The Philosophy of Super Touring...

[Greg Amy]

...but more specifically, that of STL.

And before we get started, I'd like to make clear that anything I say here is intended as constructive criticism. I'm really digging this new category and fully intend to be a part of it, so I want to see it successful.

Also, I want to re-iterate my thoughts on how to write a rule:
https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=22779

In another topic, the following comments appeared:

Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them.

That [modification in STL] does make it inconsistent with what IT cars can do today.

So what truly is the philosophy of Super Touring? Without a clear core philosophy against which to judge changes, it is impossible to be consistent. The following is written in the "Purpose" section of the newly-proposed category rules:

"The intent of this category is to allow a level of preparation for cars similar to that of World Challenge cars."

That's it? World Challenge cars? So 'splain to me why we're removing the allowances for World Challenge VTS? And how does STL fit into that philosophy? Given I don't think there's a clear anwser for either of those points, I'd like to suggest that one of the first orders of business is to clearly voice a core philosophy for this category. Once that's written down (call it the category's "mission, vision, goals") then it makes all other decisions about the category and its classes that much easier.

I suggest - and this is purely an inference on my part - that the core philosophy was originally as stated, that it's a place for World Challenge cars. I heard rumors that the category was pushed over from the Pro side, that Pro wanted some place in Club for their cars to play. And I think that's a great idea! But I'm getting the feeling that Club did not have the technology and/or manpower to properly police such a varying set of rules (e.g., anyone here have experience with the 2001 WC rules?) so they wanted to re-develop the rules to coincide with the current WC rules. And that's fine by me, I just hope that the rules do not alienate existing STO/STU cars (e.g., I'm aware of at least one team whose WC-legal Hondas are not legal to the new STU rules due to JDM engines, compression, and "Frankenstein" builds.)

More thoughts to come.

GA

[Greg Amy]

OK, so STx is for World Challenge cars. But what about ST Light? This class, with its reduced amount of allowed modifications, clearly does not fit into that World Challenge mindset, unless one were to go way back to the rules circa 1995 or more. And if one were to do that you'd find a lot of inconsistencies.

So what's the point of STL?

STL came out of the blue for me right around July this year. I understand it's been in the works for a while, but I didn't hear about it until then. And I instantly loved the concept! I've always been a fan of World Challenge but knew I could never afford to be competitive. But something along the lines of Improved Touring Plus can be done.

Where did STL come from? Was it truly, as the rumors indicate, a way for Improved Touring cars to compete Nationally? If so, why do the STL rules vary significantly from IT? On the other hand, was it simply another "bracket" in the category structure to allow slower cars to compete, such as we do for T1/T2/T3 and GT1/GT2/GT3 and so forth? If so, why do the preparation rules vary significantly from the other classes?

More likely than not, STL was conceived as a compromise between the two, as a way for IT cars to compete in a category of prep that's only slightly more than IT, but significantly less than full-up World Challenge. Honestly, it's almost as if STL should be its own category...

And that creates a significant philosophical problem. If you hold up the STL ruleset against the World Challenge dart board, you'll get a lot of folks saying that there's some reasonable mods that should be allowed but are not (e.g., alternate brakes, alternate control arms). If you hold up the ruleset against the IT rules and the "let's go National mindset", you'll get a lot of folks saying that doing things like alternate rods are way past what should be allowed. So we're stuck in this "tweener" situation where it's very unlikely that STL will not please many people and is, from the get-go, set up for failure...

GA

[Greg Amy]

So what's the solution? First and foremost, sit down and develop a clear philosophy for the STL class. My personal desires for the class would be to create something that allows for a level of prep and modification that exceeds Improved Touring, but stays well clear of the "all out" mindset of STU. In my mind, that philosophy would allow modifications that meet the following criteria:

- Is it "easy" to do? Can you bolt the items on or does it require significant fabrication or engineering skills?
- Are aftermarket options for this easily available? Can you buy those parts off-the-shelf somewhere or do you have to fabricate them?
- Is it reasonably inexpensive? Are those bolt-on, off-the-shelf items relatively cheap to do?
- Is it common on the street? Is it something that "kids" do to their street cars when they buy their first car?
- Is it something that's not permanent, something that can easily be "undone" to put the car back to a lesser level of prep (e.g., Improved Touring)?

Some items that immediately come to mind over what we do in Improved Touring is:

- engine mounts
- battery relocation
- shifters
- plastic body parts
- alternate control arms
- alternate brakes
- etc.

Things like that. Don't get me wrong here: I'm not stating that allowing this-or-that can't get expensive, can't be fabricated better, and/or can't be hard to do (and I fully expect someone clever to retort by linking to a $20k brake package). Of course it can. I'm talking "generally speaking" here. My general rule of thumb is that if an option exists in the JC Whitney catalog (granted, not a "quality" option, but one nonetheless) then it's a probably good candidate to be considered for STL.

