April 2012 Fastrack

JS154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I dont get why that weight decision wasnt thought about from the get go until BSpec came along. Some of the cars listed were BSpec cars in the notation.

I agree with the B16 in some of the older Hondas and I wouldn't be surprised if some pop up locally...I hope so I can have a few people to race.

I like the idea of the class aligning more with STU instead of IT, everyone says its not IT or Super IT but really some of the rules seem to be IT based.


I have written in already on some aero changes, so I will see how that goes.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Just because the class is underdeveloped, doesn't change that opinion.
Click to expand...
I *completely* agree with you on that, Andy. Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries and the "it's a field-filler class" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If/when this class becomes a full-built strong-field National class of epic participation, then maybe my stance on the "ITRS2k" will soften. But not now, not today.

...and how 'corrections' on the fly could have been avoided by not rushing it.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from personal experience, as someone that has been pushing for National status on this class all last year, I was more than a bit surprised that we got it for 2012. But regardless, until that happened, no one gave two s***s about the class. Where were you all last year, complaining about the details in the rules, beating on your chest about allowing in the ITRS2K, and being an overall "pain in the ass" ;) sometimes about STL? Fact is, you - and most others - did not care one whit about STL because it was a Regional class. And because of that, a lot of this stuff went unnoticed and ignored. It actually took the change from Regional-Only status in order for the class to get the attention, and these details noticed. If the class had stayed Regional, nothing would have changed and we'd be making the same arguments but a year (or whenever) later if/when it finally became National.

As I've said many, many times, Greg's #1 Rule for Writing a Rule is "You can’t POSSIBLY think of all situations". Problem is, only now is the crowd starting to pay attention. What you are witnessing is the "crowd-sourcing" of a class. It's frustrating, but I kinda like it.

So all this is less a reflection of the maturity of the class, and more a reflection of the status of the class, the latter of which driving the former. It's a pain that we'll need to go through and resolve, but when it's done I think we'll have something pretty good.

Well, at least I'm hopeful! :happy204:

GA
 
Last edited:
CRB announce new “terminator” rules policy:
For all future new classes rules will be developed in real time, on the fly and then when perfected will be sent back in a time machine so a “perfect” rule set can be unveiled from the start.
 
Greg Amy said:
I can tell you from personal experience, as someone that has been pushing for National status on this class all last year, I was more than a bit surprised that we got it for 2012. But regardless, until that happened, no one gave two s***s about the class. Where were you all last year, complaining about the details in the rules, beating on your chest about allowing in the ITRS2K, and being an overall "pain in the ass" ;) sometimes about STL? Fact is, you - and most others - did not care one whit about STL because it was a Regional class.

GA
Click to expand...

And that's how you develop a class, right? Regional for enough time it takes to iron out the kinks, lock in your concept, and fix the mistakes. THEN National. Once you punch a ticket for the Runoffs, you need to have your shit together.

Such a new and promising concept needed more time to germinate before it went under the microscope. When the CRB/BoD approved STL for the Runoffs, they effectively said it was ready for prime time.

PS: And I 'beat my chest' about allowing the ITRS2K because at first it wasn't legal, then it was, then it wasn't...all within a couple of months. So The STAC sparked the interest and the concept, then took it away because the decision was in haste. So with piqued interest, you examine the concept or all IT cars 2L and under in STL...and it's sound.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
I *completely* agree with you on that, Andy. Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries and the "it's a field-filler class" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


GA
Click to expand...

Only half true. If IT cars overshadow REAL builds, then you are correct. That would be a misclass. If fully developed IT cars overshadowed partial builds, then only the short-sighted, or those looking to cherry-pick a Runoffs medal, would give up.
 
Greg, whadya mean nobody's been paying attention until it went national? You've been saying I've been a pain and a thorn forever. ;)
 
dickita15 said:
CRB announce new “terminator” rules policy:
For all future new classes rules will be developed in real time, on the fly and then when perfected will be sent back in a time machine so a “perfect” rule set can be unveiled from the start.
Click to expand...


Witness.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Only half true. If IT cars overshadow REAL builds, then you are correct. That would be a misclass. If fully developed IT cars overshadowed partial builds, then only the short-sighted, or those looking to cherry-pick a Runoffs medal, would give up.
Click to expand...

That was my take on it.

Greg Amy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Greg Amy said:
Problem is, if we allow non-category cars in that can easily overshadow real and partial builds of an underdeveloped class, then it will scare away potential "legitimate" entries
Click to expand...

Greg,

I agree w/ Andy, if the performance potential of a fully developed ITRS2K (or any of the 2L ITR cars) meets or exceeds the defined performance potential of a fully developed STL car, the IT car should not be allowed to compete in STL. The way I read your comments though, you don't think that would be the case.

