Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: stl gear ratios rule interpretation Q

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    December 2012 GCR:

    Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must be
    used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer
    as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be installed
    in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their
    entirety. Retrofitting OEM complete gear sets in an alternate transmission
    case is permitted.

    August 2014 GCR:

    Either the original transmission or an alternate transmission must
    be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer
    as the vehicle (i.e., an Acura transmission may be installed
    in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their
    entirety; any OEM gear sets that fit w/o any modifications to gears,
    shafts, and/or case are permitted.


    The change came as a request from the CRB.

    I think the verbiage change clearly implies gear pairs can be mixed and matched. We'll see what the STAC/CRB says.

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    They're sure saying "no" to a normal sized TIR on the SR20DET!
    Hard to say "no" to something that doesn't exist...
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    It's not going to exist until you take the handcuffs off. not going to spend money to build something that's hobbled from day 1. I'll never have the cash to build a 'full-tilt' engine to prove it can't make equivalent power, and until that's done the old stodgies that hate JDM are going to continue to keep the handcuffs on a 20 yr old engine. can't win that one, so not going to try.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    It's not going to exist until you take the handcuffs off. not going to spend money to build something that's hobbled from day 1. I'll never have the cash to build a 'full-tilt' engine to prove it can't make equivalent power, and until that's done the old stodgies that hate JDM are going to continue to keep the handcuffs on a 20 yr old engine. can't win that one, so not going to try.
    this is the part of "The Process" in IT that drove a number of people off, unhapily. there has to be some noise cancelation, the rulesmakers can't be jumping at every request by moving specs up and down, but there also needs to be a reasonable threshold to being taken seriously. when ONLY full tilt builds will be accepted for review (or when the perception is that this is the case), those who simply can't afford that effort are left out to dry with what are often reaosnable requests for adjustment or review. The difference between a good build and a great build is not a huge amount of peak hp in most cases, just a lot of reliability, driveability (area under the curve), etc... and it adds up to lower lap times more than winning the race on the dyno.

    the ST non USDM market rules adding weight or reducing TIR size "just because foreign" is not good practice. Yes, there are specific cases (i.e. powerplants or chassis) where such penalties ARE warranted and I think any reasonable person would agree to them. but not blanket application to all items sharing a non technical detail. have your cake and eat it, too. Matt has every right to feel that way, IMHO. no one should be asked to prove a negative, and anyone who is has good reason to feel slighted.
    Last edited by Chip42; 08-19-2014 at 02:37 PM.
    TrackSpeed

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Neither the CRB nor the STAC (nor I) has made a proclamation that "no" consideration will be made until data on a full-tilt build is presented to them.

    However, there's absolutely zero point in making chances until someone builds one*.

    We can always go back to "US market engines only" if it'll make people feel better...that way there's no ambiguity.

    GA

    * If you truly believe that 2mm of TIR will make that much of a difference, enough so that you'll not even consider building it, then IMO it's not going to be a competitive package anyway...
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    "Gear sets" are the entire package, not each gear pair. per rule 2014 spec.
    . Otherwise you penalise the car with non splined gear boxes.
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    i couldnt find any definition for "gear sets" in the GCR....

    so we'll wait for the clarification, i guess.....your interpretation obviously differs from many others....but i can see both directions (or i wouldnt have made this post, and thus written a letter)
    Last edited by adamjabaay; 08-20-2014 at 11:56 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Neither the CRB nor the STAC (nor I) has made a proclamation that "no" consideration will be made until data on a full-tilt build is presented to them.

    However, there's absolutely zero point in making chances until someone builds one*.

    We can always go back to "US market engines only" if it'll make people feel better...that way there's no ambiguity.

    GA

    * If you truly believe that 2mm of TIR will make that much of a difference, enough so that you'll not even consider building it, then IMO it's not going to be a competitive package anyway...
    I see/saw it all the time when people are/were asking for help for a particular car. "we believe that engine will make 30%. you only make 25% so you must be doing something wrong. keep trying and come back when you spend more money and still can't make 30%."

    This engine with a stock T28 turbo will NEVER be competitive with 20-year newer technology and way better turbos, but it's a farsight better than the current KA that's sucking air through a crappy intake manifold and tiny throttle body that can't be changed. My plan for an SR20 build was intended as a cheap way to get CLOSER to the competition, and I don't intend to build it to the limits. However, if its going to just be choked down from day 1 then why even bother spending thousands only to still get beat by the same people that already beat me?

    I'll quit beating the dead horse and let these guys get back to the topic- it's not going to get me anywhere anyway..
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    letter reviewed and response out on 20th...excellent

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,105

    Default

    Based on the prelims, sounds like you can mix and match....

    Is that how you read it?
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Yup.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

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
  •