Proposed change to TIR table....

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm possibly encouraged by the proposed change to the TIR table for STU. But I find the notes wording confusing:

“Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must deduct 2 mm from this table.”

It could be argued that "deduct 2mm" may mean use the weight of a 2mm smaller TIR. Instead I'd propose the following wording:

Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must either reduce their TIR size by 2mm for a given weight, or keep the same TIR size and increase base weight to the equivalent of a 2mm larger TIR.

Either that or put an asterisk TIR size in the chart for Turbocharged AWD/RWD STU cars.

[Greg Amy]

I'm sure the STAC/CRB is opened minded on it - after all, we want to get it "right" - but I'm just not sure how that's really any different. Whether you pick a weight and then a TIR then reduce the TIR by 2mm for AWD/RWD, or if you pick a TIR then the weight then reduce the TIR by 2mm, what's really the difference?

We just want to ensure the intent is clear: regardless of what line you pick, if you have RWD or AWD you'll have to use a TIR that's 2mm smaller based on the minimum weight of your car.

GA

[Matt93SE]

Add another column to the same table showing either:

separate FWD and AWD/RWD weights with one TIR diameter,
OR
show one weight listing with a TIR diameters for FWD and for RWD/AWD.

It just makes it all that much clearer.

[Greg Amy]

Add another column to the same table showing either:

No, I don't think we want to get into that (IMO). That table is purely to spec baseline TIR vs weight; if we added in another column then we need to add in all the other class adders/subtractors such as struts, moved suspension points, and so forth.

I may, however, look into summarizing all the adders/subtractors into a common area at the end. - GA

[Matt93SE]

I think you're overhtinking it at that point. the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.
want to make absolutely clear on it? then stick a big bold disclaimer above or below the table mentioning these are the baselines and all other adders/subtracters still apply.

[Greg Amy]

[QUOTE=Matt93SE;342955the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.[/QUOTE]
The TIR/weight chart? That has absolutely nothing to do with any specific engine or chassis. That chart simply says that if you're running a turbocharged engine, you must weigh XXXX pounds when running a YY mm TIR. You get to pick. All the new reg does is reduce that TIR by 2mm with a RWD or AWD car. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's an idea instead of singling out two types of drive systems, why not single out the lone exception. IE... reduce the sizes in the TIR chart by 2mm and then state the Fwd chassis get to open up the TIR size by 2mm, for a given weight?

[Matt93SE]

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

[JIgou]

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

Send the turbos packing?

[jmac36]

So, Greg, tell me, if Marc was running a 32 mm already @ xxxx weight, that means he will now have to be 32 and xxxx plus the 200 lbs or so( two steps up the table)?

[Greg Amy]

Yes. Given that scenario he could either run the 2012 weight with a 30mm TIR, or keep his 32mm TIR and run the weight of the 34mm TIR.

[Z3_GoCar]

Send the turbos packing?

So, if we get a repeat performance of turbo run-away at the run-offs again would you consider sending the turbo's packing?

[Greg Amy]

So, if we get a repeat performance of turbo run-away at the run-offs again would you consider sending the turbo's packing?

Purely a personal opinion, but "no". Turbo engines are coming to the fore in the new car market - especially low-displacement ones - and if you send them packing, where else in the SCCA can they come and play?

Nope, I suggest this is a process we'll need to continue to tweak until we get it "right" (or at least "close"). - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Purely a personal opinion, but "no". Turbo engines are coming to the fore in the new car market - especially low-displacement ones - and if you send them packing, where else in the SCCA can they come and play?

Nope, I suggest this is a process we'll need to continue to tweak until we get it "right" (or at least "close"). - GA

You think the tubo guys will like being slowed down to EP lap times? Then you think us N/A guys are going to wait around while you didle with the TIR size to weight chart to slow them to that point? If none of the N/A guys show up next year there'll be what... maybe 5 STU cars? I know that Royle's already gone to EP, so has Matt, Rosenburg's sold his car. Not that it matters much, but I'm just this close to going EP too, STU's about to do an ITR in So-Pac.

[Greg Amy]

You think the tubo guys will like being slowed down to EP lap times? Then you think us N/A guys are going to wait around while you didle with the TIR size to weight chart to slow them to that point? If none of the N/A guys show up next year there'll be what... maybe 5 STU cars? I know that Royle's already gone to EP, so has Matt, Rosenburg's sold his car. Not that it matters much, but I'm just this close to going EP too, STU's about to do an ITR in So-Pac.

Yes.

What else do you suggest we do, James; ban turbo cars entirely? Isn't that more than a bit self-centered and unrealistic? If E Prod is such the perfect answer, why didn't you go there in the first place many years ago? Honestly, James, in my personal opinion the foot-stomping and whining has gotten to the point where I'm thinking "hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass"...

There's a reason you're racing Super Touring, whatever it is, and that's the goal we're trying to hit. And threatening to leave won't change that effort (ask your California T1 Corvette drivers how that worked out for them).

GA

P.S. Read my sig...

[Z3_GoCar]

Yes.

What else do you suggest we do, James; ban turbo cars entirely? Isn't that more than a bit self-centered and unrealistic? If E Prod is such the perfect answer, why didn't you go there in the first place many years ago? Honestly, James, in my personal opinion the foot-stomping and whining has gotten to the point where I'm thinking "hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass"...

There's a reason you're racing Super Touring, whatever it is, and that's the goal we're trying to hit. And threatening to leave won't change that effort (ask your California T1 Corvette drivers how that worked out for them).

GA

P.S. Read my sig...

I'm not being whiney or foot stomping... just letting you know that there's a cliff you're about to go over. Good luck growing a class by telling the participants to "don't let the door hit you in the ass"....

[Greg Amy]

James, look: there are no plans to ban turbo cars from STU. There's not even any discussion of possibly discussing that. It's just not an option on the table.

I understand your (and others) concerns, and the committee is going to consistently adjust the regs to the best of our ability to equalize competition - generally - between turbo and non-turbo cars. But we are not going to ban them from STU. So if you are already convinced that these cars cannot coexist then while I'd really lament losing you, STU is not going to be the class for you...call me next time you're around here, I'd love to have dinner and a beer with you again and we can discuss it. - GA

[Matt93SE]

Instead of slowing down the turbo cars, why not speed up the N/A cars?
the cost of building an N/A engine within SCCA's rules to keep up with a turbo car is pretty asinine.

high compression, big cams, machine everything to the gnat's ass, spin it to 9,000rpm so you can suck it all through a crappy stock intake manifold and throttle body, then blow it all up and rebuild it at $10k a season.
OR
bolt in a bone stock turbo engine from something else and kick ass- reliably?

I know which one I'd rather do.

How about opening up the N/A rules a touch to help out those cars vs. slowing down the turbo guys. This is supposed to be Super Touring after all. modeled after WC Touring cars.. The WC cars have completely custom intake manifolds- some with ITBs- and whatever else you can throw at them. Then the guys building stuff in their garage are stuck with a manifold that can't flow for sheit. when you know you're going to lose with that combination, why bother trying to win?

[bamfp]

^^^^^^I like that idea^^^^^^

[Greg Amy]

^^^^^^I like that idea^^^^^^

I don't. This would require approving and managing individually vehicle prep specs.

Do you trust the same committee that you're blasting above to review, approve, and manage those individual considerations?

Blech!