S197 Mustang in SCCA Solo: STX vs STU vs ESP?

Are you an S197 racer that likes to autocross with the SCCA? Well this thread might be worth reading. This subject (STX vs STU vs ESP) keeps popping up in various thread, including my build S197 built thread (see link in my sig) and Chilema's STX/ESP build thread located here. If a moderator wants to tow some of the replies on this subject (most of which I have quoted below) to this thread, it might make more sense.


S197 Mustang in SCCA Solo: STX vs STU vs ESP?

If you have followed my trials and tribulations trying to compete with a heavy, powerful 2011 Mustang GT trying to autocross in three different SCCA Solo classes, you might know a little something about this subject already. And plenty of you on this forum have jumped into STX, ESP and even some ran in STU, briefly.



The silver 2006 GT above was a Vorshlag tester we started working with back in 2008 who started in STU class and eventually moved to ESP. We bought the red 2011 GT above in August 2010 and built it around SCCA's "STX" class from August 2010 until about November 2011 (and even raced it in STX up until March 2012). We raced it briefly in STU class in late 2011, then switched to ESP class in Spring 2012, where we stayed through the SCCA Solo Nationals and up until December 2012. Then the SCCA made some part we had on the car illegal (I won't get into that again), so we left the class. We raced this car dozens and dozens of times with the SCCA, from regional Solo events, to National Tours, Pro Solos and even the Solo Nationals. We did "OK" in the car... once we got enough tire under it (STU then ESP).

Alphabet Soup!

So what do all these three letter class designations mean? The three classes in the subject line are the three most common places people have raced their S197 Mustangs. Well, that and "Stock" class (F Stock is a whole other animal, and looks to be changing drastically in 2014-15 to "Street" class - but that's another subject that needs it's own thread entirely) Let me back up and explain the basic rules for these 4 classes, where the S197 falls (or fell).



F Stock (FS): This is where you race your bone stock Mustang. HAHAHA! I kid, I kid. No, this is an odd class where you can do some crazy things but not the most basic of suspension mods, which these cars need to handle well. FStock is not a class we raced our car in personally, but we have worked with many FStock customers. It also happens to be my least favorite category of classes in all of the SCCA Solo (but it is getting a major reboot next year). In "Stock" you can use giant gumball Hoosier A6 tires but you cannot adjust camber (except thru some shady TSB that applies so some cars). The diff must be bone stock (again, other than some TSB for some models). Stock wheel sizes are used but they can be lightweight/custom 3-piece/aftermarket sizes. You can use high dollar custom doubler adjustable monotubes with remotes (but some people still win there on Konis - still doesn't mean that better shocks won't help you go faster still). You can change one swaybar but not both. Cat-back exhaust is free, as is the air cleaner element in the stock housing, but that's about it.


See these Moton 2-way Shocks with remote reservoirs, custom spring hats to use the OEM springs? That's "Stock" class legal...

Personally I think the S197 is a big hot mess in F Stock. The tires are the only thing you can do to make big changes, as the lack of camber, spring rate or ride height adjustment really hurt the performance. I've driven competitive F Stock cars and it ... just isn't fun to me. But without camber adjustment, stiffer spring rates and some other basic suspension mods the super stick race tires have an atrociously short lifespan.

Street Touring Xtreme (STX): This is one of two Street Touring classes where this chassis was classed initially. The tires have to be 140 treadwear or higher and 2WD cars can only used up to a 265mm width. Wheel width is limited to 9", diameter is open. You can use aftermarket brakes (either "big brake kits", or lighter ones as large in diameter as stock). Exhaust is open (headers, cat back) but you have to run a catalyst within 6" of the exit of the stock location. Cold air kits are allowed but the throttle body and intake cannot be modified. Internal engine mods are verboten but you can tweak the ECU tuning to your heart's delight. Suspension is pretty wide open - Watts Links (well, 2 choices are legal), swaybars, coilovers with as many adjustments as you want, non-metal aftermarket bushings, camber plates, and the rear upper control arms are wide open on these cars. You can also use race seats but aero devices must be chosen from OEM parts used on the 2005-2013 cars only.

Street Touring Unlimited (STU): This was legal to run in the S197 up until December 2011, then there were changes that made "class hopping" no longer allowed. It was necessary to keep the lightest cars from jumping up a class and winning easily (ST Hondas that continually won in STX) , but it left a few cars in the wrong class, such as the S197. The STU rules were the same as STX except 2WD cars could use up to a 285mm wide 140 treadwear tire, and wheel width was UNLIMITED.

