SCCAForums.com

Catch 22:

tkm:

FWIW, just because you think something is flawed logic does not make it so. 

And just because you think it isn't doesn't make it so.

See how that works?  Funny huh?

 

Yeah.  Facts, opinion, personal desire...it's all the same thing, right?  Don't let established norms get in the way of what you want.

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

Established norms?

Let me get this straight, because I may be confused here... You think its an established norm that new cars don't get classified and re-classified and shake up anything but Stock Classes?  These things dont happen in SP so therefore they shouldn't happen in ST... Is that your position on this?

Am I getting that straight?

If so, I think you are dilusional.  Cars have continually improved over the decades and will likely continue to do so.  This means things will constantly change.  Some cars will find new life in new classes, others will be "tweeners" that end up gone and forgotten. You need to look back over about the past 10 years or so and rethink your position.  I can think of lots of examples, but I'll just say a hot DSP car in 2006 wasn't the hot DSP car in 2000 and the hot DSP car in 2000 is nowhere to be found.  And many current DSP cars were in CSP not too damned long ago.  But I guess that maybe is an anomoly that goes against these established norms you speak of.

About the only place long term competitiveness is secure is in the P and M classes because there just really isn't all that much of the original cars left and the rules allow for some competition balancing things.  Not so in S, SP, and ST.

So be careful handling your black kettle.  Its hot and you might burn yourself.

PS - OK, lets forget about the s2000 (even though we shouldn't) because its an evil A Stock car.  Lets talk about why the B Stock 2 seaters aren't allowed in STU...  Lets discuss the 350z and BMW M Coupe (99-00).  B Stock cars that aren't in STU with all the other B Stock cars simply because they have 2 seats.  Someone please help me with my obviously flawed logic here and explain this.

Thanks in Advance.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

14. STREET TOURING CATEGORY
The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit
between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This
category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts
using affordable sports sedans equipped with common suspension,
engine, and appearance modifications which are fully legal and
compatible with street use anywhere in the country. “Dress-up”
items such as chrome dipsticks and non-standard filler caps are
permitted, provided they serve no other purpose.
Vehicles eligible for this category must meet the Stock category
eligibility requirements, and include all coupes/sedans with a minimum
of four seats and four seat belts, that are non-sports car based
with a maximum engine displacement of 3.1 liters, are normally
aspirated; and the small-displacement turbocharged sedans referenced
in Appendix A. No limited slip differentials are permitted except
for factory standard viscous coupler type units.

I think the introductory paragraphs for Street Touring pretty much answer your question....  (Emphasis added) 

 Sedan was/is a key tenant in the creation of the class.

 

---

Keith
'90 Miata with a really big roll bar
www.chaserace.com
www.tightntidyracing.com
www.vorschlag.com

Catch, are you of the opinion that 2-seaters should be allowed unless specifically excluded, or that specific 2-seaters should be allowed?

---

Mississippi Region #83 SS / #97 STU

motoring:

14. STREET TOURING CATEGORY
The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit
between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This
category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts
using affordable sports sedans equipped with common suspension,
engine, and appearance modifications which are fully legal and
compatible with street use anywhere in the country. “Dress-up”
items such as chrome dipsticks and non-standard filler caps are
permitted, provided they serve no other purpose.
Vehicles eligible for this category must meet the Stock category
eligibility requirements, and include all coupes/sedans with a minimum
of four seats and four seat belts, that are non-sports car based
with a maximum engine displacement of 3.1 liters, are normally
aspirated; and the small-displacement turbocharged sedans referenced
in Appendix A. No limited slip differentials are permitted except
for factory standard viscous coupler type units.

I think the introductory paragraphs for Street Touring pretty much answer your question....  (Emphasis added) 

 Sedan was/is a key tenant in the creation of the class.

 

Yes.  The entire point of this thread is "why?"  Because the rules say so does not imply a reason.

Allowed unless specifically excluded, especially in the case of STU which is populated largely by Stock and Street Prepared cars that run against 2 seaters in those classes.

If its agreed that the S2000 might be a bit of an overdog (see the MR2 in STS2 for reference), then exclude it or saddle it with the tire restriction the AWD cars have.

But I'm of the opinion the whole four seat thing is now outdated and will only serve to make us have more classes that we really don't need.  There is zero evidence that there is a need for STU2, and if we create it we'll end up with 2 damned near identical classes.  Whats the point of doing that?  Isn't it easier and smarter to just remove the whole 4 seat thing from the ST "charter?"

