April 2012 Fastrack

ShelbyRacer said:
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?
Click to expand...

So in a previous Fast Track, the STAC allowed all 2L and under IT cars (+13B and 12A even though they are considered 2600cc) in their 100% IT configuration, in STL. When they figured out that included all the <2L ITR cars as well, they pulled the plug and then specified ITS-ITC (again with 13B and 12A allowances as specific weights).

So there are no ITR cars, in IT spec, allowed in STL. Nothing to do 'specifically' with the allowed or not allowed engine, but apperantly with the 'closeness' of the performance envelope. That is what I am debating here. A really good, but not great, STL entry would be a double dipping ITR S2000...non-so-coincidentally one I have access to.

So again the debate is if a 99% developed (no such thing as 100%) ITR car is about 90% of a 99% STL car, then what's the harm? Will they win races? YES - not because they have the better potential, but because they are already built. Runoffs win? Come on. Only if a bunch of underdeveloped cherry-pickers show up thinking they are getting a medal with STL cars.

And to answer your other question, I am not sure if an S2000 with the K20 would be a player against the 1.6 and 1.8 weighted cars but from my research it actually is a BETTER choice for STL than the ITR car given HP, TQ, brakes, aero, etc and a much lighter weight min.

On edit: It seems to be all about the closeness of the two classes envelope. The STAC thinks they are either equal (which would be bad) or close enough so that fragile ego's would be damaged enough to hurt growth. They run the show, we stand by their work even if we agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Aha, so what I was proposing was already done. That's what I get for using the January version of the GCR (already downloaded), and I must've missed that modification in FasTrack. I guess I should feel good that my thoughts on this were in line with what actually happened, even if I have to be embarrassed that I didn't realize it was a done deal.

That said, I'm still questioning if the other sub-2L engines in ITR should be banned. Obviously, the stock (IT-trim) S2K motor makes enough to require a weight of 3000 lb to make ratio, so its power potential is significant. The Teg Type-R though, is weighted at 2535 in ITR, while the other sub-2Ls are only slightly lighter at 2365 and 2380. The RSX-S comes in at 2665, so if the power potential of the Teg motor is enough to keep it out of STL, shouldn't *at least* the RSX motor also be taken out?

Again, I'm asking the question because *on paper* there appears to be inconsistency (though not as much as I previously thought). There may be real-world scenarios that justify the situation that I'm not aware of. My issue is simple: Consistency is important, but if inconsistencies are necessary (and they are at times), I'd like to know that there's justification.

I think you can blame some of this on the re-genesis of IT. The approach of the ITAC over the last few years, while not perfect, has set an expectation of calculation tempered by reasoning. We've all come to have the expectation that, "Because it just feels right," is not an ample reason for decision-making. As you said Andy, I'm content to agree-to-disagree, so long as I have insight into how we got to the disagreement. I guess I'm also feeling an inexplicable pull towards Super Touring, so I've maybe got a horse (albeit one that hasn't been even concieved yet) in this race.
 
So I am not sure there is an inconsistency...but it depends on how you look at it.

The STAC (IMHO) is not looking at singular cars and their potential when trying to add in field fillers, they are looking at a class of cars. In theory, all the sub-2L cars in ITR should have the same SPEED potential. So they have deemed that speed envelope too close to STL to allow them in. Again, at the IT weight. So it really doesn't matter what motor they have, just that the envelope is too close. I am on record as saying that it shouldn't be too close if calmer heads prevail but I have a potential horse in the race so you have to temper my opinion by that too.

Look, STL NEEDS field fillers to survive. It's just how many you are willing to accept. Plenty of 'real' ITA guys around the US are bent outta shape when they get beaten by SM's but when someone grabs them by the scruff and explains that they are getting beaten by drivers instead of cars, they calm down. I feel this is a proactive move to keep that from happening...however rational it may be.



ShelbyRacer said:
Aha, so what I was proposing was already done. That's what I get for using the January version of the GCR (already downloaded), and I must've missed that modification in FasTrack. I guess I should feel good that my thoughts on this were in line with what actually happened, even if I have to be embarrassed that I didn't realize it was a done deal.

That said, I'm still questioning if the other sub-2L engines in ITR should be banned. Obviously, the stock (IT-trim) S2K motor makes enough to require a weight of 3000 lb to make ratio, so its power potential is significant. The Teg Type-R though, is weighted at 2535 in ITR, while the other sub-2Ls are only slightly lighter at 2365 and 2380. The RSX-S comes in at 2665, so if the power potential of the Teg motor is enough to keep it out of STL, shouldn't *at least* the RSX motor also be taken out?

Again, I'm asking the question because *on paper* there appears to be inconsistency (though not as much as I previously thought). There may be real-world scenarios that justify the situation that I'm not aware of. My issue is simple: Consistency is important, but if inconsistencies are necessary (and they are at times), I'd like to know that there's justification.

