Oh look, they're considering giving us 255s... whoopeeeeee. Oh btw.....mid-engined sports cars can play too.

Change the following language in 14.3 TIRES:
STU (2WD, Mid-Engine, Rear-Engine) - 255mm
STU (2WD, Other) - 285mm
STU (AWD) - 255mm
The STAC is considering allowing some mid-engined cars, such as the Porsche Boxster, into STU. Per the above proposal, these cars would be limited to the same tire size as AWD cars. After collecting data to review the performance potential of ST mid-engined cars, allowances could be adjusted, and/or the cars could be moved if appropriate.

 

Well, at least I wouldn't have to buy 18" wheels.

Any thoughts on how the Boxster and other mid-engined cars would compare to the rest of the STU field?

 

Sorry to say ... what a joke! IMO, STAC should've allowed 255s 2 years ago, and would've seen that it's not enough of a tire allowance for AWD. If 255's go through now, and assuming the size get another bump up next year, it will be 3 long seasons before AWD is competitive again.

We were just at an local event where I believe a competitive AWD car would have come in 5th at best. Put it this way, Bryan Heitkotter came in 4th! I was working course and the well driven and set-up C5 just hauled ***. I heard jokes about "Yeah, it sure can't put power down, and the gearing hurts it out of corners!"

Of course course dependency, weather, tires, drivers, and other variables will always come into play. Bryan wasn't on Stones or Rival S's. The 350Z had new Kook V2s, but it was warm and a 2 driver car. Great driving display, and nice have him and Teddie come down to our region.

I believe AWD should get at 285s to match the C5 performance, but at least 265's with an eye to allow more if needed. I mean what's the fear of upsetting the applecart? It already tipped over now on the core participants of the class.

The STAC are good guys and want to be fair, so the class members need to give their feedback and data so they can make an informed decision.

 

I just read todays new Fastrack. I'm with Rick, it isn't enough of an allowance but a step in the right direction.

What if they limited Front Engine RWD cars to 275 wide tires and limited the rim size to 10" wide rims? They are talking about limiting wheel size to 11" wide rims. If the tire size for the Corvette and other 2WD cars were limited to 275 wide on a 10" wide rim their contact patch might be reduced enough to lower the performance levels to AWD with 255 wide tires on a 10" wide rim.

Thoughts? However you guys decide to do this, I will write a letter supporting the initiative although I have no dog in the fight. But if you guys are going to do this, my suggestion is doing it with some planning and union in the request.

The addition of the Porsche Boxster doesn't seem to bad in STU.

 

the vette's and 350z's are already running 275's. the RE71 doesn't come in a 285 yet.

 

Right, and the idea is how can one slow the C5 Vettes down more while make the AWD corner faster. 255 is a step in the right direction but, IMHO, it still isn't enough to bridge the gap. If Bridgestone and BFG make 285 wide tires it will only make things worse. If you limit them to 275 wide tires and squeeze them onto 10" wide rims you might be able to reduce their usable contact patch even further. Or at least that is the thought. They're proposing limiting the rim size in STU to 11", why not make it 10".

 

They did not specify "rear" Mid-Engine...


-Bryan (Mancuso)
[Yes, different username.]

 

Alas! Apparently someone was thoughtful enough to define "Mid-Engine" in paragraph 12. My fun has been spoiled.


-Bryan

 

I would think they are trying to avoid take-backs, as STU 350z's and C5s already use 10.5-11" wide wheels.

 

Well, since there is no fast 285 tire out there right now, they are all on 275s as someone else mentioned. Keeping us on 255s and them on 275s would better than letting them to use 285s once they are available which is just matter of time....

 

Problem is since the fast 2wd cars are so much faster on 275s now, that they'll still be faster than AWD on 255s. So by not opposing the 255 proposal, the AWD cars will always be slower.

There is talk now about how wide the 255 Bridgestone are, so why ask for more? This may be short sighted thinking. What if the next tire du jour has a narrow 255?

Also seems on the STU FB group that the STi drivers are for passing the 255 proposal, since they don't think they can fit any more tire. If the 255 rule is supported it may shuffle the mid pack results some, but the 350zs and C5s will still remain at the top.

Others want the 255 rule so that don't have to buy 18" wheels. That's fine, but by opening up the tire allowance to 285, one still has the choice to use 255s on 17s. Also, in the past AS Evos and STis have ran 275s successfully with stock fenders. The 285 is much shorter so it may be easier to fit.

I say just open up the rule to 285s for all cars. AWD will still have a narrower contact patch due to fitment of narrower wheels.

I read the mid-engine 255 rule = Lotus.

 

To clarify on my previous comment, if you restrict STU to 10" wide wheels, you're likely to get the 350z/C5 drivers pushing back against that proposal since you would be making them (most of them, I would assume) buy narrower wheels.

 

Sometimes for the better of sport and fair competition take backs are necessary. I think at this point event the 350z and Corvette owners know they have an unfair advantage.

 

You can definitely fit a 285 on an STU legal Evo. 18x10 +38 RPF1s w/ 5mm spacer fit in the rear with just a roll, no pull. I think an Evo/STi w/ 285s will make a pretty competitive run at the C5/350z, but will stand no chance with only 255s. This proposal was very shortsighted in my opinion, as a 255 will likely only have marginal performance gains over the 245s we already have. Look at STX... 245s and 255s are used almost interchangeably in that class.

Who's going to nationals in an Evo or STi? If we don't have representation, especially credible representation, nothing will change. That's why it's a shame that the sports cars drove Geoff, Josh, Rob, etc away. I'm just some no-name, Joe Schmo, so if I get my *** handed to me, that's just expected, I suppose.

 

Schmoes of the world unite I feel the same way, that I am basically not a useful data point for these kinds of discussions. The only thing I can think of to fix that would be to get someone more established to drive both cars on a TnT course or something like that.

Here's the letter I wrote, back in October I think. In this Fastrack it is now officially listed to as responded (15076):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Obviously the STAC has already read it at this point, but just wanted to share.

I am going to write in that I support the proposal but that I don't think it's enough due to all the stuff mentioned here.

Regardless of whether the glass is half full or half empty - it is still important to write letters so that they know we exist. Like I said on FB, the WRX never got any allowances after it got buried by the 2WD cars + concrete, so this is something that makes me think the STAC/SEB recognize the class won't be long term successful without the boost buggies. But the AC's have reason to be conservative here too. Sometimes the wheels of justice move slowly...