Anything up to 2 liters can be in STL; anything up to 3 liters can be STU.
Proposed rules in August Fastrack. I believe they were approved during the October BoD meeting with minimal changes.
GA
November Fastrack
- Thread starter JoshS
- Start date
Proposed rules in August Fastrack. I believe they were approved during the October BoD meeting with minimal changes.
GA
Ron Earp
Administrator
And for my own clarrification..STL is a 2.0 L and under class ??
Soooo..its going to be a spec-honda-mazda-Acura class ?
?
Kind of what I thought too. The 2L limit makes is a darling class for Honda/Acura/Mazda. Great I suppose if those manufacturers are seeking some national exposure and a class that they are sure to win in. Not so great for racers who aren't on the import wagon.
- Ford Focus Duratec
- Dodge Neon ACR twin-cam
- Didn't/doesn't the Chevy Cobalt/Cruze come with a 2-liter four?
And that's just for starters...two liters is an excellent benchmark for classification, and pretty much includes most small cars of the last couple decades.
If you want to argue vis-a-vis specific output then you've got a good point; the imports have done so much better improving the efficiencies of their small engines (and the consumer market responded to that, making the imports more popular). On the other hand, those imports are already closer to the category possibilities, giving the other ones more room to grow...if someone got motivated to pursue it.
GA
Ron Earp
Administrator
Bzzzt. Had to fix that for myself.
It looks a bit like a "we couldn't take IT National so we'll take the folks out of IT(A) into a National class" sort of class.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
And the rules were specifically written to favor small displacement, high specific output motors. With the 1985 cut off date, that may not matter that much, but bigger motors like the 3.8s in the Camaros and Mustangs have no chance really.
It's clear what the class was designed for, and that's fine. But I still think IT's power to weight based formula allows a wider variety of engine types to be competitive. Yeah, some of our rules stink, and need to figure out how to get more newer cars out, but STL/STU do really seem like a flavor of the day rule set to me.
We'll see.
It's clear what the class was designed for, and that's fine. But I still think IT's power to weight based formula allows a wider variety of engine types to be competitive. Yeah, some of our rules stink, and need to figure out how to get more newer cars out, but STL/STU do really seem like a flavor of the day rule set to me.
We'll see.
Really, Ron? I think you're confusing correlation with intent. How many RWD sub 2-liter cars have manufacturers made? Miata? MR2? Fiero? BMW? Don't you think those cars can be competitive against FWD cars of similar displacement? Sure they can.
Big bore for STO. 3 liters for STU. 2 liters for STL. Easy. Do you think that STO (and STU to a lesser extent) were intended to discriminate against FWD? Of course not, it's just that smaller-displacement engines tend to be installed in FWD cars, and larger ones in RWD. If more manufacturers would make small-displacement RWD cars, then of course more would be eligible for a sub-2 liter class. But they don't. So you're mixing your engine displacement metaphor with your drive one.
I disagree, and that's illustrated by results. How many cars are consistently competitive in ITS? ITA? The ITB field is looking deep, but apparently it discriminates against small-displacement FWD cars, ITC even more so...
^^^ That's a joke, BTW.
IT cannot claim to have a halo over its head as the perfect solution; even the IT "formula" results in the better cars coming to the fore, and even it requires gerrymandering instead of a straight-up calculation.
And, of course, in light of your concerns about specific brake horsepower, note that the STAC has effectively agreed with you, by proactively banning the two more common higher-sBHP engines, and could very well do more. I hope not, but we'll see how they choose to handle large performance discrepancies.
GA
Z3_GoCar
New member
Uh, the smallest Fiero motor is the Iron Duke (2.5ltrs), which was also used in the 3rd gen Camero/Firebird. It was replaced with a 2.2ltr motor.
The less than 2.0 liter mark really cuts off lots of possibilities. The newest BMW option was last made in '98, and it's got a cast crank and a dual path intake manifold, so it won't be taking advantage of the compression and cams that are allowed.
The less than 2.0 liter mark really cuts off lots of possibilities. The newest BMW option was last made in '98, and it's got a cast crank and a dual path intake manifold, so it won't be taking advantage of the compression and cams that are allowed.
So noted.
2 liters is a very common benchmark in auto racing; FIA's Super 2000 regs are the basis for World Touring Cars, British Touring (BTCC), WRC's Super 2000 World Rally Championship rules, ADAC Pro Cars, and I think Australia and Italy's touring car championships among others. Everywhere else in the racing world a 2-liter formula is the basis for most racing of small production-based sedans.
Chevy, Ford, Dodge, BMW, Audi/VW, Toyota, Honda, and many others produce 2-liter engines. Still more produce smaller-than-2 liter engines that would be eligible for STL.
