Quick Question on STU

I have a stupid idea..

instead of spec'ing weights, displacement, compression, etc etc etc etc, why not just let the engines go and limit power/weight or torque/weight for each class- given the engine is from same MFR as the car. (Acura= honda, mercury=ford, infiniti = nissan, etc)

Say STO max is 5lb/hp, STU is 10lb/hp, and STL is 15lb/hp. (just grabbing numbers out of thin air. I'm sure those aren't applicable but you get the point.)

Then each competitor can build whatever engine they want and they can either weigh the car down and have tons of power, or they can run a light car with less power.

NASA does that with Performance Touring although looking at the rules it looks like they're having fun policing it w/ dynos, GPSs, and weight issues.

It's at least another alternative to think about...
 
Yea, how do you control that. I say I have 200hp. How will you prove I have more? An chassis dyno right off the track? A 3rd grader can fool that. Are you going to put a Data aq/gps system in EVERY car? Then back calc aero and so on? Only at the big races? (then wonder why the turnout is small?)

I know NASA does the points thing, and uses dynos, but, if any class gets really popular, those systems are begging to be gamed.
 
lateapex911 said:
Yea, how do you control that. I say I have 200hp. How will you prove I have more? An chassis dyno right off the track? A 3rd grader can fool that. Are you going to put a Data aq/gps system in EVERY car? Then back calc aero and so on? Only at the big races? (then wonder why the turnout is small?)

I know NASA does the points thing, and uses dynos, but, if any class gets really popular, those systems are begging to be gamed.
Click to expand...

I forget some of the workarounds with that, but basically the dynos are done at "approved" facilities with someone else driving. Any ECU with multiple programs must be stated on the car's spec sheet and all estimated power outputs noted on the sheet. IIRC the driver isn't allowed to be able to change ECU programming while in driver postion either. just like shock settings and etc with us. That prevents the driver from using a hot program on the track and then dialing back 15hp as soon as they come off the track.

GPSs are "randomly" placed in cars. cars are weighed as soon as they come off track, just like we are. the car's as-raced weight is used to calculate numbers, not the spec weights listed in the logbook.

based on the weight and GPS data, a lb/hp number can be calculated. at lower speeds you shouldn't have to worry about aero drag too much, so they can use the lower speed accelerations to calculate instead of end-of-straight conditions where aero is more important.

Afraid of putting a GPS in your car so you won't come and play? Whatever. Don't cheat and you won't be called a cheater. I have nothing to hide on my car and make every effort to stay within the rules- even if I'm not competitive or don't agree with them.

It's an idea that may be worth looking at. There will alwyas be caveats with any system, but I think they have a good idea. the hard part is policing it. but then again, how is a tech inspector supposed to be able to police all the various cars and setups allowed in STU? I bet dollars to donuts I could swap in a JDM engine and the local techs would never know the difference. How are they to know I'm not running a factory turbo? so on so forth.
 
Last edited:
IT brings up an interesting point, and it's rather foundational. In club racing WE police ourselves, via the 'honor system' and the competitor protest system. In Pro racing the sanctioning body is charged with policing us.

it creates a much different approach. In Pro racing, many (most) competitors try and find the space between the lines, and try and get away with whatever they can, and it's up to the officials to catch them. In club racing, it's up to your competitors to catch you. The techs in SCCA (almost always) are there to facilitate a protest, and rarely initiate a mechanical protest.
So, the NASA approach with dynos and GPS units is rather hybrid. I imagine the approach taken by competitors is a more honest one, BUT, some will see the system as one to game. yes, of COURSE it's illegal to have multiple maps, but, to a guy who wants to game the system, that's irrelevant. Kinda like radar detectors were illegal in certain states. "yea, it's illegal, so speeding!" says the speeder....LOL.

I think the approach can work, and especially in tighter classes, with limited cars and engines. I think the guys down south have done it with their big GTA cars. But, I can see where if a class becomes popular the gaming/sandbagging will be the result.
 
I personally can't stand the approach NASA uses for the power:weight classes. Using peak hp as the only deciding factor in determining weight just doesn't seem like an accurate or fair way of doing things.

What about the area under the dyno curve? What about the power band? What about the torque(I know they do (hp+tq)/2 for the cars with greater peak torque than hp)?

If a competitor is allowed to swap any engine that their manufacturer has produced as long as they are below X peak hp(or in the case of the Super Touring Nasa classes, swap ANY engine period), the permutations to find the optimal combination of torque and area below the curve are almost endless. While, on the outside, it seems to be a cost saving idea... if the class/classes were to actually become popular (say more than 7-10 drivers at Nationals maybe?) and the competition upped the stakes, it could become enormously expensive to find the most competitive package.
 
^^^^
Ding ding ding.
With emphasis on "I know it sounds cheap, but if more than 7 guys show up...."

Now add in the 'game the dyno" tempation to save all that money you'd have to spend and it gets murkier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top