STx Notes, February Fastrack

[Matt93SE]

next jab.. how about the request for SR20DET that I sent in August and was said would be posted in the december fastrack.. the response in Fastrack was "we're still discussing it, hang on."

Sooo.. any updates?

[Greg Amy]

Sooo.. any updates?

I am unaware of any pending discussion regarding the SR20DET. Note that at this point in time, while it's under discussion as part of the overall general philosophy, there's no allowance for other-than-USDM engines...

Send me your letter number and I'll investigate.

GA

[benspeed]

At least I had a good chuckle that another person wanted the Boxster S classed.

So, how about some clarity for the 3.2 M3 WC cars. These guys have to run the stock cam or revert to the Vts and run race cams? Methinks it's stock so what does that mean for our NE guys with the quick bimmers? Spend to go slow or ite?

[Greg Amy]

At least I had a good chuckle that another person wanted the Boxster S classed.

Well, note that you have not yet received a response to your second request. We dispatched that request you saw in Fastrack because it is redundant to your first request.

Not implying or promising anything, simply noting that your second request is still outstanding.

So, how about some clarity for the 3.2 M3 WC cars.

If you're running WC prep, you can run to the WC VTS and take a 5% hit on the higher of the two weights, VTS versus STU (for the E36 M3, that would be 3200# + 5% = 3360#). If you want to run to STU prep and 3200# on the E36 M3, you have those STU engine limitations.

Note the cam limitation is on lift only; it does not specify you must run stock cams.

GA

[benspeed]

Thanks Greg - always appreciate you posts - and I may even have some hope for the Boxster! (full disclaimer recognized :-)

Good to hear the BMW guys can still run - I have lead for sale....

[mustanghammer]

I'm sure there are allot of good and cost effective reasons for allowing a specific JDM or Euro spec engine to be used. From a rotary perspective there were some interesting offerings that never were imported here as well.

All that said, I don't support the use of Non-USDM engines in STx both accross the board or on a case by case basis. Sorry, but I don't care how much this rule costs some of you.

[Chip42]

All that said, I don't support the use of Non-USDM engines in STx both accross the board or on a case by case basis. Sorry, but I don't care how much this rule costs some of you.

the cost will be both to the competitor and to the class. if johny X has to rebuild his motor every 3 races in lieu of importing a very robust motor making the same power, or billy Q can't find a motor within the rules that will make the power required of the class, then both will likely burn out themselves and drop out.

yeah - there are a lot of cars/motors that were sold here that will make good STU cars. there are a lot of foreign market motors that fit as well. in some cases, these are more plentiful, more robust, more affordable, or simply better offerings for a particular manufacturer. the parts are verifiable, the documentation is available in english, and there's not a single reason that makes sense that I can think of why they shouldn't be allowed other than xenophobia or ignorance on the part of the PTB and some of the membership. I don't want to seem insulting to other members - but I think this is a case of a concept and a rule set that that are at odds with one another.

EDIT - there's a large body of JDM/euro market motored cars out there. some of them are race cars. some are track day cars. some of both are looking for a place to race. they fit within the STU rules or are close enough to be converted without a large amount of investment. why should we tell them no? because a crankshaft might not be the part that came with the motor, as originally installed in some car the tech guy never heard of? bore? check. stroke? check. documentation? check. verify dims and, if it's really bugging you, have a part shipped from the country of origin. these parts are avaialable through a lot of dealers and there are pro shops that can get them for you. it's no harder than a BMW ETA cam for reference in IT.

I understand the desire to have OEM parts with limited mods to keep costs down. the above is as practical as anything else we have in a non-spec saeries in the club, and it opens the entries up for STU. at least it removes barriers to existing / near existing cars.

[lateapex911]

I'm sure there are allot of good and cost effective reasons for allowing a specific JDM or Euro spec engine to be used. From a rotary perspective there were some interesting offerings that never were imported here as well.

All that said, I don't support the use of Non-USDM engines in STx both accross the board or on a case by case basis. Sorry, but I don't care how much this rule costs some of you.

First, ignore rotaries, they are an entirely different genre, and each is rather unique, even within that genre. They will have to be treated as special cases individually, so, including them in any argument against non USDM engines is moot.

Second, the BIG issue here is that the class weight setting system is set up on a theoretical basis, but the rules are limit everyone to real world parts. Parts that influence potential power.

Those are completely at ODDs with one another.

The allowance of non USDM engines would be a step in the right direction, IMO. I 'get' the concern for policing things, but, I think that concern overstated. As Chip points out, requiring English language documentation is appropriate.
I do not see how that doesn't resolve the policing issue to a great extent.

Further, the HP levels that have been chosen are very lofty, with only a few engines capable of achieving them, right? Are there many examples of non USDM engines capable of exceeding them?

[Chip42]

Note that at this point in time, while it's under discussion as part of the overall general philosophy, there's no allowance for other-than-USDM engines...

I just don't understand why. engine displacement - look at chart - get weight, race. who cares if it ever displaced that much in a car sold in america or not?? the rules spec CR, lift, and weight by displacement and don't take ANY other engine characteristic (STL valve count differences excluded) into account - TB size, head flow, shrouding, RSR, B:S, whatever. we can verify lift, CR and displacement EASILY, in impound, with simple, common tools. And in many cases it's minimally invasive (valve cover and spark plugs)

intakes, non-US market engines, ignitions, etc... should ALL be open UNLESS the motor is from a specline, in which case it must conform to that line. keeping conformity to all stock specs (except those specifically open/different in the STCS) and then saying the nissan, ford, VW, and toyota, etc... of 2.5L should all be making the same power is patently ludicrous. yeah, they'll probably be close - but there's no way to be sure. keeping the
bore, stroke, deck height, heads, etc... as factory or with allowed porting DOES provide for variation and should be controlled for the sake of cost containment - but how doe s aRHD only motor or one not sold in the US for whatever reason take away from this? mandate english language, manufacturer published basic engine specs to ensure the competitor isn't "making" a motor (cost control) but otherwise let them in.

it will cost me the same to get a NON US toyota gen 3 3S-GE 2.0L non-turbo motor from a 94-97 celica or MR2, WITH A TRANSMISSION, as it will to convert my USDM Gen 1 86-89 celica motor to shim under bucket (already this way in gen 3) so that I can use the cams allowed in STU. other than that, it's a different intake, SMALLER head ports, and oiling and other minor changes that are basically irrelevant in the eyes of the ST rules. it made a not scary high ~170hp from the factory, and there are THOUSANDS of them out there. why is this not allowed??? it's just friggin stoopid.

[Greg Amy]

I just don't understand why...who cares if it ever displaced that much in a car sold in america or not??

The CRB. As I understand it, the CRB had concerns regarding being able to properly police it, to ensure legal parts are being used.

You should keep in mind that the current configuration of the rules is a lot like IT, where it's allowances from stock. What you are describing is a system that uses baseline build limitations from which anything not specified is allowed.

Given the former, you can see why JDM engines were not allowed; for example, if you use a JDM engine, how can we ensure you're using the stock throttle body? Head casting (better flow from JDM)? Crankshaft (lighter, more/fewer counterweights?) Etc.

The basis of your idea(l) is under discussion for 2012.

GA