SCCAForums.com

cashmo:

Catch 22:

weights and classing were adjusted using an actual formula across ALL of IT.

May I ask what formula they used?  Perhaps you might come up with a similar formula for ST Solo using HP, torque, tire or wheel size and weight, (at a minimum).  Then you could mathematically show how close the 2 seaters are to the 4 seaters.

Jeff

Things don't apply directly (for example, excess weight in FWD ITS cars was killing them not because they couldn't be fast but because they couldn't be fast for more than a few laps before the front tires and brakes were dead), but you can come up with simple formulas that take weight, power, torque and suspension design into account and get in a ballpark.

The IT approach basically starts with power to weight ratio and then starts weight adders or subtractors for other factors like suspension design (Fully independent DW suspension gets more weight than strut for example), torque, gearing, FWD or RWD... etc.

I'm not sure I'd want to tackle that in ST unless ST goes to minimum weights (which isn't likely).  The reason is that I wouldn't know what weights to use.  I've been told a fully prepped STS Civic can weigh under 2000lbs and other people have said thats not remotely possible.  Until everyone has to roll across scales... <shrug>.

In IT we also had access to alot of dyno sheets.  Some were obviously tanked and artificially low.  Others were kind of high.  We threw out the high and low and went from there.  Its a big task, and be warned that if you do it there WILL be some people pissed.  For example, we had people who SWORE the ITS E36 BMW 325 couldn't get more than xxx wheel HP on a dynojet.  We also had dynojet dyno sheets from ITS E36 BMW 325s that were 40 (FORTY) horsepower higher than that number folks swore was the top end.

If I were to get on the STAC I'd go through this exercise.  Otherwise I won't waste my time on something that folks will just pick to death anyway and it won't come to anything but wasted time.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

jamesohoh7:

 

RX8's have double-wishbones, right?  Most of the 'top' STU cars are strut. If I had to pick, I'd pick wishbones to have.  You're -only- focusing on seats b/c that was a convenient metric to separate sports-cars from sedans.  You're omitting the notion that most 2-seat sports cars actually are designed to handle better right out of the box, not to speak of how they'd do w/the allowances that the porky/pushy sedans in ST classes get just to make them handle a -little- better.

Dammit.  You guys just keep drawing me back in.

To automatically exclude 2 seaters from classes because its assumed they will be better than 4 seaters is absurd.  Suspension design???  Well, the 88-91 CRX and Civic have the EXACT SAME suspension.  Same part numbers even.  How about the M Coupe and roadster, which by many BMW folks accounts doesn't have as good a suspension design as its brother the M3 coupe/sedan.

I could come up with more, but there isn't any point in bothering.

If the SEB wants to pick a couple of 2 seaters that legitimately look like overdogs for STU and exclude them or saddle them with a tire restriction... Fine.  But exclusions and tire restrictions JUST BECAUSE IT HAS 2 SEATS is just plain silly.

 

We, or at least I, am not trying to 'draw you in', I'm seriously trying to see the argument you're making, that's all.

Your citing of Civics and CRX's is not -terribly- the same thing as what most folks call a 2-seat sports car. FWD '2-seater sports cars based on economy car roots' != 'true-bred 2-seat sports cars'.  If your argument is really just based on getting CRX's equal time, make that your point now.  Would you really equate a CRX with even a Miata as a 'sports car', much less an RX-7 (of -any- year). No offense Honda/CRX guys, but near as I recall the CRX actually started out as an even MORE economical version of the Civic, at least on these shores.  My friend's mom got one in like '84 b/c it got 40-odd MPG.  Hardly a sports-car.  Same with, gasp, the Fiero.  The 80's had some weird stuff going on for sure, LOL! 

