Results 1 to 20 of 120

Thread: December 2013 Fastrack

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default December 2013 Fastrack

    Going to beat Pam to the punch this month, as we have a lot of changes in ST that will generate discussion...

    11/14/13- Preliminary Minutes
    11/14/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC US
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini? Not sure how we catch a Solstice without fuel. Have one and building a second one so curious.
    Steve Eckerich
    ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
    ITR RX8 (under construction)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seckerich View Post
    Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini?
    You didn't. Injectors are free in STx, it was struck as a redundant note.

    Back story is that there used to be a line there where a combo of some pulley (JCW?) required stock injectors, and one pulley (stock?) allowed open injectors, but when that combo was removed the redundant note was not.

    - GA

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?

    Production
    1. #12279 (Philip Royle) Allow IT cars to run in Production in IT trim
    Thank you for your letter. Add 9.1.5.B5.: 5. Any Improved Touring car meeting all the requirements of ITCS 9.1.3 may compete in the Production class in which the same make, model and engine displacement car is classified. For Improved Touring cars competing in Production, the level of preparation and modifications will be as determined by ITCS 9.1.3 and not by PCS 9.1.5. This is intended to allow Improved Touring competitors to become more familiar with Production to assist them in determining whether to modify their cars to meet the requirements of PCS 9.1.5 and also to permit Improved Touring competitors to compete in all events open to Production cars.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quadzjr View Post
    Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?
    A great move, IMO.

    Of course, almost everybody with a 2L 4-cyl was able to do the same thing in STL for the last two years...now everyone else (well, those that have a corresponding car in Prod) can go to The Show.

    - GA

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?

    Also why more weight for the RWD? didn't a FWD qualify 3 and 4 at the runoffs?

    Good to see my request got through.
    Last edited by quadzjr; 11-14-2013 at 03:58 PM.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    Why the hell is someone asking for a VW Passat to be classified in Touring 4?
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    So with the changes for next year, what's the hot Honda package in STL...? WWtGAD...?

    Assume for a minute that we're talking about an FWD chassis that can get to the minimum weight for the various choices...

    K

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

    Default

    Final Dec2013 Fastrack: http://www.scca.com/assets/13-fastrack-dec.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    So with the changes for next year, what's the hot Honda package in STL...? WWtGAD...?
    Hot "Honda" package in STL? Or hot STL package?

    I still think the Miata/RX-8 is the chassis to have. We only added 2% to RWD, and Drago has demonstrated that the Miata 1.8L can make some good power. That ~+50 pounds isn't gonna kill it.

    We dropped a restrictor plate on the RX-8, but we also removed 100# (+ the 2%). Mazda has made some very good RWD chassis, and this is one of them. I don't think this plate will hurt the car.

    The Honda S2k is now in the mix, but someone is going to have to build an engine that drops the compression ratio *and* reduces the cams. But this engine has a long history of high-revving - just like the Renesis - so this is one to watch.

    But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made. The 50mm plate we added to the K20 (60/62mm throttle body stock) should not, theoretically, hurt the power a lot. From what I'm hearing, computer sims showed the throttle body was intentionally oversized to improve part-throttle drivability and had less to do with ultimate airflow (what we're really worried about in racing). *IF* these sims are correct, we're only talking about a 10-ish hp hit on the K20.

    And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap. Given the Civic is a strut car, and struts get an additional 2.5% weight break, I'd be tempted to build up a K20-powered Civic Si as my "FWD Honda car to beat". Second Honda choice would be a K20-powered "anything else". Third choice would be a B18C5 (Type R, add 2% weight) or B18C1 (GSR) powered "anything else".

    But in the end, I still think a well-built, well-developed, high-quality RWD chassis is still King of the Road. I'm waiting for someone to spend some serious money on an MX-5.

    I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque.

    Then again, we've approved the VW Euro 2L 4-valve engine, which I've yet to see built...

    We'll see, eh?

