SCCA Street Touring updates, CST specifically...

Is it me, or is classing the newest twins within CST stupid?  I'm not an SCCA hater, but I think this is the kind of thing they refer to for their hatred. 

Moving the S2000s and NDs to AST was the right move, as my NB just couldn't compete with them. I can get within a stone's throw of a NC, and I'm ok with that.  

But there's no way I can keep up the newest twins.  Any of them, really.  Twins are pretty quick, and I think they should be up in AST.

They've got the older ones in DST, and that makes no sense, looking at the list, as the only thing there that would touch them is the 128. All of the twins, and probably the 128, should be in AST.

Or, am I just whining because I'm Captain Slow anyways?

FWIW.

The S2000 is still in CST. The NC, S2000, and twin will end up within a tenth or two on most courses WRT peak pace. A smartly developed NB will only end up a touch off of that (another tenth or two). The NB will be ~600+lbs lighter than the new Twin, and a LOT shorter wheelbase. Big dimensional advantages. The new Twin has gearing limitations that will either mandate a shift to 3rd or a long segment of riding the limiter on quality courses. This will be advantageous at tiny local postage stamp lots with low vmins (where the NB/NC/S2000 will be seriously thrust disadvantaged).

If you aren't able to routinely outpace present top STX twins in your NB, there's definitely plenty more driver/car development work to be done :). The total gap between a well-developed NB and a well developed 2nd gen twin is probably 3-4 tenths over 60 seconds, with the ND2 being another 3-4 tenths faster than that.

Folks routinely discussed the RX8 being totally outclassed in STX over the past several years as well. I was a pretty active participant in the development of the STX twin that was top index on one side of the Pro Finale course this year, really putting a pretty serious hurt on the class. This was a car with LOTS of development / pace left to go (the diff was totally broken, functioned as an open, car was probably 100lbs overweight, and we had *really* limited test time this year). Alongside continuing development of that car for 2025, I've got an NC2 I'm developing for CST, and have run basically every Miata you can in Solo. Ain't scurred of the Twins at all (though have also been roped into helping develop an XA 2nd gen Twin....).

The whole point of this was to unbury the nc, s2000, and new BRZ. At least one of those is actually popular, and people claim the other two will show up in decent numbers though I have my doubts. The NB has never quite had a home in st, this might not be a full win for you but it's an improvement.

In reply to ГУЛАГ мальчик УР следующий :

I know nothing about SCCA and AutoX, but "all of the twins" if you mean that to include the 1st gen with the 2nd gen I would disagree solely on power. 

They are incredibly close on weight, but the 2nd gen engine is underrated from the factory. They are consistently putting down ~45whp more than the first gen with a much fatter midrange and a lot more tq. While only being rated 28 more HP at the crank. 

I also have an STR Prepped NB and was excited about the news as well. I'd rather be forced to fight against the 2nd gen Twins than the ND Miata. I just like how the NB feels and drives otherwise I'd just grab a co-drive if I wanted to win anything.

In reply to z31maniac :

Yes, "all" includes 1st gens.  And that's pretty interesting, which would ordinarily have me thinking that I was in the right track (pun?  Eh, not a good one...).  I'm sure the guys running 1Gs have tunes, and I thought that was worth 20-25hp on a basic, canned tune.

Newer cars of all stripes seem to be pretty maxed out without some serious work, so I figured 1G cars were close enough to 2G.

SpeedTheory, however, seized on my last sentence, which is true in any case, but I didn't think the new Twins were 2950lb cars, I thought they maintained the 2700lb they came out as (that's from memory, but I remember them being about the weight of the old e30/325s, which I thought were 26/2700lbs - again, memory, so subject to correction).

Either way, still more hp/lb, better across the rev range, and 25 years (or more) newer development wise, so 3 or 4 tenths on a 60 second course seems wildly optimistic.  Maybe a maxed out NB (mine is not) and a Nationals winning driver (see my last sentence...), but I don't see that one. 

When I'm going a lot, I can run with most of the good average guys in older STR cars, but never close to NDs, S2Ks.

What are twins?

confuZion3 said:

What are twins?

The 86's. BRZ, FRS, Toyota 86.

Ahh. Got it. I suspected it was something like that... but you know... Supra/Z4, BRZ/86, Miata/Fiat 124. There are a lot of shared platforms nowadays.