I actually see now why you'd be so worked up about this if your main focus is the CRX... it's a car that was made by hacking up a slightly larger 4-seat car.  Not a ton different than what AMC did to hack up a Javelin to make an AMX.  Yeah, they were 2-seaters, but no one was terribly fooled that it was a 'true' sports-car like a 'vette or what-not. That kind of stuff is -wholly- different than a clean-sheet, 2-seat "sports-car".  Do you not recognize the difference?  The mere fact that the word 'sports-car' is almost universally recognized as 'what it is' (2-seats, purpose built) is very likely why it was used in the formulation of the rule to begin with. 

That 'hybrid' exceptions to -that- definition exist (your CRX'es and AMX'es of the world) doesn't mean that the general definition of "2-seater == sports car" is inaccurate.

So, what you want is really just an 'inclusion' addendum for '2-seat production cars that were created by hacking up larger 4-seat cars'.  Do I have that correct?  You need to state that clearly if that's what you really want, b/c what it sounds like you're advocating is different than what I just wrote.  I'd be willing to bet such an 'inclusion' list would be a lot shorter than an 'exclusion' list for any potential 2-seat overdogs in STU. 

However, I am starting to see at least some of your position, I think! :) .. but help me out where I've misstated things above. 

And yes, Don ('The Goot') Guittierez (sp?, sorry Don!) did campaign an auto G35 sedan in Houston for a few years, did quite well locally, but I'm sure by his own admission, he'd say he didn't push that car to  the limits of prep... and he won ESP regularly (he never really ran STX very much) over Mustang Cobras and the like.  I don't remember how he did Nationally, but if he'd won any titles, we'd know for sure.

 

---

#555 STU HouSCCA
underprepped and proud of it! ( or just very, very cheap, your call :p )

jamesohoh7:

Your citing of Civics and CRX's is not -terribly- the same thing as what most folks call a 2-seat sports car. FWD '2-seater sports cars based on economy car roots' != 'true-bred 2-seat sports cars'.  If your argument is really just based on getting CRX's equal time, make that your point now.  Would you really equate a CRX with even a Miata as a 'sports car', much less an RX-7 (of -any- year). No offense Honda/CRX guys, but near as I recall the CRX actually started out as an even MORE economical version of the Civic, at least on these shores.  My friend's mom got one in like '84 b/c it got 40-odd MPG.  Hardly a sports-car.  Same with, gasp, the Fiero.  The 80's had some weird stuff going on for sure, LOL! 

And thanks.  Thats exactly my point.

Right now the ST classes specifically exclude 2 seaters just because they have 2 seats.  As you just pointed out, the number of seats in a car is not necessarily an indicator of potential performance.

And thats all I've been trying to say for this entire thread.

If there is a reason that the s2000 (or 350z or M Coupe or Mazdaspeed Miata) shouldn't be in STU that reason SHOULD NOT simply be that it has 2 seats.  Really, its that simple.  Honest.

And if the S2000 is considered to be too fast for STU then we need a class above STU for that type of car. But we DONT need "STU2."

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

And thanks.  Thats exactly my point.

Right now the ST classes specifically exclude 2 seaters just because they have 2 seats.  As you just pointed out, the number of seats in a car is not necessarily an indicator of potential performance.

And thats all I've been trying to say for this entire thread.

If there is a reason that the s2000 (or 350z or M Coupe or Mazdaspeed Miata) shouldn't be in STU that reason SHOULD NOT simply be that it has 2 seats.  Really, its that simple.  Honest.

And if the S2000 is considered to be too fast for STU then we need a class above STU for that type of car. But we DONT need "STU2."

:)  No worries... like I was saying at the end of my post, I think I'm starting to see your point a bit.  I'm sure it's going to be more complicated than my understanding, but I can start to see that there's a difference between 'a hybridized 2-seater' and a true 'sports-2-seater' .  Good discussion!   I feel like my mind is a little more open, such as it has room left to be after allocating space for breathing, eating, and sleeping!  LOL

Ah, but what would you call the class above STU?...  I suggest 'Mega' ... how cool would that be! ..'Street Touring Mega'  LOL ... no?..maybe 'Max'?? (kind of following how tires are classed as 'summer', 'ultra', and 'max' performance??