Seriously, the RX8 keeps winning BS championships over the 350z and M Coupe, so why in the world would we thing just putting them on street rubber would turn the world upside down?  Makes zero sense.  None.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

Established norms?

Let me get this straight, because I may be confused here... You think its an established norm that new cars don't get classified and re-classified and shake up anything but Stock Classes?  These things dont happen in SP so therefore they shouldn't happen in ST... Is that your position on this?

Am I getting that straight?

If so, I think you are dilusional.  Cars have continually improved over the decades and will likely continue to do so.  This means things will constantly change.  Some cars will find new life in new classes, others will be "tweeners" that end up gone and forgotten. You need to look back over about the past 10 years or so and rethink your position.  I can think of lots of examples, but I'll just say a hot DSP car in 2006 wasn't the hot DSP car in 2000 and the hot DSP car in 2000 is nowhere to be found.  And many current DSP cars were in CSP not too damned long ago.  But I guess that maybe is an anomoly that goes against these established norms you speak of.

How long you been following Solo--I mean closely?  What shook up DSP was not a new car, but a new tire from Hoosier and continual development of existing cars.  The cars that won in 06 were just as legal 5 years ago.  This is where you're missing the boat.  Look at all of the SP classes and what was winning 5 years ago is still winning today for the most part.

I'm not going to break this down, but SP has had class stability--both rules and cars.  The P classes are much the same.  The newer cars are only growing heavier and very, very few of them are ST/SP friendly. 

I take it that you're suggesting that we just randomly shake up ST classes just because you think it is dumb for the S2000 or other 2-seaters to not be included in the mix?  Seriously, we only have 4 ST classes.  You can't all-of-a-sudden cram every single car into only 4 classes and expect the folks that built the class to be happy about it if one car comes in to dominate.  Like I said on one of the first pages--what if a $60K car dominates STU?  What do you honestly think this will do to the class?  You are not looking at the entire picture here--you only see your view and are not weighing the consequences.

Write a letter in 08 to get a new class for AS/BS 2-seaters.  It's only a year away.  So far STU is doing great and I don't see any reason to tip the apple cart.  Again--because you think it is dumb for the S2000 to not be in STU does not necessarily make it a good idea.  I'm all for having an ST class for the car, but I'm not sure it fits into what we already have.  The E46 M3 was denied for STU--why do you think the S2000 would be any better fit?

 

PS - OK, lets forget about the s2000 (even though we shouldn't) because its an evil A Stock car.  Lets talk about why the B Stock 2 seaters aren't allowed in STU...  Lets discuss the 350z and BMW M Coupe (99-00).  B Stock cars that aren't in STU with all the other B Stock cars simply because they have 2 seats.  Someone please help me with my obviously flawed logic here and explain this.

Here we go again with history.  ST was, as someone quoted above, originally a place to play for sport sedans/coupes that were popular on the street yet not really represented in a class for their popular mods.  It never started out as a 2-seater class.  Only STS2 has broke from this mold recently.  The goal of all of this has been to keep the genre's together; there are many reasons for this, one of them being the much more volatile street tire market. 

Why are you so impatient about the entire process?

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

I'm not impatient about anything.  But unlike some folks I don't just accept things that dont make sense.

I won't write a letter asking for a 2 seat ST class because we're on page 5 and nobody has given a reason other than "Change BAD!!!"  Thats just not really a reason.  The original concept for STS being for 4 seat sport compacts isn't really a valid reason either.

This whole idea of just adding classes because we're afraid of throwing apple carts off cliffs is nuts.  Keep thinking like that and we'll soon have 87 classes.  Thats GREAT for competition. 

As for the M3 vs. The S2000???  I dunno, maybe its because the BMW has 330hp.  Maybe its because its actually an ASP car while the S2000 is in BSP.  <shrug>.

Now that I've answered your question, tell me why the B Stock 350z can't run in STU against the B Stock BMWs, Mazdas and such.  Lets simplify and forget the A Stock S2000 and just look at the 2 seat B Stock cars.  Now come up with an answer that doesn't involve mythical falling apple carts.  Tell us WHY those apple carts are gonna tumble just because the 350z and M Coupe have 2 seats.  THATS the core of the question.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

BTW - While I think the S2000 would do well in STU it definately will not see the power gains other cars can see in that class.  

Don't tell me you buy into the whole to go faster at auto-x, "you need more power" trick. :)

 I haven't met a car yet that can't be improved weight and suspension-wise over stock. IMHO, "I dunna think it needs more power cap'n. She's giving it all shes got already."
 

