August 2010 Fastrack

[tnord]

let's imagine for a second that creating yet another class while membership shrinks actually is a good idea.......

this is an abortion of a ruleset. if it gains any momentum/popularity at all, you're looking at $50-$60k cars to compete at the runoffs. do you REALLY think that these "modern hot rodder" kids you speak of will be able to afford to build the car alone? ignoring the truck/trailer/etc that goes along with it of course.

 

[Gregg]

The only ITR cars under 2000cc:
Acura Integra Type-R
Acura RSX-S
Toyota Celica GTS

And so my idea of putting a D16a6 (CRX Si motor) in an ITR shell are shot to hell.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see how many people build cars specifically for STL in the next few years. Me thinks it won't be many. At the regional level you'll still have many drivers who want to run in multiple classes. At the National level, once the BoD raises the min. requirements to attend the Runoffs (and it will happen), I think you'll find that many of the IT cars masquerading as National STU cars will go back from where they came. Running a regional schedule with two Double Nationals thrown in isn't that big a deal.

When you again have to start towing your car all over the division to qualify for the Runoffs you'll see the migration back to Regional racing. We only have to look at the first year SM made it to the show....Of all the drivers who thought they could mount a successful National campaign *and* a regional campaign, many found out how expensive--both in travel and level of car prep--it really is.

We've got to remember that the IT cars were added to STU/STO as field fillers to get those classes on their feet. Participation went up dramatically when (a) the classes were guaranteed a place at the Runoffs and (b) the threshold for getting to the Runoffs got absurdly low for "low maintenance" cars like those in SM and most IT cars. At the same meeting I heard the "we fixed that" line from Mr. Dowie, he also mentioned how difficult it was to prep a Natioanlly-raced car for four races. He races in GTL and that may be true. I know what would happen to participation in ST* if a guaranteed Runoffs spot disappeared. I'm pretty sure we'll see the same result when those used to regional racing now have to shell out National-level budgets.

BTW--I'll be "racing" at the Runoffs in STU this year, not that I think my 130hp CRX has the slightest chance against an ex-WCTC. I don't plan on doing the National STL thing when the Runoff requirements change.

 

[spawpoet]

. if it gains any momentum/popularity at all, you're looking at $50-$60k cars to compete at the runoffs. do you REALLY think that these "modern hot rodder" kids you speak of will be able to afford to build the car alone? ignoring the truck/trailer/etc that goes along with it of course.

The same can be said of the vast majority of IT racers too. The cost to compete will quickly exceed what most IT competitors want to put into a budget. That's why you won't lose too many drivers from IT. What you will get is some cross pollination at regionals and Nationals from IT to ST just for the extra track-time. IMHO it should have very little impact on Regional racing, while it should ultimately bolster National racing some. To me the real potential downside it may cause is further defection from Production from guys who already spend the money to win at that level, and would prefer to do that with this ruleset.

 

[jimmyc]

Really the only IT cars that have a chance to run up front in STL are ITS cars, as i see it from the cars i know about.

You aren't going to be pulling any "cross-over" Honda Challange H2 guys.

The B16a H2 cars aren't legal because of the cams they run.

The b18c1 h2 cars aren't legal becuase of the IM they run.

And nothing else in H2 would work out, the LS/b20/k20a3 cars don't make enough power to compete.

Then go to IT.

ITA/B/C honda/acura= Not enough power

ITS honda/acura= GSR/del sol SI/Civic SI which are far from the most popular IT cars

ITR Honda/Acura= To much cam lift.

 

[quadzjr]

I dont' think the idea is for crossover.. though some could come around if they choose to with modifications.

Okay goin goff what Jimmy and others are talking about.. on paper it looks like the best on only logical engine in STL is aB16 or B18 based on the displacement and output. Nothing can come close to these two motors with allowed mods. Mazda BP (ITS Miata) may make some extra ponies, doubtfull to make what it needs.. Don't know the specifics..

Nissan's SR20 (in NA trim), Toyota's 4AGE (small port) are the best in their stable that is legal, but neither are going to make honda power with bolt ons. Will the 16V VW motor make honda power? doubt it.

Per the rules as of right now it looks like you could put a smaller cam in a honda K20 or Toyota 2ZZ but then you are looking at starting at less than factory hp. Not as big of a deal for the K20, but the 2zz stock is already behind the B18..

