Quick Question on STU

[23racer]

After a quick look through the only things that leapt out at me are the ;

1) In Car adjustable sway bar - I have one that will need to be moved to meet the rules.
2) Front splitter - Mine has a 3" upper surface. I will need to trim it back.
3) Rear wing rule - unless I am reading this wrong, it needs to be no lower than 6" below the roof line. What is the maximum height?
4) Compression ratios - 12.0:1 ????? a bunch of WC legal cars are well above that. My VTS allows 12.8:1
5) Wheel Widths - My VTS allows for 8" wheels, I guess that means I need to ask.

Everything else I am in compliance with, so with a bit of work and changes (as long as its not permanent) I am in compliance.

Thanks for the information. It gives me a lot to think about.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

3) Rear wing rule - unless I am reading this wrong, it needs to be no lower than 6" below the roof line. What is the maximum height?

Rule states "minimum of 6.0 inches below the peak of the roof." that means it has to be 6" or more below the roof line.

4) Compression ratios - 12.0:1 ????? a bunch of WC legal cars are well above that. My VTS allows 12.8:1

I think they're aware of that; the 2010 champ was allowed 12.5:1...

Correct on the other items; I'd recommend changing them and/or requesting variances. Supplying your original VTS sheets with that request is a plus.

GA

[JohnW]

First, Nice car!

I think the problem comes into play due to the W-I-D-E range of VTS sheets in World Challenge. Many of the WC "Touring Cars" VTS sheets are very, very different.

Attempting to build a new National STU rule book to cover those differences is going to be nearly impossible.

Maybe a more flexible STU rulebook needs to be continued- to reduce the number of cars that need to be fixed due to the 10 things that instantly became illegal. Example. Does a wing really need to have 8.5 chord or less? Does that really need to be an issue in a class that has such diversity and high-end prep levels?

The pinnacle of Touring Car's were built to the 08-09 WC rules. Maybe that should be the "Max" spec listed in the rulebook?

I humbly suggest that the STAC consider a wide range of prep to keep as many original TC's legal with out requiring thousands of dollars to update.

[lateapex911]

I agree John. I've always wondered HOW they were going to make all the WC cars 'equal" as they have such disparate specs over the years.

[Rabbit07]

The thought behind the removal of VTS sheets was to freeze the performance level of the cars to approximately 2009 specs. This includes STO and STU. STO posed a larger issue with this, however there are some really fast Touring cars out there. Just an FYI, we are still getting letters that say please slow down the WC cars in STU. Then we get letters that say please keep the WC cars as is with VTS sheets. We are trying to get this balanced and it won't be easy.

[JohnW]

Just an FYI, we are still getting letters that say please slow down the WC cars in STU. Then we get letters that say please keep the WC cars as is with VTS sheets. We are trying to get this balanced and it won't be easy.

Hi Chris-

I find it odd that folks are asking to "slow down" WC cars in STU, since that was what STU was set-up for... a place for retired World Challenge cars to race on a club level.

Humbly, may I suggest- maybe those requesting the slowing of WC cars should reconsider STU? Maybe their focus should be on STUlite? "Super Touring" (including World Challenge Touring Cars) by it's nature is going to be fast and very expensive. It's just what it is.

You're right. This task isn't going to be easy for you guys! G/L.

[Rabbit07]

Maybe a more flexible STU rulebook needs to be continued- to reduce the number of cars that need to be fixed due to the 10 things that instantly became illegal. Example. Does a wing really need to have 8.5 chord or less? Does that really need to be an issue in a class that has such diversity and high-end prep levels?

We are working hard at trying to find some resolution on the wings. I have been coresponding with WC to obtain some specs to verify. The worst likely senario in that wings such as the APR will be approved. That doesn't mean that every person that requests a different wing will get it. We want parts approved that are available to the competitors.

[JohnW]

We are working hard at trying to find some resolution on the wings.... That doesn't mean that every person that requests a different wing will get it.

Hi Chris-

One more thing.
Why?

Why must the STAC spend energy specing a wing (and perhaps dozens of other parts)? Yeah, maybe limit the width to 48-50 (?) inches. But. This maybe be one of those line-items that is used to restrict participation when it was an attempt to control costs(?).

What problem does it create if racer-1 buys an ebay wing, racer-2 buys the APR and another spends thousands on a ubber custom unit?

One could argue that choosing to run a cheap-o or pimpy custom thingy is one of the draws to STU in the first place.

.02

[Chip42]

and if someone wants to spend money on aero they can do that at any wing size. making it smaller wont limit the potential investment, it just forces people who already have something to buy something else. just leave it as it was and concentrate on the WC homologation and whatnot.

[23racer]

As somebody with one of these cars, I would humbly suggest that it would cost me more to "de-tune" the car than to pay for its running costs in the way that it sits. The car is a great time capsule of great tech in a "Stock" tub car. I also know that if I show up at a track, like Watkins Glen, I will do okay, but that the car will be running about 3 - 4 seconds a lap slower than the top cars from 2009. At Mosport, the fastest the car has gone is a high 1:34 and most of the time we run in the 1:35's and 1:36's. The fastest WC TC Lap is a 1:29 in Qualifying, but most of the race laps are in the 1:32's and 1:33's. Its interesting to note that in the Canadian Touring Car Championship, which runs pretty much open with some weight controls and a 235x40x17 max tire size, the times are very similar even though the cars run hp levels like top WC Cars at around the 330 - 350 hp level.

I recognize that my limitations are due to the car being built using the best tech in 2001 and the physical limitations of the design of the car. Small, cheaper things like changing the front splitter and changing the rear wing, may cost about $500 each and may help the cars go a bit quicker and keep them more relevant in appearance to the average spectator. Those costs pale a fair bit when I look at spending $500 a weekend in fuel, $1200 in tires and I factor in the rebuild costs for the engine, transmission and brakes.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be controls, but I think there needs to be an understanding of the relative cost/value benefits to certain mods in different classes. Maybe the rear wings could be teched simply by having a box that is located off the rear fascia on struts. If the wing fits within it, great your good to go. I personally could care less about what wing my competitor has on his car. If he has an APR or Crawford wing, good for him, he has more cash than me. I need to step up my game to run with him. I am running a spec 48" aluminum wing with a small Gurney Flap. The car works fine and I can realize high speed handling effects with its adjustment. I don't think a new rear wing will get me 2 seconds a lap. I need another 50 hp and moving the engine back and down to get rid of my 59% front weight bias, then I can run with the Bimmers, .

Eric