Some Proposed STL Rules Changes

G

Greg Amy

Administrator
Staff member
I have been lobbying for the following two rules changes for STL.

- Allow alternate control arms.

I am on record as being vehemently opposed to moving suspension pickup points or making mods to the struts/knuckles/what-have-you where arms attach, but I would like the opportunity in STL to be able to change the control arms and links. As long as the attaching points are unmoved and unmodified, then that link can go all the way to China and back and the suspension geometry has not changed one whit. And, in some cases, allowing those alternate arms allows cars to be able to make basic alignment adjustments (my Integra, for example, which has no adjustable camber or caster -- well, unless you start bending things to get there...)

I propose editing 9.1.4.N.8 to read as follows:

"Alternate control arms permitted. No modifications allowed in STL to attaching parts or pickup locations."

I'd like to hear of any horror story ideas where this may get abused, so that the rule proposal can be well-written.

- Allow alternate brakes.

With all the stuff currently allowed in STL, it seems odd that your basic brake package consists of nothing more than pretty much what Improved Touring has. This is especially so, given the tons of aftermarket bolt-on stuff out there. I want alternate brakes in STL. I want them not only because of improved performance, but also of decreased component wear (pads) and better modulation. Adding fuel to that fire, OEM ABS brakes are allowed in STL, giving a bit of a disadvantage to older or less-technological vehicles.

I propose alternate brakes for STL, but only to those cars that choose to forego factory ABS. I would limit the performance potential of those aftermarket brakes by rotor size, and then ultimately by how much rubber they can get to the road. To whit:

Change 9.1.4.O.12 to read:

Competitors may choose from one of the following front brake systems:
A. Stock OEM braking system:
1. Unmodified Antilock Braking System (ABS) is allowed.

B. Aftermarket braking system:
1. Four-piston (maximum) calipers of any origin and design.
2. Ferrous metal rotor of any origin and design, maximum rotor diameter and thickness per individual class specs.
3. Alternate components must mount onto unmodified suspension and steering components and fit within allowable wheels
4. Cars using this alternate braking system must have the antilock braking system (ABS) disabled as specified in GCR.

And change 9.1.4.3.E.1 (STL specs):

"Maximum rotor size 300mm (11.81") diameter and 32mm (1.26") thickness."

STO already has a max rotor size of 355x33, or 380mm with a 100# penalty; STU already has a maximum rotor size 328x32. Both already allow ABS using factory components.

- Remove the allowance for seam-welding in STL.

'Nuff said. I don't see that as within my perceived philosophy of the class. I haven't turned that one in yet, but I will, and I think we need to get that genie back in the bottle before we let it out. If someone wants to seam-weld, well then STU beckons...

GA
 
I believe Chip (Chip42 on here) proposed those exact rules for the brakes or very similiar to the CRB, no mention of it in thus far. As for control arms, I don't see a "need" for it when offset bushings and such already achieve it, however and adjsutable arm would be much easier. The only advantage, is that for some cars, especially your honda this is an off the shelf part, not so much for others. Car has warts deal with it. But whatever, written as is atleast in STL it is HC lite. STU/STO is a different story.
 
Last edited:
Greg, I agree HUGELY with seam welding.
MUST get that nixxed. I suppose there is some PTB that knows a car or cars from some other class that is seam welded, and wants to allow them in. Or, I HOPE, it's a carry over oversight.

Control arms, I can see INSTANTLY how pickup points will effectively be moved. With stock locations. And I think that widespread availability of 'off the shelf' arms doesn't exist for many models. Of course, it seems* like this is a Honda Challenge category as it stands, so maybe we don't car about other makes.

I'm mulling over the brake issue.

* THat might be an incorrect statement as I need to really dig into the rules and specs, but...it is a concern. Are there other alternate options that have a chance?
 
lateapex911 said:
Control arms, I can see INSTANTLY how pickup points will effectively be moved. With stock locations.
Click to expand...
I don't see it, Jake. If the attachment/pivot points are in the same location then the geometry doesn't change. But I'm open-minded, show me.

I think that widespread availability of 'off the shelf' arms doesn't exist for many models.
Click to expand...
That I'll concede, to a degree, at least in comparison to Hondas. But there enough available applications, and I believe the change is within the inferred philosophy of the class.

