STL - what's going to be hot?

Andy Bettencourt said:
Really? So 180 crank hp for a 1.8L?

If a GSR motor makes 200whp in full STU trim, that is an estimated 235 at the crank...or about 130 crank hp/liter.
Click to expand...

120 crank for STU is the target, so close.

Mike VanSteinberg told me he has ITS Miatas making 160ish whp, so why not?
 
Rabbit07 said:
120 crank for STU is the target, so close.

Mike VanSteinberg told me he has ITS Miatas making 160ish whp, so why not?
Click to expand...

So Chris, forgive me, I don't get it. What kind of 'target' are we talking about here and how does it figure into classification?

I see the 'target' in STL to be 130hp/L because that seems to be the 'easy' button.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
So Chris, forgive me, I don't get it. What kind of 'target' are we talking about here and how does it figure into classification?

I see the 'target' in STL to be 130hp/L because that seems to be the 'easy' button.
Click to expand...

The "target" is what we expect to see in STL and STU. Not saying that some may make more or less.

I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is. But yes power to weight is a consideration. We need for the ST classes to have stability in the long run. If a car is competitive today it should be 4 years from now.
 
Rabbit07 said:
The "target" is what we expect to see in STL and STU. Not saying that some may make more or less.

I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is. But yes power to weight is a consideration. We need for the ST classes to have stability in the long run. If a car is competitive today it should be 4 years from now.
Click to expand...

Your stability goal is "Job #1" as Ford used to say and I applaud that. Just not sure why there would be any 'targets' at all given it's a weight/cc class.

Clearly, 130hp/liter is the 1.8 target (or about 12lb/whp) in practical application.

Which is, BTW, totally irrelevant. I just use it when considering cars that could be competitive. If they can be or not doesn't matter at all. You have a set of rules, firm up the grey areas, dot your i's and cross your t's...then watch it grow. If it has enough fertilizer (people who like the cars that can compete and the rules), the roots will grow! LOL
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Your stability goal is "Job #1" as Ford used to say and I applaud that. Just not sure why there would be any 'targets' at all given it's a weight/cc class.

Clearly, 130hp/liter is the 1.8 target (or about 12lb/whp) in practical application.

Which is, BTW, totally irrelevant. I just use it when considering cars that could be competitive. If they can be or not doesn't matter at all. You have a set of rules, firm up the grey areas, dot your i's and cross your t's...then watch it grow. If it has enough fertilizer (people who like the cars that can compete and the rules), the roots will grow! LOL
Click to expand...

It is relevant though. Example of what we started doing with STO inorder to promote parity in the class. We used the LS6 powered Corvette as the class mean. We have lots of data to support what that car is capable of. We are in the process of balancing the class around that car. We are using both know power numbers and on track data to help in this process. Not perfect, but better than using finishing results and lap times to balance the class.
 
Rabbit07 said:
It is relevant though. Example of what we started doing with STO inorder to promote parity in the class. We used the LS6 powered Corvette as the class mean. We have lots of data to support what that car is capable of. We are in the process of balancing the class around that car. We are using both know power numbers and on track data to help in this process. Not perfect, but better than using finishing results and lap times to balance the class.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh.
 
Again, it's TOTALLY academic to me but it sounds like we've lost the handle on this. You can't have a displacement-driven system AND fiddle around the edges to "promote parity."

SP(x) is one of three things, I think - a displacement-based approach with relatively open allowances, a formulaic approach (a la IT), or a performance-adjustment (bleah) approach. It's now none of those things, if I'm following correctly, which makes it the worst possible policy situation: Complaints - general or specific but grounded in the approach - can get explained away by invoking one or both of the other standards. Arguments, lobbying, etc. will be all over the map, without any consistent way to reconcile them.

We've already got members who are sincerely interested in the category with different ideas about what it's supposed to accomplish. I'm going to guess that there's a lack of consensus on some substantial questions among the Ad Hoc members... Now we've increased the potential for the appearance of shenanigans because different classification/specification questions might have different answers, depending on which "first" principle gets applied.

