STL Chassis Builds?

[JS154]

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.

GA

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)

[CRallo]

excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!

[Greg Amy]

excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!

Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... - GA

[CRallo]

Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... - GA

I've honestly never read the NASA rules. I was mostly just kicking the hornets nest with the comment, however the general displeasure it expressed still stands There are always pros and cons and I like alot of what you've done for ST, but in this case, I don't like it. What about adding a penalty to these super cars? or allow things like control arms to help the slow cars? oh wait...

That said there are some core issues in the ST rules that bar existing cars from coming to play and I firmly believe that we risk losing (more) people to NASA.

In closing, I must remind you that I have already built and raced a car in SCCA competition...

[Greg Amy]

I know that. And you should be ashamed for letting it sit there...

[mossaidis]

Greg, keep STL chassis open as described above. It's the right thing to do. Mickey

[CRallo]

I know that. And you should be ashamed for letting it sit there...

As long as you do too...

But I drove and raced the car THIS year. Not much, but who could blame me when I have all these other shiny things to drive? lol