SCCAForums.com

Mooobunnny:

In many regions, STU and STX get outran by STS.... what are you going to do then? Make the civics run narrower tires?

That happened at the Dixie National Tour this year.  Yes, a national event.  And the Civics weren't even running the maximum allowed 225 width tires, opting for 195 instead.

--Andy

Mooobunnny:

what are you going to do then? Make the civics run narrower tires?

Could we? :p 

amaff:

Mooobunnny:

what are you going to do then? Make the civics run narrower tires?

Could we? :p 

The Bridgestone Potenza RE92 in a 165/65R14 looks promising...

Even though Andy would probably still have beat me at the Dixie Tour with them on. :-(  It was the cars first event, and without a real alignment... and i was only about 3 minutes behind him.    

Back on topic, I would love to run 265's in STX next year, but it would be much easier to make them work (if it ever does happen) if I could modify the exterior shape of the fenders.  

 Here is a good way to even out this disparity:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a non-nationals level autocrosser, the main differences between the street touring cars are: (ignoring the driver)

 - Weight

- Drive wheels

- How much money is put into the car

So perhaps the logical system would be to separate the classes by weight, then give penalties based on drive wheels (awd in particular). So say you have l1 (light weight, 1 budget class (75,000 or more?) l2 (light weight, 2 budget class (40,000?) and so on?
 

Mooobunnny:

In many regions, STU and STX get outran by STS.... what are you going to do then? Make the civics run narrower tires?

Nah, just throw 500 pounds of bricks in the back seat.   (just kidding) It is amazing how well those Civics do.

I got a bit of a shock at our last event, there was a guy running a Ford Focus and he was fast, I didn't better his raw time until we ran our TO runs, but he still out pax'ed me.

Otto Krosse:

How hard is it to use a fender roller, anyway? Actually it's much harder than writing the rule correctly the first time.....or, much harder than reducing tire sizes on a dominate car regardless of who makes it. If a car has an distinct advantage over another it seems logical that the rules are written so the majority of people can race without having to make their cars into full-blown track cars to be competitive. ...especially in the street tire classes.

Well Otto, the Street Touring rules were written with a lot more cars in mind than the E36 M3 running in STU. Sure, maybe it was an oversight that somewhat hamstrung this car particularly, and hasn't been resolved in the past 4 years inexplicably, but it is what it is. Limiting all other possible STU entries to a narrower tire just because one model (the M3) cannot legally fit the maximum tire size (275mm) doesn't really make sense... especially when you have 4 years of people prepping to the current rule set. No one likes "take backs", and the AWD STU competitors already want more than a 245mm tire width as it is... cutting them to 235 or 225mm tires would "not go over well". There would be lynchings of the SEB members.

Otto Krosse:

You seem to be making a lot of comments without knowing my perspective. It doesn't come from some guy that has to win a national award. It comes from a local racer. Few guys I know with nice M3s auto-x their cars, the ones that do are not about to do every mod required just to be competitive....I do NOT buy my cars because I auto-x, I auto-x the cars I like to drive!

Well, you seem to have a very different perspective than I do, for sure. Nothing wrong with that. You race in one region. By yourself with no competitors in your class. In a 3300 pound, RWD, 21 year old 4 door BMW. Granted, a lot of folks race on a similar level, in similar "less than ideal" cars. There's nothing wrong with that.... except you are on this board fuming about fender rolling for a popular class Nationally because you don't want to do it. Because you don't need to do this to win your local class of one.

This is a forum read by and posted in by a lot of Nationally competitive Street Touring racers, as well. Racers that do 20-25+ Regional events a year, plus Divisionals, Tours, Pros and Nationals. People that will do anything within the rules to be competitive, that test extensively, and do "buy cars just for the class". People that take racing a lot more seriously than regional folks that just do it for fun. We can call them "crazy people" if you like. Because they go to more races and race at a different level, these "crazy people" do influence the rules situation more so than the regional guy that does 3-5 events a year with a good deal less local in-class competition. These are the folks that tend to make up the STAC and the SEB and that have considerably more competitive experience in a variety of cars, to make very well informed opinions. They write more letters to the SEB, and their letters might have more influence than others. And some of these folks still do daily drive their competition cars, too... my E36 M3 that has trophied 4 times at Nationals and won two classes there is driven to work by my wife, every single day.

