SCCAForums.com

RX7 KLR:

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.

My point was an M3 on stock rims is not legal for STX, even if it was removed from the exclusion list.  I'm trying to avoid this scenario:

"Welcome to the SCCA.  What mods have you done to your M3?  An intake?  Oh, well you're not eligible for stock anymore, but we have a great class for people like you, we call it STX and it is where the M3's like to come out and play.  Wait, are those stock rims?  Oh sorry, you're not allowed in STX with those, we'll have to bump you to STU."  It is hard enough to explain to newbies why they can't run their stock-except-for-an-intake car is stock class.  Without a rim allowance, the conversation I mentioned above is a possibility, and it will be twice as hard to convince the newbie that we are a friendly club.  I just don't like the idea of saying the M3 is eligible for a class UNLESS is still has the stock rims on it.  Being bumped up a class from STX to STU for wearing factory equipment just seems wrong to me.

I know, the rules are national and not regional, and all the fast people that want to win will buy rims, etc, etc.  I still don't want to tell a guy at tech that he has to bump up a class because he didn't buy aftermarket rims yet.

Mooobunnny:

If we go from 07' Nationals results (which we seem to be doing a lot) then BMW's "should" dominate next year since there were several ahead of the top WRXs if you take away Fenter. If they are doing so well in the class...why add a more powerful better geared version of them? Why are all of these "STX dominating" WRX's not coming to nationals?!?! How do you not think a very well prepped and very well driven M3 cannot beat WRX's when basic 325s and 328s can do so?!?!?

They have beaten SOME of the WRX's, but never all of them. The only BMW that beat all of them was a 330 (I think it was a ZHP, but not 100% sure.) Oh, and 2nd place isn't all that great if you are still a half second back (or 1.5 like they were this year.) An M3 is similar to a 330 ZHP, but cheaper. I own a 325i: it turns great, but the power is just so-so. I used to own an '03 WRX. It turned like crap (DS, not STX, although I did drive other folks ST cars) but pulled nicely. When I moved to STX, I switched to the BMW for 2 reasons: I hated the Subaru dealer where I lived and there was a great BMW shop nearby, and selling the WRX gave me enough money to buy the BMW and pay for all my suspension and wheels/tires for the first year. It wasn't because I thought it was faster. I was OK with that because I am not good enough as a driver to win at tours or nats anyway, but if I was serious about winning I would buy another WRX. I know that is subjective, but I have spent time living with both cars and I like to think that experience gives me at least some insight into what the two cars are capable of.

What I can say definitively is that putting down power was a challenge in my 325. I spent a good amount of my time messing with alignment and bars in the rear, trying to get better acceleration out of turns (this was with the same LSD that comes on a stock M3.) I think shocks were the problem, but the point is that putting power down was an issue with a worn out 2.5L engine. It isn't going to be less of an issue with a 3.2L engine. Anyway, if the M3 is too fast that would be a great excuse to let the 2.5L WRX in wouldn't it? See, everybody wins! Well, not me because I won't be buying either but I still suck at driving so I'm not mad.

- Bret 

Mooobunnny:

 Mike Simanyi, who finished 7th at the 2007 Nationals, was running on 265/35R18 Bridgestones. IMO, you CANNOT say that one car at one event is as good as it going to get for that car. I would venture that he would say that both of his fastest runs were not perfect (No offense Mike, especially if they were), and there is more that almost anyone could do to his/her car if he wanted to spend the money and time.

Sorry, Bridgestone, my bad.  And yes, the Yoks are arguably faster.  Sorry about not finding more data points.  Since the Evo/STi are so clearly the cars to have to win, lots of M3 owners are getting out, so it's harder to find data points.  Using data from 2006 or older shows the AWD cars as slower than they are currently, so that doesn't accurately portray the current situation.  And spending more money on a car that won't win is not something you find too many people doing.

