November 2012 Prelims

C

Chip42

New member
As posted on the front page: http://www.improvedtouring.com/forum...ad.php?t=31096

Letter 9306:
1. rotor clarification
2. caliper clarification
3. RWD weight penalty in STL now 3.5% (9.1.4.3.I.3)

more weight to the RWDs, 2.0Ls like the NC MX-5 now hitting just shy of 2800 lbs. only the renesis is heavier (do rotaries get the RWD adder on top of the base weight from 9.1.4.3.I.2?). Is this reaction to huffmaster Sr.'s runoffs win? I'm curious as to the motivation regardless. seems STL has been on quite a binge this year, with 2.0L RWD piston cars gaining 130 lbs since January.

oh, and FYI to the STAC, the weight multiplier listed in the "current" GCR is 1.3#/cc, though the table (and unchanged portion of the proposed rule in the prelim minutes) uses 1.35#/cc as revised earlier this year.
 
Last edited:
I dont get this.... Greg can you clarify if this is just for rotary engines?

2. #9306 (Greg Amy) Renesis/Rotaries/RWD in STL
In section 9.1.4.3.G, clarify section 2 and 3 as follows:
2. Rotors ‐ The standard production rotors or Any 1‐ or 2‐piece ferrous rotors that do not exceed 290mm
in diameter and 28mm in thickness are permitted.
3. Calipers ‐ The standard production calipers or Any 4‐piston or fewer calipers may be used.
In section 9.1.4.3.I.3, change the weight penalty as follows:
Rear wheel drive cars in STL must add 2.5 3.5 percent of their standard STL weight.
 
StephenB said:
I dont get this.... Greg can you clarify if this is just for rotary engines?
Click to expand...
Negative; ignore the subject line. I submitted three letters post-Runoffs for STAC consideration: STO Porsche, STU turbos, and STL rotaries/Renesis/RWD, simply as markers for open-ended post-Runoffs discussions about each class, topics we wished to discuss during our next STAC meeting. These placemarkers were used to submit subsequent/related/non-related recommendations to the CRB for rules changes/adjustments.

The brakes changes apply to ALL cars in the class, not just rotaries/Renesis/RWD.

GA
 
Chip42 said:
Is this reaction to huffmaster Sr.'s runoffs win? I'm curious as to the motivation regardless.
Click to expand...
No.

seems STL has been on quite a binge this year, with 2.0L RWD piston cars gaining 130 lbs since January.
Click to expand...
All STL cars gained weight in March Fastrack (to my significant dismay). If one is to consider the 3.5% a "reaction", it's more to RWD v FWD, as it should be*.

...the weight multiplier listed in the "current" GCR is 1.3#/cc, though the table (and unchanged portion of the proposed rule in the prelim minutes) uses 1.35#/cc as revised earlier this year.
Click to expand...
E&O, we missed that in March. Thanks for the heads-up.

GA

* My favorite comparison: if you were to put the same engine (call it a 200hp B18) and as equal a drivetrain as possible into both an Acura Integra (optimal suspension and balanced-as-possible FWD?) and a Honda S2000 (optimal suspension and balanced RWD?) and handed them both to Randy Pobst, and let's say the Integra weighs 2430 pounds, at what weight would you make the S2000 such that Randy would post equal lap times? What poundage would you put on the S2000 before you'd put your own money on the Integra having a 50/50 change at the same lap time? Let's say it's at a reasonably-balanced track such as Watkins Glen.

Ask yourself that honest question, and divide that number by 2430. Tell me what you come up with...
 
yes, I know the entirety of STL gained weight with the change to 1.35#/cc. and the offset from FWD to RWD is not out of line, we use more than that in ITS and R. I just have a natural aversion to 300+ lbs of ballast in cars in the name of parity when you could just undo part of the overall weight gain and keep the F/Rwd split the same. not a criticism, just a reaction.
 
Understand. Problem is, we're dealing with conflicting goals, one of those making weights so that the lower-displacement cars can get there. So if we have to choose whether the higher-displacement cars are "too heavy" and have to add weight, or the lower-displacement cars are "too light" and can't get there, we've got to fall over to the former (though, as noted, I'm personally chagrined that I had to add 100 pounds to my own car to make the weights).

And 300 pounds over what? Spec Miata? Don't tell me you've fallen into that trap! (Very big grin). As I said to one SM competitor a couple weeks ago "you guys have gotten spoiled with Spec Miata, thinking that's the center of the universe and everything else should be designed around that as the standard." Again: big grin.

GA
 
again - I get it. I suppose my reaction is stronger as the rules changed (again) while active instead of being better sorted in the first place. that's certainly not a knock on the STAC, as far as I know, most of you weren't involved in the first draft release and making the class work is your job. first revision didn't get it done, so...

300#: MR2Spyder (2515lbs @ 1.8L, <2200 OEM curb), and yeah sure: a miata or MX5 (@2.0L), I'm sure there are more.
It probably looks worse to me given my vehicle preferences more than for the overall list of eligible cars. back to the regularly scheduled program.
 
so Greg could you please do the math for the 2nd gen RX7
for me... we will now have to have a removable ballast
to run ITS and STL in the same weekend, or run both at the
heavier STL weight right?
 
actually I've re-thought my question while in the shower...

the new heavier STL weight will only apply if we decide to
put non-ITS mods in, like plastic windows, etc.

If we enter STL as an ITS compliant car, we get to run at our
ITS weight, right?

(background: the STL weight of a 13B in a FC3S RX7 was originally
set to be exactly equal to the ITS weight of 2680)
 
IT car in ST should run at IT weight, right? that appears pretty cut and dry.

what about a rotary car in STL, as an ST car? is it indicated weight +3.5% (RWD adder) or just the indicated weight? not clear.
 
lawtonglenn said:
(background: the STL weight of a 13B in a FC3S RX7 was originally set to be exactly equal to the ITS weight of 2680)
Click to expand...
That's why I want to get back to you. I believe that's our intent going forward for the ITA and ITS cars, I just need to verify that before declaring anything.

GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top