SCCAForums.com

I say allow the M3 and RX8 and let 2wd cars have up to 8.5in wheels (maybe even a pair of 255s, but only at the drive wheel end).  The advantage of having wider tires is far more beneficial for cornering than just acceleration.  Most AWD cars in this class are over 3000#s, so sending us to 225s would kill us.

As Paul said, not allowing a front lsd for mostly FWD R32s is ridiculous (yea, I am biased).  The  AWD system is not performance oriented like the Subaru setup.  We cannot get down to their weight, so give us a chance...

Phil C:

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. 

Phil C:

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?

Neal got to drive against Fenter all year locally.  Didn't matter if it was concrete, asphalt, etc...  Fenter always won, and by the same margin he did at Nationals.  So how is 50 hp (all up top), and added weight going to make the M3 into a class dominating car on anything but sealed asphalt?  Sounds to me like it makes it a good race.

 

129STS:

Neal got to drive against Fenter all year locally.  Didn't matter if it was concrete, asphalt, etc...  Fenter always won, and by the same margin he did at Nationals.  So how is 50 hp (all up top), and added weight going to make the M3 into a class dominating car on anything but sealed asphalt?  Sounds to me like it makes it a good race.

 

I'd ask again, is that the driver or the car?  There were some other very good driver's in just as well prepped WRXs who got beat by Neal at National's this year.  Chris has been on fire the last year or so, and I think that's got at least as much to do with the driver as it does the car.  This last year sometimes I beat Greg and Randy and more often they beat me.  We've all got very similarly prepped cars (also similar to Chris's for that matter) and despite the equal performance potential of our cars the person behind the wheel is the part that made the difference.

You've also ignored the fairly critical extra torque across the rev range and the better final drive ratio when stating that it's just an extra 50HP up top.  I ask again, if the 328i can be competitve (and it can and is, just because one hasn't won National's doesn't mean it's not competitive) how would an M3 NOT be an over-dog?  It's not significantly heavier in ST trim, it would be on the same tires with the same limited slip, they use the same suspension, essentially it's the same car that already is competitive with three key advantages all of which will help in some form on just about every autocross course.

The question isn't whether Chris would have won in a BMW, the question is if he would have beaten himself in a BMW. I think the reason people aren't super-worried about the M3 is that he did manage to beat all of them, in STU trim, by a half second or more. It could also be that adding 75hp and a few more pounds to a WRX (i.e. making it an STi) only seems to be worth about .6 seconds over 2 days (I'm looking at the STX and STU '07 winners.) Why do you think the M3 (with less tire) is going to do so much better than a 328 when the STi doesn't seem to be that much faster than a WRX? The only place it will be able to use the extra power is in a straight line. More power won't help in a slalom or a sweeper. Maybe if you had a really fast, wide sweeper you could get on it a little harder coming out of the turn in an M3, but the rest of the time you will just be trying to avoid converting rubber to smoke.

Isn't there anyone down in Texas with a well-prepared WRX? Can't we get them out to a test-n-tune with the vorshlag guys and get some back-to-back results with the same driver? If they haven't totally re-purposed their M3 yet, I'm sure they would throw some 245's on it in order to help out. I know the STU M3 is an elusive beast these days, but is there no way to get one of those and a WRX together for a little comparo?

- Bret 

Big Sky:

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

That's one way to look at the stats.  The other way to look at it is by the times run by those cars.  That suggests the dominance.  But its also just one event.  So look also to Tours and such.

And just so we're clear, this is not a "move".  This is reviewing cars that fit the formulas for the classes, but were fearfully put on the exclusion list.  That list is very small.  Do these cars really deserve to be there?  Or was the fear unfounded?  That's the question.  Big difference from a "move", IMO.  We don't really class cars in ST, they class themselves.

--Andy

Phil C:

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. 

You say, "STX isn't faster than STS".

The two fastest from each of those classes last year were Fenter and Frank, who compete against each other all the time.  The Milwaukee regional results from last year are all here (look to the Pro class).  Seems like STX was pretty consistently beating STS among the two best in the country.  Is there some other data you have that refutes this?

--Andy 

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.

