January 2013 Fastrack

seckerich said:
Curious Greg, why did the 13B get classed with the exact weight of the ITS RX7 (2680) in an ST class? It can also compete in ITS trim at that weight so why bother?
Click to expand...

Because you can now put the 13B into any Mazda chassis. In a RWD application it would be the same 2680 as the ITS-spec RX-7 already allowed. More options, albeit still on the 'safe' side for weight.

So they lowered the weight by 26lbs to adjust for the extra RWD % that got added so the numbers would match up with the 2680.

Mazda with a 1.8L 180whp piston engine - 2515lbs
Mazda with a 13B 180whp engine - 2680lbs
 
Last edited:
seckerich said:
Curious Greg, why did the 13B get classed with the exact weight of the ITS RX7 (2680) in an ST class? It can also compete in ITS trim at that weight so why bother?
Click to expand...
Originally it was intended, now it's coincidental.

Originally someone requested to run the ITS car in STL, so we approved the 13B engine in at 97.56% of the ITS weight (so you'd add 2.5% for RWD and get to 2680.) This past month we adjusted the RWD adder to 3.5% and that borked the IT cars, so we adjusted the 13B weight to go back to ITS weight but at the some time we tossed in there the IT cars so if we did this again we don't have to worry about overlooking the IT cars.

Now, given they're separate listings (13B engine versus ITS car) they can be managed separately, if desired, with no regard to its affect on the IT cars. I'm going to request moving the engine listings out of that section and into the alternate vehicle allowances table so they're distinctly separate.

GA
 
Greg,

Another questions. (I am seriously thinking of running a few events so my brother an I can maybe share the car until he finishes his)

I noticed the brakes may be an issue on the RX8. Can I run OEM or is that a no go because if I remember correctly they are 322MM stock. The rules state "unless otherwise noted" which it does note the largest size allowed...

Brakes
1. Unless otherwise allowed in these regulations, all OEM brake
system components must be used.
2. Rotors - Any 1- or 2-piece ferrous rotors that do not exceed 290mm
in diameter and 28mm in thickness are permitted.



Thanks for your insight,
Stephen
STL RX8 at 3105lbs.
 
StephenB said:
I noticed the brakes may be an issue on the RX8. Can I run OEM or is that a no go...
Click to expand...
They're a "no go". The stock RX-8 brakes were compliant in 2012 on the STL-winning car (and were one of Tech's sticking points in post-Runoffs scrutineering) but we changed the regs for 2013 so that you cannot run OE brakes if they're larger than the class limits.

The ITR RX-8 is compliant in STU. - GA
 
We run our ITA car in STU... Not that we should have to. Why cherry pick the rotary powered IT cars? I'm serious.

As am I about my other questions... Anyone have any thoughts?
 
Chris,

Your motor is too big. The class limit is 2.0 for STL, or an underpreped rotary engine at IT wieght, no matter what other legal chassis mods you do.

Hope this is a good answer, Greg can confirm.

Dan
 
CRallo said:
I did. I was trying to make a point... Why play favorites? Why not the rest of ITA and ITS? And B and C while we are at it. If there are any C cars over 2L...
Click to expand...

[Personal Opinion]

Why bastardize the STL rules? You have a 2L- car you're welcome to compete. Why do it any other way? Over 2L car in ITC? Are you serious?

As for the RX-8 in STL two points: first, it's the highest-horsepower car allowed in STL, bar none. Even the 190hp Integra Type R is banninated from STL. If it were up to me, it would not be allowed at all. Why should the RX-8 get special treatment? Cause it's a Mazda? Cause it's a rotary?

Why?

Second, the Renesis is classified into STL at 2970 + 3.5% for RWD = 3080. The ITR car is classified at 2850. Why would we classify the ITR RX-8 into STL, with larger-than-class-allowed horsepower, larger-than-class-allowed brakes, larger-than-class-allowed tires, and larger-than-class-allowed wheels at 200 freaking pounds lighter than class-allowed weight in a class that allows no other ITR cars? Cause it's a Mazda? Cause it's a rotary?

Why?

Third, the Renesis - and the 13B - is a 2.6L engine. The 12A is a 2.4L engine. Last time I checked, the class displacement limit was 2L. If anything, you should pretty much be happy that these (completely dead and unsupported technology) engines are accommodated at all.

I know this will come as a major surprise to you guys, but Super Touring Light is not about Improved Touring cars, it's about Super Touring Light cars. You want a place to play in National racing? You're more than welcome. But please don't get all upset that we don't end-run our rules in the process of accommodating you.
[/Personal Opinion]

GA

P.S., read the sig.
 
Last edited:
I was going to run it at the higher weight. no complaints. STL is a slower class than ITR and I get that. I was just curious why they changed the rules to exclude the RX8 when it was allowed last year, probably an oversight in last years rules that got cleaned up for this year.

My first question was my real question which was to clarify if I was reading the rule correctly that OEM was not an option. which it is not.

No biggie, just not a class I can run in. The car wouldn't ever be competitive in STU but I think it would be in STL at that weight and the smaller rims (which I already run). I was more interested in double dippin to be honest, nationals doesn't do it for me, not here in the northeast where IT has more depth.

Thanks for clarifying the rule for me,
Stephen
 
Greg is right on. The rotards are considered 2.4 and 2.6 for the purpose of displacement and REALLY shouldn't be STL eligible at all. It's not a power/weight class like IT, it's a displacement class.

Now to Chris's point, they cherry picked them for field fillers. The confusion FOR SURE that is created is 'why are you allowing 2.6L IT cars in STL'?

The 'if them and why not me' is a legitimate question when the question of allowing IT cars in IT prep to run in STL is asked in the context of the rotaries.

It would be reasonable to simply eliminate them to eliminate the inconstancy of the classification.
 
[Personal Opinion]

Sorry if I offend, but as has been documented on this site before, in my opinion rotary-engined cars do not meet the philosophy of Super Touring Light. This philosophy is not based on potential performance of a particular model as it is with Improved Touring; in other words, we do not evaluate how the car may perform and then stick it into the appropriate class. Further, STL allows some limited amount of intake mods (i.e., cams) which the rotaries cannot do, and we will not allow Street Porting in STL (that's a Prod mod). So I personally do not agree that they should be included in the class.

That said, we did offer something of an olive branch to the ITS and ITS rotaries when we classified them a couple seasons ago, and that was absolutely based on their potential performance. Since we allowed other 2L-and-under ITA and ITS cars into STL as-is, and given the ITAC's implied opinion of relative performance of those cars versus their piston engine peers, it seemed "safe" to allow the ITA and ITS rotaries into STL as well.

Not so the ITR cars. Because of the potential performance of ITR cars such as the Type R and S2000, we specifically exclude otherwise-eligible ITR cars from STL (and specifically excluded those two engines from STL). Those cars are invited to compete in STU if desired.

Yet in a fit of a double-standard, we allowed in the 220hp (?) Renesis. We debated the RX-8 inclusion in STL last year because of a request to bring the car in ("some place for the Touring cars to play"). After significant argument we tossed the engine into STL at 3080 pounds (after RWD adder). And, because the regs originally allowed "stock or" brakes, the RX-8 came in despite having larger-than-class brakes. I opposed that engine into STL, but I am one of five committee members, and I was out-voted. And, unsurprisingly, that car won the STL Runoffs race. We have since re-adjusted our regs to require brakes within class limits (no more "stock or") and also to limit tire sizes of all STL cars to 225 section width (Nov Fastrack). But, at the same time, we also compromised and adjusted the Renesis' weight to where it was in 2012 (Dec Fastrack).

Sorry, but that's the way it is, and no amount of argumentation and whinetation is likely to change my personal opinion on the matter... - GA

[/Personal Opinion]
 
For the record, The RX-8 at that weight (and the ITS RX-7's) should provide a good benchmark for developed cars at speed potential - but in no way represent the potential of the class. The RX-8 won, yes. But not because it is the best car on paper, just that it was a lot more 'ready' than the purpose built cars just being built for the class.

As discussed in a previous thread, the power to weight of even the best ITR cars at ITR weights isn't as good as these FWD STL cars.

I would support the complete removal of rotaries from STL in an effort to help keep the STAC focused on their mission.
 
So Much distain for the Rotards....;-)

I personally don't share Greg's sentiment on the 13b and 12a. I really don't see them as a threat in anyway to the class. However, Greg and I were both very much against the Renesis in STL. I know this may seem odd since I helped that very same car win the RunOffs. It really just doesn't belong. As Greg stated, it makes "WAY" too much power
 
Last edited:
Oh, I think they 'fit' in the conventional 'power to weight' thinking that we all have been trained to use in IT-world. At over 3000lbs and 215whp max, they are no match on paper for the class as designed.

But 'we' have to understand what this class is. Weight by cc's with some adders and limitations. Would it open up more options to lift the age restrictions on chassis or REALLY try and fit the rotaries in to be equal on paper? Sure but where do you draw the line?

Draw it, stick to it and see if people come. If they don't, then make adjustments. I think the concept is great and it will have to be opened up a bit to be successful but it should be allowed to sink or swim on it's own merits before field fillers and exceptions are made.
 
STL should be a very hot class but it has a limited focus that is needed for it to be so. It is the one class we have that is focused on 2L FWD cars that are so popular. Others are included but not meant to dominate.
Think of it like the Special Olympics. :D
 
ah man, I was just going to petition for SRF cars to be allowed since they fit the rules nicely and they run similar lap times. Crap.

:) Stephen
 
Greg,
The link seems to not work on my browser, and I couldn't seem to navigate around the SCCA site to find the link there. Any help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top