November Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Cheater! You left out my last two lines:

- Interesting more-modern competition? There's no way a Spitfire or a Fiat or Datsun or a MGB will ever be competitive in this class. So they'll stay in Prod. Except Miatas.
- The rules are out there, you make your choices, warts and all. NO WHINING!!!

Two really big downsides for me.

And in another 10 years, it wouldn't surpise me if almost all the cars running Prod are LP.

...and when that happens and everyone's using the same ruleset without tons of rules changes to try and make everything and everyone competitive, then I very well may change my mind... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And in another 10 years, it wouldn't surpise me if almost all the cars running Prod are LP.

Or if they were actually concerned with the GROWTH of prod, phase out full-prep INTENTIONALLY in the next 5 years and bring prod back to earth.

[JamesL]

Cheater! You left out my last two lines:

- Interesting more-modern competition? There's no way a Spitfire or a Fiat or Datsun or a MGB will ever be competitive in this class. So they'll stay in Prod. Except Miatas.
- The rules are out there, you make your choices, warts and all. NO WHINING!!!

Two really big downsides for me.



...and when that happens and everyone's using the same ruleset without tons of rules changes to try and make everything and everyone competitive, then I very well may change my mind... - GA

I guess I figured the rule package itself would be more important than the age of the competition... but it is a valid point. But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.

What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class? Do you actually believe the SCCA will just sit back and say "too bad" to all the other engine/chassis combos?

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.

Or if they were actually concerned with the GROWTH of prod, phase out full-prep INTENTIONALLY in the next 5 years and bring prod back to earth.

I would rather see it phased out gradually as the cars become... well... obsolete? Maybe "less competitive" is a better term. As long as a 1960s British roadster has a chance of winning, someone out there is going to want to race one. Especially the older racers.

...Rather than alienate a whole segment of their customers. Prod keeps getting faster and faster, but what other allowances can you continue to grant a full prep car already built to the limit of the rules?

[quadzjr]

I guess I figured the rule package itself would be more important than the age of the competition... but it is a valid point. But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.

What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class? Do you actually believe the SCCA will just sit back and say "too bad" to all the other engine/chassis combos?

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.

I assume the same, however it was brought to their attention prior to the rules and they said they were aware of the potential dominace of honda's in teh class but made no changes. They like the simplicity of disp->weight. To make it work and to be as "fair" as possible you will have to set your weight per engine similiar to how they do it in GT.

[Greg Amy]

But I don't buy that there won't be rule changes and adjustments made if STL goes National.

Neither do I. But I'll give it my best effort to resist it to the end. And if, in the end, it becomes another version of Prod, well then my interest in it wanes...

What is to keep a Honda+K20 with a reground intake cam to fit the .450" or whatever spec, from dominating the class?

Speaking in generalities the STAC has indicated its willingness to ban engines that they believe have a power-to-weight greater than class expectations (Type R B18C5 and S2000 F20C). How far they're willing to carry that is open to debate.

As for the K20 specifically, there's talk of adding it to the list of banned engines. However, I think that to be a bad idea, as it would eliminate all 4-cyl Hondas, 2002 onward, from the class*.

I would rather see [non-LP cars] phased out gradually as the cars become... well... obsolete? Maybe "less competitive" is a better term.

You can do this a couple of ways, either by gradually increasing weights and/or reducing mods to the full-prep cars, or by gradually reducing weights or granting allowances to the LP cars. But I'd only support this idea if it were codified in the philosophy of the class and send to the membership for feedback. While I like the idea of a benevolent dictatorship's guiding hands moving the category forward, we are in the end a club and subject to the demands and desires of the membership...

GA

* Although, as noted in another thread ("what is hot") I personally think that the K20A2 - the 200-stock-pony version in the RSX-S, with already-at-11:1 compression and with ground cams - will not dominate. This is due to three reasons: one, the 170-pony-stock B18C1 gets an extra point of compression during build and already has cams at the limit; two, the engines are installed in cars with strut suspensions, designs that have been shown to be problematic in professional racing (e.g., Grand Am and World Challenge) and their installation into the earlier chassis is not clearly legal; and, most importantly, three, the K20 carries a 260-pound weight disadvantage to the 1.8-liter. I think the power-to-weight favors the B18 and other 1.8 liter engines.

[JamesL]

* Although, as noted in another thread ("what is hot") I personally think that the K20A2 - the 200-stock-pony version in the RSX-S, with already-at-11:1 compression and with ground cams - will not dominate. This is due to three reasons: one, the 170-pony-stock B18C1 gets an extra point of compression during build and already has cams at the limit; two, the engines are installed in cars with strut suspensions, designs that have been shown to be problematic in professional racing (e.g., Grand Am and World Challenge) and their installation into the earlier chassis is not clearly legal; and, most importantly, three, the K20 carries a 260-pound weight disadvantage to the 1.8-liter. I think the power-to-weight favors the B18 and other 1.8 liter engines.

