March 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

She's up.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...rack-march.pdf

[lateapex911]

Not much, but one interesting item:

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.]

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

[Greg Amy]

M$%^$%RF#$%#$S. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

[Greg Amy]

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

I'm noticing some ST items missing too. Coulda been the last CRB meeting was in Vegas and they missed some stuff.

Or it just could be you.

[Knestis]

M$%^$%RF#$%#. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

Which is FINE until Kirk shows up at a race by airplane, with the car getting hauled around on a $/mile basis, only to discover that some enthusiastic tech inspector has made that his cause celebre for the weekend, and makes him fix it before going out on the track. At night. In the rain. With materials from Home Depot.

Stupid, ignorant, spineless...

K

[pitbull113]

I guess my fat assed protege is staying in ITA. Oh well atleast I don't have to buy new wheels now.

[lateapex911]

In the long run though it basically means, if I read the 'reverse" of the "You can": aspect of the rules, that if you have an FIA seat you must use an adjustable back support if you have the seat mounted on sliders. Which, according to the FIA, voids any certs the seat carries with it.
So THAT seems backasswards...

[Chip42]

Which is FINE until Kirk shows up at a race by airplane, with the car getting hauled around on a $/mile basis, only to discover that some enthusiastic tech inspector has made that his cause celebre for the weekend, and makes him fix it before going out on the track. At night. In the rain. With materials from Home Depot.

Stupid, ignorant, spineless...

K

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father - Chief of Tech for the SC region. Don't hold it against me or vice versa . He's on a mission to get all seats required to have a back brace. we don't see eye to eye on it. he's a very well educated man, chemist, lawyer, but he's stubborn. if you follow the fastracks, you'll see his name and mine pop up on opposite sides of this issue. We don't get to see each other much. He's part of the anti-FIA cult. I think they never got over being snubbed by De Gaul and hold all of France and all thinks even remotely french to blame.

My take: fix the MOUNTING guidelines/rules so the bubblegum and poprivet BS is put out. correct the impressions of the old people that a seat must be rigid throughout its length (only its base must be, the rest should give a designed amount to damp out the shock of an impact). re-examine the slider rules to disallow stock components but allow quality racing gear and purpose built devices of adequate strength.

oh - and yay for a "what do you think" for non USDM motors in STU!! wait - what about L?

[JeffYoung]

No kidding! That's your dad?

He's a great guy in tech at CMP. We always chat a bit about lawyer stuff.

Anyway, merits of the issue aside, I really enjoy talking to him.

[Greg Amy]

Chip, we gotta put together a list of talking points for next Thanksgiving dinner...

No STL 'cause it's not really on the RADAR right now; let's focus on STU, the National class, and see how that works out. If good things come from that then STL will be sure to follow.

Just as an exercise, however, what JDM engines that are <200 hp do you think would be good candidates for STL...?

GA

[Chip42]

Chip, we gotta put together a list of talking points for next Thanksgiving dinner...

No STL 'cause it's not really on the RADAR right now; let's focus on STU, the National class, and see how that works out. If good things come from that then STL will be sure to follow.

Just as an exercise, however, what JDM engines that are <200 hp do you think would be good candidates for STL...?

GA

Greg, I promise the weather here is better for thanksgiving than it is up there. come on down and drive an MR2 at turkey trots. seriously.

JDM motors I can think of off the top of my head (not all <200hp but I don't remember that being a requirement and I think it's a bit of a Pooma number given the engine rules) in no particular order:
SR20DE for RWD applications
SR20DET*
SR20VE
SR16VE
20v 4A-GE
B16B*
K20A*
3S-GE gen 3
3S-GE gen 4 AKA "BEAMS"*
later 3S-GTE*
1JZ-GTE*
RB25DET*

*for STU, not L.

[Duc]

Just as an exercise, however, what JDM engines that are <200 hp do you think would be good candidates for STL...?

GA

I had asked for:

Title: Increase valve lift by 0.025 across the class
Class: STL
Car: none
Request: 9.1.4.G.5 Valve lift is limited to .600 inch for STO and STU. STL Valve lift is
limited to .450 inch for 4 valve/cylinder engines, .450 inch intake
and .475 inch exhaust for 3 valve/cylinder engines, and .475 inch
for 2 valve/cylinder engines. Camshafts and camshaft timing are
free.

That would give the Celica another home. 0.025 of a inch increase.

