Some things got missed

[lateapex911]

In regards to brakes, the current consensus is to let the class get going and see where there is a need. One example we discussed was say a Ford Festiva with a 2.0 engine might really need bigger brakes, or a 1st gen Honda with a 1.8l might need bigger brakes?

No.
Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.

Wheel fans, cooling allowances, fine. (But better in the ruleset from day one)

Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them. Time and again, people say they like consistency and stability in their racing classes and categories.

A fiesta needs bigger brakes? Well, duh, then chose a different ride, or put a smaller engine in it. Caveat emptor.
But don't as the keepers of the class, decide a year or two to just say, "OK, brake packages are allowed". (And use the dreaded safety card as justification) It changes the competitive balance, it throws away peoples investment, and it alienates the subscribers.

"Oh, now I need to run bigger brakes? (because, if they are allowed, and i want to win, I have to keep up with the Jone's, it's the rule of racing_)..well, now those wheels I invested in are too small, so THAT money and all the tires and testing are out the window, I need all new wheels and tires" etc etc.

And once that stuff starts, it's a slippery slope. IT has been around since 84 or so...and it's arguably one of the top two or three categories in the club. Rule changes come about based on technology shifts. The forefathers laid down a pretty good foundation, and major changes have been avoided wherever possible.

Beyond that STU allows bigger brakes, if I'm not mistaken, so for those who are hung up on tossing parts at the car, they can choose that class.

[dickita15]

IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

[lateapex911]

IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

As a guy on the BoD, I think that you should understand very well the classes future....and I suspect that if you don't, it's not for your lack of trying. The cornerstone philosophies should be decided on now, allowing them to develop over the years can be disastrous.

Am I reading yours and Chris's posts, that these "allowances" may come on a car by car basis?

[Andy Bettencourt]

IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.

And here is my recommendation:

DON'T try and balance the class. Stick with your weight-CC classification and let the market determine what is popular etc.

DO consider safty related allowances etc that can be applied across ALL classes.

The SECOND you take a class that has a simple and clean classification process and start throwing help to cars based on on-track performance is the moment that people walk away.

[Greg Amy]

^^^ Ding, ding!

I don't want comp adjustments. I don't want tacit "guarantee" of competitiveness while saying there's no guarantee. I want a straight-up throw-down fight, even if it means I make the wrong choices (e.g., don't count out the Miata and/or some other combination we haven't thought of yet).

I want to know the rules going in, and I don't want them to change unless the organization decides to apply those changes across the whole spectrum equally, and with very much aforethought before doing it.

There's the rules, get 'em right, let's go racing.*

GA

* I'll give you the first year, maybe two, to get the rules "right"; I'll give you the chance to make intelligent wholesale changes. For example, I want alternate control arms and alternate brakes (both with limits) and I'll continue to lobby for those across the whole spectrum. But once those decisions are made and we're where we want to be, I want the rulebook tossed into a lockbox, never to be touched again...

[Matt93SE]

First couple years? For those of you that have been paying attention, B and D Prepared have been around a while. That turned into STU and STO, which has been around a couple years. The only new thing is STL, which is a 'sterilized' version of STU.
And yes, the STAC has been changing rules that have drastically affected competitors. 2009-2010 rules state "Any engine from the manufacturer". Woohoo! Nissan can finally compete! We're not stuck using a cast iron truck engine that costs $15,000 to build and lasts 3 races on a set of bearings.

oh wait.. now here come the 2011 rules where "Only North American" engines are allowed. Nissan hasn't sold a GOOD RWD sub-3L engine in the states in decades. I personally know of 3 people who were building cars with the SR20 in them that can't race due to the rule change.

STU also 'lost' 2" of chord length on their rear wings with the 2011 rules. APR makes a special version of their GTC-200 specifically for the class. IT's 48" wide with a chord length of 8.75". 2010 rules were 48" x 10.5". 2011 Rules are 48.25" x 8.5". There goes another $1000 I've invested into the class that I have to try and sell on ebay at a loss. Not to mention manufacturers like APR that made an investment to build a part they can't sell now.

[lateapex911]

That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

[Rabbit07]

That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

Jake,

I will try to answer questions. right now I am preping 3 cars to go down to the ARRC, so my answers will like come next week. We a watching what is being said and seeking input.

Cheers

[StephenB]

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do.... Allow IT to go National?...

I haven't posted anything ever about STL but I do lurk I hear several comments like the one above but I just dont get it. How is STL even remotely close to IT? I read the rules and to me limited prep seems way closer to IT and requires way less $ money to do if I wanted to go national. I don't see anyway to be remotely competitive in STL with an IT car and if you do make all the modifications to allow you to be somewhat competitive you can't run in IT. So to me I just don't get how this allows IT drivers to suddenly "go national racing" now. Possibly the idea is to allow current IT drivers to run in a completely different class if they want to... same as going to production, with the difference being that its a different class with a new/different classification process allowing for different modifications than those in production.

