Sunoco 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 29 Oct 2014 10:43 AM by  Nathan Atkins
STX Weight and power
 121 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 7 << < 12345 > >>
Author Messages
85rx-7gsl-se
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:282


--
09 Feb 2013 12:11 PM
^I would agree that the common approach of "if you want it changed you have to to waste money building a car everyone already knows will be uncompetitive to prove its uncompetitive" is not really tenable in today's economic climant. Its kind of a "build the chicken and once its proven that the chicken is retarded, then we will discuss making adjustemnts to the egg" lol
Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
09 Feb 2013 01:23 PM

I was the one telling him to build it then write because the sad reality is that is just the way it works. I would LOVE to see a class dedicated to Pony cars on street tires but I think that the will just isn't there to populate such a class. We are left with ST as it is, and sadly STX where it's one of THOSE uphill battles that we most likely will never win. I'm trying, I know he is trying, and I know a few others are trying and we are all starting from the ground up and most of us are folks who don't have a company backing to buy the best of the best so progress is painfully slow for us.

The S197 chassis mustangs (05+) come in two flavors of power, the 4.6L I am trying to run and the 5.0L that Terry ran. There is the obvious power differences but the 4.6 is also a lighter car. I really want to get my car on a scale to see what it weighs but I wouldnt be surprised if I start off almost 125-150lbs lighter than Terry did. I also dont have the power problem (that's what it was in my mind) that he had so I am hoping to make better use of the ice skates masquerading as tires in STX. That makes me feel like this car might have somewhat of a chance. I'm probably wrong, but I'll keep trying anyway! :)

85rx-7gsl-se
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:282


--
09 Feb 2013 01:38 PM
I totally understand that is how it works and your advice is very practical. Just doesn't mean that the way it works is the way it should work, especially when in other areas preemptive action is taken even though the dreaded class killer has yet to be built.
Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
09 Feb 2013 02:24 PM
85rx-7gsl-se wrote:
I totally understand that is how it works and your advice is very practical. Just doesn't mean that the way it works is the way it should work, especially when in other areas preemptive action is taken even though the dreaded class killer has yet to be built.

Indeed, I too wish it wasn't that way, but sadly it is and I have to work within the framework of the rules and operations as they are now, not as I wish they were. I'm willing to put money on it, that no amount of appealing to the STAC or SEB would get the car moved without proving first that it can't be. Terry was the furthest along of any of us and I doubt even his massively published ordeal is proof positive enough for them to move the car.

That said, what is this nonsense about 255 being the STX max tire width now? Did I miss something in the FastTrack that moved us to 255 instead of 265? Or was the comment made in reference to the BFG Rival's sizing not having a 265 in 18" wheels?

mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
09 Feb 2013 02:50 PM
It's not just old guard inertia that is hesitant to increase the number of classes: There are legitimate practical reasons why additional classes are not the answer.

I'm not sure that even if a 30+ entrant class at Nationals was guarantee-able (my gut says no on v8 ST), that it's the right choice to increase class numbers. Maybe though?

Torino1985
New Member
New Member
Posts:98


--
09 Feb 2013 06:53 PM
Whiskey11 wrote:d I doubt even his massively published ordeal is proof positive enough for them to move the car.

That said, what is this nonsense about 255 being the STX max tire width now? Did I miss something in the FastTrack that moved us to 255 instead of 265? Or was the comment made in reference to the BFG Rival's sizing not having a 265 in 18" wheels?

No, you didn't miss anything. My bad on that one. I was more complaining that there really are no cheap 265's out there, no 17's in 265 size anymore the Z1 was the last real competitive tire to come in a 265/x/17 and the 18's are around a $100 more a tire for most other brands except for the R1R's

Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
09 Feb 2013 08:48 PM
Torino1985 wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:d I doubt even his massively published ordeal is proof positive enough for them to move the car.

That said, what is this nonsense about 255 being the STX max tire width now? Did I miss something in the FastTrack that moved us to 255 instead of 265? Or was the comment made in reference to the BFG Rival's sizing not having a 265 in 18" wheels?

