Holy Cow! Major ST-Category shake-up proposed for 2012!

DILYSI Dave wrote:

ST_ZX2 wrote: Move the just EFs and maybe the EGs--keep the rest. I'd take my chances against an Integra and an ACR (aready showed well vs. Mike Occhipinti driving his old Neon, which was the last non-EF to trophy at Nationals).

FWIW, an Integra can be just as fast as an EF, and it's still a 20 year old car. If the goal is to create somewhere competitive for newer cars, leaving Integras and Neons behind to beat up on them is no better than the current situation.

If it could be as fast there would have been (or are) more out there--yet there are not...someone looking for an (unfair) advantage of sorts. Its not as though the cost of entry is that much different if at all...so from that standpoint there is no justification for not making one. The Integra is heavier and more powerful...but can not put the power down at all like the EFs...slower in the corners, less willingness to transition and worse power off...but faster once it gets wound up...is still slower overall. Charlie & Ed up in SFR had their Integra--I believe they tried two of them in fact--up until two years ago, when they jumped ship and go their own spec civic. I think if you ask them, they wouldn't go back knowing what they know now. Mike O's (former) Neon ran here locally (6/09 MKE Region) with him co-driving with the new owner it in 2009. Was still 2 seconds off of the EFs (Jason F, Craig M and Pat W). Yes, that is only one data point...but it was the same car that trophied in 2006 but on fresher tires...so it was sorted/proven as for its setup and arguably the fastest Neon in the country...against two of the best EFs. He was even beaten by a different EF driven by a local driver too. A well prepped MINI, RS, Celica or Focus or a number of other newer cars can be in the 2-3 seconds off of an (top-shelf) EF...and if you can have a whole bunch of cars under the same second or so, then you can take your chances on driver making up the difference...and each car showing its individual strengths and weakesses. As it is now, a decently driven (well prepped) EF will still beat a greatly driven something else.

If by chance I am wrong...and the new ST overdog appears and begins running EF-like times consistantly...well give it a bump up. I still think the next best thing out there is still well into 1+ seconds slower...and likely closer to 2 seconds on a typical 60s course.

As the onwer of an EG Civic Si who spent more than a little money and time trying to get it as fast as the EF spec Civic, I don't see it being competitive in the "New STS" class. It's 300 lbs heavier than an EF. It has some additional power that helps in straight sections But is at the top end of the RPM range. The tires are turning more mass. Withing the limits of the rules you are always at a weight disadvantage. The steering is slower. It's power steering to boot so it sucks power and doesn't communitcate as well. The steering wheel is airbag equiped so you can't go to something smaller.

It was a pretty good match for Celica's and other non EF competitors. It think it falls in the same categorie as the Integra. On paper it looks like it could goes as fast, but I haven't seen anyone do it yet.

Well think about what would happen if they moved just the EF out of ST. A EG or Integra would become the car to have and it would still dominate, just to a lesser degree. Ditto for the Celica, SE-R, and other cars they moved.

It sucks if you own one of the non-EF cars that might get moved but in the end its nessecary if the goal is to create a level playing field.

Soma007 wrote: Well think about what would happen if they moved just the EF out of ST. A EG or Integra would become the car to have and it would still dominate, just to a lesser degree. Ditto for the Celica, SE-R, and other cars they moved. It sucks if you own one of the non-EF cars that might get moved but in the end its nessecary if the goal is to create a level playing field.

That brings me back to my confusion. The 00-05 Celica, absolutely. (I don't think the GTS was even ST legal anyways, so i assume we're talking about the GT)

The 94-99 needs to stay in ST. I don't even think it would be top of the heap in ST anyways.

I don't know anything about that generation of Celica so I can't offer any input. I do know Per used to run one back in the day in the original STS. But STAC claims they have data that shows all of the cars they want to move would dominate the new ST if left there.

If you believe otherwise then definitely write a letter and include any data you have. They are slightly obscure cars (IMO) so you may know something they don't.

This is why I suggested instead of moving the EFs just to add ballast to match somewhat the weights of the incoming "newer cars"

Sort of using the scale of power/weight ratio. Maybe add 200lbs ballast to the EFs, might need more with some research.

Or I suggested on the SCCAforums that GRM maybe do some testing of a couple fully prepped ST cars on their track; maybe an EF, EG, Integra, Sentra, Neon, and Focus. Then start adding 100lbs, 200lb, 300lbs, 400lbs, etc to the cars to see how to even out the times :)

I don't see ballast being required for any street-driven auto-x car ever happening... Dedicated race-cars (Prepared & Modified) sure, but Stock, ST or SP? Never.

