STX setup sharing thread (2023)

[foshjowler]

Originally Posted by renfield90

Make a new ST class for the ND. This solves all the problems in question.

I know one person has already written that letter. I'm going to be writing that letter in response to this.

That was one of the suggestions I gave in my letter (mine is the one they're responding to directly), and it's not what they took from my letter. Maybe it will gain more traction as more people suggest it. Having an STMiata would be in the best interests of the sport.

[DocWalt]

Originally Posted by foshjowler

What makes it hugely uncompetitive? They're the same chassis, but the 2nd gen has less development. Look at last years nationals results. Simmons was the top 2nd gen driver in STR, someone that has been very nationally competitive for a lot of years, would have been hanging out at the bottom of trophies almost 1.5 seconds behind the top STX time. Will that gap close, and the 2nd gen be faster, sure, but it's not pure domination like people seem to think.

Being local to Simmons...

That car was well developed. Doing the tune was really all that was left that would actually make it faster for autocross than it was... and that's not much power or rev limiter.


This move immediately buries the 1st gen, I've been competing with Jon Caserta locally and he is a good deal slower raw time and his car is full tilt STX besides a muffler and STI wing.


So yeah, I am fully in support of just making an STM class and not burying STX, but STAC is too stubborn to just make STM so here we are.


If they were moving the twins/RX-8 to STS right now I'd be more in favor of the move.

[strat61caster]

Wrote my letter, if the mk1 gets obsoleted I'm looking for a new competitive car, might end up taking a year off from national competition. Of course the mk2 is better lol, they added a few pounds of body work and chassis reinforcement and 0.4L, no replacement for displacement, it makes like 20hp & lb-ft more across the board with no downsides, I expect that'll go up a little bit over the next year or two.

I like that the NC goes with the BR86, it's even cheaper to build then a current twin (initial purchase price, no struts to buy) and I think that pairing will eventually make a decent ST class. The mk1 FRZ still has SSC and ESP and SM/XA so I think in the long run this will be fine. It just feels silly to propose it less then a year after STX is the highest subscribed ST class.

[DocWalt]

It makes a lot more like 40 more horsepower, FWIW. There's no way the second gen *isn't* faster

[foshjowler]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I like that the NC goes with the BR86, it's even cheaper to build then a current twin (initial purchase price, no struts to buy) and I think that pairing will eventually make a decent ST class. The mk1 FRZ still has SSC and ESP and SM/XA so I think in the long run this will be fine. It just feels silly to propose it less then a year after STX is the highest subscribed ST class.

Agree that long term it's a good move. Just look at DS with 2-3 nationally competitive options. It's a hugely popular class. Most everyone wants to see more classes with multiple competitive options. STX has been dominated by the twins for quite some time now, and IMO it was fairly predictable that they'd eventually move the 2nd gens into STX. They can't wait too much longer with having the 2nd gen be uncompetitive in ST without risk of killing the cars popularity. I'd argue that STMiata is the smarter short and long term decision, but how often has the SCCA done that with classing?



It sounds like there are a number of people with cars/parts at the ready for when they make the 2nd gen competitive in ST. With the popularity of the 1st gen, and now the 2nd gen (there were probably 10-15 at the Charlotte Tour), it should be competitive in a couple of places.



The NB/NC was the surprise for me. I didn't actually expect them to pickup on that suggestion.

[foshjowler]

Originally Posted by DocWalt

It makes a lot more like 40 more horsepower, FWIW. There's no way the second gen *isn't* faster

It's definitely faster, no one is debating that. The question is how much faster, all else being equal. My guess is .5 - 1 second on a 60 second course as things stand.



We're probably still another year or two out from significant power gains in the aftermarket, and more importantly RPMs. At the Charlotte tour, I would have loved an additional 500 rpm, which is still an advantage the 1st gen has. The extra development time for the first gen can't be ignored. Things that worked for it aren't necessarily working for the 2nd.

[renfield90]

I got the chance to 1/8 mile drag race a 2nd gen DS car 3 times in one night (Smoko's car if you know him) in my STX car.

I won 2/3, but entirely on the launch and 60' (I practice this stuff for a reason). After the 60' marker our cars were dead nuts even - nobody gaining even an inch. Kinda remarkable actually.

Anyway, give him header/mild tune/ST weight reduction and he walks me, no question. Given how close STX is right now at the pointy end, even a small advantage can move you up several spots. Unless the STAC wants to get into BOP stuff like banning tunes and exhaust changes from the 2nd gen cars, it's going to ruin the class.



Given we are one of the most popular ST classes, it's time to throw our weight around. Write letters. Volume works. Here's a quick form letter:

"Re letter number 34091, I am opposed to any changes in STX. It has been a healthy and extremely popular class for many years, and adding faster cars will negatively impact more people than it helps."