[Knestis]

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father...?

My case was hypothetical but it's confidence inspiring to hear that it could actually happen.

My rails are indeed the actual Recaro double captured high-zoot sliders, purchased specifically because they are the right parts for the job.

K

[Chip42]

No kidding! That's your dad?

He's a great guy in tech at CMP. We always chat a bit about lawyer stuff.

Anyway, merits of the issue aside, I really enjoy talking to him.

Dad's a great guy with a huge heart in general, and particularly for SCCA racing.

he's one of the few people in the world I can have a conversation with for hours - spanning politics, history, cars, women, whatever. we'll agree about 15% of the time and enjoy every minute of it, never getting angry, just presenting arguments and counter arguments interspersed with filthy jokes and sarcasm.

I wish I got to see him as often as you do. even if he is wrong on this one.

[Greg Amy]

...not all <200hp but I don't remember that being a requirement and I think it's a bit of a Pooma number given the engine rules...

It's not a requirement, but it is a bit of a POOMA benchmark. This is easily inferred by the performance level set by the STAC between, for example, the Integra GS-R and the Integra Type R. The explicit reason that the GS-R (170hp stock) is allowed and the Type R (190hp?) is not is because the B18C5 engine exceeds the POOMA performance level set for the class.

With that in mind, you can pretty much expect that nothing much more powerful than 170/180hp will get approved for STL...

^^^ All personal opinion, not official positions of the STAC, and easily inferred by anyone via existing public information.

I had asked for [increased cam lift]

There's a few things that got missed in this month's Fastrack; I think this was one of them. I don't think I speak out of turn to reveal that unless something happened in the sausage factory after the STAC got it, we declined this request for the same reason as I describe above, that this would allow the performance level of the class to exceed the expected benchmark.

We've got our implied performance level for STL, and that's in the 170/180hp stock crank range. Anything more powerful than that is going to be pushed to STU. Keep that in mind as you consider the class going forward... - GA

[Duc]

It's not a requirement, but it is a bit of a POOMA benchmark. This is easily inferred by the performance level set by the STAC between, for example, the Integra GS-R and the Integra Type R. The explicit reason that the GS-R (170hp stock) is allowed and the Type R (190hp?) is not is because the B18C5 engine exceeds the POOMA performance level set for the class.

With that in mind, you can pretty much expect that nothing much more powerful than 170/180hp will get approved for STL...

^^^ All personal opinion, not official positions of the STAC, and easily inferred by anyone via existing public information.


There's a few things that got missed in this month's Fastrack; I think this was one of them. I don't think I speak out of turn to reveal that unless something happened in the sausage factory after the STAC got it, we declined this request for the same reason as I describe above, that this would allow the performance level of the class to exceed the expected benchmark.

We've got our implied performance level for STL, and that's in the 170/180hp stock crank range. Anything more powerful than that is going to be pushed to STU. Keep that in mind as you consider the class going forward... - GA

Understood, the 2ZZ is on that boarder, stock. The stock cam gives a lift of .450 and I was hoping to get the extra .025 added then the car would be allowed in the class without a stock engine. I really don't really want to go STU. And it is the 180 HP stock range. Ah to have a car that is on the fringe of everything.

[StephenB]

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.] .

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

[JeffYoung]

I don't find the tone or the wording of your post appropriate.

We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.).

In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate.

I don't know much about these cars, but listened to what others had to say and voted according to what I thought was right.

I'll try later tonight to go back and figure out how the numbers ran and post them for you.

[Greg Amy]

...the 2ZZ is on that boarder, stock. The stock cam gives a lift of .450 and I was hoping to get the extra .025 added then the car would be allowed in the class without a stock engine....And it is the 180 HP stock range...

Were I in your position, I'd make a specific request to allow the 2ZZ engine into STL with stock cams, and include with that request detailed specs, including manufacturer-rated output numbers (and dyno charts, if you have them).

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT NOT NOT implying that it would get approved. In fact, I highly doubt it would, given the STAC's focus is on STO/STU right now and the 2ZZ approval into STL with stock cams would require a specific deviation/allowance in the rules (and we're kinda sour on the idea of a lot of exceptions as a general guideline). But the STAC is a big proponent of STL and really wants to see it become successful (and, hopefully soon, a National class); the request could generate some internal discussions vis-a-vis STL philosophy and direction.

Food for thought. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.