SCCAForums.com

Ok, here's the second "grenade" as promised in the E46 M3 STU thread.  In fact, it was suggested by at least one of the contributors to that thread.  Various of the following ideas have come in via letter to the STAC/SEB, and I thought it might be useful to throw some of these up against the wall to see if any have merit to improve STX.  All of this makes the assumption that the AWD rally cars are truly dominant vs both the RWD and FWD cars.  Given that, what would you do to add some more diversity to the class and encourage those not into rally cars?  Severa ideas have come forward:

1) Remove E36 M3 from the STX exclusion list.  It fits the class formula and was placed on the list because it was feared that it would dominate.  That doesn't seem likely anymore.  Note when comparing STU E36 times to STX that the tire allowance are different.  The car would be slower in STX trim.

2) Create a tire size disparity, like what exists in STU,  to try and balance out the accelerative traction advantages of AWD vs 2WD.  When it was originally created, STX ran on STS-spec tires (225).  That was opened up when it was realized that certain STX-target RWD cars (e.g. Mustang) came OE with tires that were larger.  So everyone in the class got larger tires allowed.  Maybe the better answer should have been to just give that to the 2WD cars?  But this is a HUGE takeback for AWD cars, and we all know how popular takebacks are.

3) Similar to #2, but go the other way.  Relax the tire size restriction somewhat for 2WD cars.  This would give the BMW's some comfort, but would not do anything for most FWD cars since they cannot fit bigger tires on the drive/steering wheels anyway.

So, what say the pundits?  Do any of these ideas have merit? What are the pros/cons?

--Andy

 

1) Remove E36 M3 from the STX exclusion list.  It fits the class formula and was placed on the list because it was feared that it would dominate.  That doesn't seem likely anymore.  Note when comparing STU E36 times to STX that the tire allowance are different.  The car would be slower in STX trim.

 

Yes, please!  The car is a better fit with the other cars that are already in STX, like the E46 330 and the WRX.  The only (very minor) hiccup is the 96-99 M3 came with 8.5" rear wheels.  Adjust the wheel and tires allowances, or not, it's still better off there than in STU.

The RX-8 ought to go with it, too.  Same as above, it fits the class formula, and it's not faster than the E36.

---

-Paul Andrews
# 42 STU Philly Region
98 Mostly White M3/4

i'd suggest keeping the current STX wheel/tire limits for only AWD cars (8" width wheels on 245s) and allow unlimited wheel and tire widths for 2WD cars.  this formulation is obviously STU-esque, but the fact is the e36 m3 is outgunned in STU.  it's performance envelope is a better fit in STX.

unfortunately, this allowance wouldn't likely help FWD cars, but would help RWD cars.  but, it wouldn't constitute a takeback for the AWD cars.

i'd like to point out that if the e36 m3 would move to STX, then the rx-8 should too.  and here i was going to run BS this year.    no point in switching to BS if this move were to go through...

---

Doug #81 STS2
1990 Mazda Miata
STU 2000 Audi S4 (retired)
STU 2005 Mazda RX-8 (retired)

reallybluegti:

The RX-8 ought to go with it, too.  Same as above, it fits the class formula, and it's not faster than the E36.

---

Chike Dellimore - Blue Ridge/Washington DC Regions
2006 Galaxy Gray 6MT Mazda RX-8 (B-stock)
Former 2006 Steel Gray 5spd WRX (D-stock)

"I have a lot to work on...crazy is still on the list."

Keep in mind the '96-'99 M3's came stock with 7.5" rims in the front and 8.5" rims in the rear.  So I could not run in STX on factory rims since there is an 8" rim width restriction.  (That restriction is lifted in STU, so moving down to STX would require different rims.)  Also, keep in mind the E36 M3 can't run the 275 tires allowed in STU without some illegal mods to the body work to clear them.  So offering up an allowance for tires wider than 245 doesn't help the M3 as much as you may like.  Most people can only fit 255's in the rear.  I know the Vorshlag guys were running 265's in the rear, hopefully they will comment in this thread.

