STL - what's going to be hot?

[lateapex911]

Allow me to clarify my esteemed STAC member/peer's comments...

There is currently no discussions about active adjustments in STL. While of course we reserve the right to consider making minimal vehicle-specific allowances in the future to attempt to equalize engine performance (e.g., intake manifolds, alternate throttle bodies, etc) that is NOT being discussed - or even being considered - at this time. STL is a Regional-only class, and although we - I - want it to be National it is not a focus for adjustments.

My personal vision for the class is to go with the "here's the chart, pick your car", but I am *very* open to the idea of limited allowances for specific cars to try and get the horsepower numbers up to the "goal" or bogey level. Given I'm personally planning on running STL, I don't want to participate in a one-marque, one-car class.

Though - and this is most assuredly my own opinion - since the vast majority of cars 2L and below are FWD, it will likely result in STL being a FWD-centric (though not -exclusive) class.



GA

Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

[CRallo]

Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Jake says most of what's been on my mind about this ruleset... Engines from other countries should with out a doubt be allowed! I also believe that people should be allowed to play in their respective manufacturer's parts bins.

Jake says very well what I've been thinking...

I'm also in favor of allowing brake upgrades up to a specific set of parameters.

In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

[Chip42]

100% agree with the 2 posts above. displacement + cam and CR limits = expected power. go to town. will probobly need some verbage to keep ITI / "motorcycle" throttles out (rare in automotive production applications, even in japan) or that all intake passes through a single inlet of max XXX in2. too limiting as is.

ditto STU. what's good for one is good for both in this case (with seperate but "equal" rules governing boost). I really appreciate the breakdown given by tGA and Chris above - I recognize the challenge that reining this thing in must be. again though - basic mechnaical limits on dispalcement, cam, compression, and inlet area for NA, some simple adders for driveline config, and let it shake itself out. personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#. I don' tknow about boost, but the current stock engine + restrictor to weight seems like it has the ability to be tuned to the NA cars pretty easily (the means are simple,the data and confidence to make the decisions obviously less so).

greater alternate parts allowancse and international OE motors have to be considered lest the cream of the US market offerings will rise and the classes will become the one-make series feared.

on edit - I think I'd even be open to "strokers" and the like - again, displacement to weight,so why not?. displacement is easy enough to verify, and requiring stock components just makes tech's job harder while limiting viable options in class.

plus it lets me have my JDM 3rd gen 3SGE (which, BTW, would get CRUSHED under the current rules, even though it would be illegal...)

[Matt93SE]

personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#.

although I agree with everything else you've said, I have to respectfully disagree here. The 1999 VTS for my car is "stock engine, euro cams, 225 width tires on 17x7 wheels, stock transmission." Yes, I can go either STU rules OR VTS, but compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!
But yes.. for a class that was initially intended for ex-WC cars, they're sure doing a good job of killing that with removal of the VTS allowances.

[Greg Amy]

The 1999 VTS for my car...compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!

Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU. Even if one were to accept that STU was/is a place for ex-WC cars, one cannot subsequently conclude that STU is a place for all ex-WC cars throughout history to be competitive. It's just not realistically possible, especially with a car such as yours with limited engine and transmission modifications.

Said differently, STU will give you a place to play for your old WC car, but the performance focus/goal is more toward what WC Touring looked like in 2009.

My suggestion is to remove the euro cams (unless they meet the STU specs) and begin developing the car to STU specs. I'm guessing you're probably lighter that way, anyway.

GA

[Matt93SE]

Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU.
[snip]
GA

Greg, I agree and was just mentioning that for the sake of mentioning it. the specs for ex-WC cars from 10 years ago are worlds apart from a car ran last year.
this is not such the case for IT and many other classes in SCCA that have had the same basic rulset for a decade.

As for my car, it's prepped within STU rules- I obtained a VTS for the 240 when I was initially considering running the car for ideas on how they were built. then I laughed at the prep compared to current WC cars and started scouring the STU specs again for places I could improve the car for the fewest thousand Benjamins.
and no I'm not worried about being nationally competitive right now. probably (most likely) never will be, but I'll do the best I can with the budget I've got.

[lateapex911]

When I first heard the proposal for a class based on WC cars, I asked, 'OK, but, exactly how many of those ARE there, and of those how many will show UP regularly!?" My thinking is, not that many.

My next thought was, "And if so, then what period are you going to allow, because the rules differ year to year, not to mention car to car. heck, Even the same MODEL car had varying rules from team to team!"

Then it was suggested that they'd open up to other makes and models. (Which I thought was an obvious necessity), but that brings up the third dimension in complication, how do you set rules for THOSE cars? I'd guess, that you'd choose a middle point of performance for the WC cars, reign in the fast ones, loosen up on the slow ones and align the rules package with that middle set that will race essentially unaltered.

But yea, what a labyrinth of confusion ....it's certainly conceivable in theory, but tricky in actual execution.

Naturally I like the idea of "Process adders" for STL...

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

[Chip42]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.

[lateapex911]

the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

Agreed. I'm trying to reconcile what I see as a gulf between theory (the classing system) and reality (what we will see in built cars on track)

start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.

Eggggsactly what i was thinking.
And I hate to say it, but the SIR thought did cross my mind, but only for a second!

[coreyehcx]

In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

This was my problem and why I chose STL, it would cost me more money to drop down to ITB where I was originally intending on running.

[Rabbit07]

For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

[coreyehcx]

I would be for non usdm motors for everyone. I know atleast in the Honda world JDM motors have more availability,lower price, and better performance than USDM.

I'm sure this would help out others wanting to be in the class.


I have a question about using a non vtec 1.8, what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? Assuming both motors are built to their fullest potential within rules specs?

Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?

Just curious.

[Greg Amy]

...what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? ... Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?

Negative, not at this time. However, theoretically, VTEC in and of itself is of no value to power, given both engines are allowed the same limits on compression and valve lift. The differences will come down solely to differences in head design, intake manifold, and throttle body.

GA

[coreyehcx]

Thanks Greg, I know vtec is not the difference in power but the head flow, intake manifold, and superior flow compared to the non vtec motors head which is where a lot of the power difference comes from.

I won't know until I finish my non vtec build within current specs and with the better torque numbers the non vtec motor makes, maybe it will balance out. The one advantage the non vtec motor has is the fact you can run a decent cam with the .425 lift max which is where the vtec motors are already close to stock at around ~.417 intake.


I would assume there are other manufacturers with similar situations.

[Matt93SE]

For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

I wrote mine in August. #2428. Looks to have been tabled for the most part. Do I need to start writing once a month?