OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?
Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.
Senior Member
STL Chassis Builds?
OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?
Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.
Senior Member
Andy put the 2.4L TSX motor in it and run in STU!Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Senior Member
Most likely a custom. Lots of sources. My first stop for shopping would be crower. you may also have different options for valvetrain including other options like vtec killer cam.
Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
'92 Honda Civic Si
STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.
Senior Member
It could play....until they exclude it.....
I mean, they exclude the S2000 chassis...so I'm thinking they just didn't think of the NSX.....
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
Senior Member
Well we can't wait around waiting for chassis to be excluded. I really wanted an FD RX-7 with a 13B but the power to weight is in ITS land, not ITR land where it needs to be.
It's a HP to CC class, excluding chassis is dumb and I will be pissed if it happens. There is nothing that I have read that tells us to write in and tell them about our mouse-trap so they can approve the configuration for fear of it being too good and them not thinking it through. They should reintroduce the S2000 chassis and forget that rule.
Administrator
I'm chucklin', 'cause you two guys simply just don't "get" Super Touring Light. Seriously. You won't even play in your own sandbox (when was the last time either of you actually raced in your respective ITA/IT7 classes?) and yet you want to Internet-pretend to piss in other people's sandboxes...it's actually entertaining.
The exclusion of the NSX chassis is already in progress...as is the RX-8. First, work on getting your respective IT cars' engines running. Then, if you really want to come play in the ST sandbox, we'll be glad to welcome you, with pretty much whatever it takes to get you motivated (within reason). Just let me know what it takes...what it's really gonna take, not what it's "Internet-gonna take"...
GA
Administrator
Follow up:
Ultimately, the "exclusion model" is doomed to fail. According to Greg's Tip#1 for writing a rule, no small group of persons can ever think of all possibilities. And, as we all know and as Andy is demonstrating (I know he's just trying to get a rise out of us) racers will be racers and will look for loopholes to jump through, despite being obviously contrary to philosophy and intent.
These characteristics are simply incompatible, and may ultimately lead to an "inclusion model" for chassis (though that's not being seriously discussed yet). However, certainly speaking for myself only, I can say with confidence that I have zero reservations about supporting ex-post-facto exclusions of chassis that I don't see as meeting the class' philosophy. So - and the whole point of my posting above, for everyone else's sake - I'd suggest not getting too clever without asking first...just food for thought. - GA
Senior Member
Overall a really stupid post Greg. You don't really need to worry why or why not I 'won't play in my own sandbox' even though you fully know that 1. I blew a hole in my block at VIR last year and haven't been motivated to fix it because 2. the ITA competition where I choose to run isn't exciting to race with especially with cars currently being sold, fixed etc. Hell, I even pressured Lawton to run the Saturn at the NARRC so I would be motivated to get the car fixed or rent one. Had the car Steve has for sale ready to pick up. Nope, Mini. As is typical, your post is more style than substance.
If you can't see what it's gonna take, you haven't been paying attention. Class the 13B at a fair weight and eliminate the chassis cut-off dates. That is a HUGE step. If YOU really want to generate some quality interest in the class, fix the rules...or at least post the fact that you can exclude a chassis at any time and it would be smart for competitors to write in and get a feeling on what they think they want to build. The real beef is that the 2012 Nationals season is up and running and the rules for this shiny-new Runoffs-eligible class are posted...yet cars that could be getting bought and/or built could still be excluded. If you don't see that as a real problem, I can't help you one iota.
RX-8 now? I would also go at the FD RX-7 too. How about the MX-5? It's an RX-8 under the rear and just as good as anything under the front.
Lots of us that wanted IT to go National are taking a SERIOUS look at STL because it encompasses cars and motors we are familiar with at a reasonable prep level. That should be obvious, but right now you have Honda Challenge with a sprinkle of 'the Miata is the car for the class IF someone does what nobody has ever done' on top.
Edit: A follow up to your follow up post...what 'philosophical statement' excludes chassis of 'X' capability? And how does the Miata fit and others don't? In Solo, the MX-5 is classed with the RX-8. Guess what wins? This is what I see in the GCR:
If the actual philosophy that you speak of was written someplace then I would understand, but not agree with it. That is a huge difference than what we have now. To use your own terms, you have an 'internet philosophy', not an real one that is documented in the rulebook.Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO. As with STU, spec
lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any
vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible
for this class.
/broken record
Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 01-06-2012 at 09:49 AM.
Administrator
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
Senior Member
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.
Administrator
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
Senior Member
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
Administrator
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.
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.FYI, as the rules are written now I CAN run my RX8 with the renisis engine and be completly legal.
GA
Senior Member
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!
Administrator
STL Chassis Builds?
You will be shocked to read that I completely agree with you. And Andy, given my history with/position on/admiration for the Miata, you should not be shocked to read that were it up to me, I'd recommend either going to a much larger weight differential in STL for RWD or excluding the Miata and variants entirely.