So really in STL unless they allow a jokingly busa motor in a 1600 lbs swift it would make no sense to purpose build anything other than a honda. I am sure I am missing a few.. From the outside looks like honda challenge, with other cars therotically behind the lead pack.

IF the kids just want to go wild and build crazy crap they already had STU and regional classes ITE/ITU/etc..

 

[Chip42]

yeah it's funny that all of these "hand grenade" motors are illegal because the STL engine specs are more conservative than the way they were delivered for the street.

how about this - we convince the CRB to forget ST but instead allow IT level prep engine swaps in IT. class cars by the motor, weight through the process with some fixed value per engine as a baseline and modifiers based on chassis config (strut, RWD/FWD, whatever). list eligable chassis and engines if you want. it would satisfy the HC crowd and me. it would make more sense then dividing a finite number of cars between more classes, and it would still mean that the MR2 is a DOG. everyone wins.

funny - I proposed the same thing here about 2 months ago...

 

[quadzjr]

yeah it's funny that all of these "hand grenade" motors are illegal because the STL engine specs are more conservative than the way they were delivered for the street.

Both the B16 and B18 are legal in stock trim.. both have lift at .417. Jimmy is refering to the Type R cams they are allowed ro run in H2 that are too large.

guestimated power with B16 165-170.. B18 180-185..

Any ideas on any other manufacturer within the STL rules that can come close to matching that per displacement? Like I said.. it only makes sense to build a honda.. not saying there isn't another option out there.. but it is hard to match. On top of that they can make weight..

 

[Rabbit07]

I like Greg Ginnsberg, am taking an IT car to Runoffs. as an experiment I am building a DOHC 2.0 for the Neon. I plan on being able to make above 190 hp with the cams allowed in STL. Unfortunatly I would have to add almost 100 lbs to my car to run legally in STL. I want to see if this can be done. The ST committee discussed this regarding the Honda's and their already high lift cams. I would think that the Nissans should still be capable of making really good power also.

 

[Knestis]

All,

Please write your letters for and against the ST rules and STL. I am one of the committe members and quite exited about it myself. We need your input. There are reason why the rules are they way they are now, but most of that is from the committees perspective. Please let us know constructively what you like or don't

Thanks

Could we please get an official explication of the desired outcome of creating a new category? We have lots of "mights" and "shoulds" but NO policy should be put in place without a clear statement of its aim. Ideally, someone would have looked at possible negative outcomes, given consideration to the likelihood that they would happen, and come up with contingencies to put in place if goals aren't achieved (e.g. sunset clause, absorption into existing category, etc.)

I worry that initiatives like this are often the product of some group of people - typically a small group - saying, "Hey - I know what would be cool!"

K

 

[Knestis]

>> At the same meeting I heard the "we fixed that" line from Mr. Dowie, he also mentioned how difficult it was to prep a Natioanlly-raced car for four races.

Seriously...? Hey - how about this: If one can't afford to run the requisite number of races to qualify, maybe they should lower their goals and expectations?

K

 

[DoubleXL240Z]

Sooo, A class was made to allow a few, more or less, an opportunity to race in a National class, with little or no mods to their car. The possibility to build a car for another class, or rebuild an existing car for another class, or be able to doubledipp on a Nat'l/Pro IT weekend. And we have cried about how terrible that is for 5 pages about how the sky will fall, and conspiracy theories will be the death of IT, Prod, Happy Meals, SS, and life as we know it!!!
The people that will build $50k+ cars will be there, just like they are in IT. If you want to run your ITS car or ITB or whatever, go do it!! It may not be competitive, but you are not guaranteed that anyway!
Nobody said you had to race there, thats your decision!

 

[quadzjr]

It is more to it than that..

okay.. you have started your new ITB project. Currently there are roughly 5-10 ITB cars per race. Now say if you finish your car and now.

3 or 4 of those cars are running in STL. So now there are 1 to 6 cars in class with you. But the guys now running STL are in a mix in your battle for ITB. If they are in a battle for 2nd and 3rd and are seperating you from 2nd place in your class what happens then? You guys are all similiar prepped cars and running the same times.. but are running different classes.

also in simple numbers alone would you rather race against larger group of cars in your class or a smaller one?