It makes me wonder when we'll see a shared Camustang platform. With a 5.0 Liter, 32 valve LS-something. Or... maybe it'll be called the Mustaro? 

Just realizing that, after like 20 years, I have to retire my STS magentics. 

In reply to ГУЛАГ мальчик УР следующий :

25hp on a 1st gen is a catless header and E85, not just a 91 tune which is in the 6-8 hp range. Which IIRC E85 isn't legal in a car that wasn't designated that way from the factory. 

2nd gens on E85 and a catless header are getting close to 250 whp. 

ГУЛАГ мальчик УР следующий said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Yes, "all" includes 1st gens.  And that's pretty interesting, which would ordinarily have me thinking that I was in the right track (pun?  Eh, not a good one...).  I'm sure the guys running 1Gs have tunes, and I thought that was worth 20-25hp on a basic, canned tune.

Newer cars of all stripes seem to be pretty maxed out without some serious work, so I figured 1G cars were close enough to 2G.

SpeedTheory, however, seized on my last sentence, which is true in any case, but I didn't think the new Twins were 2950lb cars, I thought they maintained the 2700lb they came out as (that's from memory, but I remember them being about the weight of the old e30/325s, which I thought were 26/2700lbs - again, memory, so subject to correction).

Either way, still more hp/lb, better across the rev range, and 25 years (or more) newer development wise, so 3 or 4 tenths on a 60 second course seems wildly optimistic.  Maybe a maxed out NB (mine is not) and a Nationals winning driver (see my last sentence...), but I don't see that one. 

When I'm going a lot, I can run with most of the good average guys in older STR cars, but never close to NDs, S2Ks.

An ST prepped 1st gen twin is around 2500lbs (with a low effort car ending up around 2550). A 2nd gen twin will end up quite a bit heavier (a touch over 2600). An ST prepped NB will be just over 2000. For clarity, I'm discussing cars actually prepped for their classes, not folks who have done one or two things to their car that end up with them classed a certain way.

Look at it this way, STS and STX are basically the same pace, with some mild course dependency, but not a lot. There's only a second between STX (FRS/RX8) and STR (NDs). The new tweener class ends up just between them (a touch closer to STR). If you don't think an ST prepped NB will be MUCH faster than an ST prepped 1.6 NA Miata, I am unsure what to tell you. Boatloads more torque/thrust, quite a bit more power, on 9s instead of 7.5s, with identical wheelbases, and a clutched / tunable diff, and the only track width increase will be from the wider wheels that massively improve lateral grip. One downside to the NB is that the A052 is really only available in a 205 (the 225 is TALL!), but IME, tire width is REALLY not very relevant relative to wheel width WRT generating pace. 

With the NB, you really need to be pursuing power pretty heavily. I'd expect an ST NB to be right around ~140whp and ~120wtq, based on what has been pretty easily achievable in my TT6 NBs (you do definitely want an NB1 since the NB2 manifold is so restrictive up top, with a 5spd, but you'd want that anyways for weight). What ECU are you using? There's a lot of thrust to be found spending some time on intake design (none of the common off the shelf options are very good, IME), as well as with the header design (ditto). 

In reply to SpeedTheory :

I mentioned earlier I don't know all the ins and outs, but pulling 300lbs out of a 1st gen. How do you do that? 

2nd gens are only around 40lbs heavier, so how can you only pull 200lbs out vs 300lbs? 

This is in no way meant to be adversarial, I'm just legitimately curious. 

Read the entirety of the ST ruleset. I think a lot of people like to compare stock (published) weights, versus what can be done within ST. Even an SSC 1st gen weighs around 2650 or so, and they have really heavy wheels, exhaust system, suspension, brakes, stock battery, etc. It is really easy to get a 1st gen twin to be ~2525, the last ~25 or so requires some really careful considerations on things / some small engineering work versus just ordering parts.

Minimum weight seats, brakes, exhaust, battery, wheels. Anything legal to replace within ST, you do so with the component that is the lightest possible to complete its function. Some of these are radically different in how much ST can drop between 1st and 2nd gens.

As an example, more weight in ST can be pulled out of a BRZ than a GR86 specifically, because of the way the rear sway bar is mounted. Since mounting is free, you can do whatever you'd like with the mounts. The BRZ comes with a really heavy and unique sway bar mounting setup relative to the GR. So, for the 2nd gen twin project I'm actively involved in developing, we'd designed new mounts and had them made. Also fixes some geometry issues with the OE mounting (unsure if the images are attaching correctly).

