SCCAForums.com

I figured I'd ask this in its own thread, since answers aren't getting offered elsewhere.  But why are 2 seaters specifically excluded from STS,X and U?  Is it just that the original philosophy of STS was for non "sportscars" and its stayed that way or is there another reason?  Because, honestly, if you look at the stock and SP classes that philosophy doesn't exist there.  So why in ST?

There are lots of examples, but my favorite is the Honda S2000, so for the sake of simplicity I'll stick with that...

The S2000 is classified in A Stock and B Street Prepared.  It shares A stock with the likes of the Mitsu Evo and the Subaru STi.  It shares BSP with the same Mitsu and Subaru along with things like the RX8 and BMW M3.

But when you get to STU, the Subaru, Mitsu, BMW and Mazda are all there, but the S2000 is specifically excluded.

Why?  I try, and I just can't figure out how street tires vs. R comps somehow have that much effect on a car that has 2 seats instead of 4.

If there is a legitimate, logical reason for this... OK.  If its just a flaw in rules logic then we need to stop discussing things like STX2 and STU2 and just straighten out what we already have.  We surely don't need to be adding classes for 2 seaters when there really isn't a legitimate reason to do so. 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

If you let two seaters into ST*, then the Honda S2000 would be eligible for STS because of it's NA 2.0 and 2.2 liter engines.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

modernbeat:

If you let two seaters into ST*, then the Honda S2000 would be eligible for STS because of it's NA 2.0 and 2.2 liter engines.

 There are ways of fixing that. Specifically EVO being classed in STU instead of STX even tho it still has a 2.0L engine.

I would have to say because STS was created with sedans in mind (see 1st paragraph of ST rules). 2 seaters buck the concept of the category, but enough people wanted a 2 seater class... and STS2 started up.

 

We surely don't need to be adding classes for 2 seaters when there really isn't a legitimate reason to do so.

Ok, all 2 seaters in STS2 then. I'll be fine with that.
 

 --kC
 

---

For sale: 2006 Nissan Titan LE Crew Cab. White. 40K miles. $19K. Wicked pissah to tow with.

modernbeat:

If you let two seaters into ST*, then the Honda S2000 would be eligible for STS because of it's NA 2.0 and 2.2 liter engines.

And I would have my next S2000 bought, built and competing within a week. My credit cars would never forgive me.

When I did have the S2000, I sent several letters to try to get the car classed into STX or STU. I got nothing but resistance and no good reason for it.

---

90 Miata/89 CRX - STS2 #90/190

modernbeat:

If you let two seaters into ST*, then the Honda S2000 would be eligible for STS because of it's NA 2.0 and 2.2 liter engines.

Except for that whole non-viscous limited slip thing.

Scott, sounds like you'd make a good addition to the Street Touring Advisory Committee.  I'd be sure to throw your hat in the ring when the time comes later this year!    I think your question could be somewhat answered by the STU class charter, which is still floating around out there, and may is still in Jeff Brown's sig.  While it's difficult to say if STU would be more or less successful with cars like the S2000 or 350Z included, there is no denying that the present formula has been successful, and now that it is a full national class, change, especially something as large as adding 2-seaters, can only come about at a much slower pace.

STS2 being non-national, could be changed much more quickly/easily.  The problem is there are a lot of weird/scarce 2-seaters out there that could upset the competitive balance of a class, and not really fit the mold of popular/modern enthusiast cars.  There's already a bunch of weird exceptions to each class's general vehicle set - keeping the Evo and E36 out of STX, various STU exclusions, STS's weird inclusions, and probably worst of all, STS2's exclusion of the later MR2 and 99+ Miata in conjunction with its bizarre 1.9 liter displacement minimum.  Up the displacement limits for 2-seaters, and now they'd have to add things like "anything British or Italian" to the exclusion list.  A lot of work.

---

--Jason Rhoades

and what about the ASP cars?  Should they go in STU as well? 997 GT3 FTW.

---

Jeff Templeton
2000 Impreza RS

I think various Loti including the Elise without the LSD would be dandy additions to the combined STS, STS2 class along with newer Miatas, MR's and Solstice/Skies.  Any under 3.1 liter open diff Porsches out there?  The inclusion of these cars would certainly make the class "more relevant".

On the other hand, as a former full time and current part time STU competitor, I do NOT want Z06's, Vipers and GT3's in STU. 

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

Why not have a class structure like the rest of the classes?  I think that would clear up a lot, and not force every car to fit 1 of 4 categories.