And I know a lot of people in my region that are just as crazy as I am... that own multiple autocross prepped cars, that race competitively at 25+ events every year, that rent race tracks for all day test sessions just so they can better develop their set-up and driving... so they can go spend a week in Topeka in September and hopefully come home with a $15 hunk of plastic with a "1st" on it. If we thought about it long enough we'd all probably take up competitive basket weaving instead.

Otto Krosse:

Remember MOST auto-xers are driving their daily drivers and the rules committee needs to make the rules to fit the majority of it participants...and not just the hardcore racers needing to win a nationals award. To change rules for tire allowance that exceed what a car in that class can use without cutting into their daily driver fenders just doesn't make sense to me. Call me crazy for thinking of the majority and not myself......since nobody in Phx runs STX Open I don't lose or gain anything by any of these rules changes just here adding my .02 on a rule that could drive some away...and not just BMW drivers.

Well, unfortunately for the folks that don't want to do all of the mods, the rules are often changed to equalize competition Nationally. Sometimes the allowed rules or updates make for a less than perfect street car. Ever seen a Nationally Competitive Street Prepared class car driven on the street with a $2000, 3 plate 5" clutch, large fender flares, no emissions equipment? I have, and its not pretty. Heck, even many of the top Stock class cars have $5000 in custom valved shocks that regular autocrossers would never dream of investing in. The top Street Modified cars are pure race cars. That's just the nature of the top levels of this sport. Luckily, most Street Touring cars are still somewhat sane on the street, and should pass emissions, but many of them are sprung stiffly enough to be "markedly uncomfortable".

Regional only racers should just look at the class rules and do what they think they can afford, what they can live with on the street, and what makes the biggest impact on the car's performance. Its usually 95% tires and driver skill anyway.  Its doubtful they will need to go 100% on every allowable mod to win their local regional events, and I'd be surprised if that level of prep even mattered much with their times (or if they'd notice). Here in the Texas Region we had 5-6 guys that had trophied in STU at Nationals running in the class twice a month at local races, so we did have to push the limits to win a regional event. In some parts of the country the same class was under attended, and could be won in a rental car driven in reverse.  It all depends on who races where, sometimes.

You can never take the competitiveness out of some racers, and they will always want to race at the top levels and prep to the extreme to better their chances there. That can't be removed from "rules" alone.

Otto Krosse:

Before you make comment about someone else's car you should know the record. Go here:  http://www.azsolo.com/results.html  ...and see what this lowly little OLD 535is has done so far. ...

Look, I'm sure you are probably the local hot shoe. That doesn't matter. When/if you get the bug to enter your car at a Tour or at Nationals and get creamed by 10+ seconds your perspective on "what am I willing to do to this car?" might change radically. I thought I was pretty damn good the first time I went to Nationals after racing for 10 years regionally, taking my Corvette on R compounds to Super Stock (in the year wrong car, on the wrong tires, with not enough prep or skill!), and was humbled greatly with a 17th place finish. After that I realized that what worked regionally for me didn't come close to cutting it at the National level and I have been trying to step up my game ever since. And after a couple of years with good showings, I go to Nationals in 2007 and get my @ss handed to me - I would have been happy with 17th!

Otto Krosse:

Having more fun than I can remember it being.

You know... THAT matters more than anything! Forget all that I just wrote and keep on keepin on!

Andy Hollis:

Mooobunnny:

In many regions, STU and STX get outran by STS.... what are you going to do then? Make the civics run narrower tires?

That happened at the Dixie National Tour this year.  Yes, a national event.  And the Civics weren't even running the maximum allowed 225 width tires, opting for 195 instead.

--Andy

 

Andy,

Is there anyway to keep the Civic's out of STX & STU?  I believe there should be a rule that brands the Civics from coming to play in the "higher, but slower classes."  You could possibly have the same car win both STS and STX.  That is absurd! 

amaff:

I guess they could put an LSD in and run STX 'legally' and do even better....

Exactly.

Bring more game, Bryce.

--Andy 

e36racer:

 

Andy,

Is there anyway to keep the Civic's out of STX & STU?  I believe there should be a rule that brands the Civics from coming to play in the "higher, but slower classes."  You could possibly have the same car win both STS and STX.  That is absurd! 

PSSSST...hey Bryce...YOUR car is an STS car running in STX, too!! You probably just don't remember 'cause you blocked that memory after you got addicted to the LSD and 235s. Or maybe you don't remember because you were so young back then. (ha!! gotta give you a hard time, bro ) But seriously, the BMW works much better in STX than STS because the added power can't be used in STS on narrow tires with no LSD. But it is still an STS car!