If we can agree on a universal cat/ECU/brake rule and then...would it be crazy to 'assign' cars to a class with an inclusion list a'la Stock, and then tweak allowances specifically on each line:

...for example lines in the rule book might look like this (best guesses):

ST:

   89-95 Civic Si (7.5/225/OE--no LSD)

   96-11 Civic (8/245/LSD)

   02-11 MINI NA (8/245/LSD)

   93-07 Subaru RS (8/225/OE--no LSD)

   99-06 Celica GT/GTS (8/225/OE--no LSD)

   00-11 Focus 2.0/SVT/2.3  (8/245/LSD)

   91-95 SE-R (8/225/ OE VLSD only)

   90-03 ZX2 (8/225/LSD)

   11-   Mazda2 (8/225/LSD)

   03-11 Mazda3 (8/245/LSD)

   08-11 Fit (8/225/LSD)

...etc.

Give the heavy cars 8" wide wheels and 245 tires and LSDs...some of the mid-weight cars get wider wheels which still help, but keep the 225s and might add LSDs etc. Simply try and level the playing field by giving some extra grip and traction to the 'other cars' in ST. Keep the EFs where they are--if they want to stay--in ST, but let the other guys have some additional latitude to narrow the gap. My guess is that the EFs still win more than not, but some of the other cars have a shot if everything aligns "just right". No one has to move anywhere. This also keeps the Miata folks happy.

Tire-wise, this is a more pinpoint version of what happened in STX--the RWD/FWD cars got a bump in wheels and tires to 265, while the AWD cars had to stay at 245. There is a lot of parity in that class now with RWD (M36 and RX8), FWD (RSX) and AWD (WRX) all being in the mix.

Because this is a 'street' class, I think the ST/STS cat rule is the best solution...especially if we are trying to draw in newer cars that are unlikely to be dedicated weekend warrriors. Keeping hi-flow cats in the stock location at least gives the chance to pass inspections in the more tightly regulated States. It's a takeback for STX/STU, but again would seem to be more in the spirit of the intent and be the best long-term solution. That said, personally I am fine if we go the other way too. My car would benifit from having an extra 6" of header to work with--it would just be a little spendy.

As for brakes, at this point, I dont really care either way.

...and people complain about the complexity of the Solo rules as-is...

In reply to ST_ZX2:

That is actually the best idea I've heard yet! Please write in to the STAC!

I'd still just like to see them move one car at a time. If any car truly dominates ST at nationals, bump 'em up. Next year, if no one car dominates, leave it alone. If the next year, another car surfaces that dominates, move it up.

I like ZX2's idea, but i honestly feel like it, and the SCCA's proposed solution are unnecessarily complicated.

Soma007 wrote: I don't know anything about that generation of Celica so I can't offer any input. I do know Per used to run one back in the day in the original STS. But STAC claims they have data that shows all of the cars they want to move would dominate the new ST if left there. If you believe otherwise then definitely write a letter and include any data you have. They are slightly obscure cars (IMO) so you may know something they don't.

I may. I think i'll wait and see if this goes through and what their new edited list would be.

94-99s are more expensive for identical performance of the 90-93s, so as it sits right now, i'm actually fairly happy.

Everything about the SCCA is unnecessarily complicated!

You can not bump a car based on dominating one year at Nationals.

The EFs have dominated every Tour and Nationals since 2007...and won Nationals in STX too. They can even show well in STU--while still being in ST trim. That is why this whole discussion is occuring.

ST_ZX2 wrote: You can not bump a car based on dominating one year at Nationals. The EFs have dominated every Tour and Nationals since 2007...and won Nationals in STX too. They can even show well in STU--while still being in ST trim. That is why this whole discussion is occuring.

Heh, ok, how about 2 years in a row?

I'd almost like to see everything get even simpler, less classes, but that's for another discussion.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

ST_ZX2 wrote: You can not bump a car based on dominating one year at Nationals. The EFs have dominated every Tour and Nationals since 2007...and won Nationals in STX too. They can even show well in STU--while still being in ST trim. That is why this whole discussion is occuring.

Heh, ok, how about 2 years in a row? I'd almost like to see everything get even simpler, less classes, but that's for another discussion.

You could actually combine ST with STS using this formula. Because the STS cars and the ST EFs are being perceived as equal right now (and are a big basis for this whole proposal in the first place), they don't get to change any allowances...and all of the other cars get help in the form of tires, wheels and/or LSD.

I too like your proposal. Sounds like it would even out pretty well on paper.

Better than my ballast idea :)

CivicSiRacer wrote: I too like your proposal. Sounds like it would even out pretty well on paper. Better than my ballast idea :)

Thanks. If so, please show some support with a letter and maybe even a friendly comment on sccaforums. The big issue as for feedback thus far is that this will take alot of work by the STAC.

My thought is that they have a lot of work anyway by proposing subjective (each car listed on a line--like Stock) classing anyway. My idea is to make 8" wheels, a LSD and 225s the 'default'...at that point it needs to be determined if the car is heavy enough to get 245s. I would say a published weight greater than 2600 pounds would be a good threshold. Most cars that are smaller than that might have a hard time even fitting a 245 anyway.

The EF is the one car that gets no changes...and still keeps the 'old' 7.5/225 rule...and is the benchmark for the class.

The cars on the proposed 'naughty list'--(Neons, SE-Rs, other Civics etc.), would need some special attention because they are perceived as the closest 'threats'. Some would only get the extra 1/2" bump of wheel (to 8")...and some would also get a LSD. None of those cars would get the 245s.