If you want to build a crazy car there already exists catch all classes currently.

Lastly alot of the pages involved issues with the rules.. seems to be highly favorable to use two engines in a class that is open to all USDM.. which is kinda dumb.. like the simplicty of the rules.. but as it turns out if someone wanted to spend the money and build the car the options are truely limited..

 

[Z3_GoCar]

$50k cars? Nice try, more like $150K there's lot of opertunities to buy speed in this class. That said, in our region we run two production car groups, STx runs with the ground-pounders, while ITx runs with T#, AS, and G/HP. I had a choice between ITE and STU for a double dip class, both run the same group. I choose STU for my first

As for the S2000, sice you can't make the minimum weight you could take all the performance penalties, such as sequential transmission and fully ported head as freebies. It's also classed in STO with a supercharger in its VTS.

 

[lateapex911]

My mind is spinning.
Random points:
Steve, the inconsistency in wheel sizes between ITR and ST was brought up by me last fall when I saw the STL rules. So it's not a "new discovery" to the committee.

If this is to bring in Honda guys, well it looks like that's the only thing that it can do, if I'm hearing you guys. Great, a Honda class. Wow, how thrilled am I. (Not because I hate Hondas, but because I LIKE other things...why bother making the rules for 'all" if they have no chance? At least TRY to make things even)

Travis makes an EXCELLLENT point(s). Building a real deal full tilt race car that can run at the leading edge of the ruleset isnt about wings and engine swaps. It's about development. The more options you have, teh more development costs. Seam welding? Cages to teh towers? Kiss cheap dampers goodbye. And so on. How many engine swap wing toting kids are going to get their asses blown off by a real deal developed car? A lot. And how many will stick to the program, and how many will bail in a act of disillusionment. I LIKE the idea of attracting them, but I'm not thinking this is the best way.

I see where the whole 'system' came from. It's the arguement we've had in the ITAC/CRB 'issues', regarding why similar cars with similar displacements should, or should NOT be the same/similar weight. Bob Dowie says they should. The ITAC thinks that things like cams, etc mean they should not, and stock HP is a guiding tenet.
In this case, they said, "Fine, instead of being limited to stock cams, we'll allow ANY cam up to XYZ and then we can use displacement as the classing/weighting factor."
Well, kinda....not. It's now become a head and intake class. So, with that magical stroke, competitive cars are either limited to a few makes/models, or costs have skyrocketed, (if I read the rules right).

Double dipping?. SFR had this nailed years ago. ITX. Done. Soup.

Speaking of SFR, Josh, your comment about the inability to make min weight in an S2000 makes it 'fairer". Well maybe, but not by plan! Shouldn't it be about the PLAN? (And there is the concept of hey, since it can't make weight anyway, add a sequential and take teh weight penalty because it won't make any on the track weight difference. Great, what's a sequential box cost? A l-o-t.

If you ask ANYbody in SCCA racing if ADDING three more classes was a good idea, I doubt you'd find many that said yes. It strikes me that I haven't heard a mission statement, a big picture thought process about what this is supposed to do, and what possible outcomes and corrections have been prepared. More classes, oh joy. We DON'T need a whole new category (actually 3) to encourage double dipping. How many prep levels will the club have? SS, Touring, IT, SPL, SPU, SPO, Prot Light, PRod. ALL are production based. NASA's PT looks good in comparison.

I'm not buying the whole "Give IT a chance to experience national racing." And get their doors blown off. What the F is so different about National racing? A longer race? Wonderful, when you're running along getting your ass whipped because you brought a knife to a gunfight, the misery lasts longer? That's really just a trackday when it all boils down, if you ask me.

Critics of the above view might be saying, "Yeah, but how many real deal builds will actually show up? Who cares? If one shows up, and you run 2nd out of 3, is that really a good race?. Sounds like a trackday. Heck, we already have ITE for that. Ooops! That's not "national"....

At this point, I can't help but feel that properly managing the National/ Regional system, and the existing classes would have resulted in a better and more cohesive program than throwing yet more classes at the perceived problems.

Maybe I'm wrong...but long term experience in this club to this kind of thing makes me worry.