But, if you look at all the National Tours from 2007, the best days for the M3 were at the Walnut Ridge tour, where M3s took 1st and 2nd, but in a tiny 6-car STU field.  Hardly representative; Philly region pulls an average of 12 cars in STU for regional events.  The next best time was Houston, when the Vorshlag crew was running Yokohamas.  3 M3s in the top 5 in an 11-car field.  One would expect M3s to do well in the backyard of the the most ardent M3 supporters, esp since they spent PLENTY of money, and still did not win.  Huntsville had 2 M3s in the top 4, but WRXs won and took 3rd!!

The rest of the year was not as good.  Mike S did manage 2nd in Atwater, on Yokohamas.  At San Diego, an M3 finished 2nd , 1 second back, and Mike was 1.5 sec back.  At Devens, an M3 was 3.3 seconds back in 4th.  At Milwaukee, an M3 placed 5th, 2 seconds back. 

When there was a representative field in STX, it was usually won by a WRX, by a decent margin.  Sometimes a Honda Civic SI would win.  When there was a good field of STX cars, the M3 times (on wider rubber, remember) fell in the top ranks, mostly 2nd, but not dominating.

Mooobunnny:

So, Fenter sold his WRX...right? If we go from 07' Nationals results (which we seem to be doing a lot) then BMW's "should" dominate next year since there were several ahead of the top WRXs if you take away Fenter. If they are doing so well in the class...why add a more powerful better geared version of them? Why are all of these "STX dominating" WRX's not coming to nationals?!?! How do you not think a very well prepped and very well driven M3 cannot beat WRX's when basic 325s and 328s can do so?!?!?

Also, have we seen enough well prepared and very well driven RX8's in STU to prove they cannot be competitive. I know the simple numbers of the car makes it seem to not be a good contender, but I personally so not feel we have seen enough of them to make any judgment on the situation.

Didn't know he sold it.  I'm guessing it wasn't out of frustration from not being competitive.  And if the 4th and 5th place WRXs didn't cone (4th) or run the slower Bridgstones (5th), they might have been in 3rd and 4th.  So the coulda/woulda/shoulda goes both ways.

Interestingly, if you look a the Tours results, the RX-8 fares much worse than the M3.  5th in Dixie, 2 seconds back, and 5th at Packwood, 4 seconds back.  And at Nationals.....  Mark Sipe spent a lot of time and money trying to get the car competetive in STU, it didn't work, and I don't think anyone else will try.

Mooobunnny:

Don't forget the EF Civic Si's too, they should be able to do very well in STX if prepared correctly and driven well.

See above, where old Civics did win STX at Tours.

Mooobunnny:

Edit: There were ~27 different "boostbuggies" in STU and only 2 M3's and 1 RX8. I know there are reasons behind this, but the odds of having multiple M3's in STU trophies were MUCH lower than they have been in the past. I feel they do have a VERY tough fight on their hands with the AWD cars, but at the same time, I do not feel STX is the correct place for them.

The reason is they aren't fast enough to compete again the rally cars, so drivers are getting out.  Put them on smaller rubber, and they'd be great competition for the WRX in STX.  Bottom line, I don't think either of the cars deserve to be on the STX exclusion list.

Stolen from Dave Heineg from the Philly Forums.  I like this idea.  But everyone hates adding classes.  Add in the 350Z, S2000, Z4, etc. to this new STM, more FWD cars would also come out to play (MCS, new Si, MS Protege, etc.) and you could easily increase attendance across the board.  More ST* FWD's are built since they appear to not have a chance to truly compete.  Okay, it's not appearance it's reality.  But you get the point.

DaveH:

Maybe the answer is to add an ST class.  The existing classes seem popular enough.  Add STM (Street Touring Mega  ), bump the rally cars there, leave the E36 and RX8 in STU, bump the WRX from STX to STU and leave STX and STS for the FWD's to play in.

piknockout:

Stolen from Dave Heineg from the Philly Forums.  I like this idea.  But everyone hates adding classes.  Add in the 350Z, S2000, Z4, etc. to this new STM, more FWD cars would also come out to play (MCS, new Si, MS Protege, etc.) and you could easily increase attendance across the board.  More ST* FWD's are built since they appear to not have a chance to truly compete.  Okay, it's not appearance it's reality.  But you get the point.

