March 2012 Fastrack

I'm actually in favor of the year restriction. You do have to make a call if you want your class to focus on modern stuff, or be more "vintage."

That impacts a lot of your rule making. 85 forward, you don't generally have to deal with the carb brigade asking for weight brakes, or drum brakes or (for the most part) live axles, or requests for alternate parts because stuff is NLA, etc.
 
Andy and Jake's mention of Porsches got me thinking. The 1985 Porsche 911 (6 cylinder) is a 3.2 liter air cooled engine. That engine takes its roots back to the 2 liter air cooled engine from 1964. Over the years refinements (compression, cams, induction systems) improved on the original 130 SAE HP. The best was probably the 1973 RSR with well over 220 HP. Then again, that didn't include the cams and compression that Porsche used for racing. Alas, 6 cylinder.
Now in 1985, Porsche also made a 924S with a 944 2.7 liter 4 cylinder engine. The 1985 tub was the same as the 1977 - 1982 US 924 tubs. In the 77-82 924 cars, there was a 2 liter Audi block with either Audi or Porsche heads (931 turbo). So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:
 
callard said:
Andy and Jake's mention of Porsches got me thinking. The 1985 Porsche 911 (6 cylinder) is a 3.2 liter air cooled engine. That engine takes its roots back to the 2 liter air cooled engine from 1964. Over the years refinements (compression, cams, induction systems) improved on the original 130 SAE HP. The best was probably the 1973 RSR with well over 220 HP. Then again, that didn't include the cams and compression that Porsche used for racing. Alas, 6 cylinder.
Now in 1985, Porsche also made a 924S with a 944 2.7 liter 4 cylinder engine. The 1985 tub was the same as the 1977 - 1982 US 924 tubs. In the 77-82 924 cars, there was a 2 liter Audi block with either Audi or Porsche heads (931 turbo). So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Not if the engine wasn't used in the car in 85 or up*,...and D Prod parts? Likely non starters. Gotta use the stock manifold, OR if you are converting a FWD engine to RWD (or vice versa), I guess you can ask them if you could run something else, then THEY (STAC? CRB? both?) will decide if that's okey dokey. That's my understanding of it based on discussions here.

* I missed the year prohibition on engines as well. That eliminates early Alfa engines.....
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
NO idea why but there it is. SO many unnecessary restrictions.
Click to expand...

"Because all the old crap is supposed to be in the other Production classes."

Regarding the "1990 restriction", from a former CRB member to Jeff Zurschmeid and I at the 2005 Convention. Jeff was chairing the B/D Production Task Force (which eventually became ST) and I was a newly added member. Granted, that may be slightly paraphrased, but you get the idea. I was asking why something like my 1985 Shelby Charger wasn't going to be included... At that point, nothing before 1990 was to be allowed, and any proposal that said otherwise was dead at the door.

We were told that our proposed rule set would be "impossible to manage" and that "current or recent World Challenge cars are the core, any other included cars are just fluff."

It is truly nice to see that ST has become the class that was envisioned by that committee in 2005/6.
 
Matt, I remember talking to peter Keane about this years ago, and the concept had a strong foundation in the whole World Challenge thing. I remember saying, "Really? How many World Challenge cars ARE there!? And from which year? They're ALL different...even during the SAME year! If you could make a ruleset that allowed MOST of them, how many is that actually? And of those, how many will show up to run?? Seems like there's just not that many out there...certainly not enough to form a whole class around".

Peter of course was like,
"Well, I know a couple guys...."

Seemed way too exclusive to me back then. Needed to be totally INclusive.
 
lateapex911 said:
Matt, I remember talking to peter Keane about this years ago, and the concept had a strong foundation in the whole World Challenge thing. I remember saying, "Really? How many World Challenge cars ARE there!? And from which year? They're ALL different...even during the SAME year! If you could make a ruleset that allowed MOST of them, how many is that actually? And of those, how many will show up to run?? Seems like there's just not that many out there...certainly not enough to form a whole class around".

Peter of course was like,
"Well, I know a couple guys...."

Seemed way too exclusive to me back then. Needed to be totally INclusive.
Click to expand...

And, perhaps more important: How many of those cars that were left were still in a condition to be raced? To me, "Rode hard and put away wet" summarizes Word Challenge, especially in the "popular" years.
 
Well, the other part that gets forgotten was that they wanted a class where an "amateur" could build and run a *current* World Challenge car, so that hopefully they'd enter the pro race "when the big show came to town."

Jake- that's why it failed in the beginning. The more that Greg and the STAC work at it, the closer it gets to what Scotty White and I tried so hard to push back then. Our entire thought process was simple: What are the performance parameters of World Challenge (since that was supposed to be the core), and how can can we let the average enthusiast run a car that *they want to run* that will perform within that envelope? We were specifically told to write rules that were permissive versus restrictive, and when we did just that, several CRB members, a few BoD members, and one member of the National Staff shot it down as being impossible to manage.

Does the current STAC have an impossible task? I'd say no. Certainly difficult at times, but they seem to manage it well. And, it seems that people are responding positively. It's amazing how much gets done once you get past the fact that it can't be.
 
callard said:
So, in theory, one could take a 77-82 IT car, plug in the trick parts that SCCA allowed on the D-production car of that era and run STU. Yes? No?:shrug:
Click to expand...

not quite.

