Mustang in STU

[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.

[Knestis]

Because the idea moved from the proposition that IT "can never be a National class." There have been lots of discussions here on the topic, many arguments against the idea - some sound, some specious, and some simply under-informed - and ultimately, the powers-that-be wouldn't go for it.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'm not sure that is the case. I think it is more accurate to say that a large chunk of membership (myself included) didn't want IT to go National. And I think that is a large part of why it did not.

However, if I had known the reaction would be to create the ST classes at a prep level slightly above IT in an effort to attract IT cars and drivers over to a national rule set, I probably would have approached the "IT should go national" debate differently.