 

DaveH:

Maybe the answer is to add an ST class.  The existing classes seem popular enough.  Add STM (Street Touring Mega  ), bump the rally cars there, leave the E36 and RX8 in STU, bump the WRX from STX to STU and leave STX and STS for the FWD's to play in.

I like it.  Right now there are 8 Stock classes and 6 SP classes.  I don't see why there can't be 6 ST classes, with cars classed by performance, not displacement and exclusion lists.  But that will be a BIG fracas, and I don't think the SEB will consider that anytime soon.

reallybluegti:

Since the Evo/STi are so clearly the cars to have to win, lots of M3 owners are getting out, so it's harder to find data points.  Using data from 2006 or older shows the AWD cars as slower than they are currently, so that doesn't accurately portray the current situation.  And spending more money on a car that won't win is not something you find too many people doing.

But, if you look at all the National Tours from 2007, the best days for the M3 were at the Walnut Ridge tour, where M3s took 1st and 2nd, but in a tiny 6-car STU field.  Hardly representative; Philly region pulls an average of 12 cars in STU for regional events.  The next best time was Houston, when the Vorshlag crew was running Yokohamas.  3 M3s in the top 5 in an 11-car field.  One would expect M3s to do well in the backyard of the the most ardent M3 supporters, esp since they spent PLENTY of money, and still did not win.  Huntsville had 2 M3s in the top 4, but WRXs won and took 3rd!!

The rest of the year was not as good.  Mike S did manage 2nd in Atwater, on Yokohamas.  At San Diego, an M3 finished 2nd , 1 second back, and Mike was 1.5 sec back.  At Devens, an M3 was 3.3 seconds back in 4th.  At Milwaukee, an M3 placed 5th, 2 seconds back. 

When there was a representative field in STX, it was usually won by a WRX, by a decent margin.  Sometimes a Honda Civic SI would win.  When there was a good field of STX cars, the M3 times (on wider rubber, remember) fell in the top ranks, mostly 2nd, but not dominating.

Paul - great post with pertinent data and no nonsense.

Just a quick note about our "backyard" Nat'l Tour event in Houston in 2007... STU top 6:

1. McCall (EVO)
2. Chris Stokes (M3)
3. Pat in Paul's car (STi)
4. Chris Ramey in my car (M3)
5. Fair (M3)
6. Paul M (STi)

The top 6 finishing cars were all loaded with Vorshlag parts and I know them and their driver's well. McCall's EVO clobbered us all on the slippery Gulf Greyhound Park surface. Former FStock Nat'l Champ Chris Ramey co-drove with me in my M3 and we were both beaten handily at that site by two STEVOs and Stokes' M3, chasing an elusive set-up from Friday thru Sunday. The 2nd place M3 of Chris Stokes was racing in his M3 at his home track, where he usually dominates regional events. The set-up for this site was difficult for us, as we race there at most 1-2 times a year and its unlike other sites we run at regularly. We were also on last year's Nationals' set of 255/40/17 Yokohamas at that event (arguably the fastest tire set-up we ran on in 2007), awaiting a new wheel design to arrive (18x10) before buying new 265mm 18" tires from Yokohama or Bridgestone.

We ended up getting the new wheels much later in the summer and after test fitting a pair of 265 Yokohamas Mike S gave us, and seeing that they didn't fit (like Mike said they wouldn't), we went with the 265 RE-01R. In hindsight we may have been better off sticking with the 17x9 or 9.5" wheels and fresh set of "255" Yokohamas, which tend to do better in higher heat conditions on heavier cars. We ended up on a very poor set-up for HPT with zero test time on that site. Even with Yokohamas I doubt we would have been much of a threat at HPT. ;) That slippery surface tends to reward traction & AWD and using even better hindsight I would have chosen to race in the STi or EVO if I could go back and do it over again.

reallybluegti:

The reason is they aren't fast enough to compete again the rally cars, so drivers are getting out.  Put them on smaller rubber, and they'd be great competition for the WRX in STX.  Bottom line, I don't think either of the cars deserve to be on the STX exclusion list.