E Street Prepared (ESP): This class allows everything allowed in STX/STU + you can swap intake manifolds, ditch ALL emissions equipment, wheel width was unlimited and you could cut and flare fenders. "DOT Legal" R compound tires are allowed with no width limitations. Aero devices could be chosen from OEM bits or you could use a 10" tall, flat rear spoiler (circa 1960) and a very limited splitter (but the OEM Leguna Seca part was bigger, and legal).




What Works, What Doesn't?

So if you go back and read our build thread you will see how much we tested, developed, raced, and struggled trying to make these big, heavy cars work on a 265mm street tire. The rear tire was a huge limitation - we were making 430 whp in STX legal trim but trying to put it to the ground in 1st and 2nd gear through a super skinny, low grip street tire. We couldn't make it halfway through a run with any sort of acceleration without overheating the rear tires. The car was always sideways and not at all fun to drive.

A lot of people warned us that STX would suck in a high hp/high weight/solid axle RWD car, since the maximum tire width is the same for all of the car in class - from the lightest to the heaviest (Mustang). But I am stubborn and tried it anyway (since nobody else had tried it in a 5.0L S197). After 18 months of getting sand kicked in my face by the big STX bullies on the beach (200 hp 328 BMWs - ha!) we threw in the towel and tried STU. STX was a total disaster for this car. Maybe it would work better with LESS horsepower, so the 3V 4.6L S197s still could give it a go here. But I publicly discouraged anyone with a 2011+ 5.0L S197 to try this class. It is a recipe for disappointment.



We went to STU briefly by slapping on some 18x10" wheels and 275/40/18 Bridgestone RE-11 tires. Wow, what an improvement! The car put down power so much better (+10mm tire and +1" of wheel width), with a huge boost in PAX placing, and who knows how it would have done on a 285/35/18 on an 18x11?? But we moved to STU too late - when we were there we noticed BIG gains in performance and the car was MUCH easier to drive.

Will an S197 ever dominate STU? Not likely, not without some rules help. These cars are still handicapped in the weight department when compared to the 2900-3100 pound AWD rally cars that dominate the class (well, except for one win by an E36 M3 at Nats!). We raced in STU from 2005-09 in various cars and an AWD turbo car is still the best bet in this class. But... the STU class is still the better home for the S197 Mustang. The car is night and day better on a 285 than a 265 street tire. And maybe with a little extra tire (295? 315?) the car could be even a tick more competitive against the "AWD BOOST BUGGIES!"

I wrote in a proposal to the SEB (look for the note in my build thread) and they are supposedly addressing it in the very next FasTrack publication.




Of course when we moved to ESP the car was that much faster, and now matched up with cars more similar than in the previous two ST classes. With 315mm A6 rubber the car was infinitely easier to drive than on the skinny street tires we were handicapped with in STX. It could still use more tire, as there's still hp to overpower the rears, but it was a lot better. We changed nothing from our STX set-up moving to ESP other than the rear spoiler and the wheels/tires. We kept developing the car beyond where it was in STX/STU, but the changes we made in ESP were all still STX legal (Watts Link, swaybars, spring rates).

Ultimately we only placed 4th in ESP at Nationals but spring rate changes we made right after the Solo Nationals (stiffer!) improved our PAX placings and results locally to the best we had seen in the car. With some more development and some weight saving measures (A/C, radio, Nav removed, rear seats replaced with Leguna Seca seat delete, etc) we think the S197 5.0 is THE car to race with in ESP. Well, other than the hybrid, uber-light, 15 year developed 3rd gen Firebird that keeps winning at Nationals.

OK, there are a lot of quotes I wanted to add but I will do that in a reply, below...

chilema said:

Some thoughts on STX:

Do I still think the 5 liter S197 can get it done in STX? I have to admit my faith has been a bit shaken, the lack of tire under this 3500lb car has proven to be a great challenge, but not quite so much so that I think it kills it's chances. What I mean is that IMO, the 5.0 on 265 width street tires is a much less forgiving animal than an RX-8 or 325i/is on similar sized tires but weight as much as 800lb less - this car punishes any over-driving with respect to steering or throttle with a either a harsh plowing understeer or a dramatic oversteering slide that takes you off the proper racing line.