This letter isn't going to be very convincing because it provides no data to back up its arguments, but the STAC will be hard-pressed to ignore 20 copies of this letter. If you're reading this, please be one of those 20.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by DocWalt

So yeah, I am fully in support of just making an STM class and not burying STX, but STAC is too stubborn to just make STM so here we are.

I'm hopeful this is some sort of internal politics thing, where they need to try the "traditional" classing approach, then have it blow up in their faces big enough to secure buy-in to try the "create a new class" approach.

If this is not what's going on, then I'm really unimpressed with the lack of creativity in trying to solve this problem. The creation of SSC should've taught us all a lesson that more classes can be a good thing, as long as they are classes with the right cars.

People want to autocross twins and Miatas. Make classes for these cars and they will fill up.

[foshjowler]

Originally Posted by renfield90

I got the chance to 1/8 mile drag race a 2nd gen DS car 3 times in one night (Smoko's car if you know him) in my STX car.

I won 2/3, but entirely on the launch and 60' (I practice this stuff for a reason). After the 60' marker our cars were dead nuts even - nobody gaining even an inch. Kinda remarkable actually.

Anyway, give him header/mild tune/ST weight reduction and he walks me, no question. Given how close STX is right now at the pointy end, even a small advantage can move you up several spots. Unless the STAC wants to get into BOP stuff like banning tunes and exhaust changes from the 2nd gen cars, it's going to ruin the class.



Given we are one of the most popular ST classes, it's time to throw our weight around. Write letters. Volume works. Here's a quick form letter:

"Re letter number 34091, I am opposed to any changes in STX. It has been a healthy and extremely popular class for many years, and adding faster cars will negatively impact more people than it helps."

This letter isn't going to be very convincing because it provides no data to back up its arguments, but the STAC will be hard-pressed to ignore 20 copies of this letter. If you're reading this, please be one of those 20.

I still don't see how being a couple of tenths faster in an 1/8th mile means it's ruining a class. It's certainly moving the favorite car, but not ruining any chance of it being in the trophies.

I'm sure they foresaw receiving 20 letters from 1st gen owners being unhappy. They've also looked at results from the last 1.5 years, like I did when sending the letter, that the 2nd gen doesn't have the giant advantage people seem to think. What is proposed will also likely be a very popular class with new and budget options to being competitive. If you want your letter to get more traction, suggest something more than "don't change it because it's currently popular." Give them something to work with that will also be popular. How things sit now, there are cars that will compete well together sitting outside of the pointy end of a class. This brings them all into a class that would potentially have 2-3 cars in trophy positions. Give the SEB something similar to work with, ie. STMiata that requires fewer class changes and results in more popular classes.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by foshjowler

I still don't see how being a couple of tenths faster in an 1/8th mile means it's ruining a class. It's certainly moving the favorite car, but not ruining any chance of it being in the trophies.

I'm sure they foresaw receiving 20 letters from 1st gen owners being unhappy. They've also looked at results from the last 1.5 years, like I did when sending the letter, that the 2nd gen doesn't have the giant advantage people seem to think. What is proposed will also likely be a very popular class with new and budget options to being competitive. If you want your letter to get more traction, suggest something more than "don't change it because it's currently popular." Give them something to work with that will also be popular. How things sit now, there are cars that will compete well together sitting outside of the pointy end of a class. This brings them all into a class that would potentially have 2-3 cars in trophy positions. Give the SEB something similar to work with, ie. STMiata that requires fewer class changes and results in more popular classes.

You yourself estimate 0.5-1.0s/60, if I take 0.7/60 to last years nats results only Tovsen could’ve secured that last trophy spot.

If “a few tenths” doesn’t matter you could single handedly go cut the street and street touring classes in half with that argument.

[e1_griego]

I wrote a letter to move ND to SST to make STR fun for nc/s2000/2nd gen twin.

There's a gaggle of letters about ST classing that were responded to and mine is in that mess.

I parted out my car in October and have been waiting to think about buying a gen2 car til the classing shook out. Guess I'll be waiting a while longer.

[Davidss]

Talking about this here won't do anything, if you want to affect the process go here and send in your thoughts. You don't have to write 100 words. Even a sentence or a few is good.

http://crbscca.com/

[steverife]

Originally Posted by foshjowler

I still don't see how being a couple of tenths faster in an 1/8th mile means it's ruining a class. It's certainly moving the favorite car, but not ruining any chance of it being in the trophies.