No, you didn't miss anything. My bad on that one. I was more complaining that there really are no cheap 265's out there, no 17's in 265 size anymore the Z1 was the last real competitive tire to come in a 265/x/17 and the 18's are around a $100 more a tire for most other brands except for the R1R's

Ok! Just checking! :) Sadly I don't think the SEB/STAC really care that much about the cost of the tires as they assume it's part of the competition especially since it applies to everyone pretty much unilaterally. That said, I'm right there with ya. This year I'll be happy if I can change anything major on my car this year. I still have a season left in the 245/45/18 Star Specs so I'll kill those off this year then hopefully by next year the tire war will have at least settled on the top few tires and from there I'll hopefully have a 265/40/18 that I can choose that is still fast and hopefully be able to afford a set of nice wheels to mount them on. My build is on a budget, and it shows. Nothing wrong with that, it will just take me a lot longer than most others to get the car to the max prep level and each step I take I'm sure I'll learn a lot about car control and set up in the process.


I also agree with the idea that adding classes is a statistical nightmare. One more reason to examine our current rules to find a place to maximize the number of places where cars can play without adding classes. That is a tall order in and of itself!

CSP21
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:308


--
09 Feb 2013 08:51 PM
Whiskey11 wrote:
Torino1985 wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:d I doubt even his massively published ordeal is proof positive enough for them to move the car.

That said, what is this nonsense about 255 being the STX max tire width now? Did I miss something in the FastTrack that moved us to 255 instead of 265? Or was the comment made in reference to the BFG Rival's sizing not having a 265 in 18" wheels?

No, you didn't miss anything. My bad on that one. I was more complaining that there really are no cheap 265's out there, no 17's in 265 size anymore the Z1 was the last real competitive tire to come in a 265/x/17 and the 18's are around a $100 more a tire for most other brands except for the R1R's

Ok! Just checking! :) Sadly I don't think the SEB/STAC really care that much about the cost of the tires as they assume it's part of the competition especially since it applies to everyone pretty much unilaterally...

That's quite a statement. You do realize there is a huge difference between care and can do something about?

Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
10 Feb 2013 12:24 AM
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
Torino1985 wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:d I doubt even his massively published ordeal is proof positive enough for them to move the car.

That said, what is this nonsense about 255 being the STX max tire width now? Did I miss something in the FastTrack that moved us to 255 instead of 265? Or was the comment made in reference to the BFG Rival's sizing not having a 265 in 18" wheels?

No, you didn't miss anything. My bad on that one. I was more complaining that there really are no cheap 265's out there, no 17's in 265 size anymore the Z1 was the last real competitive tire to come in a 265/x/17 and the 18's are around a $100 more a tire for most other brands except for the R1R's

Ok! Just checking! :) Sadly I don't think the SEB/STAC really care that much about the cost of the tires as they assume it's part of the competition especially since it applies to everyone pretty much unilaterally...

That's quite a statement. You do realize there is a huge difference between care and can do something about?

Yes, and I'm sure there is a measure of BOTH in the SEB/STAC at play here, not just one. My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs because the current national level competitors are willing to bear that level of cost, much to the detriment of the local driver. There is also two very different views on the reason for autocrossing at those two distinct levels which is one more reason why it doesn't really matter. Don't confuse what I'm saying as "not wanting to pay to play" which is far from the truth. Just stating the observation as I currently see it. I do think that if the next gen(s) of ST tires become more R-Comp like there WILL be a response from the SEB/STAC in pertaining to that, but right now, no, hardly.

Davidss
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:181


--
10 Feb 2013 01:27 AM
Whiskey11 wrote:
My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs

What is your suggestion as to how tire costs can be controlled better?

Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
10 Feb 2013 11:50 AM
Davidss wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs

What is your suggestion as to how tire costs can be controlled better?

Exclusion list for when tires get to the point where competitors are no longer willing to pay the added costs. We aren't there yet (which is the part of the quote you cut off), so they shouldn't do anything. The nice thing about the ST tires is that while we are "not" the primary focus for tire companies, they realize they need to keep costs down. We may never get there, it might be two years from now. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there will be a huge uproar when we do similar to the magic Toyo uproar.

Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
10 Feb 2013 12:24 PM
Whiskey11 wrote:
Davidss wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs

What is your suggestion as to how tire costs can be controlled better?

Exclusion list for when tires get to the point where competitors are no longer willing to pay the added costs. We aren't there yet (which is the part of the quote you cut off), so they shouldn't do anything. The nice thing about the ST tires is that while we are "not" the primary focus for tire companies, they realize they need to keep costs down. We may never get there, it might be two years from now. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there will be a huge uproar when we do similar to the magic Toyo uproar.

