Super Touring is IT

Actually it should be like most 12 step programs where the CRB and BOD stand up and admit they screwed up. My name is XXXXX and I created a class that nobody wanted that bypassed all the rules to become national. Instead we tweak it to keep it alive in an already too crowded class structure.:smilie_pokal: Trophy for everyone that shows up!!
 
Reading the rules, looks more like a new Prod class, with a simpler rule set. This is a good thing, IF it were a new prod class, but instead it is just an additional class.

BUT - a 16v scirocco with 12:1, open .600 cam, open fuel injection, open trans, lighter/better brakes, head porting to fix VWs crappy exhaust port, 1980lb. Sounds like a fun car that would cost the same as a full tilt prod car, but should be a bit easier to operate.
 
so would this new class start up new contingencies?? or would the guys running the IT cars still be under the regional ones?? :shrug:
james
 
Question?

tom_sprecher said:
Tom, I just saw your post on IT.com. For some reason I am locked out of the site and can not post. There is no VIN rule in Super Touring, so if the last year of a certain model was built in 1985 they all are in. You could street port your 13B or put a Renisis in. Please post this on IT.com for me.

Peter Keane
SCCA CRB
Click to expand...

So, if I read this right...I can take my 1979 ITB Ford Mustang and run STU?
 
tom_sprecher;279429[FONT=Arial said:
You could street port your 13B or put a Renisis in.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

At 1.1#/cc and assuming the typical factor of two for rotaries that would give me 2616cc I'd have to add almost 600# to my car? Is that right?

Every cloud has a silver lining. As a bonus to switching to STU I can give up on any diet I was trying to keep to. ;)
 
I was wondering about rotaries and STU so I looked at the rules. 1.1/cc does not include wankles. The rule is:



"4.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The Mazda 13B and Renesis rotary engines are permitted at 2600​

lbs. The 13B may be street ported. The Renesis shall remain​


unported."​


Then you have to look at the turbo rules and the inlet size. Oh well, RX8 loses again......​



 
Last edited:
I am going to try and take these one at a time. So if I miss someone’s question let me know and I will address it. It is a real pain to be taking on the IT committee first.

Josh: As you know, I was big supporter of IT going National, but I believe the membership is maybe 60/40 in favor of it. These classes give the current IT cars a place to race at a National event. They also allow for most of the ITE car out there and cars competing in other sanctioning bodies to race Nationals. These are the type of cars street tuners are building and we are finally given them a place to race.

The original rules were based off of WC and tuner cars. The tuner cars were required to run a SIR, that no one wanted to run. With five years of incubator status, what were we suppose to do, not try and improve the rule set? I believe that there are a lot of IT type guys that want to run National races. If you currently own an ITS or ITR car they are good beginnings for a STU car. If you have done an engine swap and run with another club, you now have a place to race.

Kurt: There was no secret deal to get ST into the National program. The old WC guys wanted a place to race and the GT community did not really want tub cars in their group. It was my first CRB meeting and both the GT and WC guys made good cases and so we gave them their own class. We also saw it as a way to bring new members in. Right or wrong, that is how it happened.

I guess you can blame the name change on me, I never thought Prepared was attracting the people we were looking for.

Z3: There is a weight break for front wheel drive cars and intake manifolds must be stock.

Steve: I guess I am standing up and I hope you know how funny that is.

EBSNASCAR: Yes

Tom: The rules say you have to weigh 2600 pounds so that is only +133 pounds by my calculations.
 
Don't get me wrong, Peter - I never suggested that the deal was secret: Just that it was silly. The fact that it bypasses what I understand to be the process for National status seems problematic.

K
 
Chris, I can't wait. Next time I am going to get in front of Deuce and let him deal with all of you guys.

Kurt, If you can come up with a consistant process on how it has been done in the past, please let me know. I still believe that the ST classes are our best chance to get new members, maybe it will only be two of them. I wish I knew what the next SM type success will be.
 
pkeane2 said:
Kirt, STU is 1.1 pounds per CC, not a lot of politics there.
Click to expand...

