STL Chassis Builds?

[Chip42]

on the subject of "uber chassis" (and I'm in the Andy B camp on this one) how can you defend the restriction on the Integra Type R? In what way is it functionally different from a GSR or LS integra with STL allowed modifications? 5 lug wheels abd bigger bearings? because that's all I can think of. It's easily the silliest of exclusions, though the RX8 chassis is a close second.

[Greg Amy]

We're discussing removing the ITR chassis from the "exclude" list.

[mossaidis]

on the subject of "uber chassis" (and I'm in the Andy B camp on this one) how can you defend the restriction on the Integra Type R? In what way is it functionally different from a GSR or LS integra with STL allowed modifications? 5 lug wheels abd bigger bearings? because that's all I can think of. It's easily the silliest of exclusions, though the RX8 chassis is a close second.

all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR...

[Andy Bettencourt]

all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR...

And a car that IS classed...the MX-5

[StephenB]

And a car that IS classed...the MX-5

Which is the same chasis as an RX8...

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which is the same suspension as an RX8...

Stephen

Fixed. Chassis is different.

[JS154]

all in all, with STL mods/cage the resulting difference would be multi-link rear.... which is also available on older Integra models (90 i believe) and a 04 TSX which are NOT in ITR...

And the Focus
And the Mini
And the BMW E36/E46/Z4
Toyota MR-S

lots of IRS eligible cars in STL

[mossaidis]

I was comparing the Type-R (ITR) with the GSR (ITS) suggesting that outlawing ITR cars will do you no good since TSX (most likely ITS) and older Acuras (ITA) also have multi-link rear as well....

Thank you, you guys took it one step further

[Andy Bettencourt]

So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.

325
328
330
E30 M3
Z3's
Z4's
E36 M3
Preludes
Is300
SC300
300ZX with SR20!!!!!!!!!!!
New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

[lateapex911]

Seems to me that STL is in some sort of weirt quasi not here not there state right now. The rule say nothing about chassis designs that are not allowed, but certain cars are excluded, yet others, that are functionally and basically the same ARE allowed. Somebody tell me the difference between, say, the Mazda MX5/Miata suspension, and the S2000. Or the RX-8 ? All RWD, all IRS, Yet one is out, the others are in but know we hear the STAC doesn't like the RX-8. And "longer wheelbase on the S2000" isn't a reasonable differentiation. If it is, it needs to be in the STCS. As a generic limitation: ALL cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded. Or, if we want to play favorites, ALL RWD cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded.

Sounds ridiculous though, doesn't it?

This makes no sense to me. IF the Mazda MX5 is kosher, then so should the S2000.

So, I understand the whole, "We can't think of every car, we have to handle things as they come up" concept....but, it's avoiding the main issue. It shouldn't be that car is a problem, it should be that technology is a problem.

Or WHY is this car that you want to exclude a bad seed?? What physical issue is the cause of the hate??? THATs what needs to be determined. This isn't easy though, and it's really the heavy lifting part of the job for the STAC.

Now, on the other hand, it sounds as though, with Greg repeating, "Be careful what you ask for", that the STAC isn't likely to open up the category to be logical and let chassis with the same basic components as the ones already allowed in. Will the decision be to further limit the choices?
Will the answer to my question of "If the Miata is allowed then why not the S2000 (or RX-8)??" be: "Good point, lets exclude the Miata"???

I understand Gregs response to some questions: If you don't like it, go to STU.
But the disconnect I see is that STU is really another category. The ruleset is rather different. People race rulesets. IT is popular because it's an attainable ruleset, and there are plenty of car choices, and there are good options in nearly every class.

I think the STL ruleset is quite attractive to many, but as it's playing out, it's rather exclusionary, and that's a shame, in my opinion.

If I were King, I'd add elements to the ST rules:
-I'd do a hard study on the RWD weight adder. (yes, I think I might increase it a tad)
-I'd look at chassis/suspension differences that, within the allowable ST race prep ruleset make a difference, and i'd address those globally in the rules.
-Personally, I'd allow rotaries in UN ported. It's well known what they make, and they have a strong following. So what if parts are scarce? What's it going to hurt to have a diverse grid, with a 12A Miata? If they owner can't find parts when it blows, it's his problem. We know dam well the things make 148 (or so) crank, and about 127 (or so) at the wheels. Back out the math, and class it. Same for the 13B. They aren't pistons, so don't treat them like they are. !t's an easy classification to get right.
-And if I were REALLY king, I'd seriously consider allowing ITBs. Already injectors and engine management are allowed, and the intakes are the bugaboos of so many candidates...why not just let the actual parts meet the classing structure? Even the playing field.

But that's me. I think the class should be, as it appears in the rules ("Any car that is under 2.0 litres", essentially) Inclusionary, rather than EXclusionary.

[lateapex911]

So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.


New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

Haha...imagine how dumb that would look on rims half as wide as stock, LOL. Like it's on space savers!!!

[JS154]

So this brings up a good point. Greg wants only ITS and 'down' chassis in STL but really everything in ITR is eligible (sans S2000 and Hype R) with the proper motor. Think of all the cars you could 'dumb down'.

325
328
330
E30 M3
Z3's
Z4's
E36 M3
Preludes
Is300
SC300
300ZX with SR20!!!!!!!!!!!
New 911 GT3 with old 2Litre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO, this is fun!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE EXCLUSIONS COMING!!!!!!

Seriously guys, make the cc/weight class a cc/weight class.

and every single one of those chassis' with an allowable STL engine will be a heavy slow slug - before the RWD penalty is applied.

That's a whole host of perectly good "touring car" chassis that have no reason or business being built for STL.

[lateapex911]

Yea, I think the point is, to my way of thinking, that you can't just say. "This chassis is Ok, and this one isn't".
You can't say, "Nothing from ITS or ITR"...
That's ignoring that IT is a HP based classing system. The same chassis COULD run in ITR, ITS, ITA and ITB. Think of a Miata with a 2.5L motor making 245hp, the current ITS version, the current ITA version, and a older 1.3 motor, making 110, for ITB.

[Z3_GoCar]

The four cylinder Z3's kosher because it's an ITA car and less than 2.0 liters (if only it'd even make power, I think Kesler has already shown it won't), but the same chassis with a wider rear subframe won't because it's an ITR car??? While the 318 was the exact same motor in the same chassis as the 325/328, only these have multi-link.

[Rabbit07]

[Andy Bettencourt]

and every single one of those chassis' with an allowable STL engine will be a heavy slow slug - before the RWD penalty is applied.

IF they couldn't get down to weight. If they could, then they would be fine - except we don't want those chassis, because they are in ITR!!!! Ugh.

Like Jake said, if we are afraid of Miata's, then just outlaw RWD with DW's at all 4 corners instead of a dynamic exclusion list for cars that can actually compete. If you want this to be a FWD under-2L tuner class, MAKE IT ONE! Stop jerking us all around and sink or swim on your original concept instead of trying to fill fields with half-baked classifications (12A/13.

Not all classes will have a spot for cars I like. No problem at all with that, but just be what you are and stand tall with it.

Phew. Time for a Yuengling or 4.

[Greg Amy]

'Zactly. I've never seen a class "jump the shark" within the SCCA membership as quickly as Super Touring Light. Even Chump Cars and LeMons lasted longer than this one...

Time for another beer.

[Rabbit07]

Phew. Time for a Yuengling or 4.

I love that stuff

[Rabbit07]

FYI a miata is on the pole for the national tomorrow at Sebring.

[bamfp]

And he is over a second slower then the pole in SM. So I am guessing that it is not a fully built STL car.