Should NON-US motors be allowed in ST?

Should non-USDM motors be allowed in ST?

  • NO - USDM only

    Votes: 23 38.3%

  • YES

    Votes: 30 50.0%

  • Allow on a case by case basis

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Total voters
    60
I believe we are over thinking this.

Why can't a person select XYZ parts from across the globe if it fits the basic outline:

Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement

There was a simple genius in the first rule-set that I found refreshing. Now we are set on dorking things up. Aren't there enough dorked up classes already?

I've stated over and over again- this is SUPER Touring. :dead_horse:

If Matt builds the worlds most bad-ass Nissan with fancy parts from South Africa and dominates, well SUCKS to be me. Back to the drawing board and I'm gonna find more juice in my Hondog.

This isn't spec miata.
This isn't Improved Touring.

Super Touring may not be for everyone.
 
don't worry.. I'm not looking for badass. I'm looking for the cheapest way to not get left behind like I am now! I don't plan for the car to be a barn-burner-just tired of being outrun by Spec Miatas with my truck engine.
 
Matt93SE said:
don't worry.. I'm not looking for badass. I'm looking for the cheapest way to not get left behind like I am now! I don't plan for the car to be a barn-burner-just tired of being outrun by Spec Miatas with my truck engine.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

I just used you as my example. :023:

This class doesn't have to be stupid technical. We already have those type of classes.
 
As it stands, it's a multi marque open to all class, based on the blindness of the classing system, which is X displacement = Y weight. (with cam lift limitatons across the board)

Limits that are placed after that premise, only serve to remove the basic "open to all" premise. UNlike IT's basic "BIG" caveat, which stated, "In IT there is no guarantee of competitiveness", competitive equality is expected...yet, due to the fact that actual horsepower is related to much more than just displacement, competitive equality will be in extremely short supply with such a lopsided ruleset.

The STAC needs to do everything in their power to either remove artificial horsepower limitations, or add a "We're not interested in multi marque even steven racing" in the cornerstone statement.
 
I wish I could be as succinct as Jake.

The following appear to be strongly held convictions or unshakable paradigms among some membership and the PTB
1 - a motor is a specified assemblage of parts, and mixing and matching on a production based class is not only unthinkable, but hard to police.
2 - such a thing needs policing (more so than bore, stroke, CR, valve lift, weight, etc...).
3 - that allowing competitors to break conviction #1 will mean crazy cost escalation and thus kills the class before it gets off the ground (this may well be true).
4 - that the rest of the world gets BETTER motors than we do, frequently, and that US racers must make due with their preferred marque's offerings to the average american vs. the average car buyer in whereveristan.
5 - That non-US engines do not have readily available parts lists, are rare, and expensive, and that allowing them is akin to breaking coviction #1.

I think at this point EVERYONE involved understands the limitations of the weight by displacement theory. NO ONE I have talked to wants to get into a production-like situation where weights are set willy nilly and cries of favoritism are rampant. there's a sincere desire to control costs (well, outside of gearboxes and shocks) by limiting what can be done to a motor - so no forged cranks or whatever.

There's an attempt here to balance the relevance (identifiable cars, from known manufacturers), accessibility (cost containment, a bar that does not appear out of reach), and regulatability (cost concerns and convictions lead to more angst here than might be waranted) of the class.

I for one support same brand/OEM swaps ONLY as they do provide some degree of category relevance to the manufacturers, and thus might lead to their involvement and/or support. I recognize the difficulty there with all of the mergers and acqusitions that have traded brands between OEMs in the last decade (is a volvo a ford? is a Geo prsim a toyota? the MB/chrystler/mitsubishi/kia/hyundai DSM/GEMA saga).

I support case-by-case approved out of market motors. this allows the needed supply, slows the arms race escalation, and keeps the desired documentation standards in place.

I support the "stock head and bottom end" philosophy of cost containment, and am willing to have spec line alternate weights as the limitations or advantages of a particular mill are recognized, so long as it is done more like IT (when it works) than prod in that it is open, repeatable, and not obviously subject to favoritism.