Peter,

I have looked over the STU rules with respect to my 1st Gen RX7 and would like to see clarifications in some areas. Since these are not necessarily yes/no answers where can I send my questions?

For the record I still think that a full build RX7 EP car is allot cheaper than a full build RX7 STU car. However, some of the ST induction, suspension and brake allowances are interesting for someone just wanting to go faster than they do in IT.
 
You know I was just giving you a hard time Peter. I understand as people come and go on boards they have to live with decisions of past groups. You are stuck with the class for the promised 5 years (not that a promise ever stopped the BOD, or CRB in the past) and you are working for the best solution. A group of influential Pro guys sold you all a bill of goods to try to prop up the value of their old cars--period. I would have gladly gone National with an IT car because of the stable rules but saw it was best for the catagory not to be used as a prop for a failing system. There are plenty of places to easily cross over and be a field filler as any IT car will be in this new ruleset. If it brings in new cars and members great, but all I see is a further dilution of current classes.

Keep up those meetings.:026:

It's also cool we can now give Robin the "insider" hard time here too.
 
It's funny - I criticized the club for putting Trans Am on a pedastal when I think that running TA isn't really relevant to the future of the club - I said they have blindness towards the cars the next generation of racers will want to run. Now I'll eat those words - this is the kind of class that I think will get a bunch of interest. If it does you can bet the guys who build ST cars will want to move the World challenge guys into another sector of the class.

I think this kicks ass.
 
I'll grant you Peter, that there's been no consistent process applied but that's largely (over years, not just recently) the result of people either ignoring or changing the rules to suit immediate agenda - that's "expedience."

There was a time when, broadly speaking, the philosophy SEEMED TO BE that regional status served as an incubator of sorts, to test whether classes had what it took to "go national." That's the reason the "regional forever" clause was included in the original IT rule set: It would otherwise have been presumed that those classes would be considered for national status if they met the participation requirements. And someone didn't want that to happen.

It would be interesting to search back through past GCRs to see when/how the language around "National Status" has changed. In the 2008 book it says...

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring

That's kind of how I remember it being. Subsection D is where the silliness begins, including the clause that allows for "manufacturer input." So, "based on member input" (how many again?), the board OK'd the prepared classes. I'd venture that far more than that many members have come out in support of IT gaining national status, but it hasn't.

That's politics, just like the way a coal executive can ask favors of the Governor of WV, that I'd never even get a chance to present...

K
 
Full disclosure, I have just purchased a ’01 Prelude for ITR or STU, I do not know. I will probably run it in both classes in the beginning.

Scott: send the questions to CRB @SCCA.com

Personally, this just me as a future competitor talking, I believe the rules trend will be to go away from the advantage of changing suspension pick points. Similar to the new WC Touring car rules that have been announced.
 
Oh, you get NO arguments from me on that point, Peter. That's like, real engineering or something, to start moving stuff around. I've got no interest in going that far and to me, that's representative of a whole 'nother step in preparation.

K
 
I've been silent on this so far, but as a Race Organizer I am VERY pumped up about STU (and STO) being the "run whatcha brung and hopes ya brung enough" category of the street-tired, tub-chassied bunch. Add in the NASA Nationals moving to Utah for the next two years and I see a HUGE opportunity to attract folks that haven't run with us before. The downside, of course, is that one big-budget driver with a moderate amount of talent can pretty much ruin things for the average racer.

I'm anxious to see how these two classes work out. I'm hoping they won't be TOO successful at a National level real soon because I want to keep them as part of the ARRC as long as possible. :D

Oh yeah - and we WILL split STU from the other IT classes so guys can double-dip or share the ride at the 2009 ARRC by GRM.
 
Last edited:
Peter, the only drawback ( if safety could be considered a drawback) is that as I read the rules, every car needs a fuel cell if the stock tank is not between the axles. Obviously IT does not require cells, can you run a legal IT car in STU without a cell?

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