All that said, I would also like to see ST* cars stay in their classes, even if that puts the BMWs back in STS. Allowing cars to jump classes introduces too many course dependencies. As it stands, the best STX setup would be to bring a Civic AND a WRX, and pick the car for the weekend based on weather and course design. Maybe I'm being a little over-dramatic here, but there is some validity in that thought.

Personally, I really would like to see the M3 in STX. The WRX undoubtedly has a MASSIVE power advantage over the non-M3 BMWs, and except for the explicit exclusion, the M3 is otherwise a legal car.

Allowing the 2wd cars a wider tire isn't necessarily a bad idea either, but I don't personally think it is the way to go. I think it will result in an even greater course dependency factor than already exists between the cars. The problem with the 2wd cars is NOT the ability to put power down. The BMWs and especially the Civics don't make sufficient power for that to be the problem. The only time I experienced problems putting power down was when the suspension setup was off. Adding tire width will aid in the speed maintenance abilities of the 2wd cars, which is already their primary strength relative to the WRX.

Neal
 

SUV-ETR:

The WRX undoubtedly has a MASSIVE power advantage over every other car in STX...

Neal
 

 Fixed that for you.

piknockout:

SUV-ETR:

The WRX undoubtedly has a MASSIVE power advantage over every other car in STX...

Neal
 

 Fixed that for you.

Not true. It may have an advantage over every other currently popular car, but there are plenty of cars with more power that are legal for STX. They tend to weigh a crap load more, but that doesn't make them illegal! I could go pick up an '01 BMW 540i which is rated at around 280hp and 320ft/lbs. stock, and probably get up over 300hp with headers / exhaust, intake and tuning. However, it weighs in at 3700 lbs., which is a bit of a bummer. I could also go pick up a V8 Mustang and get an easy 300 horse. Again, it will weigh much more than the WRX. They are both wider than a WRX as well, which isn't a good thing, and I'm not sure if there is a huge demand to race these sorts of cars on 245's with 8" wheels.
 

- Bret

P.S. I know this is somewhat of a silly thing to point out, but it is a pet peeve of mine. The WRX isn't the most powerful car you could get in STX; The WRX just happens to have the RIGHT amount of power for STX.

As I was writing that I was wondering who was going to call me out on that "technicality".

So to restate, it's the most powerful car that someone would "reasonably" consider campaigning in STX (i.e., most popular STX cars).  Is that better?

BlueMaxx9:

P.S. I know this is somewhat of a silly thing to point out, but it is a pet peeve of mine. The WRX isn't the most powerful car you could get in STX; The WRX just happens to have the RIGHT amount of power for STX.

It might be true if what he meant by "power advantage" was "power-to-weight", or "usable power".  That is certainly the way I would read it.  You assume he meant real power numbers on an absolute basis.

--Andy

Since this thread was about the M3, I purposely kept my comments to BMW-related info. But I agree with the other, broader sentiments in principle. Bottom line is that I don't think there is a car in STX that can touch a top driver like Fenter in a WRX prepped as well as his. The 325is is a bit better in slaloms and high-speed transitions, but that WRX comes out of every corner like an absolute rocket. Watching my co-driver Darryl run just before Chris, you can visually see the difference in WOT acceleration, even as a spectator. I don't think there is another car that has that much power without adding a ton more weight. Depending on which numbers you want to believe, there may as much as a 70whp difference compared to our 325is, with only ~125lbs more weight and AWD to put it down.

An E36 M3 would probably make a moderate bit less power than the WRX, weigh about the same, and have only two driven wheels to put the power down. Add the better chassis balance of the M3 to compensate for the AWD, and that sounds like a pretty good fight.

Unfortunately, I have had trouble finding a lot of real high quality national-level results that I'm comfortable building into a conclusive body of evidence. (Side note: I think there's a real odd cultural dynamic to this debate, since there seems to be an unusual lack of cross-pollination of STX and STU drivers into/out-of other classes. This makes broader comparisons against other well-known drivers difficult...but that's another discussion...). But from the best data I have found, including Nats '06 and '07, the M3 seems like a good match for STX.

At any rate, there only seem to be two alternatives: Leave the status quo, where the WRX dominates and STS legal cars are the only other (frequent) players. Or similarly exclude the WRXs, which would *really* bring the STS poachers out of the woodwork if ST class jumping were still allowed. The status quo, where STX is soooo close to STX, feels unhealthy to me. I would like to see STX have a better chance to thrive on its own without poaching from STS cars, and if possible I would like to see something challenge the WRX a little more closely.

I don't have a dog in this fight any more, so it isn't really a big deal to me personally. I'd consider an M3 if it were un-excluded, but I've actually owned 3 Imprezas and no BMWs to date, so don't even try to accuse me of being on a witch hunt against WRXs! From an objective viewpoint, though, I just don't see any body of data that supports the exclusion of the M3 from STX while the WRX is allowed. I think it could result in some nice, close competition...

Andy Hollis:

It might be true if what he meant by "power advantage" was "power-to-weight", or "usable power".  That is certainly the way I would read it.  You assume he meant real power numbers on an absolute basis.

--Andy

I know what he meant and I didn't take issue with it. I took issue with what was actually said since the intent of statements like 'power advantage' seem to keep focusing these discussions on how much power a STX WRX makes. The WRX does not have more raw HP than every other eligible STX car. The WRX doesn't have the best power-to-weight of any eligible STX car. It does have the most raw HP and best power-to-weight of the cars which are currently considered competitive. I can go buy a Mustang off the showroom floor with about 300hp and 3350lbs. That works out to 11.17lbs/hp. A top-shelf STX WRX is putting out something like 250hp and weighs around 2800lbs, correct? That works out to 11.2lbs/hp. If I start dropping weight and adding power to the Mustang, it will quickly end up with a better power-to-weight. I won't even get into some of technically-eligible-but-really-porky cars like the new BMW 550i and Audi RS4.

The WRX doesn't win because it can make 250hp. Lots and lots of STX legal cars can make that much power or more. The WRX doesn't have a power advantage, it has a drivetrain advantage and an advantageous balance of power and weight that works very will with current tires. Your 'usable power' term probably wouldn't have set me off, since that would imply that the advantage comes from being able to use what power it does make, not from the amount of power. I don't like it when people focus on how much power the WRX makes compared to it's competition, because I think that is the wrong 'problem' to fix. As I said it is a bit silly of me to be so literal, but I don't like how often the 'Oh noes! The turbo is SOOO powerful!' crap comes up in discussions about STX. Pointing that out is my way of trying to change that attitude, and to get people focusing on why it is that no one bothers to drive the class legal cars that already do have more power than a WRX.

- Bret 

Agree with your argument, and definitely was the "intention" of my statement.  I should have stated usable power.

 But at the same time if you were to look at the cars in the majority of STX grids across the nation (based on my STX experience in D.C./Philly and what I see in National results), of the cars actually willing to compete, it is the most powerful car and also has the most usable power.

piknockout:

if you were to look at the cars in the majority of STX grids across the nation (based on my STX experience in D.C./Philly and what I see in National results), of the cars actually willing to compete, it is the most powerful car and also has the most usable power.

You are correct. I simply think that is only the case because the WRX is the one car that can effectively put down that much power. I don't think a 325 would be much better off with 250hp *cough* M3 *cough* than it is with 200hp. Anyway, I'll try to let this go and focus back in on the original discussion which was...um...wait, what were we talking about again?

- Bret 

It seems the prudent thing to do is 1) change the tire allowance for RWD/FWD first. If that isn't enough parity to bring things into a closer matchup, then allow other cars. I don't think that take backs are good, especially since we are trying to make these classes faster. It is in the class' interest to make the currently classed cars faster. Otherwise, it becomes another civic class... which is bad for participation. I think that the RX8 and M3 would be good for the class, and it's always nice to have other options. That said, I think that should be considered after the implications of the tire/wheel allowances are re-evaluated. I can't imagine anyone really being bothered by this, especially if you visit all of the layout formats. Keep the tire limit on awd... but allow them to run wider rims. Increase the width on FWD and RWD for wheels and tires, and you have allowed the class to get faster, while trying to bring the entire class closer together.

mleach:

. Keep the tire limit on awd... but allow them to run wider rims. Increase the width on FWD and RWD for wheels and tires.

I agree, but the wider tires should only be allowed on the drive wheels.  The alleged advantage of AWD is the ability to "put down power."  Cars with drive at only one axle should be allowed more traction at that end, but why give them more TOTAL grip?  Am I the only one who sees that logic?