Agreed on all points.

OK, so my accusations of boost cheating always ruffle feathers. Not a surprise, and the "shocked!" and "insulted!" proclamations are to be expected. My apologies to the STU competitors who avoid this temptation and strive to be legal when its so easy not to be. To them, I tip my hat, for I cannot say I could resist such a temptation.

I am not saying everyone with a boost buggy is fudging their boost or voiding CELs or whatever, nor the class winners, nor is that why most 2WD cars did so poorly this year (hardly!), but I will stand behind my statement that altered boost is a big "potential" problem and policing it completely is impossible. I have seen what legal (timing and fuel) and non-legal STU maps do to these cars' power and torque curves, and it can be pretty significant for the latter. Having driven both boosted as well as legal STEVOs in testing I know how much it can help your times, course depending. I also watched a lot of cars coming up the hill at the East Course finish in '07 and there were some "big differences in finish line speeds" that had more than "better driving lines" to blame.

If I was racing my own STEVO in STU, and saw how there was obviously zero chance for enforcement, and zero protestation of this rule at any major SCCA event in the past 3 years of STU unofficial/official classing, I would be hard pressed not to do it... just because I know "some folks are doing it". That probably makes me a lesser person to admit that I would do it given these circumstances, but with that great temptation and no chance of being caught, I am just being honest in my probability of cheating (is that hypocrisy or what? I'm honest about my potential to cheat!). I say it is already, arguably a defacto-allowance at this point. Just as they did with BSP, I suspect the rules makers are eventually going to tire of constant accusations and just "make it legal". But I don't race in a boost buggy so I can't cheat the boost on my M3 - but if there was a way to add 50-80+ hp over stock with just tuning, and not be caught... well, there would be a lot more than 2 M3s running in STU next year at Nationals.

If I am hugely mistaken and there's magically some mysterious black box that has every factory iteration of EFI map loaded on it for every turbocharged STU legal car, and it can interpolate all permutations of legal vs non-legal tuning tweaks in the hundreds if not thousands of possible data points that each map can contain, and do this remotely during a competitor's run, than I will admit that there is then a real way to police boost and hope that it someday gets used to verify legality of any and all STU cars. Until the time such a magic box exists, I will continue to keep a suspicious eye on this rule and its possible enforcement, or lack thereof.

Fair:

OK, so my accusations of boost cheating always ruffle feathers. Not a surprise, and the "shocked!" and "insulted!" proclamations are to be expected. My apologies to the STU competitors who avoid this temptation and strive to be legal when its so easy not to be. To them, I tip my hat, for I cannot say I could resist such a temptation.

Thanks, I'll remember that if I should ever compete against you. 

What's the point of even competing if you're cheating??  It's not like you actually beat your competition.

Fair:

If I am hugely mistaken and there's magically some mysterious black box that has every factory iteration of EFI map loaded on it for every turbocharged STU legal car, and it can interpolate all permutations of legal vs non-legal tuning tweaks in the hundreds if not thousands of possible data points that each map can contain, and do this remotely during a competitor's run, than I will admit that there is then a real way to police boost and hope that it someday gets used to verify legality of any and all STU cars. Until the time such a magic box exists, I will continue to keep a suspicious eye on this rule and its possible enforcement, or lack thereof.

Have you asked any of us??  Phil pointed out multiple times in this thread that we have had a mechanism in place for several years.  Just because you seem to want to ignore the existence of enforceability doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Chiketkd:

As a former WRX owner (ran D-stock) I'm all for a 20mm tire differential between 4wd/2wd cars in STX. What I'd propose would be as follows, so that there's a natural progression from STS -> STX -> STU.

