 will never see an ITB sticker now, and I can't tell you how happy that makes me. hopefully I can get convince steve and mike to do liekwise.

Thanks to the ITAC for trying, I know you guys have been.

[shwah]

Me neither. Let's take the '87 GTI 16V for example. Published 1780cc, rounded to the nearest 100 is 1800cc*1.3lb/cc=2340lb, which is over 100lbs more than the ITA weight.

Where does this STL class fit into the overall club/national racing class hierarchy?

You might consider using the weigt break for fwd strut suspension as well.

And of course if you run an 8v you get a weight break as well.

The way I read the brakes allowance, you need to request it.

I think the class sounds fun. If I ever get my other B car done, I may convert the current one to this spec...