Super Touring is IT

[pkeane2]

I am going to try and take these one at a time. So if I miss someone’s question let me know and I will address it. It is a real pain to be taking on the IT committee first.

Josh: As you know, I was big supporter of IT going National, but I believe the membership is maybe 60/40 in favor of it. These classes give the current IT cars a place to race at a National event. They also allow for most of the ITE car out there and cars competing in other sanctioning bodies to race Nationals. These are the type of cars street tuners are building and we are finally given them a place to race.

The original rules were based off of WC and tuner cars. The tuner cars were required to run a SIR, that no one wanted to run. With five years of incubator status, what were we suppose to do, not try and improve the rule set? I believe that there are a lot of IT type guys that want to run National races. If you currently own an ITS or ITR car they are good beginnings for a STU car. If you have done an engine swap and run with another club, you now have a place to race.

Kurt: There was no secret deal to get ST into the National program. The old WC guys wanted a place to race and the GT community did not really want tub cars in their group. It was my first CRB meeting and both the GT and WC guys made good cases and so we gave them their own class. We also saw it as a way to bring new members in. Right or wrong, that is how it happened.

I guess you can blame the name change on me, I never thought Prepared was attracting the people we were looking for.

Z3: There is a weight break for front wheel drive cars and intake manifolds must be stock.

Steve: I guess I am standing up and I hope you know how funny that is.

EBSNASCAR: Yes

Tom: The rules say you have to weigh 2600 pounds so that is only +133 pounds by my calculations.

[shwah]

Steve: I guess I am standing up and I hope you know how funny that is.

BTW - that was a really fun race in November. Can't wait until next time.

[Knestis]

Don't get me wrong, Peter - I never suggested that the deal was secret: Just that it was silly. The fact that it bypasses what I understand to be the process for National status seems problematic.

K

[pkeane2]

Chris, I can't wait. Next time I am going to get in front of Deuce and let him deal with all of you guys.

Kurt, If you can come up with a consistant process on how it has been done in the past, please let me know. I still believe that the ST classes are our best chance to get new members, maybe it will only be two of them. I wish I knew what the next SM type success will be.

[benspeed]

It's funny - I criticized the club for putting Trans Am on a pedastal when I think that running TA isn't really relevant to the future of the club - I said they have blindness towards the cars the next generation of racers will want to run. Now I'll eat those words - this is the kind of class that I think will get a bunch of interest. If it does you can bet the guys who build ST cars will want to move the World challenge guys into another sector of the class.

I think this kicks ass.

[seckerich]

You know I was just giving you a hard time Peter. I understand as people come and go on boards they have to live with decisions of past groups. You are stuck with the class for the promised 5 years (not that a promise ever stopped the BOD, or CRB in the past) and you are working for the best solution. A group of influential Pro guys sold you all a bill of goods to try to prop up the value of their old cars--period. I would have gladly gone National with an IT car because of the stable rules but saw it was best for the catagory not to be used as a prop for a failing system. There are plenty of places to easily cross over and be a field filler as any IT car will be in this new ruleset. If it brings in new cars and members great, but all I see is a further dilution of current classes.

Keep up those meetings.:026:

It's also cool we can now give Robin the "insider" hard time here too.

[Knestis]

I'll grant you Peter, that there's been no consistent process applied but that's largely (over years, not just recently) the result of people either ignoring or changing the rules to suit immediate agenda - that's "expedience."

There was a time when, broadly speaking, the philosophy SEEMED TO BE that regional status served as an incubator of sorts, to test whether classes had what it took to "go national." That's the reason the "regional forever" clause was included in the original IT rule set: It would otherwise have been presumed that those classes would be considered for national status if they met the participation requirements. And someone didn't want that to happen.

It would be interesting to search back through past GCRs to see when/how the language around "National Status" has changed. In the 2008 book it says...

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring

That's kind of how I remember it being. Subsection D is where the silliness begins, including the clause that allows for "manufacturer input." So, "based on member input" (how many again?), the board OK'd the prepared classes. I'd venture that far more than that many members have come out in support of IT gaining national status, but it hasn't.

That's politics, just like the way a coal executive can ask favors of the Governor of WV, that I'd never even get a chance to present...

K

[pkeane2]

Full disclosure, I have just purchased a ’01 Prelude for ITR or STU, I do not know. I will probably run it in both classes in the beginning.

Scott: send the questions to CRB @SCCA.com

Personally, this just me as a future competitor talking, I believe the rules trend will be to go away from the advantage of changing suspension pick points. Similar to the new WC Touring car rules that have been announced.

[Knestis]

Oh, you get NO arguments from me on that point, Peter. That's like, real engineering or something, to start moving stuff around. I've got no interest in going that far and to me, that's representative of a whole 'nother step in preparation.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

.....

Z3: There is a weight break for front wheel drive cars and intake manifolds must be stock.

.....

Funny because my motor was legal for Speedvision back in '01 but wouldn't be legal for STU. The manifold is stock, but from a previous generation.

The problem with the restrictor was it's limited avalibility, one of the sources didn't even have the correct size, and making the air box stiff enough to not crush during testing.

Like Josh mentioned the weight to hp rules seem to favor the smaller displacement cars. In SoPac we have a regional class called Radial Sedan. I can't run with these rules, by the end of the weight process I wind up at close to 3500lbs, which is nearly 1000lbs more than my cars current weight. It does seem to work for the 1.8-2.3 liter guys though. I'd always planned on giving it (DP/SU) a try once my car was ITR legal though, it seemed easier than trying to adapt the restrictor then bolt on weight, and worry about not having taken advatage of the fabricated rear suspension option.

[pkeane2]

XR4: I think the fuel cell rule could be changed to something like the new AS OEM fuel tank rule. I will submit it to the CRB. IT cars can run OEM tanks in STO/U.

Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

[JoshS]

XR4: I think the fuel cell rule could be changed to something like the new AS OEM fuel tank rule. I will submit it to the CRB. IT cars can run OEM tanks in STO/U.

Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

Peter: the STU rules state "Intake requirements. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g. throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise."

He has a 2.8L M52 engine with the intake manifold from a 2.5L M50. In other words, it's not the "installed engine's stock intake manifold." Therefore, it's not legal.

[Z3_GoCar]

Peter: the STU rules state "Intake requirements. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g. throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise."

He has a 2.8L M52 engine with the intake manifold from a 2.5L M50. In other words, it's not the "installed engine's stock intake manifold." Therefore, it's not legal.

I am unable to find the archieved rules for Speedvision circa 2001, but I'm certain that it was allowed at the time in both the e-36 and e-46 328's. I can't imagine that such a swap would be able to fly under the radar of a successful pro-racing effort. Again, no worrys though because I'm going to be ITR legal which makes me eligable for a 280 lb weight break.

[Z3_GoCar]

....Z3: I misstated, intakes must be OEM. Yours is legal. Wild West! If your car has a 2.8 it has a base weight of 3080 with driver.

Or I could put the correct manifold on and run ITR and weigh 2800lbs. Less ballast and I don't have to worry about fab-ing a custom rear suspenson to replace my semi-trailing arm suspension.

[JohnW]

I'm one of those NASA guys who will be at the IT Fest and ARRC in 09.

Thanks Butch and Todd (& SCCA) for the new oppertunity.

JW
STU #88