 

[Greg Amy]

I'd like to point out to everyone concerned about "thinning" the existing classes, that this same argument is trotted out for every new class.

I still remember the hue and cry - mostly from IT and SS competitors - about class "thinning" when a funky new Regional-Only class was proposed a few years ago. Everyone said it would take away from other classes, causing an even further dilution of existing classes, and maybe even cause an overall reduction in competition; people were screaming about "why do we need new classes? Just revamp the existing ones!!" I also remember screams about how do we "really need a new spec class, especially one based off a single marque?"

Today, I'd suggest there are very few people who can legitimately argue against the success - both in within itself and for the Club - of Spec Miata...

I'm not suggesting that STx will prove itself as popular and successful as SM - that would be a historical feat - I'm simply saying that the "club economy" has a way of taking care of these issues all by itself (remember Shelby Can Am?)

In the end, the decision on what class to run is yours; I sincerely doubt the existence of another National class will have much effect on your racing. Hell, it might even make it better...

GA

 

[Chip42]

I'll agree that the rules for STL are imperfect. I like that they tried to blanket the mods and keep all things more or less at the same potential. I like that there's a place to do swaps - other than GT, that doesn't happen in any real classes. I don't care about national race winning, but I do like a class where I could theoretically go out of region and compete with others built to the same rules rather than be dropped into whatever alphabet soup catchall class they use there.

I like the simplicity and afford-ability of IT (to run, you can spend as much money as you want no matter where you go). but I dislike the refusal by rulesmakers (be they ITAC or, more likely, CRB ) on matters of helping to level the field to encourage better racing. I also don't like that the class doesn't seem attractive to so many of the younger people.

how would you propose to reconcile the two? what would you change in STL (we have to assume it IS going to pass in some very similar form to what was presented in the fastrack) or what would you think would be good, large scale changes to IT to force the hand of the CRB and allow a bit more prep flexibility a'la PT or a lot more a'la ST? assuming, of course, that when the dust settles we want your competitive IT car to remain so without touching it aside from maybe ± a few #s of lead, but would also want to see volvos, MR2s, other toyotas, VWs, triumphs, dodges, whatever else able to mix it up up front. assume we stick with the current 5-tier system (R/S/A/B/C).

if we can come to a solution here, maybe convince a few in the sandbox and other relevant groups, and get a letter writing campaign going to the concensus, it will at least have been a good effort in organization - I'm sure the CRB will refuse to listen anyway. I mean - maybe we can consolidate the changes into something most of us are happy with.

or you can all tell me to F off. after all, I mostly play with hondas.

 

[Knestis]

>> ...If you ask ANYbody in SCCA racing if ADDING three more classes was a good idea, I doubt you'd find many that said yes except for the people who thought said new classes were cool.

I finished Jake's thought there...

No question, Greg, that the "success" of SM is evident in terms of sheer relative numbers but it depends how one measures it. Nobody has demonstrated to me that Club Racing is (was?) healthier becuase of it was around. SM's arrival coincided with a period of time when US consumers were wildly optimistic, so were spending $$ like drunk sailors. It was an attractive option because it reached some critical mass as a bunch of new racers were primed by track day participation and other factors to jump into road racing.

Do we believe that, absent that class, those people would have opted for a boat instead? I have some difficulty believing that would have been the case.

I view success of our program by a couple of measures including (a) gross participation (in entries, not drivers), and (b) size of classes. My hypothesis is that we would likely have had similar increases in participation AND larger classes - so more "competition" or "racing" - if SM had never happened and all other factors shook out the same. OPM would still have built rental cars. History suggestst that they would have been ITA Hondas rather than Miatae. Or they might have been ITA Miatas.

Now, if "double dipping" is the goal - increasing total entries per car to something greater than 1:1; a good thing - regions have demonstrated how to easily do that.

If "a chance for existing IT drivers to try Nationals" is a good thing, the barriers to entry in Prod are similar to for STU/L. And a "try it, you'll like it" effort is going to be closer to the theoretical pointy end of the field. AND the cost (normalized to some level of competitiveness) is likely lower.

So we come back to, "I think it's cool."