So you want the SEB/STAC to do something now for a problem that doesn't yet exist, nor can it easily be defined (what exactly is the breaking point for action?).

Glad I'm not on the SEB/STAC anymore, cuz that's a pretty much impossible expectation to meet.

Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
10 Feb 2013 02:15 PM
Andy Hollis wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
Davidss wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs

What is your suggestion as to how tire costs can be controlled better?

Exclusion list for when tires get to the point where competitors are no longer willing to pay the added costs. We aren't there yet (which is the part of the quote you cut off), so they shouldn't do anything. The nice thing about the ST tires is that while we are "not" the primary focus for tire companies, they realize they need to keep costs down. We may never get there, it might be two years from now. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there will be a huge uproar when we do similar to the magic Toyo uproar.

So you want the SEB/STAC to do something now for a problem that doesn't yet exist, nor can it easily be defined (what exactly is the breaking point for action?).

Glad I'm not on the SEB/STAC anymore, cuz that's a pretty much impossible expectation to meet.

Glad that folks are reading TOO FAR into a comment about a non-issue... No, I don't want the SEB/STAC to do jack squat right now. The comment was made in reference to another person's post about the expense of tires and how I don't think the SEB/STAC really cares about the cost of tires so long as the people competing are NOT complaining. There isn't any call to action there on my part so folks need to stop reading into it more than what was said. There is no reason for them to care. That is all I was saying.

CSP21
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:308


--
10 Feb 2013 02:22 PM
Whiskey11 wrote:
Andy Hollis wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
Davidss wrote:
Whiskey11 wrote:
My point was the SEB/STAC hasn't done anything about rising tire costs

What is your suggestion as to how tire costs can be controlled better?

Exclusion list for when tires get to the point where competitors are no longer willing to pay the added costs. We aren't there yet (which is the part of the quote you cut off), so they shouldn't do anything. The nice thing about the ST tires is that while we are "not" the primary focus for tire companies, they realize they need to keep costs down. We may never get there, it might be two years from now. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there will be a huge uproar when we do similar to the magic Toyo uproar.

So you want the SEB/STAC to do something now for a problem that doesn't yet exist, nor can it easily be defined (what exactly is the breaking point for action?).

Glad I'm not on the SEB/STAC anymore, cuz that's a pretty much impossible expectation to meet.

Glad that folks are reading TOO FAR into a comment about a non-issue... No, I don't want the SEB/STAC to do jack squat right now. The comment was made in reference to another person's post about the expense of tires and how I don't think the SEB/STAC really cares about the cost of tires so long as the people competing are NOT complaining. There isn't any call to action there on my part so folks need to stop reading into it more than what was said. There is no reason for them to care. That is all I was saying.

Uh, I quoted you saying they haven't done anything. Then you say you don't want to. It's not us reading into it, its you flip flopping.

Z3papa
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:525


--
10 Feb 2013 02:25 PM
I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.
Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
10 Feb 2013 02:27 PM
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Uh, I quoted you saying they haven't done anything. Then you say you don't want to. It's not us reading into it, its you flip flopping.

And I was responding to the "$100 more per tire" comment from Torino1985 by saying that the SEB/STAC doesn't want to change anything. No where did I want or imply (even if what I wrote was poorly written, it was) that the SEB/STAC SHOULD do something right now. In other words, the status quo is fine according to the participation levels in the class.


I'm sorry if that still isn't clear, I don't know of any way to say it differently. We've (I've) gone and de-railed this thread enough as is. Back to STX Weight and Power.


Z3papa wrote:
I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.

I concur, believe it or not. Even though it would be fun to have an ST for the heavier cars out there (not just V8 cars) but it just isn't feasible nor practical. My car, with -1.7&ordm; of camber will still use a set of 245/45/18 Star Specs (not much tire, only 10mm wider per corner than stock) in TWO seasons of my driving. Last year I had a co-driver and the tires saw nearly 70 runs (not much compared to others here) and almost ALL of that was on the Lincoln Concrete (not exactly friendly to tires). I do have some outer shoulder wear but it's not like the flipping the tires and more camber can't cure that problem (which I did). I would LOVE to be able to jump on a set of 265/40/18 tires and a set of nice lightweight 18x9 rims but it isn't in the budget this year so I'll finish using up the 245/45/18 Star Specs and change everything out next year when I do have the budge to do it.