2 liters is a good number for racing; that's illustrated worldwide. So why don't more US manufacturers produce 2 liter engines, and why not more of those size engines into RWD packages? Well, sounds like a good a question for the manufacturers... - GA
2 liters is a very common benchmark in auto racing; FIA's Super 2000 regs are the basis for World Touring Cars, British Touring (BTCC), WRC's Super 2000 World Rally Championship rules, ADAC Pro Cars, and I think Australia and Italy's touring car championships among others. Everywhere else in the racing world a 2-liter formula is the basis for most racing of small production-based sedans.
Chevy, Ford, Dodge, BMW, Audi/VW, Toyota, Honda, and many others produce 2-liter engines. Still more produce smaller-than-2 liter engines that would be eligible for STL.
2 liters is a good number for racing; that's illustrated worldwide. So why don't more US manufacturers produce 2 liter engines, and why not more of those size engines into RWD packages? Well, sounds like a good a question for the manufacturers... - GA
Z3_GoCar
New member
While under 2.0 liters are common in other countries, they're not so here. Hey Greg, you're from Texas, and you've seen the wide open spaces of the West. You know that crossing these spaces in the small cars that sell in Euope/Japan is less than comfortable. I've done it in my street Z3, but I'm not normal 
Here's an interesting option: Lotus Eliese/Exeige
Here's an interesting option: Lotus Eliese/Exeige
Ron Earp
Administrator
The rule set doesn't allow for racers who wants to race a larger displacement but lower tech engine, i.e., a 2 valve per cylinder engine in a varied field. ITU is pretty much going to be ruled by Hondas.
If this class becomes popular I think that over time it'll drain the A/B IT racers off. And maybe that is a good thing in the long run. Racing classes don't last forever. Wait, this is the SCCA, of course they do...
Last edited:
Yup, I hear you. Someone else mentioned that to me via PM. I responded by saying:
...if I'm hearing you correctly, then you're saying that we should build our racing programs primarily using the new car market as a benchmark? So, for example, for the US market we should base our racing classes on the 85th-percentile car sold here? If so, we're all going to be racing 4-door V6 sedans...
The 2-liter mark is a good benchmark for splitting out performance envelopes, just like STO is good for the big bore and STU is good for 3 liters. Simply speaking, without that additional displacement break you'll never be able to get 2 liter-and-under cars to be competitive in STU; the front-running STU cars at Road America this year were a 2.4L Acura, a turbo 2L Audi, and a 2.8L BMW. No way anyone with a Neon or Integra could compete with that, even with full up prep. Hell, they'd find it virtually impossible just to get the cars down to legal weight, like the 1930# minimum for my Integra. Just can't happen.
On the other hand, if the argument I'm hearing is not about the displacement, but more like "we like the more-restrictive ruleset of STL and wish our greater-than-2-liter car could compete that way" then the issue is with the STO/STU ruleset, not with STL. If that's the case, then let's either reign in the bigger cars' mods or let's create a separate category of cars that have the same displacement breakdown but fewer mods (Kirk and I created a ruleset called Modified Touring several years ago, that's eerily close to STL...)
Personally, long-term I suspect we'll see a lot more small-displacement cars coming to the market, a la Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit, especially if the new CAFE regs stand. At that point cars with 4-cyl 2L engines will become the 85th-percentile "new Camry". We really should be creating classes for these smaller-displacement cars...
The 2-liter mark is a good benchmark for splitting out performance envelopes, just like STO is good for the big bore and STU is good for 3 liters. Simply speaking, without that additional displacement break you'll never be able to get 2 liter-and-under cars to be competitive in STU; the front-running STU cars at Road America this year were a 2.4L Acura, a turbo 2L Audi, and a 2.8L BMW. No way anyone with a Neon or Integra could compete with that, even with full up prep. Hell, they'd find it virtually impossible just to get the cars down to legal weight, like the 1930# minimum for my Integra. Just can't happen.
On the other hand, if the argument I'm hearing is not about the displacement, but more like "we like the more-restrictive ruleset of STL and wish our greater-than-2-liter car could compete that way" then the issue is with the STO/STU ruleset, not with STL. If that's the case, then let's either reign in the bigger cars' mods or let's create a separate category of cars that have the same displacement breakdown but fewer mods (Kirk and I created a ruleset called Modified Touring several years ago, that's eerily close to STL...)
Personally, long-term I suspect we'll see a lot more small-displacement cars coming to the market, a la Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit, especially if the new CAFE regs stand. At that point cars with 4-cyl 2L engines will become the 85th-percentile "new Camry". We really should be creating classes for these smaller-displacement cars...
