Seems to me that STL is in some sort of weirt quasi not here not there state right now. The rule say nothing about chassis designs that are not allowed, but certain cars are excluded, yet others, that are functionally and basically the same ARE allowed. Somebody tell me the difference between, say, the Mazda MX5/Miata suspension, and the S2000. Or the RX-8 ? All RWD, all IRS, Yet one is out, the others are in but know we hear the STAC doesn't like the RX-8. And "longer wheelbase on the S2000" isn't a reasonable differentiation. If it is, it needs to be in the STCS. As a generic limitation: ALL cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded. Or, if we want to play favorites, ALL RWD cars with wheelbases more than XXX" are excluded.
Sounds ridiculous though, doesn't it?
This makes no sense to me. IF the Mazda MX5 is kosher, then so should the S2000.
So, I understand the whole, "We can't think of every car, we have to handle things as they come up" concept....but, it's avoiding the main issue. It shouldn't be that car is a problem, it should be that technology is a problem.
Or WHY is this car that you want to exclude a bad seed?? What physical issue is the cause of the hate??? THATs what needs to be determined. This isn't easy though, and it's really the heavy lifting part of the job for the STAC.
Now, on the other hand, it sounds as though, with Greg repeating, "Be careful what you ask for", that the STAC isn't likely to open up the category to be logical and let chassis with the same basic components as the ones already allowed in. Will the decision be to further limit the choices?
Will the answer to my question of "If the Miata is allowed then why not the S2000 (or RX-8)??" be: "Good point, lets exclude the Miata"???
I understand Gregs response to some questions: If you don't like it, go to STU.
But the disconnect I see is that STU is really another category. The ruleset is rather different. People race rulesets. IT is popular because it's an attainable ruleset, and there are plenty of car choices, and there are good options in nearly every class.
I think the STL ruleset is quite attractive to many, but as it's playing out, it's rather exclusionary, and that's a shame, in my opinion.
If I were King, I'd add elements to the ST rules:
-I'd do a hard study on the RWD weight adder. (yes, I think I might increase it a tad)
-I'd look at chassis/suspension differences that, within the allowable ST race prep ruleset make a difference, and i'd address those globally in the rules.
-Personally, I'd allow rotaries in UN ported. It's well known what they make, and they have a strong following. So what if parts are scarce? What's it going to hurt to have a diverse grid, with a 12A Miata? If they owner can't find parts when it blows, it's his problem. We know dam well the things make 148 (or so) crank, and about 127 (or so) at the wheels. Back out the math, and class it. Same for the 13B. They aren't pistons, so don't treat them like they are. !t's an easy classification to get right.
-And if I were REALLY king, I'd seriously consider allowing ITBs. Already injectors and engine management are allowed, and the intakes are the bugaboos of so many candidates...why not just let the actual parts meet the classing structure? Even the playing field.
But that's me. I think the class should be, as it appears in the rules ("Any car that is under 2.0 litres", essentially) Inclusionary, rather than EXclusionary.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks