STL Chassis Builds?

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[JS154]

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.

Andy put the 2.4L TSX motor in it and run in STU!

[mossaidis]

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.

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.

[lateapex911]

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.

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.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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

[Greg Amy]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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:

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.

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.

/broken record

[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.