This is long overdue. There are no competitive E36 M3s running in STU anymore. We've all realized what a complete waste of time that endeavor is. If your car doesn't have AWD and turbocharged "potential" you don't have a prayer of winning STU... or STX.

Compare the weights of the STX prepped 2WD cars, such as the E36 325/328. Someone posted their car is a hair under 2800 pounds. My E36 M3 is prepped to STU limits, and with air conditioning (has to be installed after 2008) it weighs 2950 pounds with race seats. It runs on 265mm tires and has traditionally compared fairly closely to the top STX E36 cars (ignoring my 2007 Nat's debacle). Its always going to be heavier than a non-M. The M3 comes with a factory tubular exhaust header that otherwise unleashes some hp for a non-M E36. In STX trim they can both run the same suspension, wheels, tires, brakes, exhaust, and just about everything else - but the M3 will have a few more hp than the STX car, yet it will weigh a good deal more. Its a wash. If the M3 were allowed into STX I would give a very serious look at building a lighter 325is instead...

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 ...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.

This needs to happen as well, yes. Otherwise move the AWD turbo cars currently in STX up to STU. Right now the top STX AWD turbo cars are barely slower than STU. The specs look all too familiar... 2.0L, AWD, turbo, 245mm tires, about 3100 pounds... sounds like a lot like the top STU cars to me. Having an E36 325 with ~190hp racing in a class with AWD turbo WRX's that can easily make 300-330 hp and allowed the same size tires is downright silly. Its almost as much of a farce as STU is currently. It boggles my mind that some of you cannot see this. Go race in a boosted AWD turbo rally car for a few events, then tell me "my 2WD NA cars is just as fast". Or do lots of detailed track testing in both cars, at the same test events. It will wake you up.

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.

This needs to happen anyway... If you refuse to acknowledge the AWD turbo dominance/potential in STX and move them to STU, they need to be handicapped to 225mm tires (on 8" wheels) AND the 2WD cars need to get a 255mm tire and 9" or 9.5" wheel allowance. The top STX 2WD cars (E36) can easily fit 255mm tires. They share the same fender openings as the M3s and that's what we all started with in STU, for ease of fitment. As for the FWD cars... are any of these competitive in STX currently?

ABOVE: 17x9 and 255mm tires on E36 M3

Above: 17x9.5 and 255mm tires on E36 M3

Andy Hollis:

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

--Andy

ALL of your suggestions have merit, and this change in STX could both fix that class as well as some of the big problems in STU. Thank you for taking the time to state them publically!

Pros:

1. This series of STX changes could give a new home for the rapidly departing 2WD cars from STU class.
2. Making a 2WD tire size bias of 20-30mm would further equalize the current field of STX cars
3. Remember: boost cheating is not policeable in the SCCA! If you can't stop it, you have to handicap it in other ways, as proposed above
4. STX will stop being overtaken by AWD turbo cars, as more people continue to develop them for this class (its currently an obvious overdog)

Cons:

1. Nothing will happen until 2009 at the soonest, which is unfortunate. Seeing rules change in the SCCA is like watching a glacier advance...
2. If these changes don't happen there won't be TWO classes for STEVOs to dominate, which will suck for those guys
3. Takebacks always suck. Sometimes they are necessary, but they never make anyone happy.
4. If the SEB & STAC actually fixed STX and STU with a few smart changes such as these Andy listed above, they would no longer seem like an ignorant, impotent group of rules makers that make for an easy target for our rants. I'd have to find something new to complain about!

Fair:

This needs to happen as well, yes. Otherwise move the AWD turbo cars currently in STX up to STU. Right now the top STX AWD turbo cars are barely slower than STU. The specs look all too familiar... 2.0L, AWD, turbo, 245mm tires, about 3100 pounds... sounds like a lot like the top STU cars to me. Having an E36 325 with ~190hp racing in a class with AWD turbo WRX's that can easily make 300-330 hp and allowed the same size tires is downright silly. Its almost as much of a farce as STU is currently. It boggles my mind that some of you cannot see this. Go race in a boosted AWD turbo rally car for a few events, then tell me "my 2WD NA cars is just as fast". Or do lots of detailed track testing in both cars, at the same test events. It will wake you up.

