April 2012 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

Just to clarify, this was not it at all. We had an internal snafu and our last two months' worth of recommendations apparently did not get to the CRB.

Chip and I are taking steps to correct.

Not the CRB's fault at all.

>> This was done two months ago, not sure what the hold up is.

I won't name any names but their initials are C, R, B.

My SINGLE biggest issue while on the ITAC was the CRB filibuster. There's a cultural inclination there to ignore things they don't want to do and hope that they die on the vine. Timely up-or-down decisions should be SOP.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Me too: the F20.

The 200hp-stock K20 from the RSX-S is already at max-allowed compression ratio for STL and will have to de-cam to be compliant to the STL regs. The 240hp-stock F20 from the S2000 can increase compression another 1/2 point per the ITR regs (to over a point more than STL regs currently allow) and can run stock cams that are already oversize per STL regs.

But you already knew that...

GA

I think if you asked the Honda guru's, they would tell you otherwise. This K20 is like some sort of super-sauce, even with a de-camming apperantly. No personal dyno data to back it up but we will have an ITR K20-powered RSX to examine soon.

Even if the motors could see the same peak HP, the F20 would still be 130-150lbs heavier once a new RWD factor of at least 5% gets put into place.

But bottom line, the chassis nonsense is fixed a little bit. Now to get to work on the age limit on drivetrain only, any chassis!

 

[Greg Amy]

I think if you asked the Honda guru's, they would tell you otherwise

They those "gurus" are truly Honda Purple Kool-Aid fools. Seriously so.

GA

 

[coreyehcx]

I guess Im drinking kool aid....and a fool

 

[CRallo]

I'm not stepping in that pile.

 

[Greg Amy]

I guess Im drinking kool aid....and a fool

So you're telling me that given a choice between an ITR-prepped F20C (240hp stock, +1/2 point compression to 12.2:1 and stock "STL-oversized" cams) versus an STL-prepped K20 (200hp stock, no more compression at 11:1, de-cammed to .425 valve lift max), both with IT-level head, intake, and exhaust prep, both installed into the same Honda S2000 chassis, and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

First off, they wouldn't weight the same, and that's the point here. Right now isn't there's about a 300lb difference, soon to shrink to around 130lbs.

Second, isn't it possible that motors of similar size, compression ration and cam specs respond differently to intake, exhaust and A/F tuning? Sure it is...possible. The people in the know seem to think the K20 has a better upside. And even if it was dead even, the IT car would still weigh more.

And that brings me back to the original point, STL cars need not be afraid of 2L IT cars in any shape or form because they don't match up spec for spec.

I guess to compare to a Teg: 2460lbs with 195whp vs. 3005lbs with 215whp

I'm a RWD guy so I know what I would go with but I'm not sure it would be a winner against top builds and top drivers.

I'll do some more research and find out exactly WHY the Kool-Aid is so good.

 

[Racerlinn]

"Walsh presented update on progress with SAE regarding safety standards and SAE becoming a safety certification body. Any possible agreement would be an expected 3-5 year process. Walsh and Merideth will pursue finding the path and then handoff to staff for follow through. "

????

 

[Greg Amy]

Andy, Super Touring Light isn't about Improved Touring cars; it's about Super Touring Light cars. Everything else that's allowed in there is grid filler*.

And, as grid filler, whether or not it will be competitive in STL is wholly irrelevant: if there's even a miniscule chance that it may be competitive, it will be excluded. Reasonable people will agree that it's debatable that the ITR S2000 can be somewhat competitive in STL. Ergo, it's excluded.

In no case should/will any alternately-allowed class be given the opportunity to overshadow the base class. It should not even be remotely considered. If you like the base class, then build for the base class. Otherwise, you're grid filler, plain and simple.

If you want to race STL, build an STL car. We'd love to have you on board. But if all you're looking to do is double-dip, you have to make that compromise to build to ITR specs and double-dip in STU.

GA

* I personally define "grid filler" as giving other classes another place to play, both for experience purposes (e.g. IT cars racing Nationals) and for extra track time (e.g., SM cars double-dipping at a National event). It absolutely does not hurt that it also benefits Super Touring Light (and sponsoring regions) by increasing participation numbers; in fact, there would be no reason for STCS/CRB to allow/encourage it unless it was mutually beneficial.

The cynics among us seem to think it's only about that last point. It's not. And even if it were, "so what...?"