85rx-7gsl-se
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:282


--
10 Feb 2013 02:43 PM
Z3papa wrote:
I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.

 

Exclusion of who? Wouldn't it make more sense to let car likes the pony cars and 370z's run stu (where boost buggies will likey still dominate) instead of being forced to undertire the cars in stx/str? Or should we tel them sorry, look to an rcomp class instead?
CHRISFP78
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:495


--
10 Feb 2013 03:03 PM
I would suggest that if you really want to run your pony car in ST, write a letter to the seb and ask for a tire and wheel allowance for the pony cars. Point a link to the vorshlag mustang build to prove your point and then ask real nice for 285's and 11" wheels.

Dont even start with me about ST tires being expensive in the large sizes, they are a bargan.
I have runn a set of RS3's for 3 years with 2 drivers on concrete and they still have tread. About a third cheaper than hoosiers and last at least 5 times longer.
Fair
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1021


--
10 Feb 2013 04:33 PM

Torino1985 wrote:

I have the same problem with my Mach 1. I can make power and I can even get into the 3300 lb arena but with (edit: 265mm) now being the biggest tire available for the class. It is really hard to get the car to turn or even go straight when I put the pedal to the floor. I even wrote up a thread about ST V8 only cars where tire sizes could be bigger, basically big cars big power minus corvettes(for obvious reasons) I was more or less told until a few fully prepped V8 cars got killed all the time no one would take the idea seriously.

I hear ya. STX is an impossible enough battle with the 2005-2010 Mustang GT's 4.6L 3V power levels (300-315 hp stock), but with 2011-2013 5.0L 4V (412-444 hp stock) power levels it is a total joke. As in: I would highly suggest another class for anyone with a 2011+ Mustang GT. ESP is the only place worth racing these cars, but they've just ram-rodded some changes there that make it less than ideal place to race, at least for 2013 (80% of Watts Links just became illegal last month).

I do feel like there would be a number of 2005-2013+ Mustangs and even possibly some 4th and 5th gen Camaros + Challengers that would race in a "Pony Car" ST class. Hey, they have half a dozen classes for Miatas and almost as many for the AWD boost buggies, why not allow the popular V8 RWD cars a place to play on street tires? And as many of you know there are TWO NEW PONY CARS coming next year: The all-new 2015 Mustang and 2015 Camaro are supposed to both be all new, IRS equipped, smaller in width and length, and both targeted to be about 3300 pounds - with even more power. And there's a new Dodge pony car coming around the same time - the 2015 Baracuda, also rumored to be lighter/smaller. To say that these might be popular is a given. Add in the heavyweight RWD Genesis Coupe, the older SN95 Mustangs and 4th gen Camaro/Firebirds, and you have a pretty healthy class diversity of new and old cars.

We ran a similar Pony Car class in my college autox club (TAMSCC) in 1991-2000 and it was always huge... 25+ cars at local events. Rules were 275mm/200 UTQG max and little else, with almost 100% of the cars being Mustangs or Camaros. So much fun, and lots of freedom, but the tire width and compound limit kept power levels and costs in check. Now that the pony cars are heavier and faster I think the width limit would need to grow to 295 to 315mm, both of which fits the S197 chassis without fender mods.

DSC_1983-S.jpg DSC_1986-S.jpg
These 295/35/18 tires on 18x10" wheels have lots of room - we use 18x11/12" wheels with 315mm rubber now

My daily driven 2013 GT has that 295mm tire and it has gobs of room, still. The many 265mm tires we tested and raced with on our STX classed 2011 GT (very unsuccessfully) look like temporary spares in comparison. And whoever said there aren't any good 18" diameter 265mm choices for STX needs to look harder: we used two different branded 265/40/18s, from Yokohama AD08 and Hankook R-S3. We also used 265/35/18s from Hankook, Toyo R1R and a Dunlop in 265/40/17 (on the rear only - the 17's wouldn't clear the front 14" brakes). That was almost 2 years ago now, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more options now. Let's see... the Dunlop Direzza ZII comes in 265/35/18, and there's the Kumho XS in 265/35/18, and the Bridgestone RE-11A is about to drop and will likely have 265s. TONS of 265mm choices exist in the 140-200 UTQG range. :)

DSC_9747-S.jpg DSC_9008-S.jpg
265/40/18 Yokohamas on stock sized 9" wide wheels look terribly small on this 73" wide, 3500 pound Mustang

Torino1985 wrote:

I think ST classes should not have max tire sizes since we have a no fender change rule, whatever you can get inside of them with rolling should be the way it goes. Why is there a tire size rule anyway? I am a newbe so I have no clue how that rule came into effect. It only handicaps the larger cars which are already handicapped by weight anyway.