Look, the premise - at least as I understood it - was that the math would be easy. Take out the chart, run your finger from the known displacement to the spec weight, etc. Accept rules as written. Build car. Go race. That is GREAT. We accept that the trade-off is that there will be a few cars that are right for those parameters, and a lot that aren't. It doesn't appeal to me but you don't have to keep me happy. You don't have to - and shouldn't TRY to - give everyone what they want. Even if I have a REALLY cool car that sorta looks right and I want to play, if it doesn't fit the REAL first principles, I should be disappointed. Even if it means the participation numbers suffer for the loss of "1."

Figure out what really matters for the category, big picture. (And that should be the WHOLE category, rather than applying different fundamental assumptions to different classes, but that horse may be out of the barn.) Define a cohesive set of immutable "this is what makes SP what it is" statements. Keep adjusting them until you have consensus - something that everyone can live with, not necessarily LOVE - among the Ad Hoc members. Write them down. Share them with the membership...

...I am not yet at liberty to say exactly what the "big picture" is.
Click to expand...

...because that's not very confidence inspiring.

I don't love the SP idea but I completely recognize that it can be done right, and really needs to be done right, for the good of the Club Racing program.

K
 
Knestis said:
Fair enough. My point - not well made - was that "they are race cars" is a lousy reason, in and of itself. If the view is that ST(whatever) warrants bigger brakes, the easy answer is to spec a maximum diameter and thickness, front and rear, for each class, and let folks go nuts. That's consistent with the first assumption re: engine size.

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

K
Click to expand...

Andy Bettencourt said:
I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both counts. The STU rules are just that.. max diameter, thickness, and piston count. done. I don't see why STL should be any different, assuming there is a need for them over OEM rotors/calipers.

But those are the 2010 STU rules.. Or have they changed that too? :rolleyes:
 
ST Ad Hoc members: read Kirks post . Again.

It DOES increasingly sound as though the ST category is actually more like 3 SUB categories. As there seem to be basic rules differences between the three classes.

My issue is (was) that the formula based system ignores stock components that limit power, thereby making it a one or two horse show. That's fine, but I find it a bit sad, as i think the rules package could be attractive to a lot of racers. I joked that STL should just be called "Honda Challenge", as it seems like those are the cars the math was designed for.

But now I'm hearing allusions to line item exceptions and parity adjustments...and I think, "oh boy, slippery slope, good luck with that".

If thats the direction, and I have no doubt that it is, because the old guard loves to diddle, I have one STAC request: Be transparent in the adjustments, and be consistent. Publish the factors that go into the adjustment, and the policies used to determine when and how. You DO have policies with which to work......right???
 
I wrote a letter back in august or thereabouts that forcast this dilema. I think I was met with the mordern equivalent of "thank you for your input."

excerpts:
As proposed, the rules do not seem to be for a single cohesive category with 3 classes based on relative speed as is the case with IT, Production and, to a lesser extent, GT (the categories most similar to ST) but as 3 separate categories with similarities.
Click to expand...
E.15, M.3, N.2, N.9, N.18 - weight adjustments need to be listed or at least summarized in one location with the weighting formula for the class. It is too easy to miss the various adders both for the competitor when preparing the car and at impound leading to an incorrect ruling.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
9.1.4.3.B.1- Allow the Honda F20C (S2000) and B18C5 (Integra Type-R) with replacement cams that meet the rules and/or an alternate minimum weight. See comments to 9.1.4.G.1-2 above.
9.1.4.3.B.3 – Adding to the input for 9.1.4.G.1 above, there are few cylinder heads in the 2.0L-and-under displacement range offered in the US that are suitable for building power with the allowed modifications, Honda/Acura having the bulk of them.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Suggested language for 9.1.4.3.E:
1. Rotors
One piece ferrous rotors that do not to exceed 290mm in diameter by or 30mm in thickness (290x30mm) are permitted.