This needs to happen anyway... If you refuse to acknowledge the AWD turbo dominance/potential in STX and move them to STU, they need to be handicapped to 225mm tires (on 8" wheels) AND the 2WD cars need to get a 255mm tire and 9" or 9.5" wheel allowance. The top STX 2WD cars (E36) can easily fit 255mm tires. They share the same fender openings as the M3s and that's what we all started with in STU, for ease of fitment. As for the FWD cars... are any of these competitive in STX currently?

Pros:

Remember: boost cheating is not policeable in the SCCA! If you can't stop it, you have to handicap it in other ways, as proposed above

How about we start with a comparison from the other side of the coin.  Anyone who thinks a car with 50/50 weight balance and a properly designed rear suspension belongs in the same class with a 64/36 weight balance car with struts out back isn't looking at the numbers.  Makes just as much sense as your comparison of HP and nothing else in which both of your numbers happen to be wrong anyways.  The nice thing about cars and physics is that there is more than one number that matters.  Thankfully we've got some rules makers who recognize this and hopefully they continue to recognize it.  I think it sucks that the E36 M3 no longer has a single place in autocross where it is competitive, it's a great car but it's also one that hasn't been built for over 8 years and making a place where it's very likely to be dominate is NOT good for the sport.

And for god's sake I thought only Type R drivers bitched about boost cheating.  We prooved and provided a method to police boost more than two years ago now on both Subarus and Evos.  It's simple, it's easy and you know what?  Not a single car that was tested at Pro Solos across the east coast two years ago was cheating.  If anyone was actually concerned enough to protest I wasn't the only one who had the equipment to do a quick and conclusive test on the car with them at pretty much any big event.

Andy, my comments on STS/STX combination were only partially in jest.  Both classes are dying because neither class has a vehicle that is currently produced which is competitive.  (Same goes double or triple for STS2 where there isn't even anything -elligible- much less competitive that is currently produced) Without some fresh blood it will eventually wither and die and potentially combining the classes with some rules adjustments could make room for another class that would provide those opportunities.  I think there are a lot of S2000\Z4\MX-5\350Z etc drivers who would like an ST-something place to play and the direction is to not add more classes so the only real way to make a place for them to play is to combine something existing.

Fair:

Pros:

1. This series of STX changes could give a new home for the rapidly departing 2WD cars from STU class.
2. Making a 2WD tire size bias of 20-30mm would further equalize the current field of STX cars
3. Remember: boost cheating is not policeable in the SCCA! If you can't stop it, you have to handicap it in other ways, as proposed above
4. STX will stop being overtaken by AWD turbo cars, as more people continue to develop them for this class (its currently an obvious overdog)

Phil C:

Andy, my comments on STS/STX combination were only partially in jest.  Both classes are dying because neither class has a vehicle that is currently produced which is competitive. 

Fair enough on the jest.  And I'll partially agree on STX health, but...STS is dying?  Really?   Last I looked it was quite healthy and popular.  One of the top attended classes across all Tours and Nats last year.

 

(Same goes double or triple for STS2 where there isn't even anything -elligible- much less competitive that is currently produced) Without some fresh blood it will eventually wither and die and potentially combining the classes with some rules adjustments could make room for another class that would provide those opportunities. 

Eventually, maybe.  But let's cross that bridge when we get there.  STS2 is hugely popular right now.  Also one of the top participation performers last year (and the year before).

 

I think there are a lot of S2000\Z4\MX-5\350Z etc drivers who would like an ST-something place to play and the direction is to not add more classes so the only real way to make a place for them to play is to combine something existing.

No doubt.  And I can imagine creating just such a place.  Especially if the "small classes are ok to keep around" folks have their way with 4.8/4.9.  But that's a different fight and doesn't necessarily require combining something else.  Seems to make more sense for that to be a class addition since those cars will likely be faster than anything currently in ST, unless restricted to skinny tires.  Which seems counter to common sense.  Anyway, that's a different battle for a different thread...

--Andy

Mooobunnny:

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. 