Hmmm... maybe I missed something in the proposed rules, but why would the K20 not be allowed in the older Hondas?

260lbs is a lot to overcome. I am not familiar with the OEM cam specs on the B18C1. How much hp would you say a STL built B18C1 would make? Maybe 175whp?

The K20 will probably not be a class killer with the OEM cams. But that engine responds very wells to cams with slightly more duration. The TSX cams are a good example, with more duration and a little more lift on the exhaust cam(right at .450 actually). My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts. Coupled with how well the K20 head flows... I could see a 9krpm STL K20 being pretty competitive.

[Greg Amy]

Hmmm... maybe I missed something in the proposed rules, but why would the K20 not be allowed in the older Hondas?

On the face of it the idea of the swap itself is legal, but "questions have been raised" here about the legality vis-a-vis completely rotating the engine the other way, flipping the engine trans, physically removing some mount brackets off the rails, and still staying within the intent of the motor mounts and engine relocation rules (STL allows alternate mounts but specifically points out you cannot relocate the drivetrain).

How much hp would you say a STL built B18C1 would make? Maybe 175whp?

Our ITS engine was making 160+ whp, so there's room to grow.

My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts.

It would be an interesting pursuit, though keep in mind that you can't change the intake manifold or t-body...and you can't use the K20A parts legally.

But if it can be done, someone certainly will, eventually.

GA

[JeffYoung]

There are ITS Integras out there NOW making 175 whp, and supposedly 180+ is possible.

[shwah]

You can do this a couple of ways, either by gradually increasing weights and/or reducing mods to the full-prep cars, or by gradually reducing weights or granting allowances to the LP cars.

Seems you would get the same thing if you just stopped adjusting the level 1 cars.

The class WILL get faster around them. That is some sort of law of physics I think. I mean club racers are knocking on the door of a sub 2 minute lap at Road America fercrissakes - something the bad ass CanAm cars in their glory days were trying to do in '71 & '72.

[mossaidis]

The K20 will probably not be a class killer with the OEM cams. But that engine responds very wells to cams with slightly more duration. The TSX cams are a good example, with more duration and a little more lift on the exhaust cam(right at .450 actually). My guess is that you could build a STL legal 225whp K20 pretty easily with the right combination of parts. Coupled with how well the K20 head flows... I could see a 9krpm STL K20 being pretty competitive.

Another observation: max valve lift for 4-valve/cyl is .425, not .450... ugh.

[Bill Miller]

, we are in the end a club and subject to the demands and desires of the membership...

GA

Now THAT is funny!

[Chip42]

I suspect tables and charts will begin to form that list certain engines at above or below the "standard" weights in an effort to create parity amongst the competition.

already begun - the Nissan VQ30DE is allowed in STU under "alt engine specs". despite the glaring differences, STU and L are in the same category so this could be carried over to allow alt cams, compression, TB or intake, or whatever (other than in cases of FWD engine to RWD application, which is legal despite being not legal because you can't move the motor...) This way they could "help" or slow a paerticularly good or bad engine and still have their precious displacement to weight formula.

alternatively, "base weights" could be established for specific motors that replace the 1.3lbs/cc rule in those instances. this would still allow for swapping with the appropriate layout modifiers wihtout extensive rules.

they could also allow non-USDM motors to open up competition. even if only in the same family as US market offerings: toyota's later 3S series (up to the BEAMS), 20v 4AG's, etc... as most of the asian makes have sportier small engines available, just not here. the same might be true for ford/GM of europe/Australia, I'm not sure.

but they probobly wont do any of that. just like they wouldn't allow open (tto a limit) brakes as in STO/U. seems they like their rules just fine how they are, thank you.

[lateapex911]

Ok, you Honda types...my head spins with your K20 and B18 and K20A talk. Simple question raised by the last post...can one run an S2000? or swap a motor in ? If so, which motor, how much power and would it be competitive? I'm trying to get a handle on how this class is a "class" as opposed to a nearly defacto 'spec class"

[Chip42]

An "S2000" is legal. yes. but the stock motor is specifically NOT legal. same for an integra type R.

rules allow for swaps - but there's also a rule saying that engine position cannot be modified - so strict interpretation says you can't do a K-series into car that came with a F,H,D, or B series motor (most civics, 'tegs, 'ludes, etc..) as honda turned them around for the K (traditionally honda engines had been driver's side, K's are reversed from that).

the location rule makes transverse to longitudinal swaps a grey area in some ways, but it's "obvious" they are allowed - so any legal engine, some K20s, B18s, etc.. could be swapped into the S2000 chassis but would need an approved intake manifold from i don't know what.