I think that chassis is on the STAC RADAR for limitation to STU...purely a second-hand rumor, though. Isn't it a 1.8L Toyota engine? Even if it were legal for the class it would have to add around 200 pounds to ballast up...would be a nice ride, though.
On edit to reply to Ron:
Sure, there's STU. but then, I'm inferring you are in that last camp above, about liking the more-restrictive ruleset of STL versus STU and would like to run a higher-displacement car under those rules?
You mean STL? For now, you're correct (see the "what's hot topic" for more discussion). but I don't see that maintaining long-term.
Maybe. I can tell you from personal experience there are other reasons involved in us toward choosing STU/L over ITA or ITS, all options we discussed while building the Integra. And that decision to not build it for IT had less to do with the STL ruleset than it did due to other things, issues that - perceived or actual - will do more to drive racers from ITA/ITS than STL will.
I don't see it driving ITB guys away from IT, through I can see them double-dipping race weekends to get more track time in.
GA
Last edited:
Z3_GoCar
New member
I know it's confusing, but the new 328 that's racing in Touring Car is powered by a 3ltr:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N52
Actually weights in STU is high, if they'd get rid of all the 2ltr and under cars from STU then the weights could become more resonable. Based on the current rule set I would not race my current motor. There's no way that it'll respond as it should with the manifold that's on it now. The runners are to small, the plenum is too small, and it can't be port matched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N52
Actually weights in STU is high, if they'd get rid of all the 2ltr and under cars from STU then the weights could become more resonable. Based on the current rule set I would not race my current motor. There's no way that it'll respond as it should with the manifold that's on it now. The runners are to small, the plenum is too small, and it can't be port matched.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I've been trying to wrap my head around this new "category"...and i use the term 'category' loosely, because, to IT folks, the basic ruleset is the same across the classes. But ST has very different rules from one class to another.
So, somebody who likes the STL level of changes, might reject flatly the STU level. So, that limits them right from the start.
But, what really makes me scratch my head is the hybrid nature of the ruleset. In IT, we set the Process up based on stock hp ratings, due to the rules limiting modifications of significant horsepower limiting components. In other words, we can't change the intake, cams, etc in IT, and those have a huge role in the stock hp rating.
In GT, for example, those limitations are gone, and they utilize a more theoretical method for baseline classifications. Since the components are largely free, it becomes a displacement based math, as opposed to a HP based math, like IT.
I know some in the CRB struggle to wrap their heads around the wild discrepancies that exist in IT vis a vis engine sizes within the same class, yet, for the most part, they race fine together.
This new ST system is using the Displacement based math, but NOT allowing the changes needed to achieve the output that a displacement based system counts on for parity.
So, in the end, it's really more about choosing good stock hp and proper intake components for good breathing. And right away, the vast majority of the possible choices (under 2L in STL, lets leave STU out of it for the sake of discussion) are eliminated.
To me, that seems a folly. Why limit it so severely right from the outset?*
To me, they needed to use a different base system to allow more possible candidates, or, if they were going to allow significant component changes like cams, they needed to go all in and allow intakes to be modded and/or free so that the parity possibilities would exist, because now, it appears they most certainly do not.
I hear people in the "know" say things like "for now" and "maybe later" when discussing the limited model/engine choices and the potential of other manufacturers, but it confuses me as to HOW they can open it up to other makes models that don't have the stock breathing capacity of the obvious/best candidates? Line item allowances? Ouch. Categorical weight breaks for poor breathing? I like 'categorical" but shiver to think how the line of demarkation would be determined...
*All in all, I'm trying to like the category, but I'm worried that it hasn't been thought out, or that the PTB are just fine with such a narrow window of potential good cars.
So, somebody who likes the STL level of changes, might reject flatly the STU level. So, that limits them right from the start.
But, what really makes me scratch my head is the hybrid nature of the ruleset. In IT, we set the Process up based on stock hp ratings, due to the rules limiting modifications of significant horsepower limiting components. In other words, we can't change the intake, cams, etc in IT, and those have a huge role in the stock hp rating.
In GT, for example, those limitations are gone, and they utilize a more theoretical method for baseline classifications. Since the components are largely free, it becomes a displacement based math, as opposed to a HP based math, like IT.
I know some in the CRB struggle to wrap their heads around the wild discrepancies that exist in IT vis a vis engine sizes within the same class, yet, for the most part, they race fine together.
This new ST system is using the Displacement based math, but NOT allowing the changes needed to achieve the output that a displacement based system counts on for parity.
So, in the end, it's really more about choosing good stock hp and proper intake components for good breathing. And right away, the vast majority of the possible choices (under 2L in STL, lets leave STU out of it for the sake of discussion) are eliminated.