This would go a long way at leveling things without shifting the balance away from the EFs...I still think it would be 'the car'...but it would be at the point that someone could develop a different car and at least get it in 'the mix'...and if everything aligned well, might even win an occasional time...which in turn would make ST an interesting class again (de facto spec classes are not interesting unless you happen to have 'the car').

I'm planning to write to the STAC myself about the ECU rules. They're way to easy to Yunick (if Smokey had been into electronics). The original rule was bad enough - it let some cars have pretty much unlimited tuning using off the shelf ECU hacks, while others (Miatas until recently, pretty much anything Toyota) were left high and dry. Unless you did something like gut the stock ECU and stuff a MicroSquirt Module in there - which would be perfectly legal according to the letter of the rules and completely against the spirit of them. For some of the cars, it's also possible to buy a very expensive Motec or Link unit that fits in the stock housing, but a cheaper AEM or MSPNP is verbotten.

The proposed rules are even more open to excessively creative interpretations. For example, what if someone took a plug and play standalone, drilled a hole in the back, and hot glued a cut off junkyard harness into the hole so it would go "between the standard ECU and its wiring harness only," but the standard ECU was only connected to a bunch of cut off wires sitting in the standalone's case?

I think they either need to tighten down what "reprogramming" a stock ECU is, or make this wide open. The rules as they are would invite a considerable amount of creative interpretations that I don't think they intended.

In reply to Bobzilla:

I agree with you. I would rather have more competetion and fewer trophies for myself. Some of my best days racing autocrossing were days in which I didn't trophy. When the field in my class is thin I try to pax better. There is always a challenge when you are out on course.

I hope I didn't open a an of worms by mentioning pax.

ST_ZX2 wrote:

CivicSiRacer wrote: I too like your proposal. Sounds like it would even out pretty well on paper. Better than my ballast idea :)

Thanks. If so, please show some support with a letter and maybe even a friendly comment on sccaforums. The big issue as for feedback thus far is that this will take alot of work by the STAC.

The problem I have with it is trying to remember and explain what cars get what. I like the keep the rules for the class simple. I have no problems with moving cars to a different class but try explaining to somebody new why car X gets to have 245's and an LSD while his car is stuck with 225's and no LSD in the same class and if he put any of that stuff on he goes to SP.

MadScientistMatt wrote: I'm planning to write to the STAC myself about the ECU rules. They're way to easy to Yunick (if Smokey had been into electronics). The original rule was bad enough - it let some cars have pretty much unlimited tuning using off the shelf ECU hacks, while others (Miatas until recently, pretty much anything Toyota) were left high and dry. Unless you did something like gut the stock ECU and stuff a MicroSquirt Module in there - which would be perfectly legal according to the letter of the rules and completely against the spirit of them. For some of the cars, it's also possible to buy a very expensive Motec or Link unit that fits in the stock housing, but a cheaper AEM or MSPNP is verbotten. The proposed rules are even more open to excessively creative interpretations. For example, what if someone took a plug and play standalone, drilled a hole in the back, and hot glued a cut off junkyard harness into the hole so it would go "between the standard ECU and its wiring harness only," but the standard ECU was only connected to a bunch of cut off wires sitting in the standalone's case? I think they either need to tighten down what "reprogramming" a stock ECU is, or make this wide open. The rules as they are would invite a considerable amount of creative interpretations that I don't think they intended.

Don't be shy about mentioning your day job in the letter. That would be some valuable feedback IMO.

Man. I'm glad I run Mod, I don't have to worry about all this crap. Minimum weight, wheelbase, safe at tech... yep.

I don't envy the Solo classing guys at SCCA. No matter what they do, it's going to piss somebody off. Like when the MINI was first classed in G Stock. I mean come on now. Even I could see that was dead wrong. They are in what, D Stock now? Much better.

At the same time, some stuff just flies in the face of common sense and 'spirit of the rules'; I still shake my head at the Stock class 'shocks are free' rule whenever I see $6000 worth of Motons with stock springs wrapped around them. That rule stays in because a few people want it to stay. They raise hell and make sure it doesn't change because their wallet's their edge.

there is a very simple solution... so simple that it stands a snowballs chance in hell of ever being adopted .... SCCA swallow your pride and come up with a classing system like NASA's... yeah I know they would get sued if they just copied the NASA system.. but I don't think NASA could stop them from using the same basic system.........

oh well ... like I said ain't ever gunna happen

DILYSI Dave wrote: Don't be shy about mentioning your day job in the letter. That would be some valuable feedback IMO.

I was definitely planning on that, as this job means I've had a lot of exposure to people who have come up with highly creative rule interpretations there. I'll probably even show them a couple pictures of what sorts of things are likely to show up if they don't fix the rules. As it stands now, what electronics the rules actually allow and what electronics they appear to have meant to allow are already rather out of balance, and the "piggyback" rule is opening up even more tortured interpretations.