Rule Proposal: ST turbo/super wording

[WillM]

In case anyone is interested, this is a rule I submitted:

CURRENT RULE STATES:

X. Street Touring

6. B. Turbocharged and supercharged cars will be moved up one class from the normally aspirated version, unless
otherwise specified.

PROPOSAL:
Remove this wording completely or modify and move to Showroom Stock portion of the rulebook.

REASONING:
The current rule, as stated and placed in the rulebook, is confusing. The intent of the rule is to state that a turbo or supercharged car, if not otherwise classed, would be classed up one level from its naturally-aspirated counterpart.

If this is to be the case, then the wording should be a part of the Showroom Stock ruleset. All cars have a "base class" in SS, and then progress to ST.

As part of the ST rules, the super and turbo charged wording often gets understood as the ability to add a turbo and supercharger, and then move up one ST class.

Seems to me that the above is more of a "rule of thumb" or guideline for the SS rules.

[StephanAlfa]

I proposed something similar but specific to a model Audi (5 cyl, 1991 2.3 L Turbo) who was in SSC class and Nate has asked me to "remind" him.
But your general rule makes more sense.

[cuda6666]

I believe I also submitted a similar proposal.

[chaos4NH]

Hhhhhmmm, let me see if I understand Will's proposal. If a car is classed as SSC, but we add a turbo, it moves to SSB?
Taking a 2.3 liter Mazda 3, which runs in SSC, and adding a turbo (same 2.3 motor, turbo added) would move the car (now for all intents a Speed 3) in to SSB? Let me at that one!!
Same thing if the Mazda 3 has mods to make it an ST4 car, adding a turbo 2.3 moves it to ST3. Let me at that one, also.
But I can see where the rule was original intended, because ST does not allow anything but the stock engine or a direct replacement. Direct replacements meaning if NA (normally aspirated) to begin with, it has to stay NA, adding a turbo moves it up a class.
Not sure why there is any thought to change the rules, I haven't seen where any cars currently running in ST or SS would even be affected.

[DanDarcy]

Sam -- my car is currently classed as ST1, I run STGT to be with the 1999 and up Cobras. The rules seemed to have skipped the 1996-1998 Cobras having then in not otherwise classified SSA. So if I add a turbo or supercharger I could than still run the same class I am in now --- sounds good to me.

[WillM]

To be clear, my proposal is to remove the rule or move it to SS.

The intent of the original rule is to help classify non-classed turbo and supercharged cars. Several have misinterpreted to rule as an allowance to add a turbo or supercharger and stay in ST. That is NOT the case!

Neither the current rule nor my proposal to remove the rule allow the addition of turbo or superchargers in ST!

[chaos4NH]

To be clear, my proposal is to remove the rule or move it to SS.

The intent of the original rule is to help classify non-classed turbo and supercharged cars. Several have misinterpreted to rule as an allowance to add a turbo or supercharger and stay in ST. That is NOT the case!

Neither the current rule nor my proposal to remove the rule allow the addition of turbo or superchargers in ST!

Fair enough. And I could perhaps see the need for it in SS maybe back in the days of Shelby/Omni GHL (non-turbo) and GHLS (turbo) were concerned. But by that rule, would the Mazda 3 (non-turbo) in Class SSC be the base for the Speed 3 (same motor now turbo) and move it up a class to SSB? That, would not be fair to other SSB cars. That way the rule is not needed at all, since you can't add a turbo to a car in SS, (D. 1. No modifications of any kind are allowed to the engine). If the manufacturer comes out with a turbo engined car, it should be classed on it's own merits, hp/wt, whatever.
I support the suggestion to remove it altogether as it really serves no purpose.

[rajito]

If the manufacturer comes out with a turbo engined car, it should be classed on it's own merits, hp/wt, whatever.
I support the suggestion to remove it altogether as it really serves no purpose.

I concur. An even more extreme example - Impreza 2.5 RS goes into SSB? SSC? That would put the STI in SSA or SSB

Raj

[WillM]

Sam & Raj, that is exactly what I was getting at, and why I believe it should be taken out completely.

[chaos4NH]

Will for Pres of the USA - he got a liberal and conservative to agree on something!!

[WillM]

Hey, I could use a couple of interns!

[dreeves]

Isn't the intent of this rule to account for the unequal effect that a chip has on forced induction vs. naturally aspirated cars by adding more boost?

Chipping is legal in ST, illegal in SS.

[rajito]

Isn't the intent of this rule to account for the unequal effect that a chip has on forced induction vs. naturally aspirated cars by adding more boost?

Chipping is legal in ST, illegal in SS.

ST does allow chips, but does not allow boost increase. Enforcing that... good luck!

Raj

[chaos4NH]

Isn't the intent of this rule to account for the unequal effect that a chip has on forced induction vs. naturally aspirated cars by adding more boost?

Chipping is legal in ST, illegal in SS.

ST does allow chips, but does not allow boost increase. Enforcing that... good luck!

Raj

Raj is correct - a "tune" on an ST car cannot in exceeding stock boost levels, but could adjust the "hold" point of the boost. Example: Boost fall off for the stock MS 3 occurs at around 5800 rpm, but an ECU tune might allow the boost to carry (at stock rate, 15.9#) to 6500 rpm. No Boost Controllers are allowed. At least that's the way I see it, and I think Raj will agree. If I am off base, please let me know!

[nateh]

I also proposed removing this rule.

We need to deal with different car models as they arise - turbo or otherwise. As for aftermarket turbos, their effect is so unpredictable that any blanket rule like this one is bound to fail. Hence they are treated as illegal modifications in ST.

The question of boost enhancement via chipping is an independent one, and has yet to be answered. (Presently, we rely on members' consciences. I know of no other affordable approach.)