I don't like the idea of imposing a 225 restriction on AWD cars in STX, even though I don't drive an AWD car.  I would rather find another way to encourage 2WD parity if possible.  I'm not experienced enough to know what that is.  This is an interesting proposal though.  I'm not sure I like the idea of getting beat by an FWD car.

What can we do about the rim situation without upsetting the apple cart for other cars in the class?

Scott
 

---

My playground is a parking lot
'99 BMW M3 Convertible
http://www.questfortech.org

Ahh...yet another ploy to keep the FWD's (other than the '88-'89 Civic Si's) from having any shot in STX.  Needless to say, I'm a bit bitter about this idea as I feel as if my current build has a chance to not completely suck this year.  But whatever, "everyone's allowed a place to play, but not necessarily to be competitve" blah, blah, blah.

 

Well, if we're planning on adding the E36 M3 and the RX-8, why not include the SRT-4 as well and have a free for all?  Or why not the 2.5 WRX's also as they have no shot at winning STU, right?  Last I checked, the current non-M3's were doing quite well in STX.  I understand they'll have less tire, but still feel as if it becomes a/the top car.  Maybe I'm just bitter.

 

I do like the idea of limiting the AWD cars to 225 tire width.  Makes sense, same idea as STU.  And it's not necessarily a HUGE takeback, as it's replacing a wear/tear item and considering how many sets of tires some people buy a year, once again not a huge problem.  Nothing like putting an A/C system back in the car.  

---

2003 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V
Sponsored by AgileAuto.com
D.C./Philly Region - 3 STX
cardomain.com/id/piknockout

Andy Hollis:

All of this makes the assumption that the AWD rally cars are truly dominant vs both the RWD and FWD cars.  Given that, what would you do to add some more diversity to the class and encourage those not into rally cars? 

Nationals has been pretty diverse the last couple of years. I don't think this domination really exists.  (Maybe I am biased from Greg Olsen kicking my ass for two years.)

07 Nationals top 10: WRX, E36 325i, E36 328i, VW R32

06 Nationals top 10: WRX, E30 M3, E36 325i, MCS, Civic Si

Andy Hollis:

1) Remove E36 M3 from the STX exclusion list.  It fits the class formula and was placed on the list because it was feared that it would dominate.  That doesn't seem likely anymore.  Note when comparing STU E36 times to STX that the tire allowance are different.  The car would be slower in STX trim.

And the E36 M3 drivers have pointed out that they could not take advantage of the full tire allowance because of the fender rules. So those times are probably mostly based on 255's.

Andy Hollis:

2) Create a tire size disparity, like what exists in STU,  to try and balance out the accelerative traction advantages of AWD vs 2WD.  When it was originally created, STX ran on STS-spec tires (225).  That was opened up when it was realized that certain STX-target RWD cars (e.g. Mustang) came OE with tires that were larger.  So everyone in the class got larger tires allowed.  Maybe the better answer should have been to just give that to the 2WD cars?  But this is a HUGE takeback for AWD cars, and we all know how popular takebacks are.

As far as I know there are no 225-40-17's on the market that would be useful in ST*. So giving the AWD cars a 225 limit is not just hurting width but hurting gearing. Most folks run a 235-40-17 now, primarily because a 245 isn't as useful when you only have an 8" wheel, and for the bigger gearing advantage over 245-40-17.

Andy Hollis:

3) Similar to #2, but go the other way.  Relax the tire size restriction somewhat for 2WD cars.  This would give the BMW's some comfort, but would not do anything for most FWD cars since they cannot fit bigger tires on the drive/steering wheels anyway.

The E36 non-M3's are already doing well enough, IMHO. Just look at the top ten. Even without the M3 this would be a bit much, but add the M3 *and* add more tire size and I think it would be a class killer. Not to mention the folks with the E36 non-M's would probably be pretty pissed their car is now obsolete. In addition, you'd have to allow wider wheels. A 255 on an 8" wheel wouldn't be much of a step up. (And raising the wheel width would raise the cost of the class.)

John
 

---

John W: 2003 WRX: STX, 1998 M3
Washington, DC Region

I think the E36 M3 should stay in STU. There was one in the trophies this year and they have placed very high in STU over the recent years. I could see limiting wheel and or tire width on the AWD cars helping even things up a bit, but the BMW's did very well this year at Nationals. With all of the E36 325/328s in the trophies this year, I would be afraid the E36 M3 could dominate if done properly.

 

As for the RX8's, I do not think we have seen enough of them in STU to make any decisions about moving them. 

---

00' 328Ci
01' Tahoe LT
98' Camaro Z28 - dead
95' 325is - STX 182

Andy Hollis:

  All of this makes the assumption that the AWD rally cars are truly dominant vs both the RWD and FWD cars.  

 

worth peeking at the top 15 places @ 2007 National Championship- hardly looks like "truly dominant" to me

could be a little confused, but if a car struggles in it's class it gets moved?  if that's the case appears someone's work is truly cut out for them 

AWD is a relative term for the R32. Predominately FWD, occasional haldex power to rear plus open diffs on both ends mean that its capable of spinning the inside front and rear tires rather than going anywhere :(  If there were to be some AWD tire restrictions then there should be some allowance for the installation of an actual LSD in cars such as it.  Thanks to how haldex "works"  the current rules do not allow me to add a real limited slip.

 Owner of the only non LSD car in top 10 in STX at Topeka in 2007 :)

---

VW MKIV R32 - STX

From the E46 M3 thread: 

 

reallybluegti:

  The fastest E36 in STU at Nats posted times that would have placed it 2nd in STX, but that was on STU-width rubber.  On 245s, it would be farther back, so I think it would be a good fit.

 

Mike's time would have also placed him 2nd in STS. Should we not just put the car in there, and ignore the non-viscous diff?   Just kidding of course. I just don't see moving a car that has trophied every year in a class, and often many of them in the trophies, into a slower class.

---

00' 328Ci
01' Tahoe LT
98' Camaro Z28 - dead
95' 325is - STX 182

Okay, the more I think about it the AWD's can keep their 245's...just keep the STU cars out.

---

2003 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V
Sponsored by AgileAuto.com
D.C./Philly Region - 3 STX
cardomain.com/id/piknockout

In STX you are allowed to change/add a front diff aren't you?

---

Mark Davis
1993 Toyota MR-2 White "Casper"

I think the RX8 and E36 should move down to STX.  Bump the wheel width to 8.5".  Having the current limit only .5" wider wheels than STS is somewhat silly as it is.  Plus, maybe that'd give STX a chance to really start to go faster than STS, which would be nice to see.  You'd get less STS cars running STX as STS 3rd and 4th drivers and being able to win/trophy.

 

-Jesse, who won a National Tour in STX in a STS car against "good" STX cars/drivers.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

ComBIRDable:

Keep in mind the '96-'99 M3's came stock with 7.5" rims in the front and 8.5" rims in the rear.  So I could not run in STX on factory rims since there is an 8" rim width restriction.  (That restriction is lifted in STU, so moving down to STX would require different rims.)  Scott
 

A 330 in STX has to drop the factory 8.5" wide rear and run an 8", seemed to work ok for Basham in 2005.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

devomgd:

In STX you are allowed to change/add a front diff aren't you?

 Only if you are driving an FWD or RWD that does not have one.

To paraphrase the current rulebook for AWD

"any AWD vehicle with a center diff cannot install an
aftermarket LSD, even if it has open front and rear diffs".

 In my case the haldex system is considered a center diff and therefore prevents me from adding a real diff to the car.  Its annoying as an AWD vehicle needs a center diff of some sort in order to function.........  I've emailed Doug about this in the past and his interpretation is consistent with the above comments. Anyone have any advice as to whether it would be worth writing a letter for further reconsideration??