The M3 that trophied in 2007 was on 265 Yokohama tires, IIRC, and was very well prepped and driven.  In other words, that's as good as it's going to get.  The M3 was excluded from STX before the WRX started winning, and then left in STU because it was thought it might compete with the STEvos.  It can't.  The first year of STU, a well-prepped M3 finished behind a not-so-well prepped STi, and it's been down hill ever since.  (that owner sold his M3 and is now co-driving an Evo.  Tell you something?)  The M3 had setup knowledge from years of BSP and road racing, the AWD cars not so much.  So the rally cars have gotten faster, and the M3 hasn't as much.  Add to that the BIG power difference and AWD advantage, and the M3s are done in STU.  This year I'd be surprised to see more than 1 at Nats. 

The Rx-8 won't be showing up in STU anymore, either.  There was one at Nats this year, and that one has been disassembled.  It was tried, and there is no way to fit enough tire to overcome the HUGE power and torque deficit of that car.  The RX-8 actually has less torque than the E30 M3.  It isn't light enough to make up for having no cojones.

If the M3 moves to STX, and stays on 245 tires (the stock rear size), I still don't think it would beat the WRX.  It is heavier than the other E36 cars, as Fair pointed out, so it won't be faster than any other E36 in a corner, it will be slower.  And at corner exit, on 245s, it won't put down any more power than the other E36 cars, until the wheels are pointed straight.  It is very similar in weight and power to the E46 330 ZHP, so much so that if the M3 should stay in STU, then the 330 should join it in STU.

WIth regards to tire widths, I would be happy to run 245s, but the wheel widths could go up to 9".  As somebody else pointed out, only having a half-inch of width over STS is not really enough.

In short, the M3 fits the limits for STX, and should be taken off the exclusion list because it won't domintate, it will add to the diversity of the class.

Phil C:

How about we start with a comparison from the other side of the coin.  Anyone who thinks a car with 50/50 weight balance and a properly designed rear suspension belongs in the same class with a 64/36 weight balance car with struts out back isn't looking at the numbers.  Makes just as much sense as your comparison of HP and nothing else in which both of your numbers happen to be wrong anyways.  The nice thing about cars and physics is that there is more than one number that matters.  Thankfully we've got some rules makers who recognize this and hopefully they continue to recognize it.  I think it sucks that the E36 M3 no longer has a single place in autocross where it is competitive, it's a great car but it's also one that hasn't been built for over 8 years and making a place where it's very likely to be dominate is NOT good for the sport.

 Perfect weight balance doesn't mean squat if the other car is a similar weight and power, but has AWD that can put down that power much earlier, and much more effectively, on every corner exit, in every condition.

And the BMWs have struts up front, too.  They fix that problem the same way the WRX owners do, lots of spring rate.  Keep the car from rolling, and and a WRX handles pretty well, no?

Yes, I know you were simply trying to make a point. 

reallybluegti:

The Rx-8 won't be showing up in STU anymore, either.  There was one at Nats this year, and that one has been disassembled.  It was tried, and there is no way to fit enough tire to overcome the HUGE power and torque deficit of that car.  The RX-8 actually has less torque than the E30 M3.  It isn't light enough to make up for having no cojones.

As I said before, I am a little leery of restricting tire size for AWD. The Audi A4 2.0T is an AWD turbo car as well, but you don't seem to see many of those beating anyone. It's probably because it has a pretty small turbo and carries a good deal more weight. What would going to 225's do to the potential of a car like that? How about a BMW 330 ix (odd that no one drives one, given that AWD is so uber and Basham won in a normal 330. It should be double-uber, no?) AWD can be a big advantage, but the WRX can use it well because it is light enough not to overheat 245's on the front. It also happens to have a turbo with a little room to grow before it is just making heat. That is a wicked combo, but MOST AWD cars are not only heavier than 2WD, but also tend to carry more weight up front. I just want to urge caution in handicapping the WRX so that you don't end up screwing all the AWD cars that AREN'T as small...which is most of them. It may end up being necessary, I'm just saying we might want to try other options first.

In my mind, the turbo is more of an issue. If we could make turbo gains less of a wildcard, it might help with the WRX as well as make it easier to class other turbo cars that might become popular. Maybe go to STS-style exhaust rules? However, I also advocate letting cars mess with boost (honestly, that is half the reason enthusiasts get turbo cars), so I'm not sure what to do. I do think the WRX is the car to have in STX, and the current classing doesn't seem to be creating any new challenges to it. I'd like to think the M3 would show similar potential to the 330 ZHP, only without having to pay $4K for an LSD. It still wouldn't address the issue of getting newer cars in though. At least it would give folks another inexpensive choice...with less push!