The fast BMW drivers have said as much, they can keep the 190whp car fully floored through a sweeper with only a very neutral, controllable oversteer. Meanwhile, the Mustang has to be driven with extreme prejudice in order to be effective. At the same time you have to deal with the size of the car should you chance upon a very tight, technical course. In other words, the car will punish your mistakes much more readily and frequently before it will reward you with the power to launch out of slow corners and down long straights. This means that in order to do well in STX the Mustang requires an extremely patient throttle foot AND the right course, one that does not overly punish it's size and at the same time have enough shut-down corners leading into long straights to take advantage of it's tremendous power (though most National's style courses aren't designed like this so it may be a lost cause afterall).

That's about it for today, I'll make another post tomorrow about my decision to move to ESP ahead of schedule. Should be fun.

Click to expand...

Extreme prejudice is an understatement! We even made a "variable throttle stop" in our STX ECU map to try to make the car more driveable.

Mountain said:

I have been on the look out for such. Anxiously awaiting what will be said about moving to STU.

I was going to do STX myself, but after reading about all the other's attempts, I decided to skip out and go bigger in tire. I will be running to run in a street tire SM regional class and go with 285 RE-11's. Really looking forward to what a better tire (wider and stickier) will be like in comparison to the 255 Michelin SS tires I ran last season in FS RTR. I'm already noticing I can use more throttle and sooner on the street.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 285mm RE-11s are a nice upgrade and do make the car work SO much better than on 255s...

chilema said:

To be honest I'm not sure that going to 285 street tires on 18x10 wheels will make enough of a difference to catch the STU cars. Assuming I'm a halfway decent driver, two seconds is about how much you'd expect to gain going from 265 width street tires to a Hoosier A6 (I'm of the belief that our cars gain a bit more time than the smaller lighter cars going from street to R-comp tires). I would think that to make up that kind of time just by adding 20mm worth of street tire width is a bit of a stretch.

In the end I'm definitely still FOR the proposal though, despite whatever fate may befall the Mustang should it get moved to STU. Simple logic would suggest that letting the Mustang run on 285 tires will at the very least make the car much easier to drive, this is especially true for the Coyote-motored variants.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It isn't the end-all fix for the S197 in Street Touring but it IS a better home than STX...

Whiskey11 said:

The goal for STU is not an absolute "we win" class placement. I'd rather us come up very short in STU to see if we can't ask for a few small allowances for live axle cars that would make us more competitive similar to Terry Fair's letter (extra tire width, relocation brackets and LCA's, etc) to creep up on parity. There naturally is going to be periods of "it still wont work" that we will have to fight through but I'm determined to get at least a fun place to play in ST where we can at least be reasonably competitive. That is MY goal anyway. First step is getting us out of STX where the tire limitations hamstrings us to mediocracy.

Click to expand...

Yes. Once the car moves to STU (fingers crossed) then we can start asking for more allowances. These allowances need to be identical for all solid axle cars in STU and ESP, too.

chilema said:

I absolutely support the additional allowances proposed for solid axle cars such as relocation brackets in ST and SP classes as I think things that we can all logically categorize as "catch-up" mods should be given a chance. I get that a lot of the hesitation with this stuff lies in potential for creeping interpretation into other classes, types of cars, etc. But at this point I'd say if we just go with "only solid axle cars get to change rear pick-up points on the axle via relocation bracket", is anyone going to realistcally start complaining about being dominated by cars with truck-like suspension? After all it's just another rule in a very fat book of rules, give it a shot first and see what happens right?

Back to your point about the S197 in STU. Short of creating another ST class where minimum weight is 3400lb and max tire width is 335, this is the best and most appropriate class we can ask for so I support your effort 100%! I mean in the end we are either casual racers who don't care that much about competitiveness and classing or serious competitors who wants to race on an even playing field, so it's do or die time if you're the latter, no matter what class you run.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

OK, that's some replies picked form Chilema's thread. Please feel free to discuss these ideas here and we can quit bringing it up in other build threads, where interested parties might miss it.

Cheers,

This post below was my open letter to the SEB asking to move the s197 to STU (from STX) and also asking for a few more allowances. I submitted this letter on Feb 20, 2013 at 5:06 pm CST. SEB Letter Tracking Number #10382

===============


Open Letter to the STAC/SEB: re - S197 Mustang move to STU

There has been some good discussion of late about the competitiveness of the "pony cars" in the Street Touring class, specifically the S197 chassis 2005-2014 Mustangs in STX. Contrary to what you see showing up at National level events, since there is no ST class competitive for these cars to run in, there are quite a few owners of modern Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs that don't run with the SCCA, but can and do autocross and track their cars. Many if not most of these folks are "street tire" competitors and would likely jump at the chance to run in an ST autocross class, if they had a more level playing field.

