STL engine builds?

[Greg Amy]

With this being said, I am almost 100% certain that I am done with STL. As long as there is a member of the STAC driving the class overdog car and openly states that he will "oppose comp adjustments on individual cars, engines, and stuff like that" I will take my car elsewhere.
Thanks for making this an easy decision Greg.

Extreme Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows, seriously switching off STAC mode.

Tyler Raatz, you're a whiny bitch. You're threatening to quit again? How many times is it now this year, between here and the Spec Miata forum? I've lost count.

The rules have not changed one whit since you originally "threatened" to build a full-up car for the class (back when no one else was building a car for it and the pickins was easy). Not one bit, dude. And yet, all of a sudden, now that others are interested in joining the class and it goes National you're quitting again? All of a sudden, even though the regs have not changed, you're a victim and someone has some tin-foil hat conspiracy against you?

Really?

I guess I missed it, but what was the answer when you volunteered your knowledge and experience for the Super Touring Advisory Committee...?

Buh-bye and you're welcome. Door--->butt, don't let it hit on the way out.

GA, wondering what in the hell burr gets under some peoples' saddles some times...

 

[tyler raatz]

My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

 

[R2 Racing]

It's a target, but it's a moving one.

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

 

[Knestis]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

True.

True but increasingly debatable in its substance.

Not true.


K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

This one still gets my goat.

WHY?

When we were looking at Lapsim, I discovered that the only "input" into the program for "FWD" was checking a box that said that. I sent an e-mail to the company that makes the program and asked them to explain what this changed in the program. No response. No one on the ITAC was ever able to explain how Lapsim modelled the FWD "deficit," what factors it used, etc. It just spit out differing lap times with no explanation.

You want to talk about black box car classing/weighting, that's about as black and box as it gets....lol....

Simple Jeff, because it's a well-known modelling program that HAS TO BE better than a 100% SWAG that was used. The adders SEEM to be good, and we have always said they are perfectly imperfect as long as we use them consistently. When you have the luxury of using this AND it seemingly is in line with what you think you know, I would use it every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[Rabbit07]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

LOL!

Foot in mouth.

What I intended that to mean was the following;

There was an expected target. What that target was is irrelavent. If the real world shows that it is something that is greater or lesser than the target, so be it.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

I will ask the question until I get ANY answer. I don't understand why it doesn't fit the philosophy of the class? If the technology can cross over in ported and non-ported form, why the heck not allow it and open up the options for people who may want to build? It all goes back the the potential for success here. Without more options than what is clearly the obvious choice, it's a non-starter IMHO.

I am interested. I really wish IT would go National but I guess that's dead. I think it would be great to put a 13B in my car but I have no desire to build a grenade in piston format - that most all of us without Honda's will have to do. I have customers who want to build new cars every year and they ask me all the time about classes, potential double dipping and crossover to Nationals. One just bought a donor for ITR in a car I submitted for classification on their behalf last month.

The criticism from everyone here is, I believe, from the heart. I am not a guy who cries every time the SCCA adds a new class because I think they (we) do it to try and make the Club more attractive to new members and the retention of members. It seems like the majority of folks here think the current philosophy of much too limited. Take it for what it's worth, agree or disagree, put it on the table on a con-call and see what everyone else thinks. That's it.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

There was an expected target. What that target was is irrelavent. If the real world shows that it is something that is greater or lesser than the target, so be it.

Fair enough, but as has been proven, the targets aren't solid. The Honda's significantly outperform the target and the 12A and 13B's were weighted using the target so they are defacto outclassed.

Of course, that is all moot if the CRB/STAC want to play the 'philosophy' card that seeming doesn't make sense to anyone yet.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

Kev,

Let me ask you this question:

If you walked the field this year at Nationals, would you expect a pat on the back in the offseason or a lead/RP trophy? I suspect we all think the latter. Are we wrong?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

SO this is where the rulesmakers have a problem. Some of us want ultimate stability, some like Tyler want adjustments to fix the fields. It's a lose-lose for the PTB.