---

For sale: 2006 Nissan Titan LE Crew Cab. White. 40K miles. $21K. Wicked pissah to tow with.

Catch 22:

I won't write a letter asking for a 2 seat ST class because we're on page 5 and nobody has given a reason other than "Change BAD!!!"  Thats just not really a reason.  The original concept for STS being for 4 seat sport compacts isn't really a valid reason either.

I think the fact that you haven't seen justification for the state of the current ruleset is a reason that you should write a letter.

But why not go whole-hog and move to subjective classing (a la Stock and SP, our two closest relatives)?

---

Mississippi Region #83 SS / #97 STU

Keith Casey - IMHO...:

Don't tell me you buy into the whole to go faster at auto-x, "you need more power" trick. :)

 I haven't met a car yet that can't be improved weight and suspension-wise over stock. IMHO, "I dunna think it needs more power cap'n. She's giving it all shes got already."
 

Every car will get lighter and a better suspension over stock in STU trim.  Its just that the S2000 isn't going to get the power increases the other cars get to go with the suspension and lighter weight.  I wouldn't expect it to make much more than stock HP in STU trim.  Maybe 5 hp.  Seriously, Honda already maxed the pee pee out of that motor.  There isn't alot left in there.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

 

Its just that the S2000 isn't going to get the power increases the other cars get to go with the suspension and lighter weight.  I wouldn't expect it to make much more than stock HP in STU trim.  Maybe 5 hp.  Seriously, Honda already maxed the pee pee out of that motor.  There isn't alot left in there.

 

Are you guessing or do you know this for 100% sure?  I'm thinking you're guessing because ST legal S2000 mod(s) can be found here (sans test-pipe and gasket, but gasket is a non-issue and a high-flo cat is just as good as a test pipe):

http://www.hondata.com/reflash_s2k_toda_header.html

Might only be a 5hp gain, but that 20 some ft/lbs of torque in the midrange helps out on an autox course more that hp ever would.  I know you can read a dyno chart, and you can't tell me that an S2000 in autox trim gaining almost 30 ft/lbs all over the midrange in STU trim wouldn't help out in a big way.

I point this out because all of your arguments so far have been speculation.  If you want the SEB and STAC to listen, then come up with some facts on the cars that you mention then write a letter with your evidence.  Random rants on this forum does nothing.  If *you* think the S2000 or 350Z should be in STU, then 1) build one and prove us wrong or 2) gather a lot of evidence and ask for them to be added.

You should know how this process works.  You can't make snarky remarks and general assumptions and expect something to happen.  Rules are in place and right now it says that certain 2-seat cars don't have an ST class.  If you want to change this, then do something about it.

All IMO, of course.

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

Dammit.

Is it me?  Am I just not getting my point across or are some folks choosing to pick at minutae (imagine that around here) instead of seeing the whole forest?  I'm trying like hell.  Really, I am.

OK... Lets say the S2000 gains 5hp (which I said already) and 25lb ft of torque over stock in STU trim.  OK, lets say that.

NOW... How much does the STi make over stock?  The Evo?  How about uncorking that RX8 rotary?  What kind of gains do you see there?

Huh?  Is it 5hp?  25lb ft of tq?

I have written my letter and am now surrendering in this thread.  There is nothing more I can say.  I surrender.  Hopefully there will be more success on the SEB and smarts will prevail over tipping mythical apple carts.

PS - There STILL hasn't been any valid reason given for the B Stock 350z and M Coupe to not be in STU.  I wish I'd never mentioned the S2000 because *some* folks can't let that go and actually answer the real question.  Which is, one last time, "Why do 2 seats and street tires mean cars need a separate class?"  It really is just that simple a question.  I swear it is.  It seems really simple and straightforward because it IS simple and straighforward.  At least until we succeed at complicating it.

 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

jzr:

Part of any restructuring plan would have to show how it is protecting the investment of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Civic, WRX, M3, and STEVO owners out there.  These are the people who have spent the time and money, and shown commitment to the class by having traveled to national events in large numbers, earning some level of stability.

 

On the one hand I understand what you are saying.  On the other hand, "protecting people's investment in the status quo" has often times been the justification in this club for continuing down the wrong path.  In the long run I think the seat-count distinction in ST is a unneccesary obstacle to growth. 

 Whether the 2-seat/4-seat distinction is abolished or a parallel class or two are made for higher performance two-seaters, there is an un-served member base out there who would like to participate in the ST class in cars that are currently excluded; cars that are, or have been in the recent past, very popular in the stock category.

