Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: STL weights?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default

    So you are basically saying it is unlikely the STAC would consider allowing the ITR 8 to run in STL? It seems reasonable as the ITR 8 would be like limited-prep STL so it should be able to run lighter; it would have no aero, worse suspension and gearing, etc. The brakes would be larger but stock, not aftermarket like the STL car runs. The tires could be a bit larger too, but not much over the STL 225 so the advantage would be minimal.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    IMO, the chances are damn near zero that the CRB will ever allow and ITR car to compete in STL using IT prep; the performance potential of ITR is too close to STL*. We already had that argument over the ITR RX-8 (and Type R, and RSX, and S2000) a couple years ago.

    Plus, it would make for significant confusion for scrutineers, just as the inclusion of SMs did.**

    - GA

    * The key philosophical point here to keep in mind is inclusion of IT cars is not to offer a competitive place for them to play, but simply another place in the Majors (nee Nationals) to play. Further note that, on initial glance, any 2L-and-under IT car is already compliant to STL regs, with the exception that STL requires the lateral dash brace whereas ITx does not...so we specifically call out the allowance of IT cars to both avoid that cage issues and encourage participation.

    ** SMs are pulling restrictor plates and claiming to be ITS while running de-powered racks and/or other non-IT-allowed mods. When caught they claimed to be prepped to STL specs, but don't meet all those regs, either. It got so confusing that I had to create a "spotter's guide" for scrutineers to be able to figure out what's what.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    16

    Default STL Weight

    Greg: Thanks for the info and clarification. FWIW money begets championships AKA speed is money; how fast do you want to go?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Yup. Super Touring - both classes - has the significant potential for some serious mega-bucks. And it becomes real "serious business" when it becomes Majors (Nationals) racing. - GA

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clark18 View Post
    So you are basically saying it is unlikely the STAC would consider allowing the ITR 8 to run in STL? It seems reasonable as the ITR 8 would be like limited-prep STL so it should be able to run lighter; it would have no aero, worse suspension and gearing, etc. The brakes would be larger but stock, not aftermarket like the STL car runs. The tires could be a bit larger too, but not much over the STL 225 so the advantage would be minimal.
    I don't see a full built STL RX8 being any faster than an ITR RX8. No gearing advantages, and I am not sure you can get any suspension advantage. Aero ya, brakes I guess a bit better. I think they are doing the right thing staying consistent keeping ALL ITR cars out rather than picking a few.


    I ran mine in STU but it will never be fast enough for that class.

    Stephen

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    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
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyinglizard View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    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.
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Yup.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default

    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.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •