CHANGE PROPOSALS
Street Touring
#10437 Cars Move to STU Proposal Package
The STAC has provided the following package of proposed changes to introduce additional cars into the STU class. One
portion of this group of changes would involve adding unclassed cars to STU (if the package is recommended); the other portion would involve moving a group of currently-classed cars into STU.
Proposed new listings added into STU (via Tech Bulletin):
Corvette (1997-2004) (Non-Z06, Non-FRC)
Genesis V6
Infiniti G37
Subaru BRZ/STI
Proposed 2014 re-classing (via listing change proposals, in conjunction with the above):
Ford Mustang (N/A)
Chevrolet Camaro (N/A)
Pontiac Firebird (N/A)
350Z non-NISMO
Infiniti G35
Genesis (2.0L Turbo) (2010-13)
Per the STAC: In response to the declining participation in STU, the STAC is recommending a package of RWD cars be
moved into the class. The STAC believes this will provide a much wider variety of competitive options and encourage a
renewed interest in the class.
The cars chosen include previously unclassed vehicles, as well as a few currently classed in STX/STR. One thing they all
have in common is the ability, and need, to fit more tire than allowed in the lower classes. Additionally, this proposal deals
with numerous requests for the STAC to allow additional tire width for the RWD pony cars (solid axle RWD) currently in
ST. The 350Z has also been reclassed in response to member request.
The C5 Corvette may appear out of place at first glance, but the STAC has done extensive analysis and does not believe it to
have a competitive advantage due to its poor gearing. The C5 Corvette puts far less power to the ground at typical autocross
speeds than other vehicles in STU. Further, the C5 is a very inexpensive car and the ST allowances provide the ability to
correct its poor seating and create a competitive, fun, dual purpose vehicle.
Tire width limitations remain the same at this time.

This letter is in response to the proposal to add new cars to STU.

I am just focusing on the 350Z / G35, and the C5 Corvette. I think the other cars discussed will not upset any applecarts.

350Z first:
-----------

At the Lincoln tour this year, i.e. the surface that matters most, a good driver in a 350Z beat last year's STR national champion by almost seven tenths. Even if you remove the cones, it was still five tenths. If you define "competitive" as "a good driver in a well prepped car has a fair shot at a good finish", that clearly means to me the 350Z is currently "competitive" in STR. One datapoint but a very important one given the caliber of drivers and the surface. Put simply, if people aren't running them in STR despite those results, they won't run them in STU either.

C5 Corvette:
-----------

I think the Corvette, when prepped, will be substantially faster than the current STU.

There are only three weaknesses for the Vette in STU that I can see:
* It's wider than the cars in the class right now - about 6" wider than an E36 M3 and 3-4" wider than an Evo
* It might have problems putting power down on street tires
* The STAC has claimed the gearing is not great for autocross

In response:
* Width certainly matters in slaloms, but it matters less in other course elements, and the car has strengths in slaloms that the other cars in the class don't, namely that it is 9-10" shorter than an Evo and 5-6" shorter than an M3 and has better geometry than both
* It will be able to run a lot of wheel. You might be thinking that people have tried to run stock-class Corvettes on street tires and not had good luck putting power down, but those cars are on stock springs - an STU C5 will have a lot of options at their disposal to mitigate this including adding enough spring to keep the other end of the car on the ground, and upgrading the rear diff to something fancy and expensive.
* The Vette makes a lot of torque everywhere, and it will never have any turbo lag like the buggies will. They come stock with 275-40-18s in the rear, and they will almost certainly be running 285-30-18s in STU, which is a substantial shortening that should make the gearing awfully good for autocross.

There are a bunch of advantages though:
* It should have more torque than anything in the class, especially with E85 going away, and it makes that torque at a lower RPM than the boost buggies do
* It will be able to run a ton of wheel, which will mean it can take advantage of 285's in a way that nothing currently competitive in the class can
* They are much lower than anything in the class (ten inches shorter than an Evo 9, 5-6" shorter than an E36 M3)
* They not 60% nose heavy like the buggies

The weight is probably going to work out about the same as the buggies, thought the M3 will still be the lightest competitive car in the class.

What do the boost buggies do better? They put power down better at corner exit, but by the time the wheel is mostly straight again, this advantage will be pretty small.

In my opinion, the BEST case for this proposal is a substantial amount of course dependency because the C5 is so different than the existing cars. The worst case is that the car is in the mix on asphalt and dominates the existing cars on concrete.

Proposal overall
-----------
The Fastrack starts with: “ In response to the declining participation in STU...”

I am very curious why STU gets this treatment.

In Lincoln in 2012, STU was one of the biggest open classes (28) only eclipsed by:
SS (41) DS (31) STC (37) STS (39) STX (50) STR (51) ESP (33) CP (39) RTR (36)

I am skimming here, so apologies if I missed one, but my math has STU as the tenth-most popular open class at Nationals last year. Yes, most of its ST* friends are doing better ; yes, the numbers have dropped a bit over the years. But, pre-registration for this year’s nationals:
* STF: 15
* STC: 19
* STS: 19
* STX: 43
* STU: 17
* STR: 43
That’s completely consistent with the other ST classes, except for STR and STX which are obviously huge success stories. It’s cool that those classes are doing well. That doesn’t mean that another 28-car STU field is some sort of failure. It’s not. Remember that last year was the first time a non-buggie had won. That should be and IMHO has been a sign that a non-buggie can get it done.

And as a pre-empt, I know that the west course was very E36 friendly, but Tristan was right in the mix on the east course also. IIRC, he was only 2-3 tenths off the fastest boost buggy time, on a course that was very evenly balanced. And he was a nationals rookie, and I don't think he would contend his car was fully prepped, and I think Heikotter proved that there is still more speed in the E36s as he was faster than Tristan on 1 or both days.

Fastrack continues with “...the ST allowances provide the ability to correct (the C5’s) poor seating and create a competitive, fun, dual purpose vehicle.” The Evo, STi and M3 are all competitive, fun, dual purpose vehicles. Let’s remember that last year, STU had three different cars in the top 3, and four in the top 4 if you count the Evo 8 as a separate vehicle (open front diff and less power than the 9). The boost buggies make fantastic all-year cars that in a way that the C5 never will (in anything other than warm climates). All of those cars are substantially more practical than the two-seat, huge-hood C5 Corvette is.

If we are talking fun, dual purpose vehicles, we currently have TWO classes devoted to 20 year old cars that may or may not have A/C and airbags and sure as heck aren’t family cars (STC, STS). And we have one class devoted to cars that aren’t fun on the street OR much fun for autocross (STF, as demonstrated by the general lack of entries, though nationals pre-reg is not as bad as last year).

In short, I don’t understand why the tenth most popular class at Nationals last year is seemingly getting singled out when it seems to me there are bigger fish to fry in ST*.

Thank you for your time and for your volunteering to serve on the STAC.