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which all makes sense. The point you are missing is that all 2L ITR cars are 'grid filler' too, which I am trying to show on paper. STL is going to be more grid filler than real STL cars anyway.

But, as you said, IT cars are invited as a peripheral entity. They won't, and don't, have to 'makes sense'.

 

[coreyehcx]

So you're telling me that given a choice between an ITR-prepped F20C (240hp stock, +1/2 point compression to 12.2:1 and stock "STL-oversized" cams) versus an STL-prepped K20 (200hp stock, no more compression at 11:1, de-cammed to .425 valve lift max), both with IT-level head, intake, and exhaust prep, both installed into the same Honda S2000 chassis, and both weighing exactly the same, you'd take the K20?

If so, better buy the Kool-Aid mix powder in bulk from Sam's Club, you're going to need it.

GA

I didn't say that anywhere Greg.

I was under the impression that ITR cars were going to be excluded anyway.

F20C in STL trim vs a K20A in STL trim is what I'm talking about. Yes I would go with the K20 in that situation.

The F20C has many examples of losing power when they are modified with simple things like intake, header, and exhaust.

Cam lift
F20C .498"/.459"
K20A2 .483"/.431"

Running those at the .425 lift limits, which one potentially has more to lose.

K20s respond very well to modifications which is well documented and F20s do not. There is a lot more support out there for the K series engines as well and a lot more development going on with them.


Call it koolaid or whatever you want, some of you act like elitist snobs.

 

[Greg Amy]

F20C in STL trim vs a K20A in STL trim is what I'm talking about.

That has nothing to do with the above conversation, and thus nothing to do with my Kool-Aid comment.

Andy has a burr under his saddle to get the ITR-prepped S2000 in STL as an alternate category vehicle. Thus our debate involves the potential of the ITR-prepped F20C versus the STL-prepped K20A. Andy and I disagree on that performance potential (even when considering the ~150# differences in prep weight).

The ITR-prepped S2000 will not be approved to run in STL. The F20C will not be approved to run in STL trim*.

GA, who may be considered an elitist snob, but at least he pays attention to the point of the conversation...


* As much as absolutes such as that can be counted on in SCCA...

 

[TStiles]

That has nothing to do with the above conversation, and thus nothing to do with my Kool-Aid comment.

Andy has a burr under his saddle to get the ITR-prepped S2000 in STL as an alternate category vehicle. Thus our debate involves the potential of the ITR-prepped F20C versus the STL-prepped K20A. Andy and I disagree on that performance potential (even when considering the ~150# differences in prep weight).

The ITR-prepped S2000 will not be approved to run in STL. The F20C will not be approved to run in STL trim*.

GA, who may be considered an elitist snob, but at least he pays attention to the point of the conversation...


* As much as absolutes such as that can be counted on in SCCA...

Greg , Sorry if I'm plowing old ground here , but are you saying the ITR prepped AP1 S2000 running in STL is an overdog ?

I don't know if it's an overdog , but it might be the EZ button for a guy like me that wants to do STL , but has limited engine mechanical talent.

I'm a RWD guy , the ITR AP1 S2000 seems easier and maybe more cost effective than a full tilt boogie Miata build.

 

[Greg Amy]

Greg , Sorry if I'm plowing old ground here , but are you saying the ITR prepped AP1 S2000 running in STL is an overdog ?

No, I'm not saying I think the ITR-prepped S2000 is an "overdog", but I do think the level of performance is such that it could give significant grief to legitimate STL cars (and could even consistently win races given the current infancy of the class).

Therefore, it's reasonable that it should be excluded.

GA

 

[coreyehcx]

I wasn't trying to get into your conversation with Andy. I guess that is how it played out and I wasn't paying attention to the point.



This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement), opening up the double dipping issue with certain cars way over STL limits, and the inclusion of the s2000. When is the inclusion of the ITR happening or did I miss that one? Maybe the Lotus will be on board by the end of the year too.

I have been on board until these recent issues. I have a car, I plan to race it in STL this year. I will have to take a look at things at that point to see if I want to continue with it or the organization at all.

These are the types of things that make people look to other organizations. I know this is not a concern at all for any of you that complain of losing members or gaining them.

 

[Knestis]

... This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement) ...

Huh? How does B-Spec fit into the ST conversation? ST "Ultralight...?" There's exactly no way that the curve can be shifted to reasonably accommodate BS cars.