 

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

jzr:

Part of any restructuring plan would have to show how it is protecting the investment of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Civic, WRX, M3, and STEVO owners out there.  These are the people who have spent the time and money, and shown commitment to the class by having traveled to national events in large numbers, earning some level of stability.

 

On the one hand I understand what you are saying.  On the other hand, "protecting people's investment in the status quo" has often times been the justification in this club for continuing down the wrong path.  In the long run I think the seat-count distinction in ST is a unneccesary obstacle to growth. 

 Whether the 2-seat/4-seat distinction is abolished or a parallel class or two are made for higher performance two-seaters, there is an un-served member base out there who would like to participate in the ST class in cars that are currently excluded; cars that are, or have been in the recent past, very popular in the stock category.

 

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

Scott, it's simply the paradigm the ST category used for its classing from the beginning - "all cars with X number of seats, X size/type engine, with these exceptions".  Any classing methodology has its pitfalls - outright exclusion or inconsistent classing of certain vehicles of similar performance potential is clearly one of the negatives of this style of classing.  The benefit is that the broad criteria allows for a whole lot of cars without having to write them down explicitly.

Asking for a few 2-seaters to be included as an exception to a 4-seater class is one thing, and a battle you might win.  In fact, we already have special inclusion of a couple turbo VW's in STS that otherwise wouldn't be legal there, that you could use as precedent.  

Asking for a complete change in ST's classing paradigm is a much bigger thing.  The problem is that because of the relative newness of ST and its ruleset, there isn't a lot of data on how a lot of cars would work when built to the hilt in ST trim, so it is difficult to make the comparative performance assessments for initial classing.  It's not safe to use a vehicle's Stock or SP classing as a basis for ST classing, as every car responds differently.

I think it'll happen one day, but probably not before we're into the 20-teens.  Till then, I'd pick battles you have a chance at winning.

---

--Jason Rhoades

Seriously, I think the obvious answer is that historically, 2-seat 'sports cars' were(are?!) bred from much better 'stock' than sedans/etc... .
You can probably start blaming Porsche, Corvettes, and the like for any stigma associated with 2-seat sports cars 'mixing it up' with 4-seaters.  In years past, it's been a mis-match time and again.

They've -usually- been inherently 'better' handling cars -stock- (better weight distribution, better suspension, better brakes) and no doubt would benefit more from the same types of improvements that are allowed to the current ST 4-seaters (generally speaking, surely exceptions exist).

Power gains are almost universally touted as the _last_ thing to go for in autox, so why should that be your basis ("they won't make much more power!") for letting the banned cars in?  What's the weight and distribution of the 2 seaters vs. the typical sedans... wildly different (and better in 9/10 cases) would be my guess. 

You don't have to look terribly much further than the current STS-2 results to see how quick the cars considered 'beneath' STU-level performance (no offense to those guys, just going by the classifications based on displacement and so on, as well as their PAX) are going.. they're outright faster!  Seems incongruous, but there it is... I guess all that ST 'power-tuning' they get to do makes up the difference???

 
Andy Hollis was giving STU a right ol' hard time on the PA during our runs this weekend in Houston (rightly so! :lol: )... never failing to point out how much slower 'we' were than STS, not to mention STS2.  The development of the latter classes is years ahead of the former.  As such, the argument here about 'apple carts' is just that... why mix it up when the class (STU) is still in it's formative years? 

The counter-argument to having 82 classes is to just have 1 class and 'let the chips fall where they may, no one guarantees you will have a competitive car' .. since that seems to be your logic (Catch22).  Would you be up for that?  If not, why not?... fewer classes == eventually a single (car) solution.  Would that be better? 

"One National Jacket to Rule Them All!"
 

I'm not saying we need more ST classes, only just debating the existing points brought up.. and surely my arguments are not iron clad in any respect.. only meant to foster further discussion is all. 

 
I'm happy to learn a new perspective, but claiming the sky -won't- fall just b/c you say it won't is likewise not any kind of argument.
 

 

 

 
 

---

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

why mix it up when the class (STU) is still in it's formative years?

because that's the perfect time to do it before it becomes so ingrained and inbred it's impossible to make any changes.

Again, look at the removal of UD/BD in STS. It happened, but because it was early in, not that many people were hurt, but some still were.

The philosophy of STS was penned when there was only... STS. (4 door sedans). The category has grown, I would guess faster than many had anticipated. Do those in charge want to keep the status quo, or, do they have a bigger vision they'd like to share?

--kC


 

---

For sale: 2006 Nissan Titan LE Crew Cab. White. 40K miles. $21K. Wicked pissah to tow with.