August 2010 Fastrack

Chip42 said:
*snip* My in-process MR2 will never see an ITB sticker now, and I can't tell you how happy that makes me.
Click to expand...

Queue black helicopters....
Are we not perhaps missing the forest for the trees?
Did the powers that be 'kinda' make IT osbolete in one swoop?
What's the point of running IT, if you now bascially have every car classed in STO, STU, and STL? rin it nationally, run it regionally, kill IT?

To be fair: I skipped over the STL rules, as I have no interest in running nationally and am building a no rules car at this point. I'll class it whereever it ends up, with whatever organization I feel like running with. (It currently would be an SFR ITE car, or a NASA ST2/SU car.

Marcus, who is just thinking out loud instead of working.
 
Marcus Miller said:
Queue black helicopters....
Are we not perhaps missing the forest for the trees?
Did the powers that be 'kinda' make IT osbolete in one swoop?
What's the point of running IT, if you now bascially have every car classed in STO, STU, and STL? rin it nationally, run it regionally, kill IT?

To be fair: I skipped over the STL rules, as I have no interest in running nationally and am building a no rules car at this point. I'll class it whereever it ends up, with whatever organization I feel like running with. (It currently would be an SFR ITE car, or a NASA ST2/SU car.

Marcus, who is just thinking out loud instead of working.
Click to expand...

It will definetly split the fields.. some will make the jump to STx, and others won't. I personally wish they can just fix the MR2 and other issues IT.

As for chip, the best USDM 4AGE built to the specs allowed in STL will result just a bit less than a B16 gets with bolt ons gets.

It would be interseting to see what My ITB could do at a more resaonable weight, just to satisfy my own curosity. However, I still would feel bad as I don't want to ruin an other ITB racers race that is going on if we are in the same run group.
 
Last edited:
Well, I am going to have to look hard at the new rule set for the ZX. Looks like at first glance that I have a lot more to gain by swapping over to STO (maybe even the twin turbo, if approved) than trying to make the car perform in ITR specs. And the weight remains in the same ballpark, but allows far more engine mods (and probably not cost all that much more) and a few suspension tweaks that the car would benefit from. hhhhhmmmmmmm.
 
Ah... to dream. I dreamt of making my EG Civic a K20A2 host and serve that K20A2 with cams, open pipes and a nice Hondata s300 ECU. Ah, 250 whp... lovely. But at what costs?

The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.
 
Last edited:
mossaidis said:
The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.
Click to expand...


Agree. And IMHO the restrictive IT engine rules have a lot to do with that. Will racers be able to build motors for ST that will give them the power to run up front, and yet last longer than motors built for production classes?? It's not only spending more money up front for the build, it's the frequency with which you have to crack into the engine that's going to get pricey. That is of course unless you are content with running at the back of the field. It really doesn't look like an IT alternative cause it's not going to be nearly as economical to play.
 
My biggest problem with STU continues, the rewrite didn't help. How is ANYTHING going to keep up with a 2200 lb. Honda S2000 with the escalating weights for bigger engines? As an example, a 2.8L BMW currently has to weigh 880 (!!) lbs more than the Honda, and under those rules, will make about the same power but will have more torque. Not 900 lbs worth more torque, that's for sure.

Instead of a straight 1.1lb/cc, it should be something like 1200 lbs + .5 lbs/cc. That way the 2.0L Honda S2000 still weighs 2200 lbs, but the 2.8 BMW can weigh 2600. I still think that would be a losing battle but at least larger-displacement cars might try to come and play.
 
Last edited:
mossaidis said:
The beautiful thing about IT is that is still fun to drive and tinker with yet cheaper than almost all other classes.
Click to expand...

That is why I am staying in IT and hoping they fix the issues. Instead of turning my car into an STL car and spend stupid money and still have 100whp less than you with the K20.

I have faith in the ITAC. I still think IT is a better place to play.
 
Tristan Smith said:
Well, I am going to have to look hard at the new rule set for the ZX. Looks like at first glance that I have a lot more to gain by swapping over to STO (maybe even the twin turbo, if approved) than trying to make the car perform in ITR specs. And the weight remains in the same ballpark, but allows far more engine mods (and probably not cost all that much more) and a few suspension tweaks that the car would benefit from. hhhhhmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Hell, with your car I would be tempted to keep the 3-litre engine and go run in STU. I would bet with cams, head work, and all the other STU-legal mods you could get 325-350 hp out of that motor. At 3300 lbs you would need it, but hell the car is already heavy in ITR.

I was briefly day dreaming about stuffing a VG30 into my 240SX and playing in STU, but the thought of adding 500 lbs of lead to the car ended that dream pretty fast. I wonder what kind of power you could get out of a built SR20?...
 
I have faith in the ITAC.

I don't have faith in the CRB. But maybe they did the easy thing, and rather than unfucking IT (which by most accounts they have steadfastly refused to attempt recently), decided to start fresh with STL for that "national experience" they think we're so hungry for. for the mony, regionals offer much more track time and enjoyment.

either way, it's a set of rules that, with some tweeking, I think looks like a good, modern place to play. even if my 4AGE will never ever make enough power to get out of the way of those ITB accords and golfs, I have options. it's nice to have options.

The costs don't seem THAT out of hand, considering what people are willing to pay for a front-running IT motor. throw in some cams, some off the shelf pistons, get a good, avaialble engine and chassis combo and you'll have a reasonably reliable racecar. this will be a lot of fun for the handaswap guys. B16/18 and any civic will make weight and plenty of power. reliably.
 
I'm digging the STU rules. A lot. Especially if I ignore the possibility (probability) that this is an end-run around the "No Nationals" clause of the Improved Touring regulations. This is one of the reasons I decided to go play in STU this year.