Are there other [than Honda] alternate options that have a chance?
Click to expand...
Initially, probably not; Hondas are probably the best with minimal prep. But as we discussed in the "what's going to be hot" thread, I'm quite confident that once people start doing the legwork that there are numerous candidates that can do quite well, the Miata of course being the next in line. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
I don't see it, Jake. If the attachment/pivot points are in the same location then the geometry doesn't change. But I'm open-minded, show me.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, now you add 'pivot point".....I'll show you later.

That I'll concede, to a degree, at least in comparison to Hondas. But there enough available applications, and I believe the change is within the inferred philosophy of the class.
Click to expand...
I really wish we could get step one: determine the cornerstone philosophy, laid out....

Initially, probably not; Hondas are probably the best with minimal prep. But as we discussed in the "what's going to be hot" thread, I'm quite confident that once people start doing the legwork that there are numerous candidates that can do quite well, the Miata of course being the next in line. - GA
Click to expand...

Great .............Hondas and a Miata, more Miatas. :blink::(
 
lateapex911 said:
Ahhh, now you add 'pivot point".....I'll show you later.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I see where you're going...if I'm correct, I think you're being a bit silly. And, if I'm correct, then I'll further suggest you can do the same thing with IT's bushings/bearings rule. But I still want to see what you have to say.

GA

For reference, here's what I have on the STU Integra; I really don't see any significant advantage in going overboard above this:

- Skunk2 "Pro Series Plus" front upper control arms, part number 516-05-5675, which is a modified stock upper control arm with a slotted ball joint mount:
http://www.skunk2.com/suspension-2.php?code=FCKPROPLUS

- Skunk2 "Pro Series Rear Camber Kit", part number 516-05-0500, which is a double-threaded rod to replace the fixed link and allow camber adjustments:
http://www.skunk2.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=516-05-0500

- SPC Performance "Pro Series Rear Toe Adjusters", part number 69450, which is a double-threaded rod to replace the fixed link; this adjustable link makes rear toe adjustments scads easier:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SPS-69450/

- Skunk2 rear lower control arms, part number 542-05-0105, which are aluminum replacements for the stock rear arms. They do not change the camber, but are lighter and offer pre-installed hard rubber bushings and an improved method of attachment for the rear swaybar links. There are versions available that incorporate spherical bushings:
http://www.skunk2.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=542-05-0105
 
Re: "...No modifications allowed in STL to attaching parts or pickup locations," it's a slippery slope to start being specific about what is not allowed. Say less, create less potential for confusion or abuse.

Otherwise, all of those allowances pass my conceptual tests.

K
 
Knestis said:
...it's a slippery slope to start being specific about what is not allowed.
Click to expand...
I agree. I stumbled on that as I was writing it, with that point in mind. However there are two rules farther up the line where pickups are allowed in STO and STU; were I to do this officially I'd combine all the related "pickup" rules from STO/U into appropriate locations so I'd not have to say "you can't do something". - GA
 
quadzjr said:
I believe Chip (Chip42 on here) proposed those exact rules for the brakes or very similiar...
Click to expand...
yup. letter 2471. submitted 8/15. BoD stuff came out in late october. 10/27 (same day I got the BoD letter) I got a response that my letter was tabled. 6 minutes later I got a response that a recommendation went to the CRB. CRB says it'll be in the 11/20 fastrack. I expect to see a nice big "thank you for your input" on 11/20.

it was a n omnibus letter, I understand that's a no-no.
for the record:
9.1.4.3.E.1 – “OEM brake systems must be used. Alternate OEM brakes rotors or calipers from the same manufacturer will be considered” is in direct contradiction to the category specifications described in section 9.1.4.O.1, .9.a, and .10.

Alternate brake systems up to and including calipers should be permitted in STL. Alternate calipers and rotors should always be allowed as aftermarket brakes are a defining characteristic of ST and do not substantially add to cost, while also helping to level the field between various makes, models, and body styles otherwise treated more or less equally under these rules. Additionally, regulation of the class will be improved and more equitable in the long run if everyone is allowed the same brakes, and without appearing to play favorites by allowing brake upgrades to some cars while denying them to others. I suggest that STL allow any caliper with 4 pistons, to a maximum of 36mm (1.4in) piston diameter, or any 2 piston calipers, and a maximum of 2 pads per caliper. Allow rotors up to 290mm diameter and 30mm thick (this allows the Integra type R, VW Corrado G60, and other commonly available, off the shelf rotors to be used). Disallow slotted and cross drilled rotors.

