STL Chassis Builds?

[Greg Amy]

It's a false truth when you then equip a Miata with the same shocks, same adjustability and then take away 100% of the power to weight advantage the Lotus comes with from Hethel.

You will be shocked to read that I completely agree with you. And Andy, given my history with/position on/admiration for the Miata, you should not be shocked to read that were it up to me, I'd recommend either going to a much larger weight differential in STL for RWD or excluding the Miata and variants entirely.

As I said, "be careful what you ask for".

GCR overrides all those conversations. I just re-read the rules and nothing says rotaries are not allowed.

I think you missed what I wrote above...

The CRB has declared directly to the STAC (we asked) that rotaries are subject to a 2x displacement multiplier when considered for power-to-displacement calcs (though I can't find it in the GCR anywhere...)

...and you know me, the rules nerd I am, that I'm in agreement with the letter of the rules. If someone wants to push the subject and enter an RX-8 into STL based on a 1300cc classified weight, I'll be glad to help with the inevitable protest appeals process, which would result in an apparent "tradition" getting codified in the GCR.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

[JS154]

OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

Andy put the 2.4L TSX motor in it and run in STU!

[mossaidis]

OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

Most likely a custom. Lots of sources. My first stop for shopping would be crower. you may also have different options for valvetrain including other options like vtec killer cam.

[lateapex911]

OK, just put a bid in on a complete thefted-out 1990 NSX. Anyone have a source for the dumbed-down cam for the K20A2 or do I need to have a custom one ground?

Figuring at 2665 and 220whp, it could play.

It could play....until they exclude it.....
I mean, they exclude the S2000 chassis...so I'm thinking they just didn't think of the NSX.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well we can't wait around waiting for chassis to be excluded. I really wanted an FD RX-7 with a 13B but the power to weight is in ITS land, not ITR land where it needs to be.

It's a HP to CC class, excluding chassis is dumb and I will be pissed if it happens. There is nothing that I have read that tells us to write in and tell them about our mouse-trap so they can approve the configuration for fear of it being too good and them not thinking it through. They should reintroduce the S2000 chassis and forget that rule.

[Greg Amy]

I'm chucklin', 'cause you two guys simply just don't "get" Super Touring Light. Seriously. You won't even play in your own sandbox (when was the last time either of you actually raced in your respective ITA/IT7 classes?) and yet you want to Internet-pretend to piss in other people's sandboxes...it's actually entertaining.

The exclusion of the NSX chassis is already in progress...as is the RX-8. First, work on getting your respective IT cars' engines running. Then, if you really want to come play in the ST sandbox, we'll be glad to welcome you, with pretty much whatever it takes to get you motivated (within reason). Just let me know what it takes...what it's really gonna take, not what it's "Internet-gonna take"...

GA

[Greg Amy]

Follow up:

Ultimately, the "exclusion model" is doomed to fail. According to Greg's Tip#1 for writing a rule, no small group of persons can ever think of all possibilities. And, as we all know and as Andy is demonstrating (I know he's just trying to get a rise out of us) racers will be racers and will look for loopholes to jump through, despite being obviously contrary to philosophy and intent.

These characteristics are simply incompatible, and may ultimately lead to an "inclusion model" for chassis (though that's not being seriously discussed yet). However, certainly speaking for myself only, I can say with confidence that I have zero reservations about supporting ex-post-facto exclusions of chassis that I don't see as meeting the class' philosophy. So - and the whole point of my posting above, for everyone else's sake - I'd suggest not getting too clever without asking first...just food for thought. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm chucklin', 'cause you two guys simply just don't "get" Super Touring Light. Seriously. You won't even play in your own sandbox (when was the last time either of you actually raced in your respective ITA/IT7 classes?) and yet you want to Internet-pretend to piss in other people's sandboxes...it's actually entertaining.

The exclusion of the NSX chassis is already in progress...as is the RX-8. First, work on getting your respective IT cars' engines running. Then, if you really want to come play in the ST sandbox, we'll be glad to welcome you, with pretty much whatever it takes to get you motivated (within reason). Just let me know what it takes...what it's really gonna take, not what it's "Internet-gonna take"...

GA

Overall a really stupid post Greg. You don't really need to worry why or why not I 'won't play in my own sandbox' even though you fully know that 1. I blew a hole in my block at VIR last year and haven't been motivated to fix it because 2. the ITA competition where I choose to run isn't exciting to race with especially with cars currently being sold, fixed etc. Hell, I even pressured Lawton to run the Saturn at the NARRC so I would be motivated to get the car fixed or rent one. Had the car Steve has for sale ready to pick up. Nope, Mini. As is typical, your post is more style than substance.

