STL Chassis Builds?

[Greg Amy]

Andy, think about what STL is, not what you want it to be. And ("/broken record") if you don't like what it is, then write a request to the CRB (no one that is bitching in this thread has written a request to the CRB. NO ONE.)

As for what I personally consider philosophically-correct cars for STL, ITA is a great baseline. If it's in ITA/B/C, or maybe SSC, it's a good fit in STL. If it's in ITS or ITR, it's a better fit in STU (it's certainly debateable if the GS-R and/or K20-powered cars are appropriate for STL, but we're talking chassis here, not engines).

If you guys classify the FD RX-7, RX-8, Acura NSX, and/or Integra Type R in ITA, I'd reconsider my position on those cars' appropriateness for STL.

IMNHO, of course.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, think about what STL is, not what you want it to be. And ("/broken record") if you don't like what it is, then write a request to the CRB (no one that is bitching in this thread has written a request to the CRB. NO ONE.)

As for what I personally consider philosophically-correct cars for STL, ITA is a great baseline. If it's in ITA/B/C, or maybe SSC, it's a good fit in STL. If it's in ITS or ITR, it's a better fit in STU (it's certainly debateable if the GS-R and/or K20-powered cars are appropriate for STL, but we're talking chassis here, not engines).

If you guys classify the FD RX-7, RX-8, Acura NSX, and/or Integra Type R in ITA, I'd reconsider my position on those cars' appropriateness for STL.

IMNHO, of course.

GA

Ok, let's talk about this. Your train of thought is what I respectfully think is holding us all up. The class is a cc/weight class with limits on cam specs. I buy into that 100%. But at the end of your post, you name 3 cars to exclude because of chassis, then one because of engine. A cars IT class is based on power potential, not chassis so to use that as a basis for philosophy I think is foolish. If the NSX had a 130hp motor, it WOULD BE in ITA.

So to exclude it, when it would meet the very core of what the class is based on, a 2.0 piston 4 cyl, seems rediculous, especially considering this 'chassis overdog' concept is not only not written anywhere, but not consistent given what IS allowed.

Not arguing what I think the class should be, just saying that given the rules and lack of firm intent statement, it seems like you are flying by the seat of your pants and creating a perceived performance envelope as you go, all while using IT as a false floor to stand on.

I think it would really be great to publish in the next Fast Track some of these philosophies so guys like me, who are looking for something new, and who are taking calls from local customers and friends all across the country about their 'next thing', have a better understanding, in writing, about what we can do. That's not too much to ask I don't think.

[Greg Amy]

We published a brandy-new philosophy mid-2011; that's what you see in the opening paragraphs of the STCS (compare it to the January 2011 GCR version). Apparently, it's lacking in this area. This is obviously a topic that deserves clarification of intent, or at a minimum maybe even a complete re-think to the intent itself.

Take some time to put something together and send it in.

GA

[StephenB]

Based on your recent comments I am confused...
Why can't I take my RX8 and put a miata engine in it and run? Based on the rules as written why wouldn't this be a legitimate option? (I get why you wouldn't want to run a Renesis since they make to much power.) Why not allow those other "excluded" car chasis if they swap to an engine that fits the class?

FYI, as the rules are written now I CAN run my RX8 with the renisis engine and be completly legal.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Why can't I take my RX8 and put a miata engine in it and run? Based on the rules as written why wouldn't this be a legitimate option? (I get why you wouldn't want to run a Renesis since they make to much power.) Why not allow those other "excluded" car chasis if they swap to an engine that fits the class?

Because we want to limit the class to lower-performance chassis, regardless of installed engine. See Lotus Elise/Exige, Lotus 2 Eleven, and Honda S2000 exclusions (with more to come). This is no different our limiting the class to lower-performing 2L-and-under engines, and exclude turbos and the Type R.

If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.

FYI, as the rules are written now I CAN run my RX8 with the renisis engine and be completly legal.

Nope. The CRB has declared directly to the STAC (we asked) that rotaries are subject to a 2x displacement multiplier when considered for power-to-displacement calcs (though I can't find it in the GCR anywhere...) As such, none are automatically eligible for STL. To address that, we specifically include the 12A and 13B as part of the STL program, with limited mods and additional weight.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.

So the issue here IMO, and with the S2000, FD RX-7, RX-8 etc, is that none of these cars are any better than the Miata and MX-5 when prepped to STL rules. What makes the Lotii so good is (lack of) weight, high end RR shocks, weight, adjustable suspension and weight. It's a false truth when you then equip a Miata with the same shocks, same adjustability and then take away 100% of the power to weight advantage the Lotus comes with from Hethel.

In the C&D Lightning Lap series, the Lotus doesn't do anything special outside of it's awesome power to weight. Cars of equal P/W with even 'lesser' suspensions can lap as fast. Add to that the cars come with R-compounds further exemplifies that if you evened up the 'prep' AND the power to weight, it would be just another double-wish-boned RWD car.

And if you use the CRX/Civic theories on speed, the MX-5 would be a better platform than an RX-8 because of wheelbase given they use essentially the same bits.

So at the end of the day, which I will include in my letter, I think these exclusions are based in total falsehoods given what is already allowed (Miata and MX-5) and the assumption that equality in equipment and power to weight will be achieved. If the committee wants to stand up and say that they think the RX-8 is better than the MX-5, I will accept that, but sure would like to hear why they think so.

At the end of the day, I really do believe that the original concept for the class was for FWD piston-engined cars based on cc to weight. Quickly realizing that was just Honda Challenge and the pool of interested parties was small, a door was opened, slightly, for other stuff. And that other stuff has to stand in the corner and wait before being told they can actually stay or they have to leave. Not in the interest of a great big party, but because the party-designers never really wanted a big party. They just figured they had bought too much beer and needed some more people to pay to get in and drink...but once the beer is gone, everyone out!