I think you can blame some of this on the re-genesis of IT. The approach of the ITAC over the last few years, while not perfect, has set an expectation of calculation tempered by reasoning. We've all come to have the expectation that, "Because it just feels right," is not an ample reason for decision-making. As you said Andy, I'm content to agree-to-disagree, so long as I have insight into how we got to the disagreement. I guess I'm also feeling an inexplicable pull towards Super Touring, so I've maybe got a horse (albeit one that hasn't been even concieved yet) in this race.
Click to expand...
 
Andy, how about finding a way to get ITR cars allowed in by increasing the performance gap? Something like, ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars get to compete at their specified IT weight, but ITR cars can compete in their ITR trim, but only at ITR weight + 150?
 
JoshS said:
Andy, how about finding a way to get ITR cars allowed in by increasing the performance gap? Something like, ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars get to compete at their specified IT weight, but ITR cars can compete in their ITR trim, but only at ITR weight + 150?
Click to expand...

I know for the S2000 that would be a total of 400lbs of ballast. No thanks.

I know the ITR cars won't beat properly built and driven STL cars but I would certainly like to compete on SOME level. No sense in double dipping like that. I could go to STU and be just as competitive. The way to get quality filler is to have them see a tiny glimmer of light... :)
 
easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.
 
Chip42 said:
easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are trying to collect 'data' for a National-level decision when run groups are decided Regionally. It would never happen.

And the whole point is to allow the double dip. Field fillers aren't there for a single purpose, they double dip as fillers, helping regional $, providing said filler AND adding value to the weekend for the racers.
 
Last edited:
Chip42 said:
easy solution is to put ITR and STL in the same run group, then no one will care that the cars can't double dip AND you can see the relative on-track performance to make less speculative decisions for the future. one thing STL has had too damn much of is speculation and correction. they need to sit down and find out what they have before making another major change. if keeping ITR cars out will help to not scare off the timid and is therefore needed for the viability of the class at this stage in its evolution, then I support the decision.
Click to expand...

Andy Bettencourt said:
Unfortunately you are trying to collect 'data' for a National-level decision when run groups are decided Regionally. It would never happen.

And the whole point is to allow the double dip. Field fillers aren't there for a single purpose, they double dip as fillers, helping regional $, providing said filler AND adding value to the weekend for the racers.
Click to expand...

How many of the serious STL cars are going to run Regionals? Unless it's a 'Rational', isn't that the only place you'd have the chance to run STL and ITR together? Look at the other serious National efforts, across all the classes and categories, how many of them run Regionals? Even before things got tight w/ the economy, you didn't see many (any?) serious National efforts running Regionals. I would suspect that it would be even less now, given the state of the economy and the fact that almost all of the associated costs are up (entry fees, fuel, etc.).

Given the few STL cars that might show up at Regionals, I suspect they'll end up w/ the ITR group anyway, so there's probably little chance to double-dip. And ITR guys that take their cars to Nationals don't have a chance to double-dip their, either. Unless they run STL and STU (assuming they're in different run groups). Not to mention that guys running STL cars at Regionals aren't going to do anything to help the National STL participation numbers.

So unless you're in an area that runs combined Regionals/Nationals, the amount of potential double-dipping is going to be minimal. If you need IT cars as field-fillers for STL, you need to get those cars to Nationals for those participation numbers to mean anything.
 
We here in New Engalnd region do everything possible to allow all classes the opportunity to Double Dip.:rolleyes: At least when possible! (sorry Greg:()
 
Bill Miller said:
How many STL cars do you think will show up at the Regionals, now that STL is a National class?

And since they're Regionals, can't you guys do pretty much what you want? Kind of like how IT7 started? Just put it in the supps that ITR cars are also eligible for STL.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What I do know is that SM's and IT cars will be more likely to DD in STL than in STU. Why? Up here, STU runs with must faster classes. Not popular for guys who traditionally DD.

Creating a CLASS is way easier than modifying rules that aren't blessed by the GCR. I would never support something like this locally unless it was in the GCR. It's not fair to the 'real' STL drivers IMHO.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I have no idea. What I do know is that SM's and IT cars will be more likely to DD in STL than in STU. Why? Up here, STU runs with must faster classes. Not popular for guys who traditionally DD.

Creating a CLASS is way easier than modifying rules that aren't blessed by the GCR. I would never support something like this locally unless it was in the GCR. It's not fair to the 'real' STL drivers IMHO.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate that. So call it STLR (STL, Regional), and allow the STL and IT cars to run. Don't want this to come off wrong, but now that STL is a National class, anyone that runs at the Regional level either a) isn't 100% committed to their program and is just out to have fun, or b) wants to cherry-pick trophies that mean nothing to anyone but them.
 
quick question: in the upcoming a rational at NHMS you can enter the regional stl class or the national stl class. they both run in the same run group but 1 entry is significantly higher than the other... my question would be if the regional stl entries count towards national stl car counts.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top