If you can't see what it's gonna take, you haven't been paying attention. Class the 13B at a fair weight and eliminate the chassis cut-off dates. That is a HUGE step. If YOU really want to generate some quality interest in the class, fix the rules...or at least post the fact that you can exclude a chassis at any time and it would be smart for competitors to write in and get a feeling on what they think they want to build. The real beef is that the 2012 Nationals season is up and running and the rules for this shiny-new Runoffs-eligible class are posted...yet cars that could be getting bought and/or built could still be excluded. If you don't see that as a real problem, I can't help you one iota.

RX-8 now? I would also go at the FD RX-7 too. How about the MX-5? It's an RX-8 under the rear and just as good as anything under the front.

Lots of us that wanted IT to go National are taking a SERIOUS look at STL because it encompasses cars and motors we are familiar with at a reasonable prep level. That should be obvious, but right now you have Honda Challenge with a sprinkle of 'the Miata is the car for the class IF someone does what nobody has ever done' on top.

Edit: A follow up to your follow up post...what 'philosophical statement' excludes chassis of 'X' capability? And how does the Miata fit and others don't? In Solo, the MX-5 is classed with the RX-8. Guess what wins? This is what I see in the GCR:

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO. As with STU, spec
lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any
vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible
for this class.

If the actual philosophy that you speak of was written someplace then I would understand, but not agree with it. That is a huge difference than what we have now. To use your own terms, you have an 'internet philosophy', not an real one that is documented in the rulebook.

/broken record

[JS154]

I don't think excluding chassis makes any sense for STL for a couple reasons.

-The published philosphy is clear that any chassis/model run manufactured from 85+ is eligible for STL.

-Best way to prohibit class growth is have the overriding potential of what chassis' might be ineligible next year or forward.



I think the best and easiest thing to do would be to leave the chassis selection free, and limit the engine choices only. That way you only have spec lines for engines.

Other wise the class will be spec-line hell between engines and chassis.

The magic and attractiveness of this class is the open ruleset regarding chassis and engine combos. To restrict chassis IMHO, is a big mistake.

I say allow the S2K 2.0L engine with restrictions. Same with the ITRSX-R engine. The same way the BMW N55 3.0l single turbo engine in STU is allowed - with restrictions.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind restricting cars for some ambiguous reason in a class that is clearly designed as open to all cars. Restrict the engines not the chassis.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You will be shocked to read that I completely agree with you. And Andy, given my history with/position on/admiration for the Miata, you should not be shocked to read that were it up to me, I'd recommend either going to a much larger weight differential in STL for RWD or excluding the Miata and variants entirely.

As I said, "be careful what you ask for".

I'm not shocked that you can see what is in front of you and I'm sure you aren't shocked that I suggested a bump from 2.5% to 5% on the FWD-RWD adder based on what we did in IT. What we need is more written rules and less grey-area intent back-pedaling.

It seems a shit-ton more thought and effort needed to be done on the front end before sending this class out to the GCR with National status.

On your 'be careful what you ask for' statements, they classifications still have to make sense to get competitors. Telling us that the FD RX-7 is now allowed at 3000lbs with a 13B with IT prep allowances doesn't do ANYTHING. You can say all you want how the 13B is classed, but for all intents and purposes, it's not because it can't make more than 1.8L power without porting allowances so it's conceptually dead.

Geezus my letter is gonna be long and boring.

[JS154]

Because we want to limit the class to lower-performance chassis, regardless of installed engine. See Lotus Elise/Exige, Lotus 2 Eleven, and Honda S2000 exclusions

Who is "we"?

What is the justification for this?

What is gained by excleuding certain chassis, especially in STL? In a small displacment to weight class such as this it's all about specific engine output, not the chassis.

(with more to come).

I can't think of a better way to stifle class growth from the outset.

This is no different our limiting the class to lower-performing 2L-and-under engines, and exclude turbos and the Type R.

GA

It's not a spec-line class, it's a weight to displacment class open to pretty much any chassis, and it is contrary to the published philosophy of the class.

[JS154]

We published a brandy-new philosophy mid-2011; that's what you see in the opening paragraphs of the STCS (compare it to the January 2011 GCR version). Apparently, it's lacking in this area. This is obviously a topic that deserves clarification of intent, or at a minimum maybe even a complete re-think to the intent itself.

Take some time to put something together and send it in.

GA

For quick reference, here it is:

9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOT-approved tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988, the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of any car.