Well the tire width maximum was actually a clever way to "equalize" all of the cars within a given ST class. But this is the only category that does it this way, where ALL cars within a given class have the same width maximum. But two ST classes have two "maximums": One for RWD and one for AWD (see - STX and STU). For the most part it kind of works, and keeps the performances relatively the same... as long as the cars within a given class have similar weight levels.

Of course this isn't always the case.

The S197 Mustang (the only viable Pony car in the past 10 years) is a porker, and doesn't fit in any of the traditional ST classes. Its too heavy for the skinny 265mm tires and 9" wheels that are allowed there. This car does get a lot more driveable on wider wheels and tires allowed in STU (no wheel width limit and a 285mm limit for RWD cars), but they took that option away when they classed all cars in ONE class for ST, to keep the damned Honda Civics from class-jumping and dominating ALL ST classes in the least powerful (yet lightest) cars. I'm glad that happened, as the Honda class jumping kept a lot of racers out of STX and even STU for 2-3 years, but it ended up hurting the Mustang's ST potential, in the end.

I would rather see this car in STU, after tilting at windmills in STX for 2 seasons, spending many thousands of dollars testing every viable tire option and realizing that it couldn't even be competitive in the class regionally, much less Nationally (we tried and failed there, too). We ran a couple of events in STU trim and it was MUCH more competitive, but still pretty far behind a properly prepped EVO or STI. But at least on 10+" wheels and 285mm rubber it gets a lot more drive-able, and you can use that skinny pedal on the right a little. On STX's max width 9" wheels, notsomuch.


Our brief stint in STU was much more successful, netting our first top 10 PAX results in the car in 2 years

I don't think this car is any threat in STU, not by a long shot, but I would rather see at least the 2011+ 5.0L cars class in STU rather than STX - just to be able to use a 285mm tire. Or create this provisional "ST-Heavy" class and invite all of the porkers to play, and open up the tire width even more? That's a long shot, of course, as there aren't any pony car folks on the STAC and aren't many even trying to race these cars in STX (except a few die-hards). Not blaming anyone, as these guys aren't knocking the SCCA door down and don't whine as loudly as the Miata/Honda guys. :D

Torino1985 wrote:

I am building the car to "see" if I can be competitive this year but I have a feeling I will end up in ESP next year. At least the suspension rules are the same!

Well... STX and ESP suspension rules are mostly the same. Don't get me started.

But yes, by all means necessary, switch to ESP if you are at all serious. The competitiveness jump we saw from switching up in tire width (STX -> STU) and then compound (STU -> ESP) was dramatic. We went from rarely cracking the top 20 in PAX locally in STX to 7th in STU to top 2 in ESP, with virtually no other changes other than the wheels and tires! Racing against the same people every month, but the wider and then MUCH wider tire bumps just made the car easier to drive and faster in PAX and class standings. ESP is the only place to play for a streetable S197 Mustang, in my view. FStock has too many painful restrictions (stock ride height springs, no camber) and STX just handicaps the car on too skinny of a tire.

IMG_2840-S.jpg DSC_1000-S.jpg
Left: 3 of 4 ST legal tire sets we tested in one day on our STX Mustang: Right: Just a few of the R-compounds we tried in ESP

But if you think tire costs were expensive in STX (and they were for us, mostly due to the wide number of options we purchased and tested with), go price a 315/30/18 Hoosier A6. And now plan on about 30 runs per set. The math isn't pretty, but it sure is a lot faster and more fun!

Dang... sorry for the threadjack.

Good luck,

Z3papa
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:525


--
10 Feb 2013 05:27 PM
85rx-7gsl-se wrote:
Z3papa wrote:I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.

Exclusion of who? Wouldn't it make more sense to let car likes the pony cars and 370z's run stu (where boost buggies will likey still dominate) instead of being forced to undertire the cars in stx/str? Or should we tel them sorry, look to an rcomp class instead?

 

I actually agree with you. Just don't think there should be a class for predominantly or only pony cars.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 7 << < 12345 > >>


Sunoco 88x31 Button
Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Leroy Engineering Micro Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner