STx Notes, February Fastrack

[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?

[mustanghammer]

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?

Regarding rotary engines, I don't see your point as all that valid. Weights are currently applied by displacement to 12A and 13B engines. The Renesis is classed at the same weight as a 13B but has a porting restriction.

You further seem to indicate that alternate rotary engines could be classed and spec'd on a case by case basis. Is this really what we want to deal with? Especially if this was extended to all of the engine options in the class. Do we really want spec lines that are as complicated as Prod or GT?

Overall, my concern is not with the widely available and cost effective JDM/Euro spec engine. I am not even all that worried about documentation - it can be a requirement that can be enforced. Instead my concern is that there will be a uber powerful, limited production, hard to find, and expensive JDM/Euro spec engine that find it's way into STx. How is this scenario policed and how is this caught BEFORE the engine in the class?

I'm open to ideas....sell me. The arguement that it is "good for the class" is not a good one because an over-dog super rare power plant would be just as bad for the class. So you need to try harder.

[Chip42]

Overall, my concern is not with the widely available and cost effective JDM/Euro spec engine. I am not even all that worried about documentation - it can be a requirement that can be enforced. Instead my concern is that there will be a uber powerful, limited production, hard to find, and expensive JDM/Euro spec engine that find it's way into STx. How is this scenario policed and how is this caught BEFORE the engine in the class?

given the compression and cam requirements, this doesn't compute with the weight by displacement / Turbo inlet restrictor class philosophy. and that might not be a 100% accurate proposal, but it's pretty reasonable. there's not a lot one can do to make an "uber" engine without breaking some or all of the class restrictions. more likely to be an underdog based on head restrictions and/or intake.

outside of that, IF a motor is discovered to make significantly more or less power, and is legal and built to the 9s, then it should be given an alternate minimum weight (higher or lower, depending). A mechanism to do this already exists in the STCS in the form of speclines. I would argue that these need to be sorted by MOTOR not by the car they came in, but the point remains.

further, I cannot think of a motor from the JDM / euro markets that would make scary power AFTER modifications to conform to the class. even the RB turbo motors, toyota BEAMS engines, etc... will be reigned in. there's nothing really special about them below the piston skirts. I'm willing to be proven wrong, glad to, even. because we have the above method for dealing with the outliers when and if they show up.

frankly, evolving gearbox and stability control systems from the luxo marques scares me more than potential power output under the current rules, even if relaxed a bit. how does one check that stuff without outright banning it? and when does something like a Dual clutch box become "equivalent" to a sequential, which in terms of shift speed it pretty much is. THESE are the great unanswered questions, and for right now I think it best to NOT answer them, but to see how things balances out on track. these items ARE/will soon be availalble in US market offerings.

[lateapex911]

What Chip said. The biggest issue right now, as far as I'm concerned is that theory isn't matching reality. And that will result in very few cars being contenders.That's not multi marque racing, which an open class purports to be.

Removing some of the real world restrictions is sorely needed. Allowing non USDM components is a good start. Probably not enough, but....

[Chip42]

I think that STU will be OK for multi-marque. at least as good as WC ever was - so 6+ makes competitive. I can live with that. but I still want out of market stuff to be allowe dbecause it makes sense, and because it might raise that number by 2. I have a personal motivation, but it's surmountable with extra $$$.

STL really would benefit because the USDM offerings <2.0L is pretty slim (read: honda) but the class allows so much less that you DO run the risk of an Uber moter there. thus the banning of the B18-C5 and the F20. Toyota 2ZZ-GE should be added to that list to be honest. leaves the class with very few real options. but that's

[Mrsideways]

Correct me if I'm wrong but does this mean that a Turbo WC car can run it's VTS sheet + 5% but without the STU sized restrictor? And I'm sorry if this has been discussed before but the VTS sheet does not mean they have to run Toyo's does it?

[Chip42]

as I understand it, if you run "to the VTS sheet" you run EXACTLY what's on that list (no more, who cares if you run less) and run the greater of VTS indicated weight +5% OR the STU weight +5%. this is NOT well explained for turbos because without an TIR, there's no "STU" weight.

what's your turbo's inlet ID? you could use that I guess. I'd write to the STAC for turbo VTS weight clarification.