I won't tell you to F off Chip but I will play my old fart card to explain a bunch of inconsistencies in your arguments, that are essentially covering "I think it's cool." NOTE that you are ALLOWED to think it's cool, and that you can pick - or support creation of - a category or class for that reason. However, remember that a lot of folks are going to see through some of this smoke.

** I like that [STU] tried to blanket the mods and keep all things more or less at the same potential - at a substantially higher cost for any given level of preparation. The most level rules in the racing world are in "Unlimited" classes. There's no way to guarantee low costs, since they are a function of competitive pressures NOT rules, but additional rule allowances raise the ceiling where costs are concerned.

** I do like a class where I could theoretically go out of region and compete with others built to the same rules rather than be dropped into whatever alphabet soup catchall class they use there - except that you won't be able to "compete" (i.e., run for a win) in any region where ONE person has spent a $gazillion to build something to the letter of the STU rules. If you want to simply participate, you can do that in alphabet soup.

** I dislike the refusal by rulesmakers (be they ITAC or, more likely, CRB ) on matters of helping to level the field to encourage better racing - Racing is mostly "leveled" by budgets. Put differently, most of the cases where someone isn't competitive are the result of their driving skills, their lack of $$ to spend on racing (largely, to increase their skills), or both. This is a long conversation - the longest in IT history, probably - but the primary rub vis-a-vis "encouraging better racing," is that the ITAC (c.2009) pretty much agreed with this first principle. The WORST thing that can happen to a category is to have some clever person trying to "level the field." That WILL happen in STU and it WILL NOT be pretty for some people.

** I also don't like that the class doesn't seem attractive to so many of the younger people - We could do a better job of proactively listing newer cars in IT. But if the reason that younger people aren't road racing in SCCA is because of the ossified IT rules, where are they doing it? Perusing NASA MidAtlantic results, they typically get 8 +/- entries in PT. H1 is fading fast and H2 is essentially dead. The biggest classes in NASA are spec series for cars older than "younger people" - 944s and e30 BMWs. Utlimately, this issue is more about "younger people" than about classes. And NASA captures new racers more effectively than SCCA because it's got a kick-ass HPDE feeder program.

** I like that there's a place to do swaps - There you are. That's "I think it's cool." And again, there's not a damned thing wrong with that but the question should be, "Does the Club realize a net gain in measures of success by creating a place for people who like swaps, over some other course of action - including business-as-usual?"

Nobody seems to be asking that question.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

Interesting discussion. Let me first say, that I did not read the ST rules. I did however, read most of the 5 pages of this discussion. Kirk makes a good point, what goal are the PtB trying to achieve with this? And I know many of the old timers here will find this hard to believe, but for the most part, I agree w/ a lot of what Travis says.

A quick though about the whole engine swap thing (and this goes to something that Travis said). What's the main driver behind doing an engine swap? Pretty much an easier / cheaper route to more power. Are most of the people doing engine swaps Talso doing the development to wring the most out of the swapped-in motor? Not usually. I don't know the Honda side, but I do know the VW side. 20+ years ago it was a lot cheaper and easier to drop a 1.8 16v 123hp engine in a Rabbit than it was to try and get that much power out of a 1.6 or 1.8 8v motor. The motor swap thing is an easy/inexpensive way to get more power for the people that don't have the money/time/skill to actually develop their car.

Now, when you take someone that does have the money/time/skill, AND you give them a better platform to start from, you've really raised the price of poker. The pointy end will naturally gravitate to what is the best starting platform, and spend from there. If you don't think so, just look at ITS from 5-10 years ago.

Bob Dowie's wt/cc model is obviously crafted through GT-colored glasses. Can't fault him for that, that's what he races. But shouldn't people in leadership positions have the ability to look at things from not just their own perspective? His comment about prepping a car for 4 National races was priceless. Good thing he doesn't race in a class where he's actually got to compete for a Runoffs' slot.

Anyway, y'all have fun. Nice to see that some things don't change.

 

[xr4racer]

Bill, GTL is a class that does require a ton of prep and money to run well. Currently no one runs in a class that has to compete for a runoffs slot.

matt

 

[Knestis]

... Currently no one runs in a class that has to compete for a runoffs slot.

matt

Please tell me that's got a winky next to it... Or has it come to the point where everyone believes they should be allowed to go to the RubOffs just for paying their entry fees...?

K