Super Touring Rules

[TomL]

Greg - Just for clarification, if engines like Ron's are allowed, will they be given a weight based on HP/weight or on "power number"/ weight? In some of the earlier discussions, it appeared that "power number" [(HP + torque)/2] was to be used instead of HP. If it is power number, then a relatively low revving engine like the V6 Ford would seem to be at a serious disadvantage.

[Greg Amy]

Tom, I can find that out for you. From memory, I think the pony-car pushrod 3.8s are currently classified at 3200#, about the same as a 2.9L "regular" STU engine...

[Ron Earp]

This will all get discussed next concall, so I'm hopeful to get our proposal to the CRB/BoD/membership in the next Fastrack. Be patient, I'm hoping you'll like what you see.

GA

I'll be interesting how this will turn out. I'll be waiting to have a read.

then a relatively low revving engine like the V6 Ford would seem to be at a serious disadvantage.

That is where I was going with the valve curtain question that I posted earlier. If we allow cams to XXX lift, that is all well and good, but if we don't consider valve area then two valve motors are going to operate at a distinct disadvantage. To make a stab at parity the two valve motors should have a higher maximum cam lift. It is a relatively easy calcluation to make and the class could be based on displacement/valve area with a good chance at parity because we're not limited to stock cam specs.

[Chip42]

Ron - cams in STL get more lift AND less weight if they only push 1 valve per cycle (there are rules for 2/3/4+ valve setups). It's a blanket allowance, not based on the shape of the motor, just like TB, intake, and head design are all "equalized" in the rules (by which I mean ignored for effects on overall power potential).

I think they could work something into the STU rules for 2V "equivalency", published or not (STAC: we'd all prefer to see it) that will take this into acount. Just like in IT, the best you can hope for is grouping, not bullseye.