Really, I'd be happier to see a more typical class naming convention, like STA, STB, STC... that followed (loosely) the other open classes.  When you use cutsey names like 'ultra', you wind up painting yourself into a corner when you need to go 'higher'.

 

 

---

#555 STU HouSCCA
underprepped and proud of it! ( or just very, very cheap, your call :p )

It'd need a renaming and reorg, which really shouldn't be a big deal.

The benefit of doing it that way is you get everything classed without adding too many classes and diluting competition.  If you simply added 2 seat classes to the current ones we'd get 6 ST classes (STS, STX, STU, STS2, STX2, and STU2) and still have some excluded cars at the top.

A reorg if properly done could likely accomplish the inclusion of the same cars without messing anything up in 5 classes at most. STA, STB, STC, STD, STC.  This of course assumes you drop that whole 2 seat thing and class cars the same way its done in Stock and SP. 

If we follow common assumptions that big power and pony cars aren't interested in a street tire class, then you ignore most SS, FS, ASP and ESP type cars.  Then it looks like 5 ST classes is easily doable and likely includes everyone that really wants to be included (including 2 seaters and currently excluded 4 seaters in STU like the E46 M3).

In the meantime we ought to be letting 2 seater people run in the current classes if the cars really aren't overdogs. 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

jamesohoh7:

Your citing of Civics and CRX's is not -terribly- the same thing as what most folks call a 2-seat sports car. FWD '2-seater sports cars based on economy car roots' != 'true-bred 2-seat sports cars'.  If your argument is really just based on getting CRX's equal time, make that your point now.  Would you really equate a CRX with even a Miata as a 'sports car', much less an RX-7 (of -any- year). No offense Honda/CRX guys, but near as I recall the CRX actually started out as an even MORE economical version of the Civic, at least on these shores.  My friend's mom got one in like '84 b/c it got 40-odd MPG.  Hardly a sports-car.  Same with, gasp, the Fiero.  The 80's had some weird stuff going on for sure, LOL! 

And thanks.  Thats exactly my point.

Right now the ST classes specifically exclude 2 seaters just because they have 2 seats.  As you just pointed out, the number of seats in a car is not necessarily an indicator of potential performance.

And thats all I've been trying to say for this entire thread.

If there is a reason that the s2000 (or 350z or M Coupe or Mazdaspeed Miata) shouldn't be in STU that reason SHOULD NOT simply be that it has 2 seats.  Really, its that simple.  Honest.

And if the S2000 is considered to be too fast for STU then we need a class above STU for that type of car. But we DONT need "STU2."

 

I'm going to disagree.  First, most 2 seat cars (CRX and Del Slo as the most common exceptions) are RWD, most sedans are FWD or Front engine AWD.  Because of this, most 2 seat cars have better weight distribution and the tires are more evenly loaded during acceleration, braking and cornering.  Given an equal power output and weight, a 2 seat sports car should beat a FWD sedan or hatchback.  Even the comparison between the CRX-Si and Civic Si favors the CRX in wheelbase and weight in my opinion. 

Realize that '89 Civic Sis have been developed in STS trim longer than any other ST vehicle.  Everyone is behind them on the development curve.  So, I don't think STS2 and STS should be combined.  STX and STU are coming into their own, and I don't think the possible consequences to the class participation outweight the advantages to a relatively few sports car owners.  ST is one of the most stable categories in terms of being able to build a car and not have it be uncompetitive because of a new "flavor of the month." 

Stock cars are relatively expensive, and the "new replaces old" theory, plus shoehorning most of the cars ever made into 9 Stock classes makes that inevitable in Stock.  What you are proposing does the same thing to ST in my mind. 

You can do whatever you want in your Region, and maybe you'll provide some valuable data for the National program to use in developing ST.

In the meantime, please attend the Street Touring cook-out at the Nationals!