---

VW MKIV R32 - STX

I think letting the E36 M3 in is a grand idea. Never mind that it would obsolete my car. It is almost literally the same car as a 325/328 with a different engine and slightly different gearing. The 'normal' E36's are close to the top, but time-wise haven't seemed to ever be on quite the same level as the WRX. However, I think letting in the M3 would be a good test case to see how much power you can realistically use on 245's, and therefore if 245's are keeping the RWD folks back or if the power levels are. Personally, I think the M3 will be faster, but only by whatever margin of time can be gained when the car is pointed in a straight line and the gas pedal is fully on the floor. It won't gain any time into, through, or out of a turn compared to other E36's. More importantly, I don't think they will utterly crush the current WRX crowd.

As for the tire issue, I don't think we should mess with the tire limits right away. I would advocate upping the wheel width limit to 9" so that heavier and more powerful cars can use those 245's more efficiently, but I say do it across the board. First off, moving the AWD cars down to 225's AND letting in the M3 seems like it would produce too much of a swing. Secondly, if you drop the limit for all AWD cars, you don't just slow down the WRX, you pretty much kill any AWD car that is heavier than it. As AWD cars go, the WRX is fairly svelte; Handicapping it based on drive wheels alone hurts every AWD car, and it probably hurts the WRX least of all of them. Third, when you start looking at 255's (or 235's if you wanted to cap AWD cars there), the range of sizes is pretty thin. Most of the major ST-friendly manufacturers seem to have 245's in 17" and 18" (some have 16" or 19" as well), in both short and tall sizes. If you allowed 255's, the selection is somewhat less robust. I do realize that the WRX's would be able to move up to 245's as well if you allowed 9" wheels, but I believe that extra 1" will help everyone else more than them. If this ends up keeping the status quo, and the M3 ends up no faster than the 325/328's THEN we consider adding tire disparities. For now, let's just push the apple cart in one direction at a time lest we accidentally tip it.

Oh, and let the RX-8 into STX already. If bigger, more powerful cars aren't the answer then maybe lighter, less torquey cars are!?

As for the poor FWD crowd, I don't think I have any answers. Maybe if we up the turbo displacement limit we can get something with enough power to overcome the disadvantage of the drive layout. Crap I'm digressing again, time to shut up before I slip any further into crazy arm-chair mode.

- Bret 

Andy you're such a trouble maker!  There's mass hysteria over on nasioc right now! :)

James

---

2007 STU National Champ

i vote to either

1. move e36m3/rx8 to stx if tires remain 245
   
2. or increase nonawd rims or tires if no cars move 

---

stx 95 talon awd, stu 95 m3

I'm often reminded of the old saying:  If it ain't broke don't fix it.  Of course it wasn't broke before and the clarification "fixed" it so might as well continue the fixing.

The E36 M3 would dominate STX on anything other than slick asphault even when limited to 245s, so while some parity -might- exist at HPT the car would be a clear over-dog at most tours and even pros.  For all intents and purposes it's a 328i which is already competitive (even at HPT) with an added 50HP up top and 15-20 lb-ft across the rev range and a better final drive ratio, how could that EVER make any sense?  No it's not shown to be competitive in STU right now but wouldn't it make more sense to fix STU rather than to break STX if you really think STU is broken?

In all the talk about cars being competitve why is it that we never talk about drivers?  Put Fenter in a BMW and he likely still would have won STX last year, he was the best driver in the class.

I'll throw out a bomb-shell I really think you SHOULD consider:  The real question in my mind is why is there still a division between STS and STX?  Why not merge them?  STX isn't faster than STS on a regular basis and likely isn't going to be now that there are some competitive smaller tires.  There are no cars currently being manufactured or on the concept car lineup that will be competitive in either STS or STX so both classes are now made up of aging metal that is getting harder to find. 

If we're "fixing" STX why not do something to level the field rather than moving in over-dogs?  Want some suggested "fixes" for STX?  Open up the MAF rule so that ancient tech is allowed to be replaced, let the E30 lose the flapper MAF, you can clean up one of the most poorly worded rules in the ST section at the same time.  Move the Type R, Spec V and other FWD cars to STS where they STILL won't be competitve against an 89 Civic but at least we can stop hearing the whining of certain Type R drivers about boost and AWD being unfair.  Most importantly throw the BS emissions rules out the door so everyone can play again and the rules make sense.