Some things got missed
- Thread starter Rabbit07
- Start date
Prof. Chaos
New member
And not to
, but has anyone thought about the possibility that people (like me) will run STU with an STL car next year because they don't see a point in going from one Regional class to another Regional class? With these new "Rationals" (National and Regional races running at the same time), is there a way to run STU but pay extra to get STL credit? Otherwise, I'm guessing I'm just screwing myself for the future by running STU rather than STL.
dickita15
New member
And not to
With these new "Rationals" (National and Regional races running at the same time), is there a way to run STU but pay extra to get STL credit? Otherwise, I'm guessing I'm just screwing myself for the future by running STU rather than STL.
Sorry Philip, if you have a rational in your area you will have to chose if you are running the regional or the national. You can not get credit fir two different race by being on the track once. Now it STU and STL were in different race groups you could run the National in STU and then run the regional in STL thereby helping STL build the numbers.
Rabbit07
New member
The intended weight was to be the 2600 including the 2.5% adder.
shwah
New member
Can you remove the turbo from a motor and run it?
Rabbit07
New member
Honestly if there is an engine that meets all the requirements I can't see anything in the rules to prevent it? Some could argue that if the engine was only available with a turbo, that makes it a turbo engine which isn't permitted.
If you don't mind me asking, what do you have in mind?
shwah
New member
VW/Audi 1.8t. The 20v head is probably the only shot a VAG car has in this type of format. It was sold in NA form elsewhere, but only with a turbo here.
Also, why no wheel fans? These cars will be faster than an IT car with the same weight and brakes, but have less options for brake cooling. Seems odd.
Also, why no wheel fans? These cars will be faster than an IT car with the same weight and brakes, but have less options for brake cooling. Seems odd.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
No.
Either allow it at the start, or don't. It's a huge fundamental change.
Wheel fans, cooling allowances, fine. (But better in the ruleset from day one)
Decide on your cornerstones and stick with them. Time and again, people say they like consistency and stability in their racing classes and categories.
A fiesta needs bigger brakes? Well, duh, then chose a different ride, or put a smaller engine in it. Caveat emptor.
But don't as the keepers of the class, decide a year or two to just say, "OK, brake packages are allowed". (And use the dreaded safety card as justification) It changes the competitive balance, it throws away peoples investment, and it alienates the subscribers.
"Oh, now I need to run bigger brakes? (because, if they are allowed, and i want to win, I have to keep up with the Jone's, it's the rule of racing_)..well, now those wheels I invested in are too small, so THAT money and all the tires and testing are out the window, I need all new wheels and tires" etc etc.
And once that stuff starts, it's a slippery slope. IT has been around since 84 or so...and it's arguably one of the top two or three categories in the club. Rule changes come about based on technology shifts. The forefathers laid down a pretty good foundation, and major changes have been avoided wherever possible.
Beyond that STU allows bigger brakes, if I'm not mistaken, so for those who are hung up on tossing parts at the car, they can choose that class.
dickita15
New member
IT has five classes to balance the competitiveness of various cars so having less modifications works, trying balance in say STU with all the cars that are eligible is going to mean competition adjustments such as brake kits and alternate engine allowances, at least that is how I perceive the classes future. The STAC is going to have to find the line between the culture of IT and Prod, but it is defiantly not IT.
A big +1 on that sentiment. The time to get the fundamentals right is at the beginning; you can tweak the details later. Allowing alternate brakes is decisively NOT a "tweak".
I'm on record as supporting alternate brakes with a rotor size limit; in that same mindset I'm for allowing alternate control arms with no attachment point modifications.
Two very good points. I'm going to start a new thread about this idea, I think it should be hashed out.
GA
lateapex911
Super Moderator
As a guy on the BoD, I think that you should understand very well the classes future....and I suspect that if you don't, it's not for your lack of trying. The cornerstone philosophies should be decided on now, allowing them to develop over the years can be disastrous.
Am I reading yours and Chris's posts, that these "allowances" may come on a car by car basis?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And here is my recommendation:
DON'T try and balance the class. Stick with your weight-CC classification and let the market determine what is popular etc.
DO consider safty related allowances etc that can be applied across ALL classes.
The SECOND you take a class that has a simple and clean classification process and start throwing help to cars based on on-track performance is the moment that people walk away.
^^^ Ding, ding!
I don't want comp adjustments. I don't want tacit "guarantee" of competitiveness while saying there's no guarantee. I want a straight-up throw-down fight, even if it means I make the wrong choices (e.g., don't count out the Miata and/or some other combination we haven't thought of yet).
I want to know the rules going in, and I don't want them to change unless the organization decides to apply those changes across the whole spectrum equally, and with very much aforethought before doing it.
There's the rules, get 'em right, let's go racing.*
GA
* I'll give you the first year, maybe two, to get the rules "right"; I'll give you the chance to make intelligent wholesale changes. For example, I want alternate control arms and alternate brakes (both with limits) and I'll continue to lobby for those across the whole spectrum. But once those decisions are made and we're where we want to be, I want the rulebook tossed into a lockbox, never to be touched again...
I don't want comp adjustments. I don't want tacit "guarantee" of competitiveness while saying there's no guarantee. I want a straight-up throw-down fight, even if it means I make the wrong choices (e.g., don't count out the Miata and/or some other combination we haven't thought of yet).
I want to know the rules going in, and I don't want them to change unless the organization decides to apply those changes across the whole spectrum equally, and with very much aforethought before doing it.
There's the rules, get 'em right, let's go racing.*
GA
* I'll give you the first year, maybe two, to get the rules "right"; I'll give you the chance to make intelligent wholesale changes. For example, I want alternate control arms and alternate brakes (both with limits) and I'll continue to lobby for those across the whole spectrum. But once those decisions are made and we're where we want to be, I want the rulebook tossed into a lockbox, never to be touched again...