This thread started this request: http://www.sccaforums.com/forums/forumid/23/threadid/441594/scope/posts

These "pony cars" have been popular for 40+ years and are still being made by all three domestic automakers, in large numbers. V8 engines, rear wheel drive, somewhat simple suspensions, and a moderately sized chassis and a working man's price. It is a simple formula, but over the past 20 years the cars have gotten quite plump, but quite powerful. The latest iterations include the S197 chassis Mustang (2005-2014 models, 420 hp and 3600 pounds), the 5th gen Camaro (2010-2014, 426 hp and 3800 pounds), and the Dodge Challenger (2008-2013, 470 hp and 3900 pounds)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(fifth_generation) - Over 763,000 units sold from 2005-2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_(fifth_generation) - Over 315,000 sold from 2009-2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Challenger - Over 140,000 sold from 2008-2012.

These cars do have a place to race in Stock (FS) and Street Prepared (ESP), but there are all sorts of encroaching threats into these classes by lighter cars, almost all with more sophisticated suspensions or even AWD. But the only place they are allowed in Street Touring is in STX and STU, but they are classed based on their engine displacements. An unusual "5.0L" limit marks the split from STX to STU. In reality, the modern 5.0L Mustang GT (420 hp) makes almost the same horsepower as the 6.2L Camaro or the 6.4L in the Challenger.



Why does this matter? Shouldn't the modern 5.0L Mustang be in a more competitive class being in STX instead of STU? Well no, it comes down to a much less advantageous weight-to-tire ratio. As it is classed now, the modern S197 chassis Mustang is competing on a super skinny tire in STX, relative to its weight. It is limited to the same 265mm section width as a 2600 pound FR-S or a 2800 pound E36 328is. Sure, it "makes more power", but this is almost useless in Solo to begin with, as almost everyone knows that weight is FAR more important. Again - if they still allowed the 1900 pound Civics in STX, those would continue to dominate on 195mm tires. Light weight always wins.

Couple the antiquated solid-axle rear suspension to the too-skinny 265mm street tire with 3500-3600 curb weights, and these S197 Mustangs are only going to be turning tires into smoke and encouraging their drivers to find another form of motorsport that better meets their needs.



I know this first hand because we fought this battle for nearly two years (from 2010 to 2012), taking our 2011 Mustang to the STX class immediately after it was ordered and received. With this car we tested almost every 265mm 140+ UTQG tire available, and purchased multiple sets of tires and wheels that we tested head to head at our own test-n-tune events and at dozens of Solo events for two seasons. We spent many thousands of dollars on all of these tires and testing, only to be rewarded with frustration and poor placings. This wasn't just a casual autocross attempt, but a serious three driver, "no expense spared" build, with the resources of Vorshlag Motorsports behind it. We managed to knock out 150 pounds of weight from the originally 3600 pound car, used three different coilover suspensions including AST and Moton, made 430 whp in STX legal trim, all to no avail. It was a wasted effort, a failed test.

The car was undrivable.



It would overheat the rear tires within 20 seconds of a typical autocross run, no matter how it was driven by the three drivers. It just didn't have enough tire. We did test events where we ran in a higher gear and it was faster, lugging around at low RPMs and essentially limiting power. We had a custom ECM tune added that limited the electronic throttle opening based on RPMs, ignoring the throttle pedal inputs - again, to limit power. It was still a big mess.



Before the car was locked into STX, we ran our 2011 Mustang in the STU class for a couple of autocross events, increasing wheel size by an inch (to 18x10") and tire size by a mere 10mm (to a 275/40/18 Bridgestone RE-11). We were immediately rewarded by a much more drivable car, more competitive placings in class and a steep jump up in PAX placings. The drivers didn't just magically improve, but instead the car as a whole just worked SO much more effectively with the wider wheel and tire. This "class jump" option was over at the end of the 2011 racing season, so in the 2012 season we were back in STX jail, where we ran it until April 2012 - when we finally gave up and switched the car to ESP class, where the much wider tires this car needed were legal.

What I am getting to is this: we feel that the S197 Mustang should be moved to STU class, where the unlimited wheel width and 285mm width tire maximum is much more suited to a 3600 pound car.

Also, we think a slight bump in maximum tire width would benefit this and all other 3400+ pound stick axle cars now classed in STU. We think it would be best to limit the extra tire width only to the stick-axle cars, of which there are very few: the Camaro up to 2002 and the Mustangs up to 2014. How much wider? +10mm would be nice, as there are plenty of 295mm ST legal tires available. A bolder move would be to bump to 315mm tires, as we know these fit both the stick axle 1993-2002 Camaro/Firebirds and 2005-2014 Mustangs that would then fit in STU.


