STL - what's going to be hot?

[Greg Amy]

The 1999 VTS for my car...compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!

Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU. Even if one were to accept that STU was/is a place for ex-WC cars, one cannot subsequently conclude that STU is a place for all ex-WC cars throughout history to be competitive. It's just not realistically possible, especially with a car such as yours with limited engine and transmission modifications.

Said differently, STU will give you a place to play for your old WC car, but the performance focus/goal is more toward what WC Touring looked like in 2009.

My suggestion is to remove the euro cams (unless they meet the STU specs) and begin developing the car to STU specs. I'm guessing you're probably lighter that way, anyway.

GA

 

[lateapex911]

When I first heard the proposal for a class based on WC cars, I asked, 'OK, but, exactly how many of those ARE there, and of those how many will show UP regularly!?" My thinking is, not that many.

My next thought was, "And if so, then what period are you going to allow, because the rules differ year to year, not to mention car to car. heck, Even the same MODEL car had varying rules from team to team!"

Then it was suggested that they'd open up to other makes and models. (Which I thought was an obvious necessity), but that brings up the third dimension in complication, how do you set rules for THOSE cars? I'd guess, that you'd choose a middle point of performance for the WC cars, reign in the fast ones, loosen up on the slow ones and align the rules package with that middle set that will race essentially unaltered.

But yea, what a labyrinth of confusion ....it's certainly conceivable in theory, but tricky in actual execution.

Naturally I like the idea of "Process adders" for STL...

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

 

[Chip42]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of setting free the idea of stock intakes etc. It seems like that single aspect is the choke point for stock hp, and like it or not, the engine output will be determined by stock components, NOT the theoretical lbs per liter the rules are based on.
If the rules are theoretically based, then set free the real world limits, OR base the rules on the real world realities.
Can't have it both ways and have healthy multi marque racing result.

the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.

 

[Matt93SE]

Matt, respectfully, if your car was not competitive to the 2009 PRR, it will not likely be nationally competitive in STU.
[snip]
GA

Greg, I agree and was just mentioning that for the sake of mentioning it. the specs for ex-WC cars from 10 years ago are worlds apart from a car ran last year.
this is not such the case for IT and many other classes in SCCA that have had the same basic rulset for a decade.

As for my car, it's prepped within STU rules- I obtained a VTS for the 240 when I was initially considering running the car for ideas on how they were built. then I laughed at the prep compared to current WC cars and started scouring the STU specs again for places I could improve the car for the fewest thousand Benjamins.
and no I'm not worried about being nationally competitive right now. probably (most likely) never will be, but I'll do the best I can with the budget I've got.

 

[coreyehcx]

In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

This was my problem and why I chose STL, it would cost me more money to drop down to ITB where I was originally intending on running.

 

[Rabbit07]

For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

 

[coreyehcx]

I would be for non usdm motors for everyone. I know atleast in the Honda world JDM motors have more availability,lower price, and better performance than USDM.

I'm sure this would help out others wanting to be in the class.


I have a question about using a non vtec 1.8, what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? Assuming both motors are built to their fullest potential within rules specs?

Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?

Just curious.

 

[Greg Amy]

...what if my power levels are way off compared to the 1.8 vtec motors? ... Non vtec motor gets a slight drop in weight?

Negative, not at this time. However, theoretically, VTEC in and of itself is of no value to power, given both engines are allowed the same limits on compression and valve lift. The differences will come down solely to differences in head design, intake manifold, and throttle body.

GA

 

[coreyehcx]

Thanks Greg, I know vtec is not the difference in power but the head flow, intake manifold, and superior flow compared to the non vtec motors head which is where a lot of the power difference comes from.

I won't know until I finish my non vtec build within current specs and with the better torque numbers the non vtec motor makes, maybe it will balance out. The one advantage the non vtec motor has is the fact you can run a decent cam with the .425 lift max which is where the vtec motors are already close to stock at around ~.417 intake.