I'm sure they foresaw receiving 20 letters from 1st gen owners being unhappy. They've also looked at results from the last 1.5 years, like I did when sending the letter, that the 2nd gen doesn't have the giant advantage people seem to think. What is proposed will also likely be a very popular class with new and budget options to being competitive. If you want your letter to get more traction, suggest something more than "don't change it because it's currently popular." Give them something to work with that will also be popular. How things sit now, there are cars that will compete well together sitting outside of the pointy end of a class. This brings them all into a class that would potentially have 2-3 cars in trophy positions. Give the SEB something similar to work with, ie. STMiata that requires fewer class changes and results in more popular classes.

I'll be blunt. Nothing that has happened in the results the last 2 years should have anything to do with this classing. People ran without tunes. People are running parts that aren't optimized with the car. People haven't dialed in their setups. And the people that have ran these cars are inherently not serious about doing well in STR. You mentioned Simmons. He has a lot of autocross knowledge, a lot of good results, and he puts good parts on cars, but he isn't someone that sets the bar for classes. He jumps cars a lot. He clearly cares more about building and driving different things than setting the bar at nats. I feel comfortable saying that because I think he'd say the same. Not to speak for Ken because he is on here, but I think he is someone that sets the bar, but I know that he has also been focused other things like just enjoying the car and non-autocross things as opposed to winning nats.

As mentioned, the time gap you've suggested was the difference between winning nats and maybe not trophying at nats last year. I drove decent and pax'd decently well at Charlotte the other week. I was a little over a second off first for the weekend. I finished 6th of 8 in my class. I ran a local with Andrew Pallotta the week before that. I think he put down 232whp. The course had a couple of 180's, but it is a Bristol course. So a national style course. He scratched me by 1.7 seconds. He is a better driver than I am, but overall, I felt like I drove well. I pax'd 3rd in a pretty decent region. It is 40+ whp and more torque in a low powered car where you spend a lot of time full throttle. And the only cost is a couple of lbs.

People can write their letters and it will play out how it will play out. And I think it is perfectly reasonable to want a competitive place to play with a new twin. However, it is pretty infuriating to see people suggesting that this doesn't really hurt first gen drivers. People that have been supporting the club and supporting travel events for years WILL be hurt by this. Some will lose money and move to something else. Some will step back their efforts. Some will probably move on to something else altogether.

[foshjowler]

Originally Posted by steverife

I'll be blunt. Nothing that has happened in the results the last 2 years should have anything to do with this classing. People ran without tunes. People are running parts that aren't optimized with the car. People haven't dialed in their setups. And the people that have ran these cars are inherently not serious about doing well in STR. You mentioned Simmons. He has a lot of autocross knowledge, a lot of good results, and he puts good parts on cars, but he isn't someone that sets the bar for classes. He jumps cars a lot. He clearly cares more about building and driving different things than setting the bar at nats. I feel comfortable saying that because I think he'd say the same. Not to speak for Ken because he is on here, but I think he is someone that sets the bar, but I know that he has also been focused other things like just enjoying the car and non-autocross things as opposed to winning nats.

As mentioned, the time gap you've suggested was the difference between winning nats and maybe not trophying at nats last year. I drove decent and pax'd decently well at Charlotte the other week. I was a little over a second off first for the weekend. I finished 6th of 8 in my class. I ran a local with Andrew Pallotta the week before that. I think he put down 232whp. The course had a couple of 180's, but it is a Bristol course. So a national style course. He scratched me by 1.7 seconds. He is a better driver than I am, but overall, I felt like I drove well. I pax'd 3rd in a pretty decent region. It is 40+ whp and more torque in a low powered car where you spend a lot of time full throttle. And the only cost is a couple of lbs.

People can write their letters and it will play out how it will play out. And I think it is perfectly reasonable to want a competitive place to play with a new twin. However, it is pretty infuriating to see people suggesting that this doesn't really hurt first gen drivers. People that have been supporting the club and supporting travel events for years WILL be hurt by this. Some will lose money and move to something else. Some will step back their efforts. Some will probably move on to something else altogether.

I am very familiar with Pallotta, he was local here when I was starting out. I've seen him put seconds on national trophy winners many times. If you're fighting to be the top dog, then yes, there being a faster car rules you out, but what's new about that? In any form of racing for that matter. Not every class can be STS. Most people who are and have been fighting at the pointy end have had to jump cars/classes before.



This would be a very predictable move by the SCCA. Bury a new car for a couple of years, change it's class to where it probably belongs long term. They've done it time and time again. I was in here stating this a year+ ago. What is proposed here will still be a very popular class, and that's what they're most concerned about that. I really can't imagine the STAC hasn't considered that the proposal will upset many people, but it's also clear that many people want this/similar change. To have multiple cars +/- a second of each other, I view as successful classing. Certainly better than things currently stand in STR and STX, which are both one horse races.



So far, it's only been speculation that the 2nd gen will dominate, and no actual information showing that it will, and if it does, that it will ruin the class. It will certainly change the landscape, but again, not every class can be STS.