The Turbo problem in STU

[Dano77]

I was always told a Tourng Car needed to have a back seat. These cars you speak of have no back seat. Certain exceptions have been made in the past, like the RX7 with the GI Joe sized rear seats.

Th Lotus and Miata punch a VERY small hole in the air. An Intgra or Jetta a Very Large hole.

Just sayin...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Observations:

• If it's really a Touring class then the 2 seaters need to go - but its not and never was
• Every single 'T' class in the SCCA has 2 seaters. STO, STU and STL. 4 seats was never part of the concept, 'Touring' was just a name when envisioning a place for ex-WCTC to land in SCCA amateur racing and giving other cars a chance to be built to those specs. It's right in the Purpose statement in the GCR
• Solo breaks their 'Street Touring' up every which way from Sunday - in a way I can't quite figure out but for sure RWD/FWD and 2 seats and 4+
• Using wet conditions for a 'look' at results is a tough call
• Forced induction is a freaking NIGHTMARE to get right. Even in Pro racing they can't get it right the first few years. It takes a mandatory $12K dollar Bosch ECU now so they can monitor every single output to get close

It's a great set of classes and STL is still ramping up. I really enjoyed seeing more FWD cars out there because of the creativity you can apply when building them. I still wish you could use any year chassis and modern powerplants. Maybe even total Frankenstein cars like an ITS-chassis 924/944 with a K20.


I thought about picking up a GA-spec ST RX-8, tune it a bit and do some Nationals but then realized Laguna was next. I think the cars with the best blend of power and handling with be the cars to beat until it hits Daytona...


Good stuff.

 

[JS154]

My observations of the Result of the RunOfFs are that the only car that really needs an adjustment is the Lotus. There wasn't a single Turbo car there other than the one found to be non compliant that went any faster than the NA cars.

Non-compliant, that sounds so nice.

I have a stronger opinion that I will keep to myself for now.

Chris is pretty right, except for one angle I think is "small FI cars" need to be adjusted. The rest of them were on par with where we expected them to be.

The Audi we knew was going to be a threat if it rained. It did.

Irish Mike and I were on par with where we were the last couple of years. The VAc car was a full build, but not fully sorted. Mike's car is built and sorted, and mine is built and (now) sorted too.

 

[JS154]

Observations:

• If it's really a Touring class then the 2 seaters need to go - but its not and never was
• Every single 'T' class in the SCCA has 2 seaters. STO, STU and STL. 4 seats was never part of the concept, 'Touring' was just a name when envisioning a place for ex-WCTC to land in SCCA amateur racing and giving other cars a chance to be built to those specs. It's right in the Purpose statement in the GCR
• Solo breaks their 'Street Touring' up every which way from Sunday - in a way I can't quite figure out but for sure RWD/FWD and 2 seats and 4+
• Using wet conditions for a 'look' at results is a tough call
• Forced induction is a freaking NIGHTMARE to get right. Even in Pro racing they can't get it right the first few years. It takes a mandatory $12K dollar Bosch ECU now so they can monitor every single output to get close

It's a great set of classes and STL is still ramping up. I really enjoyed seeing more FWD cars out there because of the creativity you can apply when building them. I still wish you could use any year chassis and modern powerplants. Maybe even total Frankenstein cars like an ITS-chassis 924/944 with a K20.


I thought about picking up a GA-spec ST RX-8, tune it a bit and do some Nationals but then realized Laguna was next. I think the cars with the best blend of power and handling with be the cars to beat until it hits Daytona...


Good stuff.

It's not a Touring class - it has nothing to do with Street Touring. It really is Super Touring - wI doubt anyone is going to pick a bone over a rear seat or 2+2er or no rear seat when we need cars and entries. Aside from all that what it really comes down to is it is an engine class.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not a Touring class - it has nothing to do with Street Touring. It really is Super Touring - wI doubt anyone is going to pick a bone over a rear seat or 2+2er or no rear seat when we need cars and entries. Aside from all that what it really comes down to is it is an engine class.

Correct, but people are getting hung up on the 'Touring' part of then name...when that was all it was at the time of conception - just a name, not a concept.

 

[Knestis]

...except that if it is an "engine" class - which it is - any given drivetrain option is going to be more competitive in a 2-seat platform than it will in a 4-seat platform. That kind of makes it a "chassis" class.

Anyone doing a purpose-built STU car today would be wise to keep that in mind.

K

PS - Congratulations again on your successes this year, Eric. It was nice having you and Irish Mike as yardsticks at the Majors we ran with the TDI.

 

[Greg Amy]

...except that if it is an "engine" class - which it is - any given drivetrain option is going to be more competitive in a 2-seat platform than it will in a 4-seat platform. That kind of makes it a "chassis" class.

Bingo.

