Some things got missed

Dave Gomberg said:
That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave
Click to expand...

Care to site a source for that? I'm definitely glad to hear it, but would like to know the source of that info.

I was really curious as to why they would leave the front splitter the same size on STU (they decreased it on STO), and reduce the rear wing for STU to align with STL. That just seems to be arse-backwards thinking. which I guess is something I should be smart enough to expect from the CRB :rolleyes:
 
Matt93SE said:
Care to site a source for that? I'm definitely glad to hear it, but would like to know the source of that info.

I was really curious as to why they would leave the front splitter the same size on STU (they decreased it on STO), and reduce the rear wing for STU to align with STL. That just seems to be arse-backwards thinking. which I guess is something I should be smart enough to expect from the CRB :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Careful there, the guy you're talking to *is* the CRB.
 
Well I know that your Miata is a competitive ITA car and the ITA Glen track record is 2:17 or so. We can assume that your car should run the same or close. Check EP times from this years National, 2:17 would have been good enough for a top five finish!
 
lateapex911 said:
Excellent! Yea, I knew you were ARRC bound, but didn't know about THREE cars, good luck!
Click to expand...

Well I would say the other two cars had better weekends than mine. Congrats again to Rob Huffmaster, whos car three days earlier was in about 100 pieces on the floor of my shop. Ray didn't do to bad either with a 2nd in STU.
 
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...

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.:024:
 
Rabbit07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?

In the end I think STU will draw off participants from IT and IT will suffer as a result.
 
Ron Earp said:
Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?

In the end I think STU will draw off participants from IT and IT will suffer as a result.
Click to expand...

Good question, I am not sure. ST as a category also allows for National competition, which will also naturally pull some competitors from IT.
 
Rabbit07 said:
Ok, as promised.

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.
Click to expand...
I'd love to hear the list. My biggest concern is that (from what i've read, so far, and obviously, that's preliminary and based on opinions) the candidates with true potential are all FWD, and Honda or maaaybe Mazda. And it's less than a handful. To me, that seems like less than what we have now in IT as far as possible winners.

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.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with any of that. But, I'm concerned with the hybrid nature of the classing structure. The displacement method assumes the builder has control over all aspects of breathing. The horsepower based system (as in IT, takes into account the rulesets inability to modify horsepower affecting components. yet this ruleset, leaves in place important horsepower affecting componentry, YET, uses a displacement method of classing. You said there were 15 good options, (I hope so, that would be great) but I'm worried that you have 1 foot in one world, and the other someplace else, and it's going to be difficult to walk. I'd be interested to hear why you just didn't go all in and allow some form of open intake. We are a RACING club, and I fear this category is going to wind up a one trick pony with a bunch of 'cool' but uncompetitive cars....
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.:024:
Click to expand...

Well, the "get an allowance" aspect is a thorny subject. What kind of allowance? Why? How will they prove they need it? Who decides to hand it out? You know where that goes...straight into smoke filled back rooms with politics and good old boys handing out favors. I'm not accusing anyone on the STAC or CRb, but I AM saying that there is considerable potential for the appearance of less than fair play)
 
Ron Earp said:
Hell, a lot of IT racers are hung up on some of this silly IT stuff (raises hand). But why can't IT evolve to encompass some of these modifications?
Click to expand...

Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

And before you say, 'if it's no big deal, just allow the removal of that stuff...' it's not about one item. It's about everyone thinking something different is 'needless'. If you combined all of those requests, you would have no dashboards, plexi windshields, alternate fenders, and the list goes on and on. We all have our 'line in the sand' - and they are all in a different spot. There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.
Click to expand...

IF the greatest common denominator was the washer bottle, or the motor mounts, etc. then it'd be fine. But we've shown time and time again, via a variety of means (polls, letters, voting outcomes on IT issues, etc) that the majority of IT racers want some of these rules changed. But the ITAC says no. So, the class doesn't evolve because a few wish to keep the class close to the 25+ year old fundamentals.

Look, I'm not here to argue about it IT. ST seems to be addressing some of the "issues" that IT racers have while providing a backdoor to take some of those racers national. Surely it'll remove some competitors from IT and diminish participation in IT. Just an observation. Good or bad depends on which side of the fence you are headed toward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top