I've reviewed the proposed STL rules, and I think they're pretty Ok, for the most part. I'll recommend to the CRB to accept the rules but with some tweaks (like brakes, among others). It truly addresses some concerns I had with the STU rules, and works a long way toward differentiating itself from the wide gap we have between Touring and LP Prod.

Quite intriguing.

GA
 
Possibly, but the one drawback in STU is the 8" wheel allowance. ITR has 8.5" wheels and I am not sure that is even enough tire. But at 3 liters in STO the weight of the car would be in the 25-2700 lb range I think. Of course I am not sure if you could get it that light either.
 
I'd like to kick someone straight in the nuts for Spec Miata, but that's a whole 'nother story...

;)

GA

^^^ Before anyone goes off on a tear, please notice the "winky, winky"....
 
>> Will racers be able to build motors for ST that will give them the power to run up front, and yet last longer than motors built for production classes??

Yup. Until someone is willing to push the envelope - and push the pieces a little harder - and stuff starts to go kerbloowie.

K
 
shwah said:
You might consider using the weigt break for fwd strut suspension as well.

And of course if you run an 8v you get a weight break as well.

The way I read the brakes allowance, you need to request it.

I think the class sounds fun. If I ever get my other B car done, I may convert the current one to this spec...
Click to expand...

Missed that:
18. Front wheel drive cars may reduce their minimum weight by 50 Lbs in STO and STU. Front wheel drive cars with a strut type front suspension may reduce their minimum weight by an additional 50 lbs in STO and STU. In STL front wheel drive cars with a strut type front suspension may reduce their minimum weight by 2.5 percent.
Click to expand...
So using my example, 1800cc*1.3=2340lbs
2.5% is 58.5lbs, which isn't much of a weight reduction to benefit FWD MacStrut and the weight is still more than the ITA weight for this car. The less restrictive, i.e. more costly engine rules, would probably yield a better power to weight ratio than ITA but the cost/benefit ratio in fun terms is questionable.

One other thing I'm wondering about is what if the STL 1.3lb/cc multiplier puts the car into the next weight class for rollcage tubing size?
 
JoshS said:
My biggest problem with STU continues, the rewrite didn't help. How is ANYTHING going to keep up with a 2200 lb. Honda S2000 with the escalating weights for bigger engines? As an example, a 2.8L BMW currently has to weigh 880 (!!) lbs more than the Honda, and under those rules, will make about the same power but will have more torque. Not 900 lbs worth more torque, that's for sure.

Instead of a straight 1.1lb/cc, it should be something like 1200 lbs + .5 lbs/cc. That way the 2.0L Honda S2000 still weighs 2200 lbs, but the 2.8 BMW can weigh 2600. I still think that would be a losing battle but at least larger-displacement cars might try to come and play.
Click to expand...

Josh,

Since the motor is saddled with the stock intake, your best bet (if you wanted to stick with a six) would be a M-50B25. If you were willing to swap in a four cylinder, you could build a killer M-42B18, because it's got a forged crank and a decent intake manifold you could build a 8k rpm motor and hook to a sequential 6speed, replace the trailing arms with tubular units or even transplant a formula car double arm set up. As for the S-2000, it's eligable for STO with a supercharger.
 
The current crop of STO cars include a 3300lb, 525 rwhp Viper and the C6Z06 not to mention Viper Comp Coupes, you better bring more than a 300z to play in STO. Lap record for the Glen is under 2:00.

matt
 
GTIspirit said:
One other thing I'm wondering about is what if the STL 1.3lb/cc multiplier puts the car into the next weight class for rollcage tubing size?
Click to expand...

cage wall change is at 2700lbs. heaviest STL car would be a RWD 2.0L 4 valve @ 2665# (2006+ MX5, SR20 "silvia", etc). no one has to worry (unless thay already have a heavy cage from the old rules or a currently heavy classification, in which case they might have to worry about not making the minimum in some cases.

they did a good job of hiding a lot of the weight rules. RWD +2.5%, strut FWD -2.5%, 2/3 valve motors get 1/2% breaks, and more cam.

I think the "until someone pushes the limits" thing is somewhat erroneous as the rules cap lift and compression, all you can do after that is spin it to the moon (+$$) - yeah people can spend umpteen $$$ to get that little extra, but how is that different from IT? it's just money spent differently. those with the funds are going to outspend those without. it's class independent.
 
get with the program chip.

this is a class of the finding/building the highest output/highest revving/smallest displacement hand grenade of a motor and then finding a way to fit it in whatever decent chassis from the same mfg you can come up with. oh, and if you can manage to put a FWD motor into a RWD car so you can get an allowance for an alternate intake manifold, that would be ideal. i just can't see how that's anything other than an experiment in how fast you can burn through 50gal drums worth of money. but i guess that's presuming it turns into anything of a successful class.....which it won't.

keep slicing that pie up until we're left with nothing but crumbs.
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Josh,

Since the motor is saddled with the stock intake, your best bet (if you wanted to stick with a six) would be a M-50B25. If you were willing to swap in a four cylinder, you could build a killer M-42B18, because it's got a forged crank and a decent intake manifold you could build a 8k rpm motor and hook to a sequential 6speed, replace the trailing arms with tubular units or even transplant a formula car double arm set up. As for the S-2000, it's eligable for STO with a supercharger.
Click to expand...

James, you totally missed my point. I know that.

My point is that at a straight 1.1lb/cc, only 2.0L engines (minimum allowed now that STL is proposed) should bother showing up. Does it really make sense that a 3.0L car (of any brand) should have to weigh 1100 lbs more than that Honda? Really? 1100 lbs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top