Am I missing something?
Stephen

[Rabbit07]

That is EXACTLY why the PTB need to figure this stuff out UP front. As a rules maker/sanctioning body, it's fine and good to be quick to move, but when you DO make that move, make it stick.

Don't change rules ....major rules, that affect competition in anything but a unilateral manner.

To members of the STAC, what IS the goal, the cornerstone philosophy of STL. What is it intended to do, exactly? Attract new conquests? From where? How? Allow IT to go National? Make another class for a Miata to run in?
There HAVE to be answers to these questions...

Ok, as promised.

The goal in short is this. STO: World Challenge GT cars and similar to have a place to play in SCCA Club racing. You guys might not see it, but we spend lots of time dealing with these cars (as I wipe my brow). STU: World Challenge touring cars and similar, with hopes of catching some cars from obscure classes outside of the SCCA, ie Honda Challenge, PCA, BMWCCA, etc. STL: Cars similar to STU with a lower level of prep, IT style cars with some tech issues cleaned up, attractive to younger perspective racers because it pulls from a newer pot than another certain regional class. Please don't get me started on the Miata thing.

We spoke about 10-15 good cars for STL the other night at the T5 party in Atlanta. Guess what, they weren't all Honda's and Mazda's. At first glance it seems that way, but when you look deeper they start to appear. The best one I heard was a 2ZZ powered MR2 spyder.

When I was in high school we were putting 427s in Pintos and Mustangs and loving every minute of it. A young perspective racer today may not have even been born when a Pinto was new. They want to swap a K20 into their CRX, which by the way was built before they were born. STL is similar to IT, but in incorporates ideas like engine swaps and wings, and carbon fiber hoods. These are things that whether or not they make the car go faster they are cool and provide hope. That hope is one thing that does attract racers to any class. The hope that they could be competitive, the hope they could win. Whether any of us like it or not, people are hung up on things like; Battery relocation, washer bottles, and the requirement to have a heater core that doesn't have any water in it. And yes folks, some people want to know that after they have spent 4 years and countless dollars developing a car.....that if it is not competitive they may get an allowance to help them compete.

Start throwing tomatos now.

[Greg Amy]

...the STAC has been changing rules that have drastically affected competitors...STU also 'lost' 2" of chord length on their rear wings with the 2011 rules...APR that made an investment to build a part they can't sell now.

Target $1000-1500 for a custom wing.
OTOH, the APR GTC-200 sells for $625 online.

That's a good point...anyone care to offer why the wing size was reduced in STU, from 48x10.75 to 48.25x8.50? Is there a specific reason for that change, say, because the STAC is aware that this size is commonly supplied?

I'm just curious as to the basis/discussions behind the suggestion of "hey, let's reduce the rear wing size from this year's rules".

GA

[Dave Gomberg]

That's a good point...anyone care to offer why the wing size was reduced in STU, from 48x10.75 to 48.25x8.50? Is there a specific reason for that change, say, because the STAC is aware that this size is commonly supplied?

I'm just curious as to the basis/discussions behind the suggestion of "hey, let's reduce the rear wing size from this year's rules".

GA

That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave

[Knestis]

...trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future.

That's exactly the opposite of what should apply, if a weight/displacement formula is a first assumption. I don't LIKE the fact that it's going to leave some cars out in the cold but it's inconsistent to use a formula AND try to balance based on on-track performance with competition adjustments (bleah!). That's the worst of both worlds.

If there's any inclination to go that route, chuck the pretense of formulaic considerations and admit that success will result in weight penalties.

Instead, make the stoppers formulaic as well as the parts that make them go.

** Displacement = weight
** Max brake size
** Max number of gear ratios
** Max size of aero add-ons

Everything has to bolt to the stock shell.

Go.

K

[quadzjr]

I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors as they already do in GT. I can see why thy didn't, but it would of brought a few other marques into the light (as mentione before nissan, toyota, ford, possibly chevrolet) in GTL instead of just Honda's and Maybe a well built miata.

[Greg Amy]

I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors...

"I've been told" that non-USDM engines could be allowed on a case-by-case basis, you just need to submit a very detailed VTS along with your request. The implied reason they were blanket-eliminated was due to lack of specs for them.

IMO, it would also help your case to describe the differences between that engine and its closest USDM cousin, and don't forget it needs to conform to the compression/cam rules.

GA

[Matt93SE]

I'm still waiting to hear back from the CRB about "JDM engine request #1" on the SR20. I'll report back when I have findings. Been waiting on a response since August.

[Greg Amy]

Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.

A big +1 on that sentiment. The time to get the fundamentals right is at the beginning; you can tweak the details later. Allowing alternate brakes is decisively NOT a "tweak".

I'm on record as supporting alternate brakes with a rotor size limit; in that same mindset I'm for allowing alternate control arms with no attachment point modifications.

Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them.

That does make it inconsistent with what IT cars can do today.

Two very good points. I'm going to start a new thread about this idea, I think it should be hashed out.

GA