Once that general ideal is agreed upon, then let's create a clear and concise philosophy for STL, based on a combination of both IT and ST stated purposes, and write it down and make it part of the rules. My first shot off-the hip suggestion is to put this in the STL section, even making it Part A, Philosophy:

Super Touring Light is intended to provide the membership the opportunity to compete in widely-available vehicles of 2-liters displacement and under, allowing limited racing modifications trending toward World Challenge/STU preparation but remaining well below that level, those of relative ease of availability and economy. No STL modification will exceed that of STU, thus the cars will be legal for that class; members who wish to exceed STL level of preparation are encouraged to participate in STU.

Regardless of the words used, this needs to be hashed out and codified. Then, all requests and adjustments will have a benchmark against which to be judged.

Thoughts?

GA

[Knestis]

An EXCELLENT question - the question, in fact, that should have been answered by someone in the Club Racing department BEFORE any rules were drafted.

Right now, we're in a place where a bunch of people think ST[whatever] is the right answer to their personal question, but they're not all asking the SAME question. That's a recipe for disaster, as people try to steer micro-level decisions to their macro-level expectations of the category.

Since I don't have immediate plans to jump into ST, I'm either exactly the wrong guy to have an opinion, or exactly the right kind depending on how one looks at it. That said, I think Greg's on the right track, which is not surprising given our conversations about "Modified Touring" a few years ago.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

I'd propose that one acid test could be that it should be possible to convert an STL car (looking specifically at that class, as indeed a different thing from the others) into an IT car with typical garage tools. I'm not saying it has to be economical - nothing in racing lives up to that measure - but it should be DOABLE.

K

EDIT - e.g., seam welding or additional chassis/cage mounting points would *not* survive this test. Nor would cutting out chassis sheet metal or changing suspension pick-up points.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think Greg should IMMEDIATELY apply to be on the STAC. This IS the kind of thinking and question generation that leads to a class that can be around for more than a couple years.

Imagine, defgine, implement. To me, STL is what STU was meant to be.

[Greg Amy]

I'd propose that one acid test could be that it should be possible to convert an STL car...[back?] into an IT car with typical garage tools....seam welding or additional chassis/cage mounting points would *not* survive this test.

Damn fine point, Kirk. I agree 100%. STL does not currently (and will not, if I have anything to say about it) allow moving pickup points, and I am dismayed at the seam welding allowance for STL (it's actually allowed for all cars in the category.)

I'd even consider adding in something to my philosophy to that effect, even call out It by name.

I just re-read our MT rules; you know we did that in 2005, right? Over five years later and it still makes sense...that was a good set of rules, a melding of Improved Touring concepts with WCT allowances. Too bad HPM is no longer, they made the 48" spec wing for World Challenge Touring back then...

On edit: Andy, thanks, but I think you're high. I'll be glad to offer my point of view when asked, and I'll even volunteer to help out on occasion. But I have this sneaking suspicion that my intolerance of the politics and glacial progress would get the better of me way too soon...call me a consulting engineer...

[mossaidis]

^^ I second that! The other sub-text to adding STU and STL would be what seems (referencing other threads here) is CRB desire to set weights based on valve lifts and displacements. STx allow us to do so in a homogeneous manner in their eyes.

[lateapex911]

Yes, I was sorta "in" on the STL ruleset when it was first getting drafted, and I struggled to understand the intent. STO and STU were clearly WC based. (You can argue whether that is really a 'good" idea, or not...), but STL was clearly different. So much so that I commented to the drafter of the rules that it might be a different category. Or that maybe it SHOULD be a different category. It was pointed out that it was the same category because of the use of a formula based on engine parameters to determine race weight.

Well, ok, but...

I've been on the outside looking in since then, and have scratched my head at the goal. But when I saw the "Maybe we'll add big brakes later" in the post her by a STAC guy, I got VERY alarmed. That says, to me, "We have this category that we've created, but we really don't know what it is, and we're shooting from the hip."

Oh boy.


Seam welding is allowed? Accck, I missed that. Kirk, great idea on a 'litmus test' to define a go/no go boundry. And yea, Greg and Kirk should absolutely be added to the STAC.

Somehow, I don't see the PTB thinking THAT would be such a cool idea. I fear they LIKE shooting from the hip....

[Z3_GoCar]

... But I'm getting the feeling that Club did not have the technology and/or manpower to properly police such a varying set of rules (e.g., anyone here have experience with the 2001 WC rules?) so they wanted to re-develop the rules to coincide with the current WC rules. And that's fine by me, I just hope that the rules do not alienate existing STO/STU cars (e.g., I'm aware of at least one team whose WC-legal Hondas are not legal to the new STU rules due to JDM engines, compression, and "Frankenstein" builds.)

More thoughts to come.

GA

Speaking of the 2001 WC rules, does anyone even have acess to a copy of the 01 WC rules? I know for a fact that my motor was built for WC and had an alternate oe intake manifold on it, yet the STx rules specifically prohibit alternate intake manifolds swaps...
Also, why not have rear wings in STL? Also, make the wing sizes such that they're avalible. Sure professional WC teams can have any wing made, but club racers need an easy source of parts ( what really killed the SIR for me was that only two companies made them and then I needed to fab the whole intake tract to not collapse when tested! )

[Rabbit07]

Well, ok, but...