To me, that seems a folly. Why limit it so severely right from the outset?*
To me, they needed to use a different base system to allow more possible candidates, or, if they were going to allow significant component changes like cams, they needed to go all in and allow intakes to be modded and/or free so that the parity possibilities would exist, because now, it appears they most certainly do not.
I hear people in the "know" say things like "for now" and "maybe later" when discussing the limited model/engine choices and the potential of other manufacturers, but it confuses me as to HOW they can open it up to other makes models that don't have the stock breathing capacity of the obvious/best candidates? Line item allowances? Ouch. Categorical weight breaks for poor breathing? I like 'categorical" but shiver to think how the line of demarkation would be determined...
*All in all, I'm trying to like the category, but I'm worried that it hasn't been thought out, or that the PTB are just fine with such a narrow window of potential good cars.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I agree with Greg. There is O, U and L. A spot for everyone, no?
I began looking into that myself and I can add one thought to thread above The motor outlined as "outlawed" by STL rules is the USDM F20C. Honda did make other F-series motors in both 2.0 and 1.8l form (in both SOHC and DOHC) yet unfort most of them were JDM/EDM. There is a lot of mystery whether a F20x existed for the USDM with enough potential for a S2000 swap (edit: which is VERY doubtful even if one a f20 usdm existed).
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1139084
More food for thought.... which is cheaper (time) vs building (money).
The USDM only received the F20A# in SOHC configuration. Those motors have terribly small ports and crappy intake manifolds and would suck for STL. If you are talking about a F-series motor for STU then skip over the the sister series and get an H22. A K24 weights significantly less than the H22 though so it would be the naturally better choice (more power in the K24 as well).
NOTE: ALL USDM motors have a 5 digit code stamped on the block, So A##A#, ie B16A2, K20A3, F22C1. A lot of JDM/EDM only have a four digit code A##A with no B16A, B16B, B18C, K20A, F20B.
to tGA - I'm in the camp of liking the STU ruleset and wanting STL to be more reflective of that line of reasoning - like you say, min weight under 2.0L in STU is getting hard to accomplish. for my 1.6L MR2 it's fully impossible - even with a 1.8L 2ZZ-GE. so I lik the STL concept opening up the class to those cars. but the rules are wrong - it IS modified touring in so many respects.
one way to deepen the field is to allow non-USDM motors. I know - can of worms. but there are, as has been mentioned, a ton of great small displacement motors out there, they just haven't been sold here by anyone other than honda. I think a miata will still do well due to it's overall awesomeness. but what else?? the 2ZZ toyota is the ONLY thing I can think of. maybe the 2.0L MZR / Duratech but I honestly don't know much about that motor. whatever the case, it's destined to be ST-honda unless they come up with something to balance it.
as for the interaction of IT variety of stock components vs. GT displacement to weight - the most similar category to STL, limited prep production, shows clearly that the CRB / PAC / etc... understand the differences in potential even with similar/same cam and compression allowances.
the impression I'm getting is that the STAC or whoever started the idea has no interest in balancing their playground, they just want it to exist. healthcare, anyone?
one way to deepen the field is to allow non-USDM motors. I know - can of worms. but there are, as has been mentioned, a ton of great small displacement motors out there, they just haven't been sold here by anyone other than honda. I think a miata will still do well due to it's overall awesomeness. but what else?? the 2ZZ toyota is the ONLY thing I can think of. maybe the 2.0L MZR / Duratech but I honestly don't know much about that motor. whatever the case, it's destined to be ST-honda unless they come up with something to balance it.
as for the interaction of IT variety of stock components vs. GT displacement to weight - the most similar category to STL, limited prep production, shows clearly that the CRB / PAC / etc... understand the differences in potential even with similar/same cam and compression allowances.
the impression I'm getting is that the STAC or whoever started the idea has no interest in balancing their playground, they just want it to exist. healthcare, anyone?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What is the best Toyota motor under 2.0? Like 180-190hp? Slap that in a MKII MR2...
That is an interesting choice.
That is an interesting choice.
Andy.. there is the 2.0L 3S-GE(NA version of the 3SGTE found in the turbo MR2), but the one that came in the states doesn't cut it. JDM version made more power. There is the 2ZZ (1.8L) motor that came in the Celica GTS, elise, vibe, matrix XRS,etc. but it is in the same camp as the K20 and would require special cams as it exceeds max cam lift and compression. however compression is allowed to stay the same. I don't know what the base hp will be after you install the smaller cams, and you can't increase CR. I think it would be your best chance if you own a toyota in the current ruleset, but talk about spending alot of money knowing that you are starting with a handicap.