STS: Keep current 225 tire limit for 4wd & 2wd cars

STX: 4wd cars run 235 tires & 2wd cars be allowed 255 sized tires

STU: 4wd cars run 245 tires & 2wd cars be allowed 275 sized tires

In this way, many of the current ST* class limits on tires are retained, and there's a steady progression of tire allowances from STS up to STU.

Just my $0.02...

hmm, this proposal makes a lot of sense to me.  what would the wheel restrictions be in STX then?  8" for AWD and 9" for 2WD?

my only concern would be that the tire width differential hasn't worked out in STU, but as has become more clear that could be more attributable to the rally cars just plain out gunning the e36 m3 and rx-8. 

Humble suggestion from someone seeking clarity in a thread with many different ideas floating around:

Can we discuss the E36 M3 in STX and the tire parity issue in STX in separate threads? Obviously there is overlap but if people want tire parity changes, people might not be as excited about having the M3 in the class. And vice versa.

(And then maybe a separate thread for other parity ideas... MAF's for the BMW's, etc...?)

john

I have a dog in this fight since my BMW 325is was driven to a 7th place finish in STX by my codriver at the 2007 Championships.  We plan on being back and doing even better in 2008!

My car is pretty competitive against M3's right now, but I don't know about the RX-8. 

Rather than debating whether the M3 or RX-8 should be removed from the STX exclusion list (there are lots of other cars there as well), maybe we should exclude all turbocharged and supercharged cars from STS and STX.  All boosted cars can then be classified in STU.  This would allow STU to be truly "unlimited" as the designation alludes.  

All non-boosted cars can then fit into either STS or STX based on normally aspirated engine size, and other differences (like wheels). This may still give a perceived advantage to AWD in STS and STX, but would remove the boosted versus non-boosted problem.

Just an idea...

Lee-STX97:

Rather than debating whether the M3 or RX-8 should be removed from the STX exclusion list (there are lots of other cars there as well), maybe we should exclude all turbocharged and supercharged cars from STS and STX.  All boosted cars can then be classified in STU.  This would allow STU to be truly "unlimited" as the designation alludes.  

So we should tube the competitiveness of EVERY forced induction car just because of the percieved dominance of one of them?

That would instantly kill the 2.0L WRX as well as the MCS. What does that leave as the top cars in STX... the 3 series? And...?

Butt Dyno:

Lee-STX97:

Rather than debating whether the M3 or RX-8 should be removed from the STX exclusion list (there are lots of other cars there as well), maybe we should exclude all turbocharged and supercharged cars from STS and STX.  All boosted cars can then be classified in STU.  This would allow STU to be truly "unlimited" as the designation alludes.  

So we should tube the competitiveness of EVERY forced induction car just because of the percieved dominance of one of them?

That would instantly kill the 2.0L WRX as well as the MCS. What does that leave as the top cars in STX... the 3 series? And...?

It's not the dominance of "one", but one or more in each class of STX and STU.  By placing the forced induction cars together, boost changes could be allowed on the potential underdogs to even the playing field.  Along with other forced induction-specific changes that do not easily translate to normally aspirated cars.

How about the R32, Spec V, Audi S4, RX-8, BMW M5, and RSX for starters....

Anyway, it was just one of countless ideas on how to "fix" a problem that may or may not exist.

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.

 
If the E36 M3 isn't added, I think this could give the E46 330 a real chance. With more tire I think its' weight would hamper it less, and the added power over an E36 would make that tradeoff worthwhile.

 
As some have pointed out, the cost of a diff still makes it tough to do.
 

Butt Dyno:

Humble suggestion from someone seeking clarity in a thread with many different ideas floating around:

Can we discuss the E36 M3 in STX and the tire parity issue in STX in separate threads? Obviously there is overlap but if people want tire parity changes, people might not be as excited about having the M3 in the class. And vice versa.

Well, since I started the thread, I'd like to keep those two concepts together since that's the way it has to be considered.  Personally, I see it as either/or (or not at all), rather than both.  And the decision on each is intertwined heavily.

 

(And then maybe a separate thread for other parity ideas... MAF's for the BMW's, etc...?)

john

<