Some things got missed

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.
 
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...
 
...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
 
lateapex911 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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
 
Rabbit07 said:
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
Click to expand...

Excellent! Yea, I knew you were ARRC bound, but didn't know about THREE cars, good luck!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
quadzjr said:
I would be more intersted in STL if they allowed non-USDM motors...
Click to expand...
"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
 
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. :)
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
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?...
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Anything allowed to run IT is allowed in STx, so running a fully prepped IT car just means you have a barely-prepped STx car. They'll be slow, but they fit within the STx ruleset. This allows them to run national races in STx, but they're not going to do well against real competition.

But yeah.. basically it's a chance for the IT guys to double-enter or to go to Nats and get their butts spanked by the guys who spend a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
Matt93SE said:
Anything allowed to run IT is allowed in STx, so running a fully prepped IT car just means you have a barely-prepped STx car. They'll be slow, but they fit within the STx ruleset. This allows them to run national races in STx, but they're not going to do well against real competition.

But yeah.. basically it's a chance for the IT guys to double-enter or to go to Nats and get their butts spanked by the guys who spend a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen
 
StephenB said:
Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen
Click to expand...

If you want to look at it that way, sure... As long as the car you're looking to run has a spec line somewhere in Prod... do ALL IT cars have a spec line in Prod?
 
StephenB said:
Can't I do that in limited prep prod with just adding some slicks?

Stephen
Click to expand...

"Just add slicks"....that's not cheap. They say the IT cars...all of 'em, can go play in STx. Of course, the competitiveness of that depends on the field that shows up....just like it would be if you ran an event in Prod.

I haven't checked in awhile, but don't you need a fuel cell in Prod too? So, right there, you've got $1600 or so to dip your feet in prod.

Hey, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea, but...we've heard the IT cars running in Nationals as a 'reason" for STx to be. (or, more exactly, one of) Now, somebody official could come on here and set me straight, and that would be great.

I was just throwing out concepts and things I've heard.
 
You dont have to run slicks,tires are per GCR requirement. dosent say slicks

Fuel cell not required if plastic tank mounted between frame rails forward of rear axle.

Fire system should already be there,you have a kid now. DO IT RIGHT

Dan 77 IT7
 
Running an IT car in prod does not require you run slicks. In fact if you look at competitive SM times at the Glen (2:18 - 2:19) and look at FP times from this years National it would have put that SM in the top 5! Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!
 
Matt93SE said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Matt93SE said:
Target $1000-1500 for a custom wing.
OTOH, the APR GTC-200 sells for $625 online.
Click to expand...

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
 
lateapex911 said:
"Just add slicks"....that's not cheap. They say the IT cars...all of 'em, can go play in STx. Of course, the competitiveness of that depends on the field that shows up....just like it would be if you ran an event in Prod.

I haven't checked in awhile, but don't you need a fuel cell in Prod too? So, right there, you've got $1600 or so to dip your feet in prod.

Hey, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea, but...we've heard the IT cars running in Nationals as a 'reason" for STx to be. (or, more exactly, one of) Now, somebody official could come on here and set me straight, and that would be great.

I was just throwing out concepts and things I've heard.
Click to expand...


Jake, sorry to quote you, I didn't mean that it was your thought or philosophy. I just wanted to pose the question since it is rumored and posted here often by several different people. To me ST seems farther from IT than production and IF SCCA wants to tap into the current IT car participation then I think they should promote IT cars running in already existing classes rather than adding more. I personally love IT and I have no interest in production and less interest in ST however I get how another person may find the class interesting with the freedom of engines and other things like wings and such. It appears to be a much different class than what we have had in the past and if it helps SCCA grow and appeals to others then I fully support it and wish the class well.

Stephen
 
eprodrx7 said:
Running an IT car in prod does not require you run slicks. In fact if you look at competitive SM times at the Glen (2:18 - 2:19) and look at FP times from this years National it would have put that SM in the top 5! Now take a real ITA Miata and run it in FP and you are down right in the fight, especially when the fragile FP cars go BOOM!
Click to expand...

Hey john get back to work :) Just kidding... see you soon!

Glad to see your still lurking with the IT guys and gals, eventhough your now a professional racecar driver with a professional championship win under your belt!

Stephen :)
 
Greg Amy said:
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
Click to expand...
That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top