Left: 315mm tires under stock fenders from a 1998-2002 Firebird. Right: 315mm tires under stock fenders of our 2011 Mustang.

Will this make these cars instantly win the class? Of course not. Every year at Nationals since 2005 an AWD Turbo rally car has won STU class, except once.

After we left STX in the middle of the 2012 season, we jumped to ESP and went with a 315mm R compound tire. The car, virtually unchanged from our STX set-up, was instantly faster and more competitive. Our class placings and PAX placings jumped way up, and with only four months of preparation and a few National events in ESP, I managed a 2nd at a ProSolo, a 3rd at the Lincoln National Tour, a 4th at the Solo Nationals, and Amy won ESP-Ladies in the car at Solo Nationals. Again - this was almost our exact STX set-up, just with ESP appropriate wheels and tires and a few other set-up tweaks. I'm saying this to point out how poor the car performed in STX with even more testing, preparation, and the use of every available tire legal in that class.

This post is trying to show our proof that the S197 Mustang responds better to STU-legal wheel and tire widths, and beyond. And to ask, likely in vain, for a little "bump" in max tire width for the STU stick-axle cars, like the 4th gen Camaro/Firebird (already in STU, and also stick axle, and also very heavy, and can also swallow a 315mm tire under stock fenders) and the 5th gen Mustang. Give these cars a 315mm tire max and let them run in STU and I assure you that there will be new racers running there that were not in Solo before. Again, I think it is highly doubtful they would be a threat to the "status quo" cars this class is tailored to, but it would make these popular, powerful and heavy cars more fun to drive and put them closer to the top tier cars than they are now.

Proposed move: To STU class, 2005-2014 Mustang GT and Boss 302, 5.0L V8

Proposed wording for Stick Axle Bonus: All solid rear axle cars classed in STU shall have a maximum tire width of 315mm

Starting in model year 2015 (so, about one year from now) all new designs of the Mustang, Camaro and "Barracuda" will replace the current three domestic pony cars. New chassis, suspensions, drivetrains, and more. Each new model is rumored to be significantly smaller, lighter, and more powerful - and each will have more modern Independent Rear Suspensions. These "stick axle" benefits will likely not need to apply to these updated cars, of course.

Alternatively, to help ALL of the heavy RWD Pony Cars, maybe a more encompassing change is in order? Something like a sub-class within STU (STU Heavy? STU Pony Car?) could be called out with a few additional allowances over the standard STU allowances. This would only work with the new "assigned" style of ST classing that has been adopted.

I could see a call-out for the Pony cars with maybe additional tire, wheel and driveshaft allowances. This could be separate or combined with the additional stick-axle allowances, but seeing that some current, and all the 2015+ pony car models will feature IRS, I think it should be separated from the stick-axle allowances. The cars I see being included in the STU Heavy class would be the traditional pony cars that weighed 3300+ lbs in stock trim when new. 4th gen Camaro/Firebird, 5th gen Camaro, 2008+ Challenger, 2005-2014 Mustang.

If this STU Heavy sub-class is implemented we would ask for two different rules changes:

1. All of the heavy RWD V8 cars are allowed 140 treadwear tires up to 315 tread size.

2. Solid rear axle cars are allowed lower control arm relocation brackets bolted to axle. Removable axle differential covers may be swapped out for any purpose. Aftermarket one piece driveshafts of aluminum or carbon alloy steel may be substituted for the OEM driveshaft (exclude carbon driveshafts if you want to contain costs).

The extra aspects in point number two are probably wishful thinking, but if you don't ask you don't get them thinking about these things. The rear differential cover allowance is probably already coming in ESP (by 2014), but we want to make sure it happens in ST for solid axle cars as well. The relocation brackets are a simple, ~$100 fix that benefits almost all solid axle cars. When these cars are lowered the geometry on the rear Lower Control Arms goes to a very poor anti-squat condition, and these bolt-on brackets fix that. And the driveshafts on the modern pony cars are usually clunky, heavy two-piece units that are commonly replaced with aftermarket parts, and there are many solutions. Again - these are common modifications that fix real problems and each has many bolt-on options available.