I think the thing that was so attractive in the beginning about STL was it's raw approach to classing and the 'create your weapon' coolness. It still is I think.

 

[Rabbit07]

My problem here is because the rules have not changed and it does not appear they will. I built my car knowing it would not be competitive in hopes that rules would be tweaked to level the playing field. I will not spend another dime on a car that will not be able competitive.

Tyler,

Please don't take your car elsewhere. Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. I want to know too, but if it is as Greg suspects, "An over dog!" Then I will be the first one to look at adjusting the RWD adder. We as racers all want what we consider a fair shake. What a fair shake is can be very subjective. If I had a dime for every "In my garage" comment I have heard I would be rich. The CRB has listened to the STAC sell STL and they inturn sold it to the BOD. All involved want nothing but to see it succeed.

 

[lateapex911]

Error 505: Logic flies over head.

Type R engine raw output is above class envelope. If it were all about specific output* then we'd allow in the 8.4L Viper, which to STL standards would have to weigh 10,920 pounds (+2.5% for RWD...)

GA

* YOU ("royal you") are inferring the specific output as a requirement or "standard" for excellence and/or limits in the class. The regs do not imply that in any way.

Greg, it sorta is. it's a 1.8 that makes too much power. So it's specific output is too high. You've already limited displacement.
The bottom line here is that:
Cars get weighed by displacement.
With weights being equal for each displacement, advantages go to the car with more power (all else being equal)
All engines the same size don't make the same power.
People race to win.
Ergo, this is a specific output class...assuming people want to win.
yea, the Regs don't SAY that, but in the end that's the bottom line...

I get what you are saying, and am happy to learn that the parts that make the Type Arrrr so special isn't the head.

So, am I to understand that if Borgward makes a super car that is over the hp limit of STL, that it would be illegal? And the engine and it's components would as well?

More than 170whp, no where near 200whp. The highest output all-motor B18 I've ever built was a JDM ITR B18C engine, with CTR pistons and shaving for ~13.0:1, leaded race gas, complete aftermarket intake manifold, Hondata S300, pimpy exhaust, a huge, lumpy cam, and a valvetrain that let it rev to the moon. It did 201whp.



Corey & Chip got it. If I could reach minimum weight for the B16, I'd pick it. If not, go with the B17. Yes, the B17 is real tough to find.

Jake - saying the B16 & B17 heads are "ITR heads" isn't exactly right. The molds are very similar, to say that they do indeed flow well, but they don't have the machining done to them that the ITR head does. The GSR B18C1 head is the "bastard child" of them all, with a totally different manifold bolt pattern and worse flow.

Ok, thanks for that info...

Tyler,

Please don't take your car elsewhere. Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. I want to know too, but if it is as Greg suspects, "An over dog!" Then I will be the first one to look at adjusting the RWD adder. We as racers all want what we consider a fair shake. What a fair shake is can be very subjective. If I had a dime for every "In my garage" comment I have heard I would be rich. The CRB has listened to the STAC sell STL and they inturn sold it to the BOD. All involved want nothing but to see it succeed.

See, THIS comment makes me nervous.
If I were on the STAC, I'd be researching and quantifying the FWD/RWD difference. Heck, I'll volunteer to do that if you want. ANd I'd propose the result of that research be drafted into policy.

But what i hear you saying is that if a Miata does well, you guys will change the RWD adder. Ouch. That statement suggests that the other objective aspects of that particular car are being overlooked, and EVERY RWD car is getting a weight addition.

I personally would like some objective adders in the process to seperate what makes a good chassis and a bad one, etc.

(Makes no sense to me how the S2000, for instance, is banned, but the Miata is ok. Both or neither. )

 

[Knestis]

... Bring your car, run your car, prove it isn't competitive. I don't currently think that is the case, but I can be swayed. Like I said I am building one. ...

Ack! The number of ways this is wrong scares the bee-jeebers out of me.

K

 

[Rabbit07]

I personally would like some objective adders in the process to seperate what makes a good chassis and a bad one, etc.

)

Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

 

[lateapex911]

Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

Chris you never heard ME say "consistent rules", LOL
(I think its early in the game and there is way too much here thats not quite figured out.)

