s9669s
New Member
Posts:
 |
| 08 Aug 2010 09:52 AM |
|
Let me start this thread by admitting that I am attempting to run STR with the wrong car (1999 10th Anniversary Miata). It has the wrong transmission, and all of the heavy options are standard. That said, I originally bought the car for another purpose, and really do not want to sell it just for the sake of STR. As such, I am looking for the opportunity to shed some weight(namely A/C and side skirts which were optional on some models but standard on anniversary cars) and wonder if opening the rules a bit to allow it could potentially be in the best interest of the class (category), hence this discussion...(I know, I class and all that jazz).
Does considering a parts mix-n-match middle ground make sense for other cars (and the category)? Would UD/BD of same line listed cars like SP, potentially excluding body shell and whole engine / trans swaps, but restricted to same model year be attractive for othe cars in the category? Does it open the door to creating franken-cars which would be detrimental to the category? |
|
|
|
|
s9669s
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 09:54 AM |
|
NOTE: SCCA Forums refuses to recognize carriage returns when I post from my Android phone, hence the poor formatting... |
|
|
|
|
rp1
Basic Member
Posts:218
|
| 08 Aug 2010 12:17 PM |
|
s9669s wrote:
Let me start this thread by admitting that I am attempting to run STR with the wrong car (1999 10th Anniversary Miata). It has the wrong transmission, and all of the heavy options are standard. That said, I originally bought the car for another purpose, and really do not want to sell it just for the sake of STR. As such, I am looking for the opportunity to shed some weight(namely A/C and side skirts which were optional on some models but standard on anniversary cars) and wonder if opening the rules a bit to allow it could potentially be in the best interest of the class (category), hence this discussion...(I know, I class and all that jazz).Does considering a parts mix-n-match middle ground make sense for other cars (and the category)? Would UD/BD of same line listed cars like SP, potentially excluding body shell and whole engine / trans swaps, but restricted to same model year be attractive for othe cars in the category? Does it open the door to creating franken-cars which would be detrimental to the category? If I recall, this is how ST used to be (a lot closer to SP) and it was a huge mess. THis will open a massive can of worms and increase the costs of ST hugely. Don't have a second thought about this. Trade cars and move on... |
|
|
|
|
MattP
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 12:23 PM |
|
You could undo a lot of that stuff legally in ST or Stock class right now. Consider an option package conversion to a Sport, legal in stock. In ST: badges are open, seats are open, side trim can be removed/replaced. Most of the remaining items would fall under comfort and convenience.
|
|
|
|
|
s9669s
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 12:56 PM |
|
rp1 wrote:If I recall, this is how ST used to be (a lot closer to SP) and it was a huge mess. THis will open a massive can of worms and increase the costs of ST hugely. Don't have a second thought about this. Trade cars and move on...
If I recall correctly, ST used to have full-on SP UD/BD. The 'huge mess' that lead in large part to reversing that was the swap of a certain 1989 driveline into a certain 1988 shell. Honestly, I agree with the thinking behind that, in that it feels contrary to the class philosophy. What I would like feedback around is proposing a middle-ground between the stock-class engine package conversion and full-on SP UD/BD. Limit to same model year, and exclude driveline and shell swaps? Or maybe same model year, same line, same engine? |
|
|
|
|
s9669s
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 01:08 PM |
|
Unfortunately, an option package conversion would require shedding the 6-speed and ABS, and changing the final drive. The 6-speed and ABS are why I bought the car to start with...for a future FI build. STR came along in the interim, and has side-tracked me from strapping on a blower and heading to SSM. [I know, more of those I-class undertones...] In the end, I am not going to lose sleep over it either way, but it looked like an opportunity to potentially broaden the appeal / flexibility of the rule set as long as it also does no harm. |
|
|
|
|
rp1
Basic Member
Posts:218
|
| 08 Aug 2010 01:30 PM |
|
s9669s wrote:
Unfortunately, an option package conversion would require shedding the 6-speed and ABS, and changing the final drive. The 6-speed and ABS are why I bought the car to start with...for a future FI build. STR came along in the interim, and has side-tracked me from strapping on a blower and heading to SSM. [I know, more of those I-class undertones...] In the end, I am not going to lose sleep over it either way, but it looked like an opportunity to potentially broaden the appeal / flexibility of the rule set as long as it also does no harm. Here is the simple fact...why? What is ST gaining by doing this? How are the ST classes bettered? All ST classes already have MORE than enough participation on a local and national level and there's great competition with a number of different cars (at least in STX and STR - STU is decent, especially at local levels and ST/STS is a known formula for people who want to focus on driving, not building "what car is best on what course"). ST needs rules stability. Between the wing and exhaust rulings issues, ST needs to have a few seasons of stability before the subjective re-org that goes along with S/SP formula. These sorts of rules changes have a habit of having huge un-seen consequences. Maybe I'm totally off base here, but I just worry about MORE rules changes to a formula that's working really well (even with the wing hullabaloo this year). Not trying to crap on your parade :) |
|
|
|
|
MNbiker
Veteran Member
Posts:1039
|
| 08 Aug 2010 05:33 PM |
|
IMHO allowing UD/BD would be a huge mistake for ST. Why insert such a large can of worms into a category that's massively popular? One of the most attractive elements of the ST classes is that modifications are limited to simple bolt-on upgrades, making the cars quick & easy to build.
Honestly, if you want to build a top ST car, it's a lot easier to simply sell your current car and buy the correct car. If you're not that serious about being competitive at a National level, just enjoy the car you have. |
|
|
|
|
MattP
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 06:25 PM |
|
s9669s wrote:
Unfortunately, an option package conversion would require shedding the 6-speed and ABS, and changing the final drive. That's the reason I'd want to use UD/BD on the 10AE, but if you want that gearing, part of the deal is all the additional weight.
|
|
|
|
|
o2bav8
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Aug 2010 07:35 PM |
|
"MHO allowing UD/BD would be a huge mistake for ST. Why insert such a
large can of worms into a category that's massively popular? One of the
most attractive elements of the ST classes is that modifications are
limited to simple bolt-on upgrades, making the cars quick & easy to
build." AMEN!
|
|
|
|
|
Z3papa
Basic Member
Posts:380
|
| 09 Aug 2010 05:41 AM |
|
I would not be in support of returning to the UD/BD rules. In SP, it made for some serious mis-classing as the assumption was I'd pull a motor from an M ($10,000 investment) to improve my $10,000. As such, I spent years in ASP and BSP where it was hopeless. ST classing finds that middle ground compromise between stock and SP allowances and has been very successful. |
|
|
|
|
Butt Dyno
Basic Member
Posts:413
|
| 09 Aug 2010 07:41 PM |
|
MNbiker wrote:Honestly, if you want to build a top ST car, it's a lot easier to simply sell your current car and buy the correct car. If you're not that serious about being competitive at a National level, just enjoy the car you have. This. It is a very simple concept: if you care about being competitive, do what the rules say you need to do to be competitive (even if that means switching cars). If you don't, enjoy your runs in a car that isn't as competitive and try your hardest to make it so. Regressing the rules is not a good thing for the category. |
|
|
|
|