Quick Question on STU

[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

[Matt93SE]

I have a stupid idea..

instead of spec'ing weights, displacement, compression, etc etc etc etc, why not just let the engines go and limit power/weight or torque/weight for each class- given the engine is from same MFR as the car. (Acura= honda, mercury=ford, infiniti = nissan, etc)

Say STO max is 5lb/hp, STU is 10lb/hp, and STL is 15lb/hp. (just grabbing numbers out of thin air. I'm sure those aren't applicable but you get the point.)

Then each competitor can build whatever engine they want and they can either weigh the car down and have tons of power, or they can run a light car with less power.

NASA does that with Performance Touring although looking at the rules it looks like they're having fun policing it w/ dynos, GPSs, and weight issues.

It's at least another alternative to think about...

[lateapex911]

Yea, how do you control that. I say I have 200hp. How will you prove I have more? An chassis dyno right off the track? A 3rd grader can fool that. Are you going to put a Data aq/gps system in EVERY car? Then back calc aero and so on? Only at the big races? (then wonder why the turnout is small?)

I know NASA does the points thing, and uses dynos, but, if any class gets really popular, those systems are begging to be gamed.

[Matt93SE]

Yea, how do you control that. I say I have 200hp. How will you prove I have more? An chassis dyno right off the track? A 3rd grader can fool that. Are you going to put a Data aq/gps system in EVERY car? Then back calc aero and so on? Only at the big races? (then wonder why the turnout is small?)

I know NASA does the points thing, and uses dynos, but, if any class gets really popular, those systems are begging to be gamed.

I forget some of the workarounds with that, but basically the dynos are done at "approved" facilities with someone else driving. Any ECU with multiple programs must be stated on the car's spec sheet and all estimated power outputs noted on the sheet. IIRC the driver isn't allowed to be able to change ECU programming while in driver postion either. just like shock settings and etc with us. That prevents the driver from using a hot program on the track and then dialing back 15hp as soon as they come off the track.

GPSs are "randomly" placed in cars. cars are weighed as soon as they come off track, just like we are. the car's as-raced weight is used to calculate numbers, not the spec weights listed in the logbook.

based on the weight and GPS data, a lb/hp number can be calculated. at lower speeds you shouldn't have to worry about aero drag too much, so they can use the lower speed accelerations to calculate instead of end-of-straight conditions where aero is more important.

Afraid of putting a GPS in your car so you won't come and play? Whatever. Don't cheat and you won't be called a cheater. I have nothing to hide on my car and make every effort to stay within the rules- even if I'm not competitive or don't agree with them.

It's an idea that may be worth looking at. There will alwyas be caveats with any system, but I think they have a good idea. the hard part is policing it. but then again, how is a tech inspector supposed to be able to police all the various cars and setups allowed in STU? I bet dollars to donuts I could swap in a JDM engine and the local techs would never know the difference. How are they to know I'm not running a factory turbo? so on so forth.

[mossaidis]

change the TB/IM using parts from different motors (i.e. more JDM parts), mixed gear sets, the list goes on...

[lateapex911]

IT brings up an interesting point, and it's rather foundational. In club racing WE police ourselves, via the 'honor system' and the competitor protest system. In Pro racing the sanctioning body is charged with policing us.

it creates a much different approach. In Pro racing, many (most) competitors try and find the space between the lines, and try and get away with whatever they can, and it's up to the officials to catch them. In club racing, it's up to your competitors to catch you. The techs in SCCA (almost always) are there to facilitate a protest, and rarely initiate a mechanical protest.
So, the NASA approach with dynos and GPS units is rather hybrid. I imagine the approach taken by competitors is a more honest one, BUT, some will see the system as one to game. yes, of COURSE it's illegal to have multiple maps, but, to a guy who wants to game the system, that's irrelevant. Kinda like radar detectors were illegal in certain states. "yea, it's illegal, so speeding!" says the speeder....LOL.

I think the approach can work, and especially in tighter classes, with limited cars and engines. I think the guys down south have done it with their big GTA cars. But, I can see where if a class becomes popular the gaming/sandbagging will be the result.