Making changes like these would show that the SCCA actually pays attention to the both aftermarket and the owners of the cars they are trying to accommodate. That would be a new attitude, which I think the SCCA badly needs to adopt. There are just too many of these big Pony Cars sold to have so few show up in Street Touring classes. With some allowances like we have laid out, to help make up for their massive girth and added power over traditional STX/STU cars, maybe the SCCA could attract more of these cars and their owners to Solo.

Thank you,

Fair said:

In "Stock" you can use giant gumball Hoosier A6 tires but you cannot adjust camber (except thru some shady TSB that applies so some cars)

Click to expand...

FWIW, the allowance for slotting one of the lower strut holes for 2011+ 5.0's is actually right in the FSM, not some "shady" TSB.

also, as one of those crazy FS guys, i will say that if you're unwilling/unable to prep for a higher class, the easiest way to keep from reaching into your pocketbook every month for the fresh purple stuff is running street tires (after you've successfully lobbied your local region to include a street tire multiplier, of course!). my 275/35R19 ZII's are a lot of fun, i'm very competitive (1st in PAX against national champs like jim daniels, ryan otis, jerry jenkins, tom kotzian at season opening event/3rd time ever competing in the car) and they're wearing like iron, even with regular street use. of course, i still have my trick shocks and custom lightweight 19x9's with 295 rubber mounted up for national events, but i guess my point is you can still have a blast without spending a lot of money and be competitive in stock class if certain parameters are met

that said, if the car gets moved back into STU with some wide tire allowance, i will probably move there next year as i save up the cash for a full-blown ESP build. well, assuming the next-gen 'stang doesn't obsolete the S197 of course

i'll still write a letter if a proposal finds a way into a future fastrack, regardless.

boardkat said:

FWIW, the allowance for slotting one of the lower strut holes for 2011+ 5.0's is actually right in the FSM, not some "shady" TSB.

also, as one of those crazy FS guys, i will say that if you're unwilling/unable to prep for a higher class, the easiest way to keep from reaching into your pocketbook every month for the fresh purple stuff is running street tires (after you've successfully lobbied your local region to include a street tire multiplier, of course!). my 275/35R19 ZII's are a lot of fun, i'm very competitive (1st in PAX against national champs like jim daniels, ryan otis, jerry jenkins, tom kotzian at season opening event/3rd time ever competing in the car) and they're wearing like iron, even with regular street use. of course, i still have my trick shocks and custom lightweight 19x9's with 295 rubber mounted up for national events, but i guess my point is you can still have a blast without spending a lot of money and be competitive in stock class if certain parameters are met

that said, if the car gets moved back into STU with some wide tire allowance, i will probably move there next year as i save up the cash for a full-blown ESP build. well, assuming the next-gen 'stang doesn't obsolete the S197 of course

i'll still write a letter if a proposal finds a way into a future fastrack, regardless.

Click to expand...

Great point about having spending wisely on tires and having fun even with street tires!

We should probably put up disclaimers at the top of our crazy ST/SP related banter that you can still have a ton of fun with these cars on an autocross course on regular street tires (competitiveness notwithstanding) so we don't look like sumo wrestlers arguing over what kind of ballerina shoes to wear to the casual Mustang enthusiast stumbling upon these threads haha! I mean...Mustang driver's are just about the only folks that take cone-dodging in a parking lot this seriously in this power, size, and weight class of cars LOL.

I actually like having an ST* discussion thread to keep all the tilting at windmills in one local place to read everyone's trials and tribulations on. Me personally, having access to the Nationals site, I get a little more of a unique opportunity to run my car where it could eventually one day compete.

That said, I'm only 2 years into my autocross "career" and already placing within the top 25 of 80+ entrants in PAX. That was on the Steeda Sports/Steeda HD mounts (with about the same as I have no for a street alignment on coilovers)/D-Specs combo. There was some, er, bad setup choices that have been rectified.

Obviously the addition of a set of Ground Control coilovers with camber plates and 440 front springs, 200 rear springs is going to be a huge boon to how the car behaves in autocross. I'm still on the 245/45/18 Star Specs and a stock rear bar but to be honest, even with the "leaving time on the table" 245's the car still drives really nicely and is responsive.

Curb weight was 3440 with 1/8th tank of gas, no trunk junk. I've done very little weight reduction (and some weight adding with the Watts link and heavier swaybars) but I have found about 155lbs of "easy" weight to remove in just wheels/tires, seats, battery, exhaust, and OEM style replacement brakes (no 2 piece, could save more going that route). There are some other places to chase weight out but the reduction is much smaller.