As I said, "be careful what you ask for".
I think you missed what I wrote above...
...and you know me, the rules nerd I am, that I'm in agreement with the letter of the rules. If someone wants to push the subject and enter an RX-8 into STL based on a 1300cc classified weight, I'll be glad to help with the inevitable protest appeals process, which would result in an apparent "tradition" getting codified in the GCR.
GA
Senior Member
I don't think excluding chassis makes any sense for STL for a couple reasons.
-The published philosphy is clear that any chassis/model run manufactured from 85+ is eligible for STL.
-Best way to prohibit class growth is have the overriding potential of what chassis' might be ineligible next year or forward.
I think the best and easiest thing to do would be to leave the chassis selection free, and limit the engine choices only. That way you only have spec lines for engines.
Other wise the class will be spec-line hell between engines and chassis.
The magic and attractiveness of this class is the open ruleset regarding chassis and engine combos. To restrict chassis IMHO, is a big mistake.
I say allow the S2K 2.0L engine with restrictions. Same with the ITRSX-R engine. The same way the BMW N55 3.0l single turbo engine in STU is allowed - with restrictions.
I really don't understand the reasoning behind restricting cars for some ambiguous reason in a class that is clearly designed as open to all cars. Restrict the engines not the chassis.
Senior Member
I'm not shocked that you can see what is in front of you and I'm sure you aren't shocked that I suggested a bump from 2.5% to 5% on the FWD-RWD adder based on what we did in IT. What we need is more written rules and less grey-area intent back-pedaling.
It seems a shit-ton more thought and effort needed to be done on the front end before sending this class out to the GCR with National status.
On your 'be careful what you ask for' statements, they classifications still have to make sense to get competitors. Telling us that the FD RX-7 is now allowed at 3000lbs with a 13B with IT prep allowances doesn't do ANYTHING. You can say all you want how the 13B is classed, but for all intents and purposes, it's not because it can't make more than 1.8L power without porting allowances so it's conceptually dead.
Geezus my letter is gonna be long and boring.
Senior Member
Who is "we"?
What is the justification for this?
What is gained by excleuding certain chassis, especially in STL? In a small displacment to weight class such as this it's all about specific engine output, not the chassis.
I can't think of a better way to stifle class growth from the outset.(with more to come).
It's not a spec-line class, it's a weight to displacment class open to pretty much any chassis, and it is contrary to the published philosophy of the class.This is no different our limiting the class to lower-performing 2L-and-under engines, and exclude turbos and the Type R.
GA
Senior Member
For quick reference, here it is:
9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOT-approved tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of any car.
Super Touring Over (STO) vehicles are high-performance GT and exotics over 3.2 liters. STO vehicles are explicitly approved for competition; to be eligible for STO competition, a chassis and maximum engine displacement must be listed as a specially-approved combination in the STO "Approved Cars and Engines" table.
Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose performance cars of 3.2 liters and under. Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from "Pony Cars" or "American Iron" with stock camshaft lift at a heavier weight will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstances. Spec lines are not required for STU eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
World Challenge vehicles compliant to a SCCA Pro VTS may be approved on a case-by-case basis for STU. See the STU "Approved World Challenge Cars" table.
Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore "tuner" class with engine displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO. As with STU, spec lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
Alternate allowances may be approved on a case-by-case basis for individual vehicles that do not meet these parameters; see "Alternate Vehicle Allowances" tables. Engines components from these approved vehicle allowances may not be installed in other chassis without specific line-item approval (e.g., the STU 3.8L Mustang engine may not be installed into a Ford Focus).
Vehicle modifications are limited to those listed herein. Unless a particular modification or part is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car. Some amount of latitude will be considered to facilitate engine installations, however if extensive modifications are required it is recommended to seek clarification from the Club Racing Board. Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.
Each class will have a baseline target power-to-weight ratio. Weights may be adjusted or cars may be subject to changes in intake restrictors to meet these targets. Cars may be required to carry data acquisition equipment for review of performance.
Senior Member
The Exige I think is the outlier example of a potential category killer chassis. The Elise could be allowed but limited to stock engine with intake restrictor and/or no aero and/or a specific chassis weight
Why is the S2K an overdog chassis? (compared to say, a Z4 BMW with an STL sized engine?)
Again, allow the chassis but don't allow any aero bits, or require the chassis run heavy regardless of installed engine.
Another option would be to have an adjuster for MID engine rear drive cars.
I get that not every car is ever guaranteed to be competitive...but at the same time, there are certain cars that are inherently going to be turned into race cars... especially if they ahve a good place to race. S2K and Elise and BMW 3 series are perfect examples of that.
that way the Fords and BMW's aren't overly penalized (which are already non-competitive compared to the Hondacuras BTW)
Last edited by JS154; 01-06-2012 at 02:07 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks