March 2012 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Still nothing on 240SX in ITS or C4 request in ITR.
Clarification on STL intent: Reciprocating piston engines. Congrats for clearing up the intent, big boooo for unnecessarily limiting the class options. Still don't get it. Some will say it's a 'displacement' thing but that's bunk. An IT-spec 13B fits PERFECTLY into the 1.8L weight/power targets - if not a touch low.
On edit: Can someone run their ITR-spec S2000 in STL? The chassis is banned under STL prep but allowed under new rule:
Clarification on STL intent: Reciprocating piston engines. Congrats for clearing up the intent, big boooo for unnecessarily limiting the class options. Still don't get it. Some will say it's a 'displacement' thing but that's bunk. An IT-spec 13B fits PERFECTLY into the 1.8L weight/power targets - if not a touch low.
On edit: Can someone run their ITR-spec S2000 in STL? The chassis is banned under STL prep but allowed under new rule:
Last edited:
Two points:
- We both agreed that rotaries exceed 2L when compared to equivalent displacement*, and
- All three non-turbo rotaries are actually classified in STL at specified weights.** And, due to the weight increase on all piston engines effective March, they're getting an additional break.
If you want to argue the finer points of the philosophy of the category, that being DISPLACEMENT-based classification, then you simply can't dispute that the rotary engine would otherwise be ineligible for STL due to displacement. If you want to argue the fine points of the philosophy of the preparation regs for Super Touring, that being some level of internal engine modification, then you simply can't dispute that the rotary engines would clearly be ineligible based on power output.
As neat as they are, the rotary engines have always been the epichodroidal peg trying to fit into a square hole.
GA
* See this month's GCR Technical Glossary request to specify the assumed displacement of the rotary engine. It's just codifying what we're already doing in other classes.
* Note we added the Renesis to STL this month, albeit at a very high weight (220hp stock?)
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Well I can argue all day that the exclusion of the engines, in IT prep, is stupid. A simple allowance at an APPROPRIATE weight, balloons legit car choices. But so be it. The intent of the class is clear. FWD Honduhs. 
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I know Greg has nothing against the rotary, as he's often stated he'd love to do a serious IT7 effort, (if they weren't 10 years past their prime, etc etc) but, clearly the STAC needs to look up "hypocritical".
If we take #1, they don't fit because their equalized displacement is too large, to be true, then why are they classed at all!?
And if we take #2, they don't fit the prep allowances of STL, to be true, then why are they classed at all?
I feel it's a cloaked classification designed to promote "national dipping" without the fear that these dippers (participation numbers boosters) will be a threat to the 'regular', or dedicated STL cars.
As proof of my theory, I bring this to your attention:
Yup, the STAC will class a car that doesn't fit their requirements, but only at silly why bother weights...because it will bolster the class numbers. That's rather self serving, no?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Also, re STL, did the CRB jump the shark here??
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)
Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)
Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)
the C4 was approved, I don't think we reached a concensus on the 240sx but I have to check my notes. some decisions appear to not have been sent up to the CRB before their meeting but evidence on the committee forum is that they have been sent up. maybe look for them in April.
FWIW, I'm sorry about that.
Let's see if I can figure this out , with the new weights :
- a - I can run my ITA 95 miata in STL @ 2380# , spend nothing in development , and be able to wait and see if STL is going to get competitive in my Division
- b - I can build a 99 miata motor to STL spec ( $ 5K ) , still be down on power to the Hondas , add more weight to my car @ 2491# , and have a one class car.
I'm not sure if the floorpan of a miata can support all that weight
Let's just say the extra 90# is making my decision easier
- a - I can run my ITA 95 miata in STL @ 2380# , spend nothing in development , and be able to wait and see if STL is going to get competitive in my Division
- b - I can build a 99 miata motor to STL spec ( $ 5K ) , still be down on power to the Hondas , add more weight to my car @ 2491# , and have a one class car.
I'm not sure if the floorpan of a miata can support all that weight
Let's just say the extra 90# is making my decision easier
RacerBowie
New member
Let's see if I can figure this out , with the new weights :
- a - I can run my ITA 95 miata in STL @ 2380# , spend nothing in development , and be able to wait and see if STL is going to get competitive in my Division
- b - I can build a 99 miata motor to STL spec ( $ 5K ) , still be down on power to the Hondas , add more weight to my car @ 2491# , and have a one class car.