My letter to the SEB was very direct... basically, move the cars to STU and if it's some of Terry's other proposals making the move unappealing, then forget them, just move the cars to STU. We can worry about additional allowances after the cars have been moved and the dust has settled, not that much dust is really being kicked up. I was told that my letter was going to be addressed on the next FasTrack (supposedly April 20th).

Anyway, I plan on making the move to the right size wheels and tires come next year, so if we are stuck in STX or we get to move to STU I'll be maxing out the wheels/tires allowance to do so. Hopefully the "tire wars" will have settled some and maybe there will be some sizes more conducive to STX or STU from the new tires in town.

I'll update after the event next weekend (13th is a Test'n'Tune on the Nats site followed by an autocross on the 14th).

One question that came up on the SEB call, with regard to the STX to STU request, was "If they are uncompetitive, why would they want to move to a much faster class?" So I figure that's worth posing here. Possibilities I see -

1. The car won't be competitive either place, but at least it will be more fun on wider rubber.
2. The wider rubber will make the car so much faster that this alone will make the car more competitive, even against faster competition.

What is the dominant thinking behind this? Is it one of the above, or is it something else completely? My thinking is that an STX to STU move is out of the frying pan and into the fire. That said, I could at least see point 1 above being a logical position.

I know that STX was faster at Nats this year, but that was an anomaly. On a typical 60 second course, STU is going to be 1.3 seconds quicker than STX. I just can't see 20mm of tire being worth 1.3 seconds. But maybe I'm wrong.

Regardless, this aspect of the request left several scratching their heads, so I figured I'd see if some discussion here could provide clarity.

Fair said:

...there are quite a few owners of modern Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs that don't run with the SCCA, but can and do autocross and track their cars.

Click to expand...

I am one of them. I autocross my car regularly. I refuse to run in the SCCA, where my 285 tires and control arm relocation brackets put me in a class I cannot hope to compete in.

Screw the SCCA and their asinine rules.

Damn Terry you sure know your stuff. Its always great reading your posts and learning from them. Post like these make me want to switch from straight line to curves.

06 Saleen said:

Damn Terry you sure know your stuff. Its always great reading your posts and learning from them. Post like these make me want to switch from straight line to curves.

Click to expand...

Be a man. Do it.

DILYSI Dave said:

One question that came up on the SEB call, with regard to the STX to STU request, was "If they are uncompetitive, why would they want to move to a much faster class?" So I figure that's worth posing here. Possibilities I see -

1. The car won't be competitive either place, but at least it will be more fun on wider rubber.
2. The wider rubber will make the car so much faster that this alone will make the car more competitive, even against faster competition.

What is the dominant thinking behind this? Is it one of the above, or is it something else completely? My thinking is that an STX to STU move is out of the frying pan and into the fire. That said, I could at least see point 1 above being a logical position.

I know that STX was faster at Nats this year, but that was an anomaly. On a typical 60 second course, STU is going to be 1.3 seconds quicker than STX. I just can't see 20mm of tire being worth 1.3 seconds. But maybe I'm wrong.

Regardless, this aspect of the request left several scratching their heads, so I figured I'd see if some discussion here could provide clarity.

Click to expand...

Mostly Dave, for me, it is number one. The silly reality is that even on 285 the cars wont be nationally competetive. At best, 3350lbs with a 4.6L 3V and about 325 RWHP and RWTRQ. It wont get it done. However, if the SEB would open up the wheels/tires for live axle cars in STX to 10" rims and 285s you may get better parity. That is wishful thinking though. At least the competition in STU is in the same area code for weight and power. Who knows, mahbe a 3V could get it done in STU? There isnt a whole lot of other options out there beyond the wildleyunpopular "new class" or "you are screwed, go play on r comps in ESP".

What I wish would happen is the SEB just axes ST as a whole and has two.separate PAXes for overall PAX. One for street tires and the other for r comps for all classes with street or stock in the name. ST is so similiar to SP anyway. I dont think that will ever happen or be subscribed to as a good idea.

Sky Render said:

Be a man. Do it.

Click to expand...

I would but its just so expensive compared to drag though.

06 Saleen said:

I would but its just so expensive compared to drag though.

Click to expand...

No, it's less expensive. How do you go faster at a drag strip? Spend more money.

How do you go faster around a road course or autox? Become a better driver.

Entry fees are way higher than the 60 I pay to race all day at the strip and get 15 runs in.

Sorry for the side track. Back to you Terry!

chilema said:

Great point about having spending wisely on tires and having fun even with street tires!

