Quick Question on STU

[Rabbit07]

Maybe a more flexible STU rulebook needs to be continued- to reduce the number of cars that need to be fixed due to the 10 things that instantly became illegal. Example. Does a wing really need to have 8.5 chord or less? Does that really need to be an issue in a class that has such diversity and high-end prep levels?

We are working hard at trying to find some resolution on the wings. I have been coresponding with WC to obtain some specs to verify. The worst likely senario in that wings such as the APR will be approved. That doesn't mean that every person that requests a different wing will get it. We want parts approved that are available to the competitors.

[JohnW]

We are working hard at trying to find some resolution on the wings.... That doesn't mean that every person that requests a different wing will get it.

Hi Chris-

One more thing.
Why?

Why must the STAC spend energy specing a wing (and perhaps dozens of other parts)? Yeah, maybe limit the width to 48-50 (?) inches. But. This maybe be one of those line-items that is used to restrict participation when it was an attempt to control costs(?).

What problem does it create if racer-1 buys an ebay wing, racer-2 buys the APR and another spends thousands on a ubber custom unit?

One could argue that choosing to run a cheap-o or pimpy custom thingy is one of the draws to STU in the first place.

.02

[Chip42]

and if someone wants to spend money on aero they can do that at any wing size. making it smaller wont limit the potential investment, it just forces people who already have something to buy something else. just leave it as it was and concentrate on the WC homologation and whatnot.

[23racer]

As somebody with one of these cars, I would humbly suggest that it would cost me more to "de-tune" the car than to pay for its running costs in the way that it sits. The car is a great time capsule of great tech in a "Stock" tub car. I also know that if I show up at a track, like Watkins Glen, I will do okay, but that the car will be running about 3 - 4 seconds a lap slower than the top cars from 2009. At Mosport, the fastest the car has gone is a high 1:34 and most of the time we run in the 1:35's and 1:36's. The fastest WC TC Lap is a 1:29 in Qualifying, but most of the race laps are in the 1:32's and 1:33's. Its interesting to note that in the Canadian Touring Car Championship, which runs pretty much open with some weight controls and a 235x40x17 max tire size, the times are very similar even though the cars run hp levels like top WC Cars at around the 330 - 350 hp level.

I recognize that my limitations are due to the car being built using the best tech in 2001 and the physical limitations of the design of the car. Small, cheaper things like changing the front splitter and changing the rear wing, may cost about $500 each and may help the cars go a bit quicker and keep them more relevant in appearance to the average spectator. Those costs pale a fair bit when I look at spending $500 a weekend in fuel, $1200 in tires and I factor in the rebuild costs for the engine, transmission and brakes.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be controls, but I think there needs to be an understanding of the relative cost/value benefits to certain mods in different classes. Maybe the rear wings could be teched simply by having a box that is located off the rear fascia on struts. If the wing fits within it, great your good to go. I personally could care less about what wing my competitor has on his car. If he has an APR or Crawford wing, good for him, he has more cash than me. I need to step up my game to run with him. I am running a spec 48" aluminum wing with a small Gurney Flap. The car works fine and I can realize high speed handling effects with its adjustment. I don't think a new rear wing will get me 2 seconds a lap. I need another 50 hp and moving the engine back and down to get rid of my 59% front weight bias, then I can run with the Bimmers, .

Eric

[JohnW]

I don't disagree with Eric, but I would add that my overall point is simple whether we're talking about wings or widgets.

The STAC should attempt to keep the rule set as SIMPLE as possible. The less restrictive in terms of specing things and limiting options the better. The more rigid the rule set the more difficult it will be to attract drivers that have a problem or two with their car.

IMO, there should be max standards (Example- 12.5-1 is norm and max in WC) it should be the max in STU. Done. No need to incorporate 20 different VTS sheets and assign ratios on a case by case basis. This is club racing.

If many want a cost effective STU that is a "improved, Improved Touring type car- then build all those limitations into STU lite.

.03

[Greg Amy]

I agree with you, John. SCCA can't - won't - get into too much individual allowances/variances. It just can't happen. Pro could do it because they had a dedicated group of guys that were PAID to do it, and were paid to do it quickly. Club just isn't in a position to work that fast, nor does it historically play the "benevolent dictator" role.

On the other hand, if there are limitations in STU that are not in line with what Pro generally accepted as "given" - you offer the 12.5:1 compression ratio as an example - then I believe the STU rules should be changed to reflect that given. Those changes/requests will need to come from folks like you and Eric that have the experience with them.

Then, in the end, I'd like to see the Club help in this transition period by allowing some individual vehicle variances that they were given by Pro, in order to get them to run with us. If those variances are minor they can remain as line items, but if they're large - for example, 13:1 compression - then they can be given a sunset time where the competitor will eventually be required to roll them back.

Trust me, the last thing we want to get into is too many individual and significant variances. That, right there, will turn into a snowball and result in the failure of the category.

My 2 cents (I'm cheaper than John).

GA

[23racer]

I agree with both of you guys, wow a consensus, . It obviously wouldn't be accepted by the CRB.

If you can somehow keep the rule book simple and inclusive, rather than complex and exclusive, it would make sense for me and a number of other teams that have ex-WC Touring class cars to come out and play in the SCCA. If I needed to replace my wings, change my motors (I have 2 full on Kinetic 2.5L motors), change my gearboxes, then the cost threshold will be too high for it to make any sense and I will just stay where I am.

As an example, I looked at playing in a couple of races with the USTCC Series, then I looked at the need to build a new motor and it didn't make any sense.

The simpler he rules, the easier tech is and the more cars you can attract to the class. There is no way my car could ever or would ever be replicated as its just a weird package. If it couldn't run in STU, then if I wanted to run in the U.S. I guess I would need to look at HSR or NASA. I want to keep the car original so that someday it may have some nominal value as the last Pro Road Racing Mercury ever built.

Eric

[Knestis]

...the last thing we want to get into is too many individual and significant variances. That, right there, will turn into a snowball and result in the failure of the category. ...

That should be inscribed on all STU trophies.

K