I've been on the outside looking in since then, and have scratched my head at the goal. But when I saw the "Maybe we'll add big brakes later" in the post her by a STAC guy, I got VERY alarmed. That says, to me, "We have this category that we've created, but we really don't know what it is, and we're shooting from the hip."

This is not quite the truth. "Big Brakes" are out for STL Period! What will be considered on a case by case basis is whether some chassis/engine combos will require an upgrade. See T1 Corvette brake issue. the language is clear that a parts pin engineered solution will be considered on a case by case basis.

[Greg Amy]

Rear wings are allowed in STL: 48" max width, with mounting location restrictions.

As for common availability, there's not much. HPM used to offer a spec 48" wing for WCT 5+ years ago, but they're out of business. The part number was "HPM-9000-AU" but I can't find anything on it, or who might be able to make them...

GA

[Rabbit07]

On edit: Andy, thanks, but I think you're high. I'll be glad to offer my point of view when asked, and I'll even volunteer to help out on occasion. But I have this sneaking suspicion that my intolerance of the politics and glacial progress would get the better of me way too soon...call me a consulting engineer...

Greg,

You have been very helpful and a great consultant as far as I am concerned.

Cheers

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is not quite the truth. "Big Brakes" are out for STL Period! What will be considered on a case by case basis is whether some chassis/engine combos will require an upgrade. See T1 Corvette brake issue. the language is clear that a parts pin engineered solution will be considered on a case by case basis.

Mistake.

Come on guys! Pick your car and work with it! These cars are going to be LIGHT. If it needs bigger brakes, maybe it shouldn't have that much power. And if it does, don't give it more brakes so that it has advantages on BOTH ends...

[Rabbit07]

Mistake.

Come on guys! Pick your car and work with it! These cars are going to be LIGHT. If it needs bigger brakes, maybe it shouldn't have that much power. And if it does, don't give it more brakes so that it has advantages on BOTH ends...

The issue is that some won't be light. In STL a 2.0 car could weight over 2600 lbs. If for some reason someone did this with chassis that has very small or insufficent brakes, we wanted them to have a option open to them.

[Rabbit07]

[QUOTE=Knestis;313871]
I'd propose that one acid test could be that it should be possible to convert an STL car (looking specifically at that class, as indeed a different thing from the others) into an IT car with typical garage tools. I'm not saying it has to be economical - nothing in racing lives up to that measure - but it should be DOABLE.

QUOTE]


Me likes this.

[shwah]

On the brake issue, what if the brakes follow the motor? Swap in a motor to a chassis with little brakes and you can bring along the full size binders that were oem on the donor vehicle.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The issue is that some won't be light. In STL a 2.0 car could weight over 2600 lbs. If for some reason someone did this with chassis that has very small or insufficent brakes, we wanted them to have a option open to them.

OK, so that's about 2400 without driver. If you are trying to put a 2.0L into a 2000lb car then you are creating something that will go like stink but may not race well.

If you allow compensation for heavier cars via brakes, then why wouldn't everyone go to the big lump, take the weight and get the fix?

Again, let people look at the rules and create cars they want to race based on what they see and what they think they can make work. If you start fixing individual problems, you are going to create catagorical ones.

Look at it this way. You choose a light car with a 2.0 and I choose a heavier car with a 2.0. We both weigh 2600. My thought in choosing a car this weight was that it could 'handle' the wear and tear, won't use up brakes, etc. Then you give all that to the lighter car. What do I get? Why did you give that car parts to go faster when we all knew the rules to begin with? I see the intention and I get it, but it really opens up a bad area.

If you want, make a catagorical rule: "All cars my increase there rotor sizes by a maximum of 20%. Calipers and pads are free. Any increase in rotor size must be done inside the confines of the maximum legal wheel for STU."

Or whatever. Allow an increase, but allow it for everyone. The success of this class HINGES UPON everyone knowing what they are getting into BEFORE they get into it. Changing the rules on the fly (competition adjustments and/or individual allowances) are going to alienate many, very quickly (see Prod and GT participation numbers)

[Andy Bettencourt]

On the brake issue, what if the brakes follow the motor? Swap in a motor to a chassis with little brakes and you can bring along the full size binders that were oem on the donor vehicle.

An excellent suggestion! And again, I like this because it makes sense, makes you choose your horse and ride it - and it applies to the WHOLE category.

[lateapex911]

I was going to type...then I read Andy's posts.
Listen to Andy! He gets it.
Case by case> NO!!! So I have to pay off my guy on the STAC/CRB?BoD?? Cuz' thats EXACTLY what people will think, mutter and complain about. Good for one, good for all.

And, if you want to put that big motor, in, fine, but live with the consequences. I like Chris' solution, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep if certain cars don't have better parts OEM. Oh well.
But, I, and I bet many others, are going to flip when line item 'gimmes" come down the pike.

[Knestis]

... will be considered on a case by case basis.

THAT right there, all by itself, is enough to keep my from ever, EVER having anything to do with STL.

I'm categorically NOT going to race in any class where I have to get into bed with someone on a committee to get what is right. I'm not alone in this regard, in that this is precisely what ruins Production for more than a few people I know.

Make the rules, enforce the rules, live with the rules.

K