    - GA

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    ...But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made.
    You answered my question spot-on, Greg. Thanks.

    K

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    42

    Default

    GA - "And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap.....

    I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque."
    I am hoping that this year we can close the NA - NB gap for Miata's and 1.6 cars overall, but I have to agree with Greg. If I only had $50K to build a NC...

    Thanks Greg

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevestratton View Post
    I am hoping that this year we can close the NA - NB gap for Miata's and 1.6 cars overall, but I have to agree with Greg. If I only had $50K to build a NC...

    Thanks Greg
    Right now I do not think a 1.6L anything is going to take it home at a national level. MVS here in the SE is building/built a 1.6L STL miata. He was testing it during the same test day I was at before the SIC. Though he still has more to do for a full STL build, he was at his ITS times.

    He is registered in the car at Sebring for the Turkey Trots, so we will see what it can do.

    We will see after this year of the displacement multiplier is correct. In theory this year at the runoffs a great handling car should be the ticket. This is where the smaller, light weight, nimble cars should do very well. If not then IMHO the multiplier will need to be looked at if the ticket is still grab a chassis and throw in the biggest motor you can.

    In Continental challenge the lower hp MX5s I think finished 1-2 their this year at Seca. So we will see.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  13. #13

    Default

    Yes, you beat me to the punch. The revised Prelims are now up.

    ...are posted:

    http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    So it was requested that the renisis to be eliminated from STL but it looks like it just lost weight and then they added a restrictor? And the type r engine that races in ITR with the renisis is being added?

    Greg, can you clarify? I am searching for an auto rx8 to possibly do a few swaps to run in STL but again I am thinking of sticking to IT until STL gets sorted out in a few years.


    Thanks, Stephen

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Lemme try! Before Greg gives us the real info:

    Stephen - yes on your two comments. Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.

    The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set? Interesting.

    Chuck - your fully IT compliant car can run in STL provided it meets the engine size requirements (non ITR) no matter what rule is or isn't specifically compliant in STL. It just has to be 100% IT with no mixing and matching or rule-sets.

    On edit: I wouldn't put a dime into an RX8 for STL right now. There is committee issue with the motor design, and RWD adders keep on rising. A good plan would be to run one in ITR for a couple more years and see what happens...but just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Odd...I posted a reply earlier and it's gone...

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.
    Concur, mostly. However, the CRB chose to plate the RX-8 (no personal idea on its effects) to be able to remove the 100# from it, since we were adding more weight for RWD and it was getting quite piggy (half a ton heavier than the 1.6L CRX).

    Stephen, there are still hurdles to running your ITR RX-8 in STL, primarily brakes too large (front and rear), wheels too large (17x7 max), and tires too large (225 section width max). The transition between ITR and STL is not easy for the RX-8, nor is it intended to be.

    The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set?
    B18C5 still has to meet all STL specs, including max valve lift. The 2% was to accommodate that its prepped output will exceed STL expectations (same reason for the plates for the K20 and MZR). If it exceeds it even with the extra 2%, it also risks a plate (I will likely be building and dyno'ing one for 2014, given I sold my B17A1 at the Runoffs).

    ...just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).
    A bit of a generalized mis-characterization, as the CRB does not knee-jerk lead-trophy Runoffs winners. However, if you lead the Runoffs by half a minute in the only car of your kind in the class, two years in a row with two different drivers, you certainly expect additional scrutiny... - GA

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck baader View Post
    Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?
    I believe a true STL car (non-IT or non-SM) will need a fuel cell only if the gas tank is behind the rear axles (or something like that).
    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mossaidis View Post
    I believe a true STL car (non-IT or non-SM) will need a fuel cell only if the gas tank is behind the rear axles (or something like that).
    STCS 9.1.4.I.1:
    The use of a fuel cell is required unless the stock
    fuel tank is located between the axle centerlines and within the
    main chassis structure (i.e., frame rails, etc.).

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
  •