Mustang in STU

[titanium]

This was brought up on the SCCA forums and I wanted to get your take on it.


From the GCR:


B. Eligibility
Vehicles meeting one of the following criteria may compete in the Super
Touring category:
• 1985 and newer cars built specifically under these ST rules
• GCR listed IT cars, 1985 and newer, under their current IT
specifications shall compete in STU.
Note: While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category,
their inclusion in the category will allow regional competitors to
participate in national events.


So here it says that any IT-legal car can compete in STU.
What about the ITR cars?
What about the ITR V8 Mustangs in particular?


Your thoughts?

[JoshS]

I replied in the SCCAForums thread, but no ITR car is going to be any faster than any other ITR car, and no ITR car is going to beat an STU car (once there are real STU cars out there.)

So I think yes, the V8 Mustangs in ITR-legal trim can race in STU, there's no doubt about it. But no, it won't run at the front.

[Greg Amy]

All 1985+ ITR-spec vehicles are legal in STU.

[Matt93SE]

I don't think they're arguing the FACT it's legal, I think the issue is whether it should be legal or not.

[adoyle]

While I agree that ITR cars are not going to beat "real" STU cars, I wonder why they have gone away from the philosophy of the class. It seemed pretty simple...ex world challenge type cars and under 3 liter it wold be in STU and over 3 liter it would be in STO. Now they have thrown out that and allowed 3.2 BMWs in STU and 4ltr v6s and v8s in STU with IT prep. I know people say that the 3.2 bmw motor will not be any better than the 2.8 bmw motors in ITR, then why do it and why do I hear everybody running to that motor for the class. Why have an ST class then water it down with "Field Fillers" for numbers. I know event parcipatation is down and this would bring up numbers, but why go through this and not just make Improved Touring a national class in the first place. It seems this will just be a more expensive IT. You will have a few "real" STU cars at events, then filled with many IT preped cars. I thought the intent of STL or "Super Touring Miata" was to increase parcipatation.

[Chip42]

STU could be a could class once it gets sorted and subscribed. STL seems popular but I think it needs some work to be "good".

but the addition of the list of vehicle builds outside of the normal STU rules has really added to the fog that surrounds all new classes. WTF is the intention? mixed prep as in prod 1 prod 2 (full and limited prep) is simply confusing to the participants. even IT is too hard for some of our dear membership to keep up with. In 2 trips to the track last year, I ran into a guy still runing an AE86 corolla in ITA, a JDM 1.5L VTEC CRX in ITB, and a B16 in a 92-95 civic Si in ITA. seriously - we already have a problem with competitors reading ALL of the rules for the class before spending their money. why the wild cards?

[Dano77]

Its not watering anything down. It clearly states that if you own an IT car and you want to run a national or ten nationals,here is where you can with out spending the cash for a full on build. And oh yeah,we dont think youll win with that level of prep in this class.

There is no one who believes that an ITR mustang will compete with a Real Time Acura or a Champion Audi.

Dan

[Matt93SE]

Its not watering anything down. It clearly states that if you own an IT car and you want to run a national or ten nationals,here is where you can with out spending the cash for a full on build. And oh yeah,we dont think youll win with that level of prep in this class.

There is no one who believes that an ITR mustang will compete with a Real Time Acura or a Champion Audi.

Dan

... and those cars are just about out of the class with all of the rule changes. I'd have to look at the actual build on those cars, but have a feeling they're no longer legal for STU now that they've taken away the WC-Touring = STU clause.

[Hoof Hearted]

This was brought up on the SCCA forums and I wanted to get your take on it.


From the GCR:


B. Eligibility
Vehicles meeting one of the following criteria may compete in the Super
Touring category:
• 1985 and newer cars built specifically under these ST rules
• GCR listed IT cars, 1985 and newer, under their current IT
specifications shall compete in STU.
Note: While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category,
their inclusion in the category will allow regional competitors to
participate in national events.

I find it confusing regarding using a "regional" only car for a national race when the GCR on page 79 states:

Note 3: Classes such as Improved Touring, Super Production, A Sports
Racing, and Formula S (Regional and Optional Regional Classes) have
been developed for competitors to race at a Regional level. These classes
will not be eligible for National races since they were created with
the express understanding that they remain Regional Classes only. There
may be other classes added to this philosophy, as we identify classes
for our members to race cars that do not fit within our National racing
program.

Also, the 1985 date is further muddied by this GCR statement on page 441:

No model years older than 1985 will be eligible, except that cars
from model runs began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was
produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible).

So my "regional only" 1984 turd Scirocco is eligible to run (and thoroughly get spanked) in the National STU class...

Let's muddy this pond just tad more...

[23racer]

Man, this is all getting really confusing to me. In less than a year STU goes from a class for ex-WC Touring class cars, to a class where V8 Mustangs are allowed to run? I thought 4.6 L motors were an STO car and if you can't afford a full prep level of a front running STO then you will be at the back of the pack in STO. Now it seems like you can run a whole bunch of cars in STU.

Can anybody tell me what the basic philosophy of the class is? I see everything from a Spec Miata with some mods being allowed to ITR V8 Mustangs. When are T1 Vettes going to be allowed. I just don't see a class philosophy that makes sense other than as a catch all National class with a bunch of cars that sorta do the same laptimes. This really doesn't make sense to me when a 4.6L car is allowed and my ex WC-2.5L Cougar isn't.

Eric

[Chip42]

I'll take a stab at clarifying it: (largely my own impressions, not known facts)
"prepared" classed D and B were founded to provide a place fo rex WC touring and GT cars to play in the club.
the prepared name was dropped for Super Touring.

IT cars have always or at least for most of this time been allowed to run in prepared or ST, but have to use the IT specline and rules.

used WC cars haven't come out of the woodwork as expected, so the class was modified to make it one with more firmly expressed rules so as to allow the building of cars to within some sort of understood prep level. from there, theoretically, you can balance the speed of various cars over time.

STL was invented in large paert to give a place for the bulk of IT cars to join in and not get crushed by the few ex WC cars or cars built to the STU rules. a ruleset was developed for it that allowed further mods than allowed in IT should you want to "advance" your car to that point.

I think that the IT in ST rules used to break the over 3L / under 3L car sinto STU and STO - apparently now it's all legal in U over 2L, and L at or under 2L

right now this all seems pretty clear.

then the STU rules were modified to allow a list of cars that otherwise don't fit the rules, or cars that do at alternate weights ans/or prep allowances. thus large V6 mustangs can be built to run along "proper" STU cars and oddballs like TRD supercharges Scon tCs.

add to that mix large displacemnt ITR cars being legal, and the class can have everything from turbo 1.6L, SMs, SMX5s, MX5 cup, VW TDi cup, ex WC (with or without VTS is now a ?) and ITA/B/S/R cars up to and including 4.6L V8 mustangs.

so it's like a nationally recognized and codifed version of super production.

it seems to have lost its way before it found it. supposedly philosophy is in the works now...

[Matt93SE]

I just hope they figure something out and do it soon. I'm half tempted to go to EP or GT3 just so I have a firm ruleset.

[23racer]

WOW, , what a rapid progression and thanks for setting it down for me. It seems that calling it a lower power Super Prod class makes the most sense. It seems like the class is really eally fluid right now. I just don't philosophically understand where in that large mix of cars, my actual ex-WC 2.5L Cougar is not allowed to run with it's 2009 VTS. To run in the class I have to add 150 lbs, reduce the aero, run smaller tires, get rid of the in-car adjustable bars and drop .5 of a point of compression, all versus my approved 2009 VTS.

I understood the original discussions where my car didn't meet the intent of the class and you could drive a truck through the opening my VTS gave me, but that seems a bit moot when you allow ITR V8 Mustangs/ Turbo cars/ AWD in to the STU class. What is the class philosophy? It seems all over the place. I really don't want to have to build 2 new motors just to run a few races south of the border and slow the car down a ton.

Where are all the STU cars from last year going to run? It seems like the class rules are extremely fluid but if you actually have an ex-WC Car you have to turn it back to almost a super-IT car to run. Thats not very fun. Anybody know of a class where I would be allowed to run my car at the prep level it is in? I am not asking for the world to change just for me, but I would like to experience a few races, for the heck of it, at Mid Ohio, Watkins Glen, Beaverrun etc..... and not having to worry about getting DQ'd if I happen to win.

Eric

[Chip42]

I believe the current theory is that cars built to the class rules (generic or from the table) are suppsoed to be at the pointy end, and the other cars from IT etc.. are just "allowed" in , and not expected to run competitively. ex WC TC cars are really lost in the mix. with the changes in WC last year (GTS being old TC, new TC being much more like T/IT and some of them, like the SC tC, showing up in STU) I think this will only get worse before it gets better. GT->STO still seems like a clear transition. at least a lot of the allowances of TC, like moving the pickup inboard pickup pints of the suspension, are still present in STU. having to make soem motor mods doesn't seem like a deal breaker, but major chassis changes could completely remove the option of running the car.

I think the idea of building an equitable rule set for club racing is at odds with building a manufacturer pleasing rule set for the WC pro series. if WC settles on a long term rule set, then maybe ST will start to mirror it? still, I feel for all of you who laid out the cash to get an ex-pro TC. sounds like you are REALLY men without a country.

[dickita15]

I think that when this class was proposed it sounded good to a lot of people because it was an empty vessel. It was just a shell and each of us filled in the blanks with our own prejudiced imagination. The powers that be understand this and know the class needs to be defined fast. That is the challenge for the STAC.

By the way if I owned an ex WC car I would not do anything rash for a couple of months.

[mossaidis]

23racer - you may want to run ITE, that is, if the region allows you to. ITE rules vary from region to region. Check out their web site for more details and/or contact their stewards/chief of tech. Doing so and if allowed, would provide a race and track where you can run with others w/o having to change anything on your car other than meeting safety regs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So this is an interesting issue - especially when soliciting opinions from a group (IT) that largely screamed bloody murder when it was suggested that Spec Miata's be LEGALLY placed inside their respective IT class (ITA or ITS at the time).

This is very similar in application. Follow the logic:

All IT cars can compete in STU in legal IT-trim
All IT cars fall 100% inside the performance envelope of STU
MOST IT cars fall within the rules of STU

So, as in the case of SM's in IT, you have an 'allowed' class, well within the performance envelope of said class, but with attributes that are not allowed by the classification process.

To those who are in STU and don't get it - the 'philosophy' is to allow other, non competitive cars a chance to double dip and fill up your run groups. To those who had issue with SM's in IT - you should be against this allowance as well, no?

[erlrich]

I think one of the things you guys who are pointing at the ITR Mustang V8s are completely missing is one of the fundamental differences between ST and IT. ST is a displacement-based class, while IT is a HP-based class. Those V8 Mustangs (and did you miss the 5.0L Camaros?) aren't even going to be the class leaders in ITR; the S2000s, RX8s, 944s, and even the 3-series Bimmers are (in all likelyhood) going to be the cars to beat in ITR. And they're all under 3 litres...

I also can't see what the big deal is in allowing IT cars (in their IT prep) to compete in ST (or SM cars to compete in IT for that matter); they aren't ever going to compete with real ST prepped cars, but they will help fill the fields, while at the same time allowing IT drivers a chance to race at the national level if they so desire. Win-win IMO.

Now, I do see an issue when a WCT-legal car can't compete in STU; but I think that's a whole separate issue.

[Knestis]

This is my world...

Any time a given policy is sold to different constituencies as meeting their individual needs we trade (1) greater support for (2) lack of policy (or program) coherence.

SPx cannot be all things to all people, but it's trying to be something to a number of different groups - IT drivers who want to "go National" without changing their cars, owners of ex-WC cars without a place to play in Club Racing, folks who want to tinker beyond the allowances of IT (with new or upgraded builds), and Honda swap fans (who arguably represent a younger and hipper demo market for SCCA). We are seeing the inevitable result of that mushiness.

I'd propose that greater support is super in the short run (i.e., getting the classes Nationally viable by car count), but coherence - a tightly defined mission, vision, and execution (rules set) - will become frustrating for participants over time. Spec Miata is an example of this as additional chassis have been integrated into the class, rules get added/complicated, etc.

K

[adoyle]

I somewhat understand what they are trying to do. I get the idea of letting IT cars compete, and saying these cars will not be competitive. Then my question is why make the change in the rules? If a ITR mustang, or the 3.2 ltr bmws or any other ITR car over 3 ltr is not going to be competitive at that prep level, then why not let them be "uncompetitive" in STO. Why change all the rules for a class, which was based on liter size, for cars that are not going to be competitive in either class. Then these racers could still "double dip" in national racing. I just do not get why they changes the philosophy of the class for "double dipping" race cars. Why not just make IT a national class and be done with it.