In reply to SpeedTheory :

That's interesting! I knew the rear sway bar was mounted differently but didn't realize it made that big of a difference, regarding weight. All OE wheels are heavy. My 18x9.5 wheels are lighter than the stock wheels. I know the AP sprint set up knocks like 22lbs off the front brakes. 

I just didn't realize there was that much more weight to knock out on these cars. 

There are definitely much lighter setups one can develop than the super spendy AP setup (for a lot less money). 

I think there are kind of two ways people perceive ST. "Commercially available bolt ons, tune, wide wheels", and "a comprehensive ruleset". I think if you look at it the first way, your 1st gen twin will end up around 2600-2625lbs. If you go line by line, and figure out how to maximize each allowance for weight, you get down to 2500. This is just a difference in how varying folks / competitiveness levels approach the rulebook. 

Things that are presently totally legal but very few "regional" cars take advantage of:

1. Utilize the control arm allowance to drop a LOT of weight out of either end of the car. You can replace an arm, so pick the one that works geometrically for you that you can also drop the most weight from. This can be a 10+lb drop if executed smartly. 

2. Find the lightest clutch/PP combo that bolts up to a stock flywheel that you can launch the car at a ProSolo with. Some cars this is also a lot of weight, and rotational/drivetrain connected. 

3. Relocate your (now 2lb) battery for more even cross weighting.

4. Custom brake kit designed solely around weight.

5. Custom bushing designs to remove bind / all rubber from the suspension. No, I don't mean an OTS poly kit :).

I really like seeing other people do cool stuff / innovating, and *especially* with oddball cars / succeeding with them in the face of groupthink. The #1 exercise I'd recommend anyone do when building an ST car is to go through every item in the rulebook (or even if you've run one a while, do so each year), and write down *any* way you can think of to maximize it. I think a lot of people stop at the basics because each thing like this is only an incremental improvement, *and* if you hold yourself back by refusing to fabricate/design new solutions, you are restricted to only what you can find via google. No, your car probably won't be measurably faster in testing switching from steel bodied shocks to aluminum, but if you do that in conjunction with 10 other things that each make your car 1/3 of a tenth faster, your car gets a LOT faster. 

 

SpeedTheory said:

 If you go line by line, and figure out how to maximize each allowance for weight, you get down to 2500. This is just a difference in how varying folks / competitiveness levels approach the rulebook. 
...

The #1 exercise I'd recommend anyone do when building an ST car is to go through every item in the rulebook (or even if you've run one a while, do so each year), and write down *any* way you can think of to maximize it.

 

That one year in Topeka where they weighed all the ST Civics in impound, mine was 60 lbs lighter than the next-lightest car.  This in what was perceived to be essentially a "spec" class.  It was all 1-2 lbs at a time, done repeatedly all over the car.  Looking the car over carefully, folks found about half of it visually in impound.

And then came Whitener a few years later...a whole 'nuther level of detail/fab.  His Civic was another 40-50 lbs lighter, partly by making his own shocks and mounts.

But...this is not a necessary exercise for regional competition.  It's only for the pointy end folks battling for podium at Lincoln.  I started my crusade after losing a jacket by .006.

Totally understand that, and agree (mostly).

My statement is mostly just to encourage the thought exercise of grasping what is possible, especially in the context here of "how can you get all the weight out of a Twin like that".

In reply to ГУЛАГ мальчик УР следующий :

For the record, only the S2000 CR is in AST. All other S2000's are in CST. 

I sympathize with the SCCA on this one. If you threw the new 2.4L 2nd gen twins in the same class as the ND (now AST), there's a sizable disadvantage to the twins that would really nerf them. Putting pretty much anything against the ND in Street Touring is a recipe for killing all chance of competition in that car. Notice that most of the cars they put into the new AST class against the ND are very low production cars that aren't likely to compete anyway:

S2000 CR
Saturn Sky Redline
Solstice GXP
Mazdaspeed Miata

I don't believe this was on accident- they literally just created an ND class, and I'm okay with that. They know the ND is going to maul pretty much anything in *ST. The times in STR are substantially faster than pretty much any other ST class. The 2nd gen twins are already in STR and can't keep up with the ND. By creating a very small AST class, they freed a long list of cars there were made noncompetitive by the existence of the ND.  