IT cars meeting their IT specs can run in ST, but *any* deviation from the IT specs requires following the STU rules.

So the only chassis older than 1985 that are allowed under ST are chassis that had production runs starting before that but conitinued after that.

I think a porsche 944 with the 2.5L or the 2.7L engine would be a great car to run in STU. A Mercedes W201 190e 2.3-16v would also be a super car for STU. And a Merkur Xr4ti/Mustang SVo with the Lima engine *with the Cossie DOHC head*(dammit, Euro motor. Arrgh!) would also be a great engine to run in STU.
 
lateapex911 said:
I guess you can ask them if you could run something else, then THEY (STAC? CRB? both?) will decide if that's okey dokey. That's my understanding of it based on discussions here.
Click to expand...

So the process is, a letter is submitted to the CRB through the website, and someone at SCCA in Topeka distributes it to the CRB and appropriate Advisory Committee. The STAC for example has a discussion about the request considering factors that may include but are not limited to and in no particular order of consideration or weight or inportance, ...

what is allowed under the rules as written,
what is the philospohy of the class,
what is the intent of the rule in question,
how will the request benefit the class as a whole,
does the request fall under a clariofication/E&O, or does it fall under a rules change, or does it fall under a competition adjustment?

etc etc. A recommendation is then made to the CRB. The CRB then makes their own decision. Any/Most CRB decisions(..still learning as I go here so cut me some slack....) have to be approved by the SCCA BOD. The BOD may approve as is, not approve, or have discussions etc.

the the STAC by it's very nature as an Advisory Committee, can only make a recommendation to the actual decision makers. Sometimes those recommendations are accepted, sometimes rejected, and sometimes sent back from the CRB to the STAC for more input, question answering, clarification etc etc. So that's why something get answered right away and some things take longer.
 
ShelbyRacer said:
Jake- that's why it failed in the beginning. The more that Greg and the STAC work at it, the closer it gets to what Scotty White and I tried so hard to push back then. Our entire thought process was simple: What are the performance parameters of World Challenge (since that was supposed to be the core), and how can can we let the average enthusiast run a car that *they want to run* that will perform within that envelope? We were specifically told to write rules that were permissive versus restrictive, and when we did just that, several CRB members, a few BoD members, and one member of the National Staff shot it down as being impossible to manage.

Does the current STAC have an impossible task? I'd say no. Certainly difficult at times, but they seem to manage it well. And, it seems that people are responding positively. It's amazing how much gets done once you get past the fact that it can't be.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to work with here, and the complication comes from the allowance of motor swaps while at the same time, trying to reasonably balance out NA engines with FI engines, factoring in FWD/RWD/AWD chassis, as well as large displacements and small displacements. As more and more manufacturers buy ownership interests in each other, do joint chassis and engine development work and platform sharing...suffice to say it's a lot to consider. Scioyotaru FR-S-FT86-BRZ anyone? (12.75:1 compression makes the engine ineligibale for STL and STU, but the chassis is fine....what motors can go in the Scioyotaru? )

that said, I see the potential for the class to be awesome.
 
Last edited:
JS154 said:
...A recommendation is then made to the CRB. The ad hoc liaison puts his own spin on the recommendation, or filters information to the CRB to suit his desired intentions for the decision. Members of the CRB defer to the liaison and/or those in the group with the most direct knowledge of the category in question. Some members abrogate their responsibility completely. The CRB then makes their own decision - or they don't, and publicly blame the ad hoc for heel-dragging or infighting. Any/Most CRB decisions (..still learning as I go here so cut me some slack....) have to be approved by the SCCA BOD. The BOD may approve as is, not approve, or have discussions etc.

the the STAC by it's very nature as an Advisory Committee, can only make a recommendation to the actual decision makers. Sometimes those recommendations are accepted, sometimes rejected, sometimes ignored, sometimes left under a pile of paper on someone's desk or in an unsorted email inbox, sometimes accepted but sabotaged or circumvented by other decisions, and sometimes sent back from the CRB to the STAC for more input, question answering, clarification, or to be put in line with a preconceived agenda (sometimes of just one or two members) that the CRB doesn't want to take the heat for etc etc. So that's why something get answered right away and some things take longer.
Click to expand...

Just a few additions based on experience. Have fun!

:026:

K
 
JS154 said:
As more and more manufacturers buy ownership interests in each other, do joint chassis and engine development work and platform sharing...suffice to say it's a lot to consider. Scioyotaru FR-S-FT86-BRZ anyone? (12.75:1 compression makes the engine ineligibale for STL and STU, but the chassis is fine....what motors can go in the Scioyotaru? )

that said, I see the potential for the class to be awesome.
Click to expand...

I used to see that potential, now I worry. I asked a lot of questions about the crossover potential back in 2010 when I started to get the STU bug (no JDM / other decisions killed it, and I thank them for that - I love IT and am pleased, generally, with the results of the process and some good 'ol hard work).

but also, by the rules as I read them, an over-compression motor as stock may maintain that compression in ST. I'm positive about this for STL. cams can't exceed the maximum, though. also, subaru will be selling an example of the same car, so swap away. a trickier question is something like T5 volvo in a jag, or rotary mustang, etc...

Knestis said:
Just a few additions based on experience. Have fun!
Click to expand...
At least you aren't bitter about it. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top