I'm not sure if the floorpan of a miata can support all that weight
Let's just say the extra 90# is making my decision easier
90 pounds? OUCH. Damn, I was thinking the same thing, but that's ANOTHER 100lbs in the floor... that's a little scary. Hmmm
Im not understanding this decision...and I just had a terrific experience with my SCCA drivers school which had changed my opinion on SCCA. uggh
Given the brand-newness of the national status of the class, and the increasing trend of newer cars from manufacturers getting heavier and heavier, it makes sense to set/modify the entire class weights at the very start so that future adjustments - class or individual -can be avoided. For example, a 1991 BMW 318is weighed what, about 2600#? The smallest BMW available now weighs well over 3000#.
It's a fact of life - cars are getting bigger and heavier. Chassis rollover anti-crush standards are going to add more weight to the bare chassis from all manufacturers, and with many cars already having a difficult time getting down to weight, this looks like a valid attempt to solve that *now* so it doesn't have to be done again in a few or a number of years.
For those who have already built a to-the-limit STL car and have worked hard to get down to class weight, they still have the advantage of being able to place ballast anywhere they like. (Ballast rules IIRC are different in ST vs IT).
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Are we already trying to find landing places for B-Spec cars in 3 years when the series is dead?
Maybe but if so, I think that's a GOOD thing rather than a bad thing. It borders on a strategic view of how classes tie together. Recognizing, of course, that a B-Spec car should slot easily into IT.
On that last point, it would be good for the ITAC to proactively get them listed as they come of age.
K
Why STL? How does that group of cars fit in STL at all? I can see a Honda Fit with a K20 at the appropriate weight but not one without a motor transplant.
STL is a place ex WC cars 2.0l and under can play right?
I'm under weight and I haven't even done a lot of modifications allowed for Super Touring like carbon fiber hoods, lexan windows, and etc. Yes I can still do those things with an additional 90 lbs and relocate weight to areas I would rather have it but still.... I'm not sure how a B Spec car fits into Super Touring.
I can see how it could fit into IT as knestis pointed out..
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Practically speaking, a Honda Fit with its original engine isn't an STL candidate, methinks. One with an engine swap, (a main cornerstone of the category/class), well, maybe. Of course, with a larger STL engine, maybe it COULD make weight.
Regardless, I applaud the CRB for thinking of down the road scenarios. Maybe a B-spec car exists that is prohibitively heavy, even with a swap, who knows.
But, it's the manner in which the change was made that I question. I wish they had gotten input form the members.
Hey, it's fine to change things, but I don't see the rush to do it immediately. I think a member advisory would have served notice that it was being considered, and would have gotten valuable input.
I'm guessing/hoping the STAC would have preferred that route, which is an important part of a committees policies and procedural methods.
Regardless, I applaud the CRB for thinking of down the road scenarios. Maybe a B-spec car exists that is prohibitively heavy, even with a swap, who knows.
But, it's the manner in which the change was made that I question. I wish they had gotten input form the members.
Hey, it's fine to change things, but I don't see the rush to do it immediately. I think a member advisory would have served notice that it was being considered, and would have gotten valuable input.
I'm guessing/hoping the STAC would have preferred that route, which is an important part of a committees policies and procedural methods.
These points bring up a very good point...
Super Touring is really an ENGINE class, not a car class.
The class is based on displacement to weight. Since engine swaps are allowed, 3 different 2.0L engines installd in three different chassis must all weigh the same. (excluding chnages for FWD/FWD strut/etc type adders.)
The chassis really shouldn't matter. Granted, an NSX with a B16A2 engine on 7" wide rims is not really going to be fast and will probably look a little funny, but (aside from the current exclusion of the NSX chassis) it's going to come down to the highest specific output engine in the best handling chassis.
FWIW, the Mini in B-Spec is the only chasssi I know of with independent rear suspension and the FIAT is the only one with 4-wheel disc brakes.
If the cars can be made to handle - one of the advanatages of these newer small cars is going to be aerodynamics - small frontal frontal area and low cD.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I didn't see that in the latest FT...how about the FD RX-7?