Super Touring Over (STO) vehicles are high-performance GT and exotics over 3.2 liters. STO vehicles are explicitly approved for competition; to be eligible for STO competition, a chassis and maximum engine displacement must be listed as a specially-approved combination in the STO "Approved Cars and Engines" table.

Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose performance cars of 3.2 liters and under. Case-by-case approval of engines over 3.2 liters from "Pony Cars" or "American Iron" with stock camshaft lift at a heavier weight will be considered. No engines over 4 liters shall be allowed under any circumstances. Spec lines are not required for STU eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.

World Challenge vehicles compliant to a SCCA Pro VTS may be approved on a case-by-case basis for STU. See the STU "Approved World Challenge Cars" table.

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore "tuner" class with engine displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO. As with STU, spec lines are not required for STL eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.

Alternate allowances may be approved on a case-by-case basis for individual vehicles that do not meet these parameters; see "Alternate Vehicle Allowances" tables. Engines components from these approved vehicle allowances may not be installed in other chassis without specific line-item approval (e.g., the STU 3.8L Mustang engine may not be installed into a Ford Focus).

Vehicle modifications are limited to those listed herein. Unless a particular modification or part is approved in these rules, the vehicle and all of its relevant parts and assemblies shall be stock for the correct make and model of car. Some amount of latitude will be considered to facilitate engine installations, however if extensive modifications are required it is recommended to seek clarification from the Club Racing Board. Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.

Each class will have a baseline target power-to-weight ratio. Weights may be adjusted or cars may be subject to changes in intake restrictors to meet these targets. Cars may be required to carry data acquisition equipment for review of performance.

[JS154]

If we allowed any chassis into STL then we would have to adjust the RWD multiplier to even out the absolute best FWD option (Acura Integra?) versus the absolute best RWD option (Lotus Exige?) at which point the difference would be on the order of hundreds of pounds. Which may very well be the direction we're heading, given all this desire to run these "uber-chassis" in STL.

Be careful what you ask for...you might get it.

Nope. The CRB has declared directly to the STAC (we asked) that rotaries are subject to a 2x displacement multiplier when considered for power-to-displacement calcs (though I can't find it in the GCR anywhere...) As such, none are automatically eligible for STL. To address that, we specifically include the 12A and 13B as part of the STL program, with limited mods and additional weight.

GA

The Exige I think is the outlier example of a potential category killer chassis. The Elise could be allowed but limited to stock engine with intake restrictor and/or no aero and/or a specific chassis weight

Why is the S2K an overdog chassis? (compared to say, a Z4 BMW with an STL sized engine?)

Again, allow the chassis but don't allow any aero bits, or require the chassis run heavy regardless of installed engine.

Another option would be to have an adjuster for MID engine rear drive cars.

I get that not every car is ever guaranteed to be competitive...but at the same time, there are certain cars that are inherently going to be turned into race cars... especially if they ahve a good place to race. S2K and Elise and BMW 3 series are perfect examples of that.

that way the Fords and BMW's aren't overly penalized (which are already non-competitive compared to the Hondacuras BTW)

[CRallo]

excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!

[Greg Amy]

excluding cars? really? NASA here I come!

Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... - GA

[CRallo]

Chris, you haven't read the NASA regs, have you? NASA - certainly in its Honda Challenge and Performance Touring categories - is all about excluding uber-cars from the lower classes, except they do it from an "inclusion" model versus an "exclusion" model. Six of one...

But I'm glad to read that you actually are/were giving thought to building a car for racing in SCCA. Don't give up on the dream... - GA

I've honestly never read the NASA rules. I was mostly just kicking the hornets nest with the comment, however the general displeasure it expressed still stands There are always pros and cons and I like alot of what you've done for ST, but in this case, I don't like it. What about adding a penalty to these super cars? or allow things like control arms to help the slow cars? oh wait...

That said there are some core issues in the ST rules that bar existing cars from coming to play and I firmly believe that we risk losing (more) people to NASA.

In closing, I must remind you that I have already built and raced a car in SCCA competition...

[Greg Amy]

I know that. And you should be ashamed for letting it sit there...

[Chip42]

on the subject of "uber chassis" (and I'm in the Andy B camp on this one) how can you defend the restriction on the Integra Type R? In what way is it functionally different from a GSR or LS integra with STL allowed modifications? 5 lug wheels abd bigger bearings? because that's all I can think of. It's easily the silliest of exclusions, though the RX8 chassis is a close second.

[Greg Amy]

We're discussing removing the ITR chassis from the "exclude" list.