STL weights?

[Flyinglizard]

STL requires power steering? really? Looped hoses is not legit?

Iwould be surprised if the ST board would make the same mistake that the IT B did.
Never mind on the STL rental thing than.
MM

[Greg Amy]

STL requires power steering? really? Looped hoses is not legit?

Looping is allowed in STL (I do it). What the SMs are doing is using their SM-looping-allowed power steering racks and removing their restrictor plates for STL, claiming to be ITS cars. But, Improved Touring does not allow PS-looping so they are not compliant to ITS regs. So then they claim they're actually full-up STL cars, but are either running too low (SM does not have a ride height restriction), don't have the lateral dash bar (not required in SM, and/or are doing something else allowed in SM but not STL (such as all the head modifications). Thus my cheat sheet.

Can't pick and choose within the regs, gotta meet everything in whatever config you choose to run.

- GA

[Flyinglizard]

Makes more sense. Good move on the hose thing.
My car has or will have..
looped hoses- yes
no plate - yes
dash bar- yes
cam wheels -yes
header - yes

So needs to be @ STL weight I assume.

[Greg Amy]

Yup.

[Clark18]

Back to the STL RX8, I disagree the car needs to be slowed with adjustments. Huffmaster's is a well-driven/prepped car that has been developed over years; basically they spent the money to be STL fast (what some of you pointed out would happen). Their Runoffs times were not much better than other STL cars, and few if any of those cars are as developed for STL. I don't understand penalizing the RX8 because Huffmaster brought a car maxed to the STL rules, and spent the money to win.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would also wait based on the simple fact that the Runoffs are headed to a track that is so much less HP dependent. STL is a class that will be very track specific in my mind. With cars in the same pocket in terms of HP-to-weight, but at vastly different HP levels, at a track like RA 210-215whp will be an advantage on the big end, even at 3000lbs.

Laguna will be interesting. Torque and nimbleness I think will be the recipe.

[mossaidis]

Laguna will be interesting. Torque and nimbleness I think will be the recipe.

(Mickey... nervously thinking and pondering...)

[Z3_GoCar]

I would also wait based on the simple fact that the Runoffs are headed to a track that is so much less HP dependent. STL is a class that will be very track specific in my mind. With cars in the same pocket in terms of HP-to-weight, but at vastly different HP levels, at a track like RA 210-215whp will be an advantage on the big end, even at 3000lbs.

Laguna will be interesting. Torque and nimbleness I think will be the recipe.

I've walked around MRLS, raced around it on a bicycle, and in a car. I'm sorry, but I beg to disagree. MRLS is a HP track because it's like RA's front straight on every major straight... slow for turn 11, then front straight with a hill in it, slow for turn 6, the the whole straight is a hill, tap brakes for turn 7 and the whole straight is a hill. The secret to faster lap times at Laguna Seca is... Mor Powah/less weight.

[Greg Amy]

[Personal Opinion]

If it were up to me - and obviously, it's not - the Renesis engine would not be in STL at all. It does not meet the philosophy of this class in any regard, be it design (rotary), displacement (2.6L), or power (230hp). In my opinion, the Mazda Renesis engine is simply not an STL engine.

And I'm not opposed to the rotary part; I was the one that championed the 12A and 13B into STL, and allowing the ITA/ITS car in at IT specs. But neither of those have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive, so it was an easy "gimme" to let them come play in STL. The 230hp Renesis? Not so much.

I was vociferously opposed, on philosophical grounds, to allowing in the Renesis when it was initially proposed, even before we had any idea of its potential in the class, and well before we saw any racing results (let alone a pair of Runoffs wins with two different drivers). I continue to oppose its inclusion in the class; in fact, I submitted a new letter after this year's Runoffs requesting it be removed (not expecting that to actually happen, but to generate discussion). Of course, I've been voted down in committee each time.

But that's all water under the bridge now.

[/Personal Opinion, but still not STAC/CRB official position -- see sig]

Whatever the CRB does will be for the good of the class, not for or against any specific car and/or engine. The Renesis in STL is a done deal, the Club is not willing to exclude it. Thus, it is a target for adjustment toward this goal of This is Natio...err, Majors racing just as every other engine is, as the CRB retains the right and responsibility to ensure reasonably-equitable competition. And we're not just POOMA'ing this stuff; we have data from all the top cars from the last two years, so we know where each of them does well...

Again, nothing has been decided, except to consider doing something. Watch Fastrack for the results.

- GA, encouraging everyone to re-read my signature...