 

 

 

---

Charlie Davis
Old age and treachery...

Charlie,

Note how many times you used the word "most" in your post.  So if "most" or "many" 2 seaters are nice and fast is that automatically a reason to exclude them from the ST classes?  Also, consider that the later Miata and MR2 have been considered too fast for STS2... OK... Put them in STX then, on paper they fit there very well... Oh, wait.  we can't.  And the fundamental question is "Why can't we?"

As far at Stock being a place where cars are expensive and the old replaces the new... Yep.  You're right.  Just another really compelling reason to give all those S2000 and MR2 guys a place to race in ST when something obsoletes their cars in AS and ES.

CRX vs. Civic... Many folks will tell you that the Civic is faster and more stable on most autox courses.  So its very much not a given that the CRX is faster just because its a 2 seater.  And the del sol... Without a cage in it that thing is aptly nicknamed "Flexible Flyer."

Again... 2 seats doesn't automatically mean "fast."

 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Just got in from the NER board meeting. NER will be allowing S2000s and 350Zs in STU this year instead of making a new class. They will be reminded that this is only an NER thing and that it doesn't apply on the national level.

 275 tire rule, just these two cars.

 --KC

 

---

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

Also, consider that the later Miata and MR2 have been considered too fast for STS2... OK... Put them in STX then, on paper they fit there very well... Oh, wait.  we can't.  And the fundamental question is "Why can't we?"

Who's paper says they fit well?  Yours?  Have you crunched the data and done the homework, or are you guessing at this, yet again?  What makes you think that these cars will slot right into STX and not be overdogs?  I am not trying to extend this thread or pick on you, but you come off as knowing all of the answers.

But let's look a little further.  What class in the SCCA has 2 seat 2100lb RWD cars, 4 seat RWD cars, 4 seat FWD cars and 4 seat AWD turbo cars all in the same class (STX per your 'paper')?  Stock does not.  SP does not.  Even SM does not.  You gotta move all the way to XP to find this, and even there weight limits come into play.  Maybe you know something everyone else in the SCCA doesn't?

 

 

CRX vs. Civic... Many folks will tell you that the Civic is faster and more stable on most autox courses.  So its very much not a given that the CRX is faster just because its a 2 seater.  And the del sol... Without a cage in it that thing is aptly nicknamed "Flexible Flyer."

Again... 2 seats doesn't automatically mean "fast."

 

No, the CRX should be faster than the Civic because it has a significantly shorter wheelbase, shorter overall length and is about 100 lbs lighter with the same power.  Just because no one has found a perfect setup yet doesn't mean it's time to start shuffling things around or that assumptions can be made given the short history of STS2.  The EF Civic is still getting faster and that car has been in ST development since 2001.  The first year of the CRX people were using the 'typical' Civic setup and quickly found out that it doesn't work quite the same way.

While 2 seats doesn't automatically mean fast, it does usually mean sports-car based RWD cars.  And since ST does not have a class for every production car like SP does, the line is drawn and it is mainly drawn by genre. 

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

Catch 22:

Remember the old 300zx 2+2???  What if Nissan made a 350z 2+2???  Should it then be allowed in STU???  I bet if they already made it it would already be in STU and if Jason is right EVERYONE would be running 350zs instead of AWD turbo cars. 

Nissan already makes a 350Z 2+2.   Most people know it as the Infiniti G35 Coupe.

 Bret

64ES 

 

---

Bret Wallace
64ES
2008 ES NE Divisonal Champion
Founding Member of the National Association of Matthew Braun LookAlikes

tkm:

No, the CRX should be faster than the Civic because it has a significantly shorter wheelbase, shorter overall length and is about 100 lbs lighter with the same power.  Just because no one has found a perfect setup yet doesn't mean it's time to start shuffling things around or that assumptions can be made given the short history of STS2.  The EF Civic is still getting faster and that car has been in ST development since 2001.  The first year of the CRX people were using the 'typical' Civic setup and quickly found out that it doesn't work quite the same way.

