STx Notes, December Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Some December Fastrack notes.

- STO/U re-write as published in August Fastrack approved.
- STL approved as a Regional class
- Integra Type R and Honda S2000 excluded in their entirety (including chassis) for STL, including the chassis
- 1985+ IT cars eligible for STU
- SMs legal for STL

Note that they published a complete Super Touring ruleset re-write without the strike through; makes it easier to read.

[benspeed]

Luv the legal disclaimer :-)

STU - question...

Is it me or does that M3 seem to get nice dispensation? My 968 is again weighted down like a tank at 3,300. With a 3.0 L 4 banger I'm heavier than the BMW M3 3.2L 6 banger at 3,200.

I think STU will be the same as ITR - nearly all BMWs.

[Greg Amy]

Is it me or does that M3 seem to get nice dispensation?

On edit: DISREGARD! I see what you mean; you're referring to the "H" tables/allowances. I have no background on that. - GA

I can offer you this on a personal perspective, Ben: both cars start with 240 stock ponies, but the 968 has room to grow on compression, since it's 8.3 stock and you can go to 12:1. The M3 starts with 10.8 and can only go to 11.3. How are the cams between the cars? You can go up to .5 lift; that's the stock cam on the E36 M3...?

[benspeed]

Thanks for the perspective, Greg. I wonder if running in ITR trim at 245 pounds lighter is a better way to roll. Heck, sure is cheaper than doing a full on motor. I was quoted a full race motor making 300hp at the crank for $18,000. Lotta dough to run heavy and maybe not be that much faster than I am in ITR trim.

The smart money is to buy an M3 that's already setup for WC methinks. But for now I'll just run ITR trim and have fun - and put that $18,000 into a tire budget :-)

[Greg Amy]

I wonder if running in ITR trim at 245 pounds lighter is a better way to roll.

I think it's a clever tactic to take...what will result in the better ponies/weight ratio? As you pointed out it's certainly the CHEAPER tactic to take, and you're still legal for ITR... - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

On edit: DISREGARD! I see what you mean; you're referring to the "H" tables/allowances. I have no background on that. - GA

I can offer you this on a personal perspective, Ben: both cars start with 240 stock ponies, but the 968 has room to grow on compression, since it's 8.3 stock and you can go to 12:1. The M3 starts with 10.8 and can only go to 11.3. How are the cams between the cars? You can go up to .5 lift; that's the stock cam on the E36 M3...?

It also has the same throttle body, intake manifold (which can't be port matched), and head as my motor, but the cams are a little hotter.

As for staying at IT weight, you have to realize that you're giving up a real aero advantage, and if you have issues with soft oe motor mounts like I have. Then there's the advantage of running an aluminum flywheel, both cost wise at 2/3's the cost of an oe flywheel that can't be surfaced as well as the acceleration.

[Chip42]

tGA or others

1 - can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.

2 - what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars - particularly the group mentioned above where they appear fully legal as doner engines to a swap per the ST category rules, or those such as the 2AZ-FE + TRD supercharger from the Scion Tc which could be directly ported to a coroola / matrix / camry or easily enough to many other toyotas. how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?

[Greg Amy]

...can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.

I cannot; the chart was as much a surprise to me as to you (I don't recall seeing that published anywhere prior to this month's Fastrack.)*

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you**. Each of those cars that have engine displacements of less than 3001cc are already legal and allowed to the rules per the weighting chart, and unless they have some allowance/deviation from the standard STU rules (see 3.2L M3) there is zero reason that they should be in that chart.

what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars... how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?

I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL.

I do think it's going to be fun when someone figures out how to put that Ford 4.0L SOHC V6 mated to a Tremec into an IRS-equipped Mustang Cobra chassis...

Was this the intent of this rule? Can't say. But this kinda thinking is what happens when you start messing around with a basic rules structure and making individual allowances, without possibly being able to know all the answers (see Greg's Tip #1 from "How to Write a Rule").

GA

* As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.

[Z3_GoCar]

tGA or others

1 - can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.

2 - what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars - particularly the group mentioned above where they appear fully legal as doner engines to a swap per the ST category rules, or those such as the 2AZ-FE + TRD supercharger from the Scion Tc which could be directly ported to a coroola / matrix / camry or easily enough to many other toyotas. how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?