[Chip42]

with regard to competitiveness:
STL rules add a 2.5% weight penalty for RWD. With the likely motor being the B18 or K20, you're already in the heavy end of the field so the penalty is the steepest in terms of pure mass.
weights: 1800cc = 2340# FWD, 2400# RWD, 2000cc = 2600# FWD, 2665# RWD.

find a "good" strut car and the weights get lower for FWD.

The S2000 could certinaly be made competitive as it's advantages are likely worth the extra weight - but it's still a lot of weight at 2.0L. either way, you have to find the right mainfolds and stuff, and generally the rules are poorly worded when it comes to swaps between different layouts.

[Terry Hanushek]

already begun - the Nissan VQ30DE is allowed in STU under "alt engine specs". despite the glaring differences, STU and L are in the same category so this could be carried over to allow alt cams, compression, TB or intake, or whatever (other than in cases of FWD engine to RWD application, which is legal despite being not legal because you can't move the motor...) This way they could "help" or slow a paerticularly good or bad engine and still have their precious displacement to weight formula.

alternatively, "base weights" could be established for specific motors that replace the 1.3lbs/cc rule in those instances. this would still allow for swapping with the appropriate layout modifiers wihtout extensive rules.

they could also allow non-USDM motors to open up competition. even if only in the same family as US market offerings: toyota's later 3S series (up to the BEAMS), 20v 4AG's, etc... as most of the asian makes have sportier small engines available, just not here. the same might be true for ford/GM of europe/Australia, I'm not sure.

but they probobly wont do any of that. just like they wouldn't allow open (tto a limit) brakes as in STO/U. seems they like their rules just fine how they are, thank you.

The ST category is starting to look very much like the Production category with the potential of endless adjustments to equalize performance. Both ST and Prod are in the gap between limited preparation (SS / T / IT) and all out preparation (GT). Once major adjustments are permitted to the stock configuration, there will be no end to the lobbying to help a certain car (or certain engine) in a continuing tug-of-war between the different makes / models.

If you have an aversion to prod cars because of the amount of adjustments and relative instability of the rules, my suspicion is you may not be a good candidate for STU / STL.

YMMV

Terry

[Steven McWilliams Jr]

Why doesn't SCCA just combine classes instead of creating them? To me it seems simple to make/combine a class that has performance equal to a modern street car and then go from there. Any car can be in that class,with anything done to it, as long as its times are close to the other cars competing in the class, or the base car. Weight will be the factor to maintain competitevness. I already see this available to many SCCA Classes. For example, growing up in formula cars, the FE and FC run VERY simular times. The FE can be the less adjustable way to get into a fast open wheel car, and FC can be the tinkerers way of turning the same laptimes.

Steven
Sorry to interrupt things

[mossaidis]

Ok, you Honda types...my head spins with your K20 and B18 and K20A talk. Simple question raised by the last post...can one run an S2000? or swap a motor in ? If so, which motor, how much power and would it be competitive? I'm trying to get a handle on how this class is a "class" as opposed to a nearly defacto 'spec class"

I began looking into that myself and I can add one thought to thread above The motor outlined as "outlawed" by STL rules is the USDM F20C. Honda did make other F-series motors in both 2.0 and 1.8l form (in both SOHC and DOHC) yet unfort most of them were JDM/EDM. There is a lot of mystery whether a F20x existed for the USDM with enough potential for a S2000 swap (edit: which is VERY doubtful even if one a f20 usdm existed).

http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1139084

More food for thought.... which is cheaper (time) vs building (money).

[Andy Bettencourt]

I still fail to see what would ever be able to run with a built 1.6 or 1.8L CRX/Teg in STL. The head design of the B-Series Mazda just won't make the power. One quick call to Flyin' Miata will verify potential output from their N/A engine program. Maybe 170whp.

[Rabbit05]

For some reason I cant seem to find the STL rules. Probably my lack of coffee this morning.

And for my own clarrification..STL is a 2.0 L and under class ??

Soooo..its going to be a spec-honda-mazda-Acura class ?

I got all excited ..thinking about dumping a 2.6L eurovan motor into my Audi Coupe. Then I saw the STO/U weight to displacement and that would put my car at 2860 lbs ,according to that rule set. I am going to add some tank tracks and a turret....schnell.... I know the car wouldn't be too competitive..but it would be fun to play around with the car..or at least have an option to.

If I did modify the Coupe..would I be in STU ?