Seemingly prior to the release of the ND, STR was mostly dominated by S2000's. The S2000 hasn't had a competitive place to play for years. Conveniently, a couple months after I sell my AP2, now the SCCA decides to create a class where the S2000 could be competitive! Doh! 

I'm not convinced the 2nd gen twins will be much (any?) faster than S2000's. Nearly identical stock curb weights (~2800 lbs), nearly identical power, etc. Sure, the twins have a bit of a torque advantage, but the S2000 has a bit better weight distribution, a shorter wheelbase and double wishbones up front. I see them being fairly competitive. I see both of them as being a hair faster than the NC and NB on most courses- although I could see both the NC and NB being competitive on very tight courses due to being noticeably lighter. Depending on trim levels, the NB/NC start out 300-500 lbs lighter than the twins and S2000, with smaller dimensions all around. 

If they move the 2nd gen twins (one of the most modified and raced chassis currently in the US) up into AST, they stand no chance [against the ND]. If they move the 2nd gen twins down into DST, they have no place to put the 1st gen cars, which are some of the most popular cars in the SCCA. All things considered, CST is probably the best place for the 2nd gen twins. 

At low speed, thrust is going to be a feather in the cap of the Twin. Tight postage stamp local courses are not a friend to any of the other cars in the class relative to it.

I think all 3 (S2000, NC, and Twin) will end up very close at bigger events. The S2000 / NC (and NB) take more effort to get them to close to peak pace though. Not really different than making the RX8 competitive in STX.

roninsoldier83 said:

In reply to ГУЛАГ мальчик УР следующий :

For the record, only the S2000 CR is in AST. All other S2000's are in CST. 

I sympathize with the SCCA on this one. If you threw the new 2.4L 2nd gen twins in the same class as the ND (now AST), there's a sizable disadvantage to the twins that would really nerf them. Putting pretty much anything against the ND in Street Touring is a recipe for killing all chance of competition in that car. Notice that most of the cars they put into the new AST class against the ND are very low production cars that aren't likely to compete anyway:

S2000 CR
Saturn Sky Redline
Solstice GXP
Mazdaspeed Miata

I don't believe this was on accident- they literally just created an ND class, and I'm okay with that. They know the ND is going to maul pretty much anything in *ST. The times in STR are substantially faster than pretty much any other ST class. The 2nd gen twins are already in STR and can't keep up with the ND. By creating a very small AST class, they freed a long list of cars there were made noncompetitive by the existence of the ND.  

Seemingly prior to the release of the ND, STR was mostly dominated by S2000's. The S2000 hasn't had a competitive place to play for years. Conveniently, a couple months after I sell my AP2, now the SCCA decides to create a class where the S2000 could be competitive! Doh! 

I'm not convinced the 2nd gen twins will be much (any?) faster than S2000's. Nearly identical stock curb weights (~2800 lbs), nearly identical power, etc. Sure, the twins have a bit of a torque advantage, but the S2000 has a bit better weight distribution, a shorter wheelbase and double wishbones up front. I see them being fairly competitive. I see both of them as being a hair faster than the NC and NB on most courses- although I could see both the NC and NB being competitive on very tight courses due to being noticeably lighter. Depending on trim levels, the NB/NC start out 300-500 lbs lighter than the twins and S2000, with smaller dimensions all around. 

If they move the 2nd gen twins (one of the most modified and raced chassis currently in the US) up into AST, they stand no chance [against the ND]. If they move the 2nd gen twins down into DST, they have no place to put the 1st gen cars, which are some of the most popular cars in the SCCA. All things considered, CST is probably the best place for the 2nd gen twins. 

I had a conversation with a stac member while this was in the proposal phase. My understanding is that they wanted move the nd out on its own but the seb wouldn't let them make a single car class. So they threw in some basically irrelevant but similar on paper cars with it to make everyone happy. I actually think the original proposal of mixing in some middle tier SST cars with SST wheel/tire allowances could have created a decent class with some variety but keeping the nd as the top car 99% of the time.

This turned in to a much more interesting thread than I thought. 

S2Ks ruled the roost back when, and nobody was running NBs by the time I got mine.  Occasional NC running close to but behind S2Ks.  Then the NDs came out.  Never mind the STX twins that always seemed close to the pointy end.

I wasn't close then, but, car wasn't set up, and while it may not seem possible, I was a slower driver.

We shall see!