I also requested:
9.1.4.N.8 – Allow alternate material control arms for STL that maintain the stock geometry. This is in keeping with the limited prep philosophy (stock geometry) and the category generally.

9.1.4.3.C.2 – “Engine and gearbox mounts may be solid, but must not relocate the engine or transmission in any direction.” This rule cannot be enforced considering the engine swap allowance as there is no way to determine movement of a swapped motor, particularly when swapping from FWD (transverse) to RWD (longitudinal) or vice versa. How can it be determined if the motor is in the stock location in a car it was never delivered in? I recommend maintaining the engine’s as-delivered, stock angular orientation (rotation about the crankshaft), maintaining the crankshaft in the center of the car when mounted longitudinally, and at the stock setback from the driven axle centerline when mounted transversely, using dimensions from the engine’s stock installation (car from which it was extracted) where applicable. Longitudinal engines from FWD applications, such as many audis, saabs, etc… may require a hybrid ruling.

9.1.4.G.1.- With regard to the proposed restriction to North American (basically US) market engines, and the blanket displacement to weight rules: Cylinder head and intake manifold design are the primary choke points as the ST rules are conceived. While porting and polishing allowances may improve head and manifold flow somewhat, the overall design, including the throttle body diameter, plenum volume, runner length and size, port size and angle, valve size, and combustion chamber shape, and other features, will dictate the power potential of a motor under the class allowed compression and valve lift. As such, there will be a wide range of outputs between engines at the same prep level, even of the same displacement. Most street heads are not designed for maximum flow and peak horsepower, rather for torque, emissions compliance, and overall efficiency and drivability. Additionally, most offerings within the US for the past 10 years, when head and intake manifold designs and casting capabilities were most mature, have been on engines greater than 2.0L in displacement, while most smaller engines focused on economy and are not well suited to building power – meaning that STL likely suffers more of this imbalance than other classes in the category. A strait displacement-based weighting system for a class built on modified street engines with common allowances means a small number of standout motors will have the most favorable power to weight ratios, resulting in an overall lack of variety, poor competition, and disillusioned competitors.

As there are many small-displacement motors from a variety of manufacturers available overseas (Japan and Europe specifically) that are suitable for racing use within the limits of the rules established and as proposed, I suggest per-request approval non-US market engines if they appear to fit within the category philosophy and fill a void in that manufacturer’s viable US offerings. This will allow Toyota, Ford, GM, etc… to be more competitive, particularly in STL where they would otherwise have few worthwhile options in the 2.0L and under range. Similar allowances have been made in GT (i.e. SR16VE Nissan) and the required published information for the motors is relatively simple to acquire in the modern age.

I Offer the following proposals to preserve parity, all could be covered under 9.1.4._.H, but bear mentioning in 9.1.4.G:
1- Non North American market motors may be permitted on an individually approved basis. The competitor is required to have a factory service manual for the motor as installed in the OE application. All other rules for the alternate engines apply.

2- Where the known possible output of a motor is substantially higher or lower than other motors of that displacement in the class, an alternate minimum weight will be listed based on proven engine output. Weight adjustment factors shall still apply to this alternative minimum weight.

9.1.4.G.1.- Address the intake manifold language to cover FWD motors in RWD car as well as RWD installed in a FWD car.

9.1.4.E.5.- Specify that if an engine’s factory valve lift is greater than the listed allowable, it may be maintained as stock and given an alternate minimum weight OR the cam(s) may be replaced with one(s) conforming to the allowed lift.
 
^^ great work Greg. My guts tells me that you are right with above especially in regard to 1) pushing free IM/TB more (perhaps diameter restriction with limits per cc), especially since STAC is using displacement to establish min weight and 2) alternative control arms. Having the class rules come closer to converging with Prod/GT rules and requiring more money to make competitive a car is not what the STAC/CRB was probably hoping for when STL was birthed.

(comment: this concept of convergence with prod is nothing new to this forum given what I have read today on other threads. Sorry for stating the obvious.)
 
Last edited:
>> Having the class rules come closer to converging with Prod/GT rules and requiring more money to make competitive a car is not what the STAC/CRB was probably hoping for when STL was birthed.

Set free any pretense that the rules can control costs. I could build an STU car for $3000. It would be competitive until someone decides to outspend me. Popularity - competition - drives costs. Nothing else.

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