The "ADDER" is broken because it's the ONLY adder. Yet the RWD aspect is only ONE aspect thats different between the two cars. It COULD be that Car A's suspension is far superior to Car B's, and the difference is the result of that. So applying a penalty to ALL cars that share only one aspect (and not the aspect responsible for the actual difference) with the 'overdog' essentially banishes the rest to uncompetitiveness.

 

[lateapex911]

Personal Opinion/Editorial Follows



Andy, one last time: I personally don't see the rotary as within the philosophy and intent of STL. We "include" the rotary IT cars at their current IT weights, and if you want to "seriously" play within the ST ruleset (are you even thinking of participating in this class?) we give those engines very good (and competitive) places to play in STU at a modification level comparable to the remaining Super Touring philosophy.

Keep in mind that the ST category is unlike that of, say, IT, where class to class rules are consistent. In ST, the basic premise varies from STL to STU to STO, and the rulesets are vastly different. I'd like to suggest that for a LOT of people, the STL ruleset is the sweet spot. So, sending folks up the line isn't exactly a apples to apples switch. (Heck I think there should be an STM. Same rules as STL, but 2.0-2.8 litres or something like that)

The listed inclusion of the rotary engine in STL in unmodified spec is, IMO, comparable to allowing IT and SM cars to come play "without guarantee of competitiveness", and is in there to cover the obvious answer that you pointed out, that the engines are already sub-2-liter (yes, we know about the Renesis.)

I think it's one of those things where it might be better to just piss or get off the pot so to speak. The cars were classed at their IT weights. Look at the 12A. 2280lbs. Oh joy, I can bring a car that the fastest guy in the country can make run a little faster than ITB cars, and I can go race it in a class with cars that should be going ITR speeds. Lets face it, thats just throwing a bone...and while it's better for the 13B , it's still not a 'even up' classification. It's good for the class in it's early stages as double dippers and opportunists can help get the numbers up. But I'd prefer that if the cars are in the class, they be given a fair shot.

Continuing to ask "why?" is not going to change the answer.

GA

 

[Knestis]

Another layer of Process.....Hmm?

What I meant by the Miata comment is that if it truely makes less power than the TEG, and still hands the TEG it's ass in a basket, then the "ADDER" is broken.

By the way this conversation keeps going round, and round, and round on the same contradictions...Consistant Rules.....Hondas Make too much power....Adjust the Rotaries.....Blah.....Blah....Blah....

Bring it, Play in it, if it is really broken, then we'll fix it..........

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

If you (collectively) had hundreds of examples of Integrae and Miatae, that might be a sensible course of action. If the decision gets made based on some handful of car-driver combinations - and it will - you're not fixing it; you are breaking it worse.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You can not fix which is not yet broken.

Except the rotary numbers clearly are. But if you want to 'limit' their competitiveness because it's a piston class, you are on track.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So isn't this a great way to game the system? Develop, develop, develop. Hide your best stuff. Year 1 and maybe 2 you run your 'mule' stuff. Year 3 you get your 'correction' and you bring out the big guns. You win the Trophy. You get a negative adjustment the following year.

It's EXACTLY like every other National class sans SM, SRF and FV...coincidentally the most populated in the SCCA....hmmmm. Maybe guys with an IT mentality (like me) just aren't cut out for the big leagues. It's too much BS.

 

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, incorrect. It is only "better" if we understood what it was doing, and we didn't. And still don't.

It's like accepting dyno data without any idea what dyno was used, the correction factors, etc.

Truly one of the oddest experiences I had on the ITAC. Everyone is sharp, smart folks, smarter than me, and yet we trust a program that has a box you check for "FWD" to adjust weights when we had no clue -- ZERO -- what or how or why the program modelled the FWD deficiency.

Simple Jeff, because it's a well-known modelling program that HAS TO BE better than a 100% SWAG that was used. The adders SEEM to be good, and we have always said they are perfectly imperfect as long as we use them consistently. When you have the luxury of using this AND it seemingly is in line with what you think you know, I would use it every day and twice on Sunday.