I would assume there are other manufacturers with similar situations.

 

[Matt93SE]

For those of you who would like non USDM engines. Please write letters. these letters are heard and could sway the decisions one way or the other based on quantity. As I said before there are those of use for and against it and we need a strong business case. We also need thoughts on how to police it. Remember boys and girls, STU is a National class with RunOffs eligibilty. That means it must be able to be policed.

I wrote mine in August. #2428. Looks to have been tabled for the most part. Do I need to start writing once a month?

 

[lateapex911]

the head will still have a great influence over potential output even with everything outsdie of it being open. so your choice of motor will still matter so long as there ARE rules.

Agreed. I'm trying to reconcile what I see as a gulf between theory (the classing system) and reality (what we will see in built cars on track)

start with stock
specify:
displacement
CR
cam lift
open: exhaust, intake (SIR of XXX area?)
body/tire/damper rules are good as is.
weight per displacement, add/subtract based on drivetrain layout and suspension type.
see what happens.

Eggggsactly what i was thinking.
And I hate to say it, but the SIR thought did cross my mind, but only for a second!

 

[Chip42]

SIRs open a big can of worms - but if you are going to make a blankett assumption that XXXX displacement yields NNN hp, then an SIR to displacement arrangement a'la GTL is pretty much the only way to make it reasonably true. given the displacement/weight categorization then simply opening the intake should allow the displacement to hit a physical power limit on its own, though.

I guess it depends on how fast you want the class to be. I am speaking / thinking about STU in particular.

as for policing all of this stuff - the less you require to conform to manufacturer spec, the less you have to police. bore, stroke, cam, CR - easily verified and really the crux of the classification system as I see it. it sounds like the whole thing is being over-thaught. yeah, economics make "stock" more attractive than "open" but the tradeoff is variety of competition. fine line. I don't envy the STAC.

as for letters - I also have a letter suggesting the inclusion of non-USDM engines (along with 11ty other things) but I think I will pen a letter specifically outlining my thoughts on that issue.

 

[Mrsideways]

For the most part aren't most if not all JDM engine's only different in a couple relatively minor area's?
ie
Pistons (which can legally be changed)
Rods (which can legally be changed)
Cams (which can legally be changed)
And Maybe intake manifold... which I wouldn't consider part of the engine.

 

[coreyehcx]

I only have experience with Hondas but yes that pretty much sums up the differences of jdm motors. Some camshafts could be slightly more aggressive but really the only differences for non usdm motors are they have a bump in compression under the allowed limit since the ITR/CTR motors would be illegal.

There are other differences but more so under the transmissions which doesnt even matter.

 

[CRallo]

For the most part aren't most if not all JDM engine's only different in a couple relatively minor area's?
ie
Pistons (which can legally be changed)
Rods (which can legally be changed)
Cams (which can legally be changed)
And Maybe intake manifold... which I wouldn't consider part of the engine.

which manufacturer are you refering to? Some engines were never even available in the US, let alone with different parts...

NTM if you can use the engine as a whole and just drop it in, its a big cost and time savings. AND, Even if you are building one from scratch anyways, it would mean no buying two engines to build one or scrounging for JDM parts at god knows what cost!

You can only change the intake manifold if you are changing driveline configs to allow fitment... IIRC

 

[Mrsideways]

which manufacturer are you refering to? Some engines were never even available in the US, let alone with different parts...

NTM if you can use the engine as a whole and just drop it in, its a big cost and time savings. AND, Even if you are building one from scratch anyways, it would mean no buying two engines to build one or scrounging for JDM parts at god knows what cost!

You can only change the intake manifold if you are changing driveline configs to allow fitment... IIRC

I guess I was only thinking Honda. Come to think of it, an RB26 in a 240sx would be kinda cool and MUCH MUCH to fast.
Come to think of it I think it would open up some turbo motors for the miata's easily.