FWIW, I get Greg's point. It's necessary to define what is at the core of any rule set, at least in the rules-making paradigm that we apply in SCCA (i.e., not time-indexed or NASA PTx solutions).

K

 

[JS154]

I wasn't trying to get into your conversation with Andy. I guess that is how it played out and I wasn't paying attention to the point.



This class is becoming increasingly frustrating with the recent changes to weight(apparently for BSpec future placement), opening up the double dipping issue with certain cars way over STL limits, and the inclusion of the s2000. When is the inclusion of the ITR happening or did I miss that one? Maybe the Lotus will be on board by the end of the year too.

I have been on board until these recent issues. I have a car, I plan to race it in STL this year. I will have to take a look at things at that point to see if I want to continue with it or the organization at all.

These are the types of things that make people look to other organizations. I know this is not a concern at all for any of you that complain of losing members or gaining them.

The changes to base weight calculations were done to account for the indisputable fact that cars from manufacturers are getting heavier and heavier each year, and will only continue to do so with the ongoing mandated requirements of increased rollover anti-roof-crush reinforcing, crumple zones etc etc.

example: in STU the 2.0L cars already cannot get within 300# of target weight.

BPsec has nothing to do with it. It was done to make it easier for future heavy chassis to be able to make weight and avoid the ongoing" my car can;t make weight so gimme a break"

AS Greg mentioned above, it is Super Touring Lite, as in Super touring at a "Lite-er" level of prep - not Light - Lite. it is not Super Improved Touring.

Yes there have been a number of changes to the class and category as of late, but the intent is to get the majority of the changes out of the way early in the infancy of the class/category, so that it doesn;t turn into an annual redo of of minor adjustments.

If there are things about the class you (generic you) would like to see different, or things that have been announced that you disagree with - please - write a letter in, and provide some good info supporting your position.

Personally, I would like to see the allowances for wheel size and ride height and brake rotor diameter to be the same between STU and STL, so people can run the same chassis in both classes without having to buy new wheels and smaller brakes, or vice-versa. But that's my opinion, and it;s not flying so far it seems. But in order for something like those to get approved, there has to be more support for it.


And I still think a B16A2 in a late 80's Civic is the sleeper build for STL.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW, I get Greg's point. It's necessary to define what is at the core of any rule set, at least in the rules-making paradigm that we apply in SCCA (i.e., not time-indexed or NASA PTx solutions).

K

Of course it is. But it's also obvious that STL is going to ride a wave of field fillers in the form of ITS and SM cars to artificially high car counts. So as long as that is part of your business model, it should be fine to debate where the line for acceptable filler is drawn. I submit that an ITR S2000 (or Celica or RSX or Type R) does not encroach on the top 20% of the targeted performance envelope given the raw numbers.

And I still submit that from what I have read, an STL K20 has more potential than an IT F20 but will report back with more data.

 

[JS154]

Of course it is. But it's also obvious that STL is going to ride a wave of field fillers in the form of ITS and SM cars to artificially high car counts. So as long as that is part of your business model, it should be fine to debate where the line for acceptable filler is drawn. I submit that an ITR S2000 (or Celica or RSX or Type R) does not encroach on the top 20% of the targeted performance envelope given the raw numbers.

And I still submit that from what I have read, an STL K20 has more potential than an IT F20 but will report back with more data.

I'm not sure I fully understand the "artificailly high car count" argument. If there are 20 entries in STL, and 4 of those are "true STL" cars, there are still 20 entries in the class. Any branmd new class is going to take a while to be well populated, and when multiple makes, engine swpas and drivetrain configurations are all allowed, it;s going to be a a little turbulent getting the rules sorted and balanced at the outset anyways.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure I fully understand the "artificailly high car count" argument. If there are 20 entries in STL, and 4 of those are "true STL" cars, there are still 20 entries in the class.

The point is that STL has, in it's rules, a way to boost it's numbers. Field fillers. These types of cars have been discussed and evaluated to make sure they don't exceed or encroach on the performance envelope of STL. What I am saying is that No 2L ITR car, of which there are at least 4, is in this boat. Just because the class is underdeveloped, doesn't change that opinion.

Any branmd new class is going to take a while to be well populated, and when multiple makes, engine swpas and drivetrain configurations are all allowed, it;s going to be a a little turbulent getting the rules sorted and balanced at the outset anyways.

Yes and no. We could debate how much forethought when into this class, what it's intentional limits were and are and how 'corrections' on the fly could have been avoided by not rushing it.