There's no discussion on this within the STAC; we're simply talking amongst us girls here. But it brings up a very good point that I'd not directly considered (or realized). It's also an issue that orgs try to address inferentially via the RWD adders. Unfortunately, if we continue to address this inferentially (say, try to equalize the S2000 chassis with the Integra using same K20 engine), then as a result any comparable non-2-seater is going to be placed at a significant disadvantage. But that's the direction we're going.

I envision absolutely no support within the Club to have separate adders for 2- and 4-seaters, and without explicit spec lines I see no way within the existing STCS to adequately express that regulation without potential conflict and disagreement (e.g., is the RX-8 a 2- or 4-seater? What about the 911? Would we have to implement The Cleveland Test, as in "I'd ride back there all the way to Cleveland"? Who gets to decide that?).

- GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would agree it's a chassis class. But I would also submit that it has little to nothing to do with the amount of seats. I don't see many people jumping to build Ford EXP's, Fiero's, Mercury Capri's or any other 2-seater on a shit platform.

The Lotus, Miata and RX-8 all have one thing in common - great suspension design. Is that 'typical' of cars with 2 seats? Maybe more so than 4 seats but there are plenty of 4-seat sporty cars...and plenty of 2 seat turds. If you want to regulate something, regulate suspension design.

As with any racing class, you need to look at suspension design and potential for power. Pick the weapon that combines your perception of the best combination of attributes.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

...except that if it is an "engine" class - which it is - any given drivetrain option is going to be more competitive in a 2-seat platform than it will in a 4-seat platform. That kind of makes it a "chassis" class.

Anyone doing a purpose-built STU car today would be wise to keep that in mind.

K

PS - Congratulations again on your successes this year, Eric. It was nice having you and Irish Mike as yardsticks at the Majors we ran with the TDI.

That's not neccessarily true. The Z4 has the exact suspension as Irsh Mike's car and yet Mike's car has less drag, even if the Z4 had its factory hard top on. The reason for the difference is under the car, a full factory undertray. This is missing from the Z-series cars. Size doesn't predict aerodynamic efficiency. Notice the dearth of Z series racers in North America, only in Europe can a significant number of Z-series race cars be found.

Kirk, ask Breault why he switched from a Z3 to a sedan/coupe. They've got better aero, and are less twitchy while the drive train are exactly the same.

All I'm looking for is parity in the lbs/hp area. I just don't see it not with the potential of both fully built N/A and F/I side by side. I just want to be in the ball park with a fully built motor/car, not out on the parking lot or the street please.

Thanks,

ps. Eric, I haven't seen anything about any of the finishers in STU getting DQ'ed. Can you fill me in with any more information?

 

[Greg Amy]

...ask Breault why he switched from a Z3 to a sedan/coupe.

I think he switched because he was frustrated that the rear suspension on the Z3 kinda really sucks, right? The 328 is just a better car overall. And he got a killer deal on it, already developed, instead of continuing with development on the Z3.

I haven't seen anything about any of the finishers in STU getting DQ'ed. Can you fill me in with any more information?

Mark Hoover was DQ'd due to a non-compliant turbo inlet restrictor. I do not know the exact details, but hearsay has it that it did not maintain the 3mm distance as required by the GCR Technical Glossary definition:

Turbo Inlet Restrictor – A system to limit engine performance that meets these criteria. The inlet restrictor shall have a single, circular opening through which all inlet air passes. The maximum ID of the restrictor is listed on the vehicle’s spec line. The restrictor’s maximum ID must be maintained for at least 3 mm. This 3 mm restrictor segment shall be placed within 50 mm of the rotating section (impeller assembly) of the pressurizing unit. On engines where the approved turbo prohibits meeting this distance, different locations may be approved by the CRB on a case by case basis. If an alternative location is approved, the entire restrictor assembly shall have a maximum length of 50 mm. There shall be no other provisions for airflow to the turbocharger other than through this single orifice.

I'm guessing we'll see something in the Appeals Court section of Fastrack, assuming it got that far.

- GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think he switched because he was frustrated that the rear suspension on the Z3 kinda really sucks, right? The 328 is just a better car overall. And he got a killer deal on it, already developed, instead of continuing with development on the Z3.

If we are talking about Rob he not only abandoned the Z3 chassis but the Z3 in ITA. He built the E36 from scratch from a 328.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

I think he switched because he was frustrated that the rear suspension on the Z3 kinda really sucks, right? The 328 is just a better car overall. And he got a killer deal on it, already developed, instead of continuing with development on the Z3.

Mark Hoover was DQ'd due to a non-compliant turbo inlet restrictor. I do not know the exact details, but hearsay has it that it did not maintain the 3mm distance as required by the GCR Technical Glossary definition:

I'm guessing we'll see something in the Appeals Court section of Fastrack, assuming it got that far.

- GA

The arms on the rear are litterally off of an e-30, and Eric seems to be making that work. Might have to do with the Chapman principal: if movement causes non ideal goemetry stop the movement.