What is it that really drives people to do full-tilt builds? It's because they want to do well, and they know that they other guy is going to take full advantage of the rules. That's the way it should be, and I think that fosters great competition. But that's why you've got $20k+ ITB builds and and $30k+ ITA builds, etc.

If you've set the STL performance level above that of ITR (and that's what I understand the case to be), the only reason anyone building an STL car should worry about an ITRS2K (or any other ITR car) is because they haven't done a 10/10ths build. If I built an STL car, and was getting beaten by guys in IT cars, it would be one of two things, 1) I didn't make a 100% effort, or 2) it's the nut behind the wheel.

I seem to recall that a couple of years ago you were wringing your hands at the possibility of taking an IT car to the Runoffs and grabbing an STU medal since STU was so new and there weren't many (any?) serious efforts out there. This seems to be exactly what you're against happening in STL. Not for nothing, but it's got a bit of a "not in my back yard" ring to it.

If you set the performance target of STL above IT, and you're going to let IT cars run, then let them run. Tell anyone w/ an STL car that complains about being beaten by an IT car to step up their game. Having (more) cars to chase will motivate people to work harder on their programs.
 
I'm not sure that the performance target for ST*L* is really beyond that of ITR. Think about how fast many of the cars in ITR *could* be. They would not be an issue, however, for STL, since they are all greater than 2.0L displacement.

Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.

If the S2K stands out from the list above by a large margin, then that raises other questions. On the surface though, all of the ITR cars should have *similar* performance envelopes, so if we're concerned about one being a possible overdog due to a loophole, then shouldn't the loophole itself be closed, rather than posting a guard there and turning away a select few?
 
ShelbyRacer said:
I'm not sure that the performance target for ST*L* is really beyond that of ITR. Think about how fast many of the cars in ITR *could* be. They would not be an issue, however, for STL, since they are all greater than 2.0L displacement.

Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.

If the S2K stands out from the list above by a large margin, then that raises other questions. On the surface though, all of the ITR cars should have *similar* performance envelopes, so if we're concerned about one being a possible overdog due to a loophole, then shouldn't the loophole itself be closed, rather than posting a guard there and turning away a select few?
Click to expand...

So that's the point Matt, we are debating the 'closeness' of the ITR peformance envelope (11.25lbs per crank HP) vs STL which by all estimations is around 10.25lbs per crank for the best of breed.
 
Isn't there more to it than that?

Alternate suspension pieces?

Brakes?

Wings/aero?

Cages?

Wheel/tire size?

So the performance advantage for an STL car should extend beyond just hp/weight right?
 
JeffYoung said:
Isn't there more to it than that?

Alternate suspension pieces?

Brakes?

Wings/aero?

Cages?

Wheel/tire size?

So the performance advantage for an STL car should extend beyond just hp/weight right?
Click to expand...

Yes, adding to the power to weight advantage there is:

Rear aero
Lightened flywheels
Alternate transmissions/gearsets from within same MFG
Any diff (no mention of OEM case requirement)
Additional allowances for camber
Brake upgrades

The only thing 'better' in ITR is the 8.5 vs 7.0 wheel width allowance.
 
How long has it taken for ITR cars to beat ITS cars? Seems that many S
cars are at or faster than R cars, with 8.5 wheels, more power etc. Even at the ARRC, what is the diff between the top cars? :dead_horse:
This is in response to the ITR vs STL concerns.
 
Andy, I guess I was trying to reason it through "out loud" to make sure I fully understood the issue.

That said, my quick estimations of power with STL allowances seemed to be pointing at around 11-12 for p/w ratio. My thought process is that the cars in ITR with that low of a displacement are probably optimized pretty well from the factory in many ways, possibly putting them at a significantly better starting point than many other STL cars.

I guess my other question is- would the S2000 with a different engine be a player in STL at full development?

One final observation- since you're saying the ITR S2K can't run STL (which could be linked to the fact that the engine is disallowed), shouldn't the Teg also, since its engine is disallowed? And, should the engines of the other sub-2L ITR cars be banned?
 
ShelbyRacer said:
Rather than zero in on one car, why not simply say that ONLY ITS, A, B, and C cars under 2L may run in STL. This would affect only a handful of ITR cars- RSX-S, Teg Type-R, Celica GTS, and the old 69 911S (Did I miss any under-2L in ITR?). This would make things appear much more consistent, and be much easier to defend in the big picture.
Click to expand...

Be a lot easier to defend it being a "<2L FWD Honda engine swap class". It'd be more consistent and maybe reasonably accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top