I'd assume it has to do with forced induction: The A4 uses the 1.8 turbo and the MC-S has a belt driven supercharger. I'm suprised that they don't specify a minimum belt pulley size for the MC-S, as the smaller pulley is an option you get with the John Cooper Special dealer installed package.

[benspeed]

For fun I'm going to ask that the Boxster S is classed in STU :-) Sent a note in yesterday to have the 97-99 Boxster moved to ITS.

[Z3_GoCar]

I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL....

GA

* As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.

While it might be interesting to make a Z3M from my chassis, the better option would be to use the older M-50 2.5 liter, which also shares the same head casting but has a manifold that is both port matched from the factory as well as bigger runners and plenum. I'd get to stay at my same weight of 2750lbs too.

[red986s]

For fun I'm going to ask that the Boxster S is classed in STU :-) Sent a note in yesterday to have the 97-99 Boxster moved to ITS.

Now if you could make that happen, I'd be a happy guy!!! I've got a 2000 S collecting dust in my garage.

EDIT: But I suspect the Boxster S would get the same "flogging" that the S2000 gets rule-wise.

[Chip42]

I can see excluding the lotus Elise chassis but to do the same to the 'teg R and the S2000, or their motors, makes no sense to me. if they are willing to allow >3.0L motors or other non-standard allowances at alternate weights (even if only in the originally equipped delivered vehicles and not swaps, which is not clear), why not do the same for these cars in STL?

the Boxter S might fit into STU, I don't know. but consistancy is needed in the application of the admittedly very new rules. and they need to stop changing them so damned often to let a class develop.

[red986s]

I can see excluding the lotus Elise chassis but to do the same to the 'teg R and the S2000, or their motors, makes no sense to me.

I imagine they would both dominate the class.

The Boxter S might fit into STU, I don't know.

At stock 250HP yes they would fit but with a 3.2L flat six it doesn't. I'm affraid the "S" is a misfit in SCCA and regulated to T2 for now. Sucks!

[Chip42]

if they are willing to allow a 3.8 and 4.0L V6 mustang with 0.040 over and +0.5CR with stock cams, they should be willing to allow the Boxter S with simillar restrictions and an appropriat specified weight under 9.1.4.2.H

they could do likewise in STL by making an alternate minimum weight for the S2000 and ITR. a miata chassis pretty simillar to an S2000 and less tricky (their are complaints from some about the S2000 rear suspension geometry) and there are very good motors available to go into it (i.e. MZR 2.0L with allowed mods).

either way, they need to add language to clarify if the vehicles listed in 9.1.4.1/2.H are eligible for engine swaps FROM that list and the mechanism for assigning weight to such vehicles.

[suki101]

Quick question about STL; does the same age rule apply? Only cars 1985+ can compete? I might not be interpreting the rules correctly so I need some clarification. Thanks.

[Greg Amy]

...does the same age rule apply? Only cars 1985+ can compete?

Correct.

[A.J]

The smart money is to buy an M3 that's already setup for WC methinks.

got me thinking, take my x wc car put in a stock s54 motor (3.2) with bolt-ons (makes 350-360whp,on pump gas, 8500+ rpm) add some weight, if that's not enough i can port the head, bump comp, n add cams, lol, should b interesting, does the update/backdate rules allow me to do that

[Z3_GoCar]

got me thinking, take my x wc car put in a stock s54 motor (3.2) with bolt-ons (makes 350-360whp,on pump gas, 8500+ rpm) add some weight, if that's not enough i can port the head, bump comp, n add cams, lol, should b interesting, does the update/backdate rules allow me to do that

That motor's clearly in STO. So unless you want to race with Vette's and Vipers, I'd stick with the S-52 that was classed.

[Greg Amy]

That motor's clearly in STO. So unless you want to race with Vette's and Vipers, I'd stick with the S-52 that was classed.

Very good point!

AJ, keep in mind this is an engine-centric class; this means that your car's classification depends on what engine you want to install. So if you want to install an engine that's in an STO-classified car, your car moves to STO.

GA