- Bret 

Phil C:

I think there are a lot of S2000\Z4\MX-5\350Z etc drivers who would like an ST-something place to play and the direction is to not add more classes so the only real way to make a place for them to play is to combine something existing.

 I went to a smaller region event today, and they had a V8 Audi S4, and a 3 Honda S2000s running in STU.  It will be nice to see the day that these cars have a place to play in ST.     
 

Phil C:

How about we start with a comparison from the other side of the coin.  Anyone who thinks a car with 50/50 weight balance and a properly designed rear suspension belongs in the same class with a 64/36 weight balance car with struts out back isn't looking at the numbers.  Makes just as much sense as your comparison of HP and nothing else in which both of your numbers happen to be wrong anyways.  The nice thing about cars and physics is that there is more than one number that matters.  Thankfully we've got some rules makers who recognize this and hopefully they continue to recognize it.  I think it sucks that the E36 M3 no longer has a single place in autocross where it is competitive, it's a great car but it's also one that hasn't been built for over 8 years and making a place where it's very likely to be dominate is NOT good for the sport.

OMG, are you really quoting 50/50 balance numbers? Who can argue with such a pointless and flawed basis for a performance comparison? That nonsense is left for the "kiddie forums" and magazine writers to flap their gums about. The STEVOs have front-to-rear weight balances that are TOTAL CRAP.... yet they DOMINATE the STU class and other classes, due to large power and traction advantages. And apparently they've begun to topple STX - unchecked this class will fall to more of these cars in the future.

That's a 1 day old 2006 EVOI IX, in stone stock form. 62%F, 32% rear bias. It only got worse as the car was prepped and lightened for STU.

That's a 2007 STi, also only days old and stone stock. It has equally "horrible" 59%F, 41% R bias. Oh noes!!!!11!!!!ones

Guess what? It matters about this >< much. The STEVOs still whip ass in STU over the "perfectly biased" BMWs that weigh 100-200+ pounds lighter. You are trying to obscure the argument with nonsense that doesn't matter. Like people do all the time when trying to avoid the real problems within a class.

Phil C:

And for god's sake I thought only Type R drivers bitched about boost cheating.  We prooved and provided a method to police boost ....blah blah blah...

No, only people that have to run against boost cheating mofos *** about it.  Again, I won't argue that boost cheating is going on in STU because its a well known fact. I've worked with the cars and dyno'd them and driven them. It happens and you nor anyone else can stop it, and the loud denials to the contrary are little more than a smoke screen. Keep sticking your head in the sand if it makes you feel better, but I'm not buying this load of bull. I've worked with many of the tuners and its all too easy to do, too easy to cover up, and too easy to disable on command. Some of the STEVO owners are cheating the boost and they don't even know it. Your magic theories and black boxes have no way to determine if a map has been tweaked or if a dual map flash has been swapped after a run. Arguing otherwise is pointless and stupid and I won't waste any more time on it.

Again, STU is an all boost buggy class now, so more power to them. The SEB should just "punt" and do like they did with BSP - admit they cannot stop it and just make it legal. In 20 years of boosted cars being in SCCA Solo racing they've never found a good way to police this, and they never will. Complete impotence.

Paul gets it... The results show what we knew all along: Other than some early trophies, the more developed RX8 and M3 drivers were eventually outgunned by the AWD turbo cars. Its simple physics - double the traction, add in a lot more power, not much if any more weight (STEVOs can dip under 3100 pounds in STU legal trim) the STEVOs were eventually developed to the point that they dominated. One trophy in 2007 - that's right, one non AWD turbo car managed to get a single trophy in STU last year. Turn out the lights, the party's over.

I've personally raced in RX8s, EVOs, STis, and M3s and I know which ones are faster and how much they can dominate. I've tested with all of these extensively and I can see and feel when a car has significant boost over stock - as anyone with half a brain and a little experience can do. I know I can back up my observations