2. Permitted Calipers
The standard production calipers, any 4-piston calipers with pistons of 36mm maximum diameter, or any 2 piston caliper may be used.
Click to expand...
I do not feel that the restrictiveness of the rules as proposed with regard to STL suspension and brakes are correct – they do not fit with the ST rules we have come to know, and they seem too strongly tied to IT. As IT cars are already allowed to come and play in ST without modification, and without the expectation of competitiveness, it makes sense to have STL more like the other classes in the category rather than occupying its own transitional space.
Click to expand...


as it stands, STU seems overly complicated and STL seems detatched from the category as a whole. i'm really leaning towards taking my AW11 MR2 to NASA or something because ITAC can't get the lead out and STAC doesn't seem to have a direction in mind that I'm comfortable pursuing.
 
Last edited:
We are being very transparent with our adjustments. As I stated before we have started with STO. This being the most shook out of the classes so far. We discussed with all the main contenders in the class our intentions. We were able to gain their support based on the desire for parity. We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. The data boxes will likely be required at the June Sprints and the RunOffs. You can expect that to be the case for both STO and STU in this case. The STAC is looking at making it manditory for all of the ST classes when requested by an offical to carry a data box.
 
Chip42 said:
I wrote a letter back in august or thereabouts that forcast this dilema. I think I was met with the mordern equivalent of "thank you for your input."




as it stands, STU seems overly complicated and STL seems detatched from the category as a whole. i'm really leaning towards taking my AW11 MR2 to NASA or something because ITAC can't get the lead out and STAC doesn't seem to have a direction in mind that I'm comfortable pursuing.
Click to expand...

Continue to watch the Fastracks, we have been actively working on many of the points that you made.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
So for STL, the 'set it and forget it' via cc/weight method can NOT be counted on for those choosing a car right now?
Click to expand...

Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter.

Power Number= Hp+Torque/2

Particularly if STL gains national status. It's the only way people are interested if they are planing on the RunOffs.

All this being said, some cars will not do well at Road America, but could absolutely rock at Lime Rock. This doesn't mean they are outside the box of STL,U,or O.

STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.

On Edit; Setting it and forgeting it isn't sustainable. It's the over achievers that we are looking for, not the under achievers. It's always easy to bring a few back than to speed the rest pf the class up. In the case of STO the big hitters were the Viper and LS7 Corvette making about 100 more in the power number than the rest of the class. They had there restrictor plates changed.
 
Last edited:
Rabbit07 said:
STL has not shook out yet to see who the players are and what the average really is yet. STU is still a far cry from shook out. That is why we started the balancing in STO.
Click to expand...

And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.
 
Chris

"Plan on things being regulated to around a 100 power number per liter. Power number= HP + torque/2."

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're talking about, but by "regulated", do you mean weights will be set on the assumption of 100 power number/liter? If so, I'll have a lot to say about this (like, "This is insane.")

Or am I missing something?
 
Rabbit07 said:
... We asked them on the honor system to provide dyno numbers on their individual vehicles and went back and looked at how that matched our expected performance target. We made changes in restrictor plates and weight and again asked for dyno numbers. From there I personally installed SCCA DL-1 data boxes in 5 of those cars at Sebring this last weekend. All of the competitors were willing in the name of parity. The STAC will review the data and see if there are more needed changes or if we are going to ride it out until later in the season. ...
Click to expand...

Oy.

You're setting the weight for a [whatever make/model] for the entire category, for an entire nation, based on data collected from (potentially) as few as one (1) example...?

Remember where I said there were three approaches, up above? Well, there's the fourth. It's like competition adjustments (bleah!) on meth... :)

All kidding aside, I am very worried about that. You're taking the one really good thing about the category-as-originally-designed and throwing it out the window.

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