AST, BST, CST, etc etc 

---

Andrew
STS2 114 - 1992 Miata

I think ST will eventually be similar the SP class structure, maybe with out the ASP and ESP equivalents.  The guys with really big tires say it is much cheaper to run R comps.  But it's too soon to go to that structure.  However, in the interim, my opinion is that STS and STS2 should be combined and STX and STU should be combined.

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

amaff:

Why not have a class structure like the rest of the classes?  I think that would clear up a lot, and not force every car to fit 1 of 4 categories.

AST, BST, CST, etc etc 

 

I'm a big proponent of this. Maybe still keep the classing based on specs instead of models, but shift things around a little since the STS rules seem to be getting a little stretched as they mutate into category rules, from class rules.

XST? Swaps, cams, turbos, but all on 245 streets (225 awd, unlimited width fwd)? Like SM, only less weight reduction and now skinny streets are the limiting factor. Work the displacement/FI/swap/internal mod rules carefully and you could probably make it relatively easy to get more power than you can put down on 245/40 Yokos, at a reasonable weight.

 

---

-Philip Maynard

No weenies!

hahaha it's an idea, but the purpose of ST from the beginning, as you know, was the 'common tuner mods' (ok I know that's no where near accurate, but I didn't feel like lookin it up lol).  I know that's stretched pretty far at this point, but I believe a pretty decent re-vamp of the rules may be necessary.  SP classes don't have any 'displacement' limits or any such thing.  As I understand it, they just group cars that, given certain allowances, run competitively with eachother.  I see no reason why ST can't be the same.

 I don't know if we need to move prepared allowances over to a street tire class tho lol
 

---

Andrew
STS2 114 - 1992 Miata

Lynn:

I think ST will eventually be similar the SP class structure, maybe with out the ASP and ESP equivalents.  The guys with really big tires say it is much cheaper to run R comps.  But it's too soon to go to that structure.  However, in the interim, my opinion is that STS and STS2 should be combined and STX and STU should be combined.

Say what??  Whatever do you have against STX that you think it needs to be obliterated?

We going to be combining AS and GS next in your Master Plan??
 

---

177 STX

Scott,

Is this still a push to get STS and STS2 combined--just disguised with the beef about the S2000?

STS started out, and still is, for popular and inexpensive cars that you see running around on the streets with populat street modifications.  You could call it somewhat of a 'ricer' class, but I'll be nice and won't use that description--but the genre fits.

After that, STX was kicked off for the more powerful versions of these cars with LSDs, turbos, etc.  At that time no one knew we'd see an EVO 8/9 or STi on our shores.

STU and STS2 was then added to the formula.  Thank the Turbo buggies for STU.  STS2 was a result of older/cheaper 2-seaters, that should be faster than STS, to have a class of their own.  Give it time and it will be.

While car classing is not perfect, it has still evolved ok.  Do you seriously want to open the door to the AS cars in STU and have a $60K Porsche come in and start dominating?  Maybe some day, but I don't think we are there yet.

Seriously, we are where we are for a reason.  Just coming in I could see how one would question certain things, but for the most part it has worked out ok.

All IMO, of course.

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

amaff:

Why not have a class structure like the rest of the classes?  I think that would clear up a lot, and not force every car to fit 1 of 4 categories.

AST, BST, CST, etc etc 

+1

Difficulty now is we now have multiple classes with entrenched people. Bring up the subject of tackbacks and get ready for some real grumbling. Street Touring is more like two prep catagories than one. The STS based rules and the STX based rules (particularly Cat and LSD's) The SEB and STAC have been relativley tepid about it going in half measures. Still leaving out a large portion of the cars. The catagory needs to have a place to compete (not necessarly win) for all the cars, not just a subset. A great start would be take the SP car lists and combine it with a single set of ST prep rules. It might not be perfect but it would be really close.

JenC, 

The classes run almost identical times.  Without Branden at Nats, the STX cars would have been 1st, 3rd, and 5th.  Or with Branden's 1.9 second win, the STX cars would have been 2nd, 4th and 6th.  One member of the SEB feels that the value of a jacket or trophy is directly proportional to the number of entrants in the class.  I disagree and was poking a little fun at his position.  Just think how valuable a jacket in an 86 car class would be.  I would have been really proud of my 69th place finish.

The Grand Plan for the Solo Universe calls for combining GS and DS, DP and GP, and DM and EM.  However, AM would be split into two stroke and  four stroke classes.

We will also be requiring the rigorous application of the best of breed bullsh... um. ... philosophy.  All Corvettes in SS.  All Imprezas in AS.  All Minis in DS.  And so forth and so on.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Do you think anyone will object? 

 Maybe I should have put some smilies in that post.