While 2 seats doesn't automatically mean fast, it does usually mean sports-car based RWD cars.

The SCCA has not defined "sports car". The seating arrangement is meaningless for qualifying a car as a sports car. A good argument can be made that the 1988-1991 Civic and CRX are both FWD sports cars--SLA suspension all around, light high revving engine, "Si" equals "sports" or something. No one can say that the CRX is "based off" the Civic. Both similar chasis were released at the same time. The Lotus Elan M100 is from the same period and is FWD and 2 seats with a 1.6L Isuzu engine. Sounds a lot like a CRX (or at least a Civic Del Sol Si). The Elan must be an economy car right?

Cars like the 300ZX and RX7 were designed with 4 seats in the same time period. 
Nearly every Porsche has been sold with 4 seats. The 911 was originally described as a "sedan" in Porsche's own literature. Most of those Porsches are saddled with struts or worse semi-trailing arms.

Sure, a fully developed STS2 CRX or Miata could be slightly be faster than a fully prepped STS Civic Si, but that doesn't mean they don't belong in the same class. Just like they are in the same Street Preppared class.

We cannot excape the fact that all these classes are largely arbitrary and subjective. I really don't have a problem with that being the case. It would be nice if the rules were a little more clear about it. I cringe everytime I see STS2 described. Sometimes it is a class for "2 seaters" sometimes it is a class for "sports cars". Is an RX7 2+2 included? Why is the CRX included? Just list the specific cars allowed in the class and be done with the touchy feely grand schemes.

---

Matthew Huizing
1995 Saturn SC2 - H Stock
1993 Geo Storm GSi - STS

tkm:

No, the CRX should be faster than the Civic because it has a significantly shorter wheelbase, shorter overall length and is about 100 lbs lighter with the same power. 

And who's paper are YOU using?  I have an '89 CRX that can't legally have any more weight removed and depending upon who you ask its no more than about 25 to 30lbs lighter than a Civic.  Do we need a whole new class over 25lbs???  Well, apparently we do on street tires but not on race tires.  Please explain that to me because you haven't so far.

 

While 2 seats doesn't automatically mean fast, it does usually mean sports-car based RWD cars.  And since ST does not have a class for every production car like SP does, the line is drawn and it is mainly drawn by genre. 

Thanks for helping out my argument.  I owe you a beer.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

BlueMaxx9:

They do, it's called the Infinity G35

neurokinetik:

Nissan already makes a 350Z 2+2.   Most people know it as the Infiniti G35 Coupe.

 Bret

64ES

Woah, wierd! Another guy named Bret (with one 't' even!) points out the same thing that I did a page earlier! I'm feeling a little creeped out right now!

Anyway, I was thinking about something today regarding the Miata in STX. If I am not too far off, a stock '99 weighs something like 2200 lbs. and puts out around 140hp. 2200 / 140 = 15.71 lbs/hp. A BMW 325 weighs right around 3000 lbs. stock and puts out about 190hp. 3000 / 190 = 15.79 lbs/hp. A stock WRX is around 3200 lbs. and 227hp. 3200 / 227 = 14.09 lbs/hp. Mini Cooper S 2700 lbs. / 165hp = 16.36 lbs/hp. Looks to me like, power to weight wise, a Miata is probably right in the STX range. Obviously there is more to the equation than power/weight, and those values are different in stock than STX, but proportionally, I don't think they would change much. Could you really loose more weight or add more power than any of the existing STX cars in a Miata? The suspension is a big advantage, but I'm thinking finding tires could be a challenge. 235s or 245's are probably too tall, and 225/45x15's don't seem to exist in the most desirable compounds (not yet anyway.) I mean, the RX-8 has the cool-suspension-and-light-weight vs. not-a-lot-of-power thing going on in STU and look where that has gotten it. I dunno, it might destroy all, but with all the CS folks that are probably eyeing Pontiacs, it might be good to give the 99 miatae a place in STX. I'd try it with my wifes '99, but all the 'play' money is getting eaten by my BMW right now (and the damn mole in my yard that refuses to die), and I suck too much as a driver to provide useful data.

