STL - what's going to be hot?

[Rabbit07]

We are being very transparent with our adjustments. As I stated before we have started with STO. This being the most shook out of the classes so far. We discussed with all the main contenders in the class our intentions. We were able to gain their support based on the desire for parity. We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. The data boxes will likely be required at the June Sprints and the RunOffs. You can expect that to be the case for both STO and STU in this case. The STAC is looking at making it manditory for all of the ST classes when requested by an offical to carry a data box.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The STAC is looking at making it manditory for all of the ST classes when requested by an offical to carry a data box.

So for STL, the 'set it and forget it' via cc/weight method can NOT be counted on for those choosing a car right now?

[Rabbit07]

So for STL, the 'set it and forget it' via cc/weight method can NOT be counted on for those choosing a car right now?

Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter.

Power Number= Hp+Torque/2

Particularly if STL gains national status. It's the only way people are interested if they are planing on the RunOffs.

All this being said, some cars will not do well at Road America, but could absolutely rock at Lime Rock. This doesn't mean they are outside the box of STL,U,or O.

STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.

On Edit; Setting it and forgeting it isn't sustainable. It's the over achievers that we are looking for, not the under achievers. It's always easy to bring a few back than to speed the rest pf the class up. In the case of STO the big hitters were the Viper and LS7 Corvette making about 100 more in the power number than the rest of the class. They had there restrictor plates changed.

[Matt93SE]

STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.

And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.

[Rabbit07]

And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

[Chip42]

chris

the rules within the STU class have simply added question marks. the list of alternate cars is great, but makes no mention of swaps, if the weight indicated is as-raced or before adjusting up/down for FWD, etc...

other than that (cam, comp, etc...) the engine rules are pretty much the same, yeah. body rules took a bold step.

in all seriousness - what are the odds of a non-US market motor being allowed - in particular I am thinking of an evolution of the US market celica 2.0L sold from 86-89. the changes were pretty minimal outside of the intake manifold (longer runners, still single TB with plenum) and head (smaller ports) and some oiling stuff. motor came in 94-97 celicas and MR2 NA cars in Japan / europe/etc... it's a 3rd gen 3S-GE (NOT the "BEAMS" motor which is a pretty significant revision). main reason I want it is the head is already converted to shim-under-bucket so I can use the big cams w/out spending ~$1000 extra, head allows port+polish to tune vs. too-big ports a'la 4A-GE, and the oil pickups are easier to work with (added sub-block stiffener with oil filter adapter). and I can get them used with trans and ECU for ~$1000 at my door all day. I know making such an allowance is not within the post-august philosophy, but it's not like it's a 20v 4AG with ITBs and all that. thoughts?

[Matt93SE]

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

2010:

9.1.4.E. Engine
Alternate engines may be used, given that the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g. Acura engine installed into a Honda auto).

This states nothing about source of such engines. i.e. JDM, Euro, Aussie, etc is in play.

The chassis must be for a US-spec car, but the rule says nothing about the engine being US-only. Hellooooo JDM, Euro, Aussie engine swap.

2011:

9.1.4.G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine
installed into a Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America. The chosen engine must retain its
original cylinder head and intake manifold. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive
vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered.

No more JDM, Euro, Aussie engines now.

Nissan's options for the 240SX chassis are pretty much shot in the foot unless you want to rev the bejeezus out of a truck engine and rebuild it every few races.
The other options are putting 600+ lb of ballast in the car to run a VQ or VG, or you can install an L/A series engine that was designed in the 60s.
Nissan simply didn't sell any decent small-displacement RWD engines in the states.

OR... for $2500 you could drop in an SR20DET that came in the car on all the other continents and reach STU's targeted power/weight ratio. reliably. And the SR20DE was in the 89-99ish Sentra & 200SX, but all in FWD layout and you can't use the FWD head in RWD configuration due to the layout of intake and location of cam pos sensor and distributor (all on the "back" of the engine over the tranny... which would put it inside the firewall in an RWD layout.)

But allowing non-US engines makes too much sense to me. We'd better not do that.

[23racer]

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, , but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

[Rabbit07]

I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, , but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

Look for Fastrack updates.

[TomL]

Chris

"Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter. Power number= HP + torque/2."

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're talking about, but by "regulated", do you mean weights will be set on the assumption of 100 power number/liter? If so, I'll have a lot to say about this (like, "This is insane.")

Or am I missing something?

[Knestis]

... We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. ...

Oy.

You're setting the weight for a [whatever make/model] for the entire category, for an entire nation, based on data collected from (potentially) as few as one (1) example...?

Remember where I said there were three approaches, up above? Well, there's the fourth. It's like competition adjustments (bleah!) on meth...

All kidding aside, I am very worried about that. You're taking the one really good thing about the category-as-originally-designed and throwing it out the window.

K

[Rabbit07]

These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

[Knestis]

These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

[Rabbit07]

Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

Agreed, but in the long run I suspect we will be only dealing with a handfull of combinations also. Maybe a few dozen. Remember we are only interested in making sure that not one mark runs away with it. The "Over" achievers.

We are working towards a rules set and a performance envelope that should stay the same for many years. Most of what we are working on is closing loop holes and the like. We need to slow the rules creep issues.

On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.

[Chip42]

On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly

require a factory service manual. as many of these were sold in australia and the UK, they exist, in english. In large part, they are versions of motors sold in the US, so much is alread "verifiable" and much of what isn't is relatively open in the rules (cams and the like) - the big differences tend to be component orientation (manifolds, distributors, etc..) and design. rarer are the never-in the us motors like the RB nissans, but there is such an enthusiast following for those families of motors that I REFUSE to accept the supposeition that it would be hard to police. allow the motors on a per-request basis, and require appropriate documentation with that request or deny it. what's so hard there?

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.

if they would have to be de-cammed anyhow, why bar the B18C5 (teg tR) and F20C (S2k) hondas?