 
And now its time for and .  Actually, I think I'll have Japanese pan noodles with chicken, a salad and iced tea.
 

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

StrokerAce:

A great start would be take the SP car lists and combine it with a single set of ST prep rules. It might not be perfect but it would be really close.

 There would have to be some careful consideration to UD/BD being taken out of the picture. Miatas and Civics would get a LOT slower.
 

---

-Philip Maynard

No weenies!

Yeah, I'd personally think you'd be closer (although still not that close) to start with the stock lists and work from there.  UD/BD makes a huge difference.

 

Lynn, STX and STU didn't run the same heat at '06 Nationals.  I wasn't there (unfortunately), but my understanding was that with the chilly temperatures, comparing heat-to-heat was just as difficult in 06 as in previous years, despite actually being dry.

As for the point in general - 2-3 years ago, STX usually beat STU's times, straight-up.  Because STU was an immature class, with 10%-prepped cars and casual drivers.  IMO that's just one reason why brand-new classes aren't awarded jackets.  And I can remember going through grid at Nationals 2005 and quite a number of the cars were illegal (to back up the "casual competitor" statement).  In fact, wasn't Branden running a UTEC at 05 Nationals?  I seem to recall him saying he'd had to switch EM in the 05-06 offseason because he'd read the rules and realized his was illegal.  (If I'm remembering incorrectly, my apologies Branden!)

However, the class has matured quite a bit within the last 2 years.  Last year, STU was almost always beating STX, usually by a second or more IIRC.  I expect that trend to continue and expand this year, with even more full-on STU efforts being made, in an attempt to win that first STU jacket.

---

177 STX

tkm:

Scott,

Is this still a push to get STS and STS2 combined--just disguised with the beef about the S2000?

No.  Honestly I think STS and STS2 will eventually get combined, but I guess we need more time to prove that out.  The PAX for the 2 classes has gotten closer each year, so we'll see if it stays that way.  STS2 has some real talent and highly prepped cars showing up for tours this year, yet the times are still pretty close to STS.  Sometimes faster, sometimes slower <shrug>.  If a couple of years down the road the two classes are still almost identical in PAX (yes, I know its not official but its certainly a useful indicator of performance) then serious consideration needs to be given to combining them.  But right now it is true that most (all?) STS2 cars are in CSP and STS cars are in DSP.  Thats a decent indicator that *maybe* the classes need to stay separated.

But the S2000 thing is different.  Is shares the same class in stock and SP with almost all of the STU cars.  So really, it should be given heavy consideration for that class.  It seems sort of silly to talk about "STU2" in my opinion.  Just put a displacement limit on 2 seaters if you want to keep the oddball and super high end cars out and specifically exclude Super Stock cars.  Oh, and speaking of that the S2000 can't work in STS2 because its larger than 1.9 liters.  Sorry Geoff. ;) . 

And yes, the 350z looks like a great fit for STU as well.  Same story as the S2000.

STX - I can see the cars currently excluded from STS2 fitting right in there.  The LSD eqipped 1.8 miatas, later MR2s, and even CRXen with LSDs (just like you can currently do with a Civic).

Honestly, it makes sense and can only help the classes by including more potential cars.  If there is any one thing that looks like it will upset the apple cart... Just specifically exclude it.  Not like that would be anything new.

Scott, who'd gladly serve on the ST committee. 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Someone emailed this to me as a potential starting point for a ST realignment.  It will certainly have some holes against close inspection, but honestly it looks like a good place to start.  Under this philosophy number of seats is meaningless and many of the cars currently in the current ST classes already line up like this...

AS, BS -- STU -- BSP

CS, DS, ES -- STX -- DSP

GS, ES -- STS2 -- CSP

GS, HS -- STS -- DSP

And the suggestion to add a pony car class:

FS -- STGT -- ESP

Don't know if there is interest in "STGT," but maybe there is.  Super Stock and ASP aren't in there because there frankly doesn't seem to be any interest amongst those ranks in a street tire class anyway.  But who knows, maybe if you build it they will come <shrug>  "SST?" 

The alignments aren't perfect, for example some GS and ES cars go to more than one class, but that happens from Stock to SP currently, so I see no issue there.

Just food for thought.  I'm sure there are targets there, so fire away.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Part of any restructuring plan would have to show how it is protecting the investment of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Civic, WRX, M3, and STEVO owners out there.  These are the people who have spent the time and money, and shown commitment to the class by having traveled to national events in large numbers, earning some level of stability.

Hint: Waving one's hand and saying "Awww, the CRX really isn't any faster than the Civic" won't be good enough.

---

--Jason Rhoades