We should probably put up disclaimers at the top of our crazy ST/SP related banter that you can still have a ton of fun with these cars on an autocross course on regular street tires (competitiveness notwithstanding) so we don't look like sumo wrestlers arguing over what kind of ballerina shoes to wear to the casual Mustang enthusiast stumbling upon these threads haha! I mean...Mustang driver's are just about the only folks that take cone-dodging in a parking lot this seriously in this power, size, and weight class of cars LOL.

Click to expand...

OK, this is true. I think the FStock class is a poor choice for a number of reasons but the new Street class changes will be a MUCH more appealing place for an entry-level/budget S197. The Hoosier costs and super short life without real camber are what turn me off to FStock. The only cars that don't feel like parade floats in this class are the 2007-08 Mustang Shelbys, which are essentially lightly prepared ESP cars with an 8.5" wide wheel.

So yes, "FStock on street tires" is still a viable class for new drivers, if your region supports RTR or street tire paxed classes.

DILYSI Dave said:

One question that came up on the SEB call, with regard to the STX to STU request, was "If they are uncompetitive, why would they want to move to a much faster class?" So I figure that's worth posing here. Possibilities I see -

1. The car won't be competitive either place, but at least it will be more fun on wider rubber.
2. The wider rubber will make the car so much faster that this alone will make the car more competitive, even against faster competition.

What is the dominant thinking behind this? Is it one of the above, or is it something else completely? My thinking is that an STX to STU move is out of the frying pan and into the fire. That said, I could at least see point 1 above being a logical position.

I know that STX was faster at Nats this year, but that was an anomaly. On a typical 60 second course, STU is going to be 1.3 seconds quicker than STX. I just can't see 20mm of tire being worth 1.3 seconds. But maybe I'm wrong.

Regardless, this aspect of the request left several scratching their heads, so I figured I'd see if some discussion here could provide clarity.

Click to expand...

A-ha, Dave Hardy from the SEB is chiming in. Good to know they are at least reading this proposal. So from what I found going from STX to STU we picked up closer to 2 seconds on a 60 second course, and we only had a 275mm tire (but +1" added in wheel width over STX). That was relative to the quick and consistent STX BMWs in our region as well as PAX placings. Of course this seems like more than 10-20mm of tire should add, but I just cannot explain how much easier the car was to drive on this tire and wheel upgrade.



And on a 295/35/18 Nitto NT05 200 treadwear tire on the same 18x10" wheels (shown above) this car won the autocross at an an Optima Challenge qualifier event, with a lot of heavy hitter cars up against us including: gutted/race prepped EVOs, a 755 whp ZR1 race car, and all of the $100K+ built Optima Challenge regulars. These Mustangs really wake up in a parking lot with more tire under them...

But will the S197s beat the top level STU classed EVOs and STis? Ehhh.... no, not likely. You cannot make up for 300-400 pounds and AWD with just a 285mm tire. But it will still be more fun to drive on 285s (or 295s! or 315s!) and at least more suited to the power and weight levels these cars have. The lightest we ever got the car in STU form was 3442 pounds, and it made 430 whp and 409 wtq in that form.


typical STX S197 in an autocross is sideways 50% of the time

The 265s are just THE SUCK on these cars at these weight and power levels. These cars are just a royal B!TCH to autox on skinny 9" wheels and the STX tire limits.



With the BFG Rival covering a lot of big sizes (295, 315 and 335mm in 18") I think it would be a lot more fun to race in STU than in STX.



Dave - please help fight for this move. Just get this car outta STX for now, as it is pure torture to drive there. We can push for more allowances later, hopefully...

Whiskey11 said:

Mostly Dave, for me, it is number one. The silly reality is that even on 285 the cars wont be nationally competetive. At best, 3350lbs with a 4.6L 3V and about 325 RWHP and RWTRQ. It wont get it done. However, if the SEB would open up the wheels/tires for live axle cars in STX to 10" rims and 285s you may get better parity. That is wishful thinking though. At least the competition in STU is in the same area code for weight and power. Who knows, mahbe a 3V could get it done in STU? There isnt a whole lot of other options out there beyond the wildleyunpopular "new class" or "you are screwed, go play on r comps in ESP".

What I wish would happen is the SEB just axes ST as a whole and has two.separate PAXes for overall PAX. One for street tires and the other for r comps for all classes with street or stock in the name. ST is so similiar to SP anyway. I dont think that will ever happen or be subscribed to as a good idea.

Click to expand...

Dave, I thought I should also add that when you ask most S197 owners what tires they would run, 265's usually end up