Should NON-US motors be allowed in ST?

[Matt93SE]

Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.

[lateapex911]

Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.

People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.

[DoubleXL240Z]

Actually it won't need weight!! Its a 2 litre at 2116 lbs with the carbon bodywork! SCCA weight would be 2200 with driver and I'm only 295. If I could get down to 84 lbs I think it could be competitive!!
Actually it shows as being 1155 kg with driver, thats 2546 lbs!!

[Chip42]

People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.

This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors. add in JDM/EDM offerings, and keep prep levels as is.

prod cages and seam welding kinda make the "savings" point moot.

[Matt93SE]

Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.

[Chip42]

Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.

for U and O I completely agree. but the rulesmakers have stuck to an IT mindset on so much of the STL rules that they have kept it from "being" ST while also made a real IT-STL transition very expensive (chassis and cage work, and lots of it).

I'd fully support making STL the same rules as STU, with lower prep limits to the motor, no turbos, and more weight/cc. but that's not what it is. nor is it IT+. it's both, depending on what discrete rule you are reading. and that's pretty much it's greatest failing outside of the lack of diveristy expected at the pointy end.

[Greg Amy]

This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors.

Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA

[Chip42]

Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA

I guess brakes stand out as the biggest IT mindset holdover. - we've discussed this and I think we're in 100% agreement. maybe make them smaller than U, but give class-wide maxima rather than what came on the tub.

suspension in STL is more likely to be FWD than anywhere else so the ability to have drop spindles/ball joint spacers and bump steer correction, and a mechanism to try and correct or tune scrub would be very helpful. yeah it adds costs, but that ship sailed with seam welds and wings.

weight adders/subtractors for FWD/RWD should be exactly as in STU. the 2 classes should have the same rules with different maxima and weight/cc tables. if it's desired, keep dry sumps and turbos out of L. but other than that - there shouldn't be a difference. the classes should be as simillar as ITS and A, even if the IT and ST category rules are completely different.