A big thanks to tGA/Chris C/Peter K/the rest of the STAC for putting up with the chatter - I know their intentions are good, and while nothing is ever perfect in the eyes of everyone, I believe they are trying, and I think that most of them and most of us are REALLY on the same page. I know there's more good things coming.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical:
Your JDM yo SR, ZZ, zxy whatever has a forged crank and my USDM acme doesn't. Why can't I upgrade to a like weighted forged crank for mine, and forged rods too? In the name of keeping costs down by not having to build a new motor everytime mine grenades, because of a cast crank.
Remember some manufacturers have a whizzbang JDM-yo engine, some don't. Is it fair than the Honda, Nissan, and Toyota guys can go to Japan and get a motor but the BMW guys can't?
Or what about the Cosworth engine that came in the Euro whatever?
 
DoubleXL240Z said:
what about the Cosworth engine that came in the Euro whatever?
Click to expand...

bring
it
on

seriously, are we going to argue against the foreign motor because it's built better???? not it's physics inducing uber HP numbers, but because it might last while some penny-pinching, rough cast USDM pig iron crap doesn't?:blink:

I GET a cost escalation argument, but this is the first time I've heard it argued that a rule couldn't pass because it would save people money...
 
Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.
 
I believe the M10 will actually respond quite well to ST rules. That in a 84 318i chassis would be fairly decent. Suspension has been figured out, brakes are decent, engine is bulletproof.
But, now I'm looking at the S14 that was in the M3, or maybe a Cosworth YBF from an RS escort!! I figure a $15k build on a S14 motor will be good for 350-370hp.
 
Matt93SE said:
Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.
Click to expand...
People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.
 
Actually it won't need weight!! Its a 2 litre at 2116 lbs with the carbon bodywork! SCCA weight would be 2200 with driver and I'm only 295. If I could get down to 84 lbs I think it could be competitive!!
Actually it shows as being 1155 kg with driver, thats 2546 lbs!!
 
lateapex911 said:
People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.
Click to expand...

This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors. add in JDM/EDM offerings, and keep prep levels as is.

prod cages and seam welding kinda make the "savings" point moot.
 
Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Matt93SE said:
Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.
Click to expand...

for U and O I completely agree. but the rulesmakers have stuck to an IT mindset on so much of the STL rules that they have kept it from "being" ST while also made a real IT-STL transition very expensive (chassis and cage work, and lots of it).

I'd fully support making STL the same rules as STU, with lower prep limits to the motor, no turbos, and more weight/cc. but that's not what it is. nor is it IT+. it's both, depending on what discrete rule you are reading. and that's pretty much it's greatest failing outside of the lack of diveristy expected at the pointy end.
 
Chip42 said:
This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors.
Click to expand...
Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA
Click to expand...

I guess brakes stand out as the biggest IT mindset holdover. - we've discussed this and I think we're in 100% agreement. maybe make them smaller than U, but give class-wide maxima rather than what came on the tub.

suspension in STL is more likely to be FWD than anywhere else so the ability to have drop spindles/ball joint spacers and bump steer correction, and a mechanism to try and correct or tune scrub would be very helpful. yeah it adds costs, but that ship sailed with seam welds and wings.

weight adders/subtractors for FWD/RWD should be exactly as in STU. the 2 classes should have the same rules with different maxima and weight/cc tables. if it's desired, keep dry sumps and turbos out of L. but other than that - there shouldn't be a difference. the classes should be as simillar as ITS and A, even if the IT and ST category rules are completely different.
 
Last edited:
Guys,

To make this official, I wrote a letter last month to request JDM engines with documentation. I think it is good ffor the class, but not all involved do.
 
Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)
But, I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request. This policy should be public information, and available to all on the website, and anyone should be able to determine whether their request will be granted just by reading it.
I say this for a number of reasons, but a major one is the SCCA PTBs historical insistence on refusing to make a standard and stick with it, and the resultant messes that our classes become. (Look at IT to see all the work it took to get back to actual performance envelopes for each class, now imagine if those were thrown away and classing was done as it was, on hunches, feelings and arguments).
Secondly, constituents will have no reason to even THINK there can be any monkeying around with the request. it won't be subject to a certain committee persons bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top