Oh,  and for comparison, assuming an '89 civic weighs 2000lbs and put out say 110hp that would be 18.18 lbs/hp. An M3 is probably around 3000 / 250 = 12.0 lbs/hp. STi is, what, like 3200 / 300 = 10.67 lbs/hp and the RX-8 was something like 2800 / 240 = 11.67 lbs/hp. Anyway, all tires being equal (which they usually are in ST), I'd say the the NB (forgive me if that is the wrong chassis code) is probably a good fit for STX.

- Bret 

Catch 22:

tkm:

No, the CRX should be faster than the Civic because it has a significantly shorter wheelbase, shorter overall length and is about 100 lbs lighter with the same power. 

And who's paper are YOU using?  I have an '89 CRX that can't legally have any more weight removed and depending upon who you ask its no more than about 25 to 30lbs lighter than a Civic.  Do we need a whole new class over 25lbs???  Well, apparently we do on street tires but not on race tires.  Please explain that to me because you haven't so far.

You can't compare an '89 CRX to an '89 Civic.  You have to compare an '88 CRX to an '89 Civic, as the CRX underwent the same weight gain via door-mounted seatbelts the Civics did, but one year earlier.  That difference is generally considered about 40 pounds.

And while I haven't seen your car Scott, I bet I can name a few things you haven't done, that are perfectly legal, and would add up to at least 10 pounds.

10 + 40 + the 30 you admit = 80 pounds.  80 pounds, when we're comparing something that's already under 2000 to something that's about 1900, is between 4 and 5%.  Considering the cars make the same power and run the same tires, that is a considerable difference.

I'm not saying the cars won't be "close" ultimately, but there is no question that if the classes were combined, every single serious Civic owner would immediately go shopping for an '88 Si.

Getting the idea published and out for comment is the first hurdle.  The next hurdle, convincing a consistently 50+ car class, almost all driving the same car, that they're going to need to replace their car with something even rarer to remain competitive, is going to be difficult, even if all the parts do swap over.

---

--Jason Rhoades

Jason,

I know the '88 CRX is lighter and have admitted that elsewhere.  I've also noted elsewhere that SURELY we as a club are smart enough to find a way to not need an entire class just because of one chassis made during one year???  Surely we can find a way to equalize the '88 CRX with the other STS and STS2 cars.  There are several options, and I'll remind everyone that there are scales at every national event and lead is cheap.  Levelling the CRX and Civic, regardless of year, is as simple as a minimum weight of about 1975lbs.  And really, there isn't much levelling to be done in the first place, but that would cover it.  Or maybe allow rear seat removal for the 4 seaters???

It can be done.  You just have to focus on how to do it instead of reasons why you shouldn't.  Personally I'd much rather see 5 hugely populated ST classes with pretty much zero excluded cars than 6 classes with a bunch of exclusions.

But I don't want to get off on that tangent again.  I want to stay focused on why 2 seats would need separate classes in ST when they don't in S and SP.  Why aren't we classing cars based on performance parameters regardless of how many seats they have?  Is it really because we're hung on that 4 seater thing that went into the very first STS rules or is there something else? 

And shoot me an email or pm Jason, I'd love to hear where I can get that 10 more pounds.  I already have 26lb seats, a gel cell battery, no ac, no radio/speakers, short as legal exhaust, light pulleys, 10lb wheels...

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

I'll shoot you a PM about the 10 pounds.

The only other thing I have to say is that any plan that involves vehicle-specific allowances (or lead) for in-class equalization picks up a particular "essence du Cole" that is not likely to go far in Solo2.  
I know it's been done for a long time in RR, but that can of worms has more or less been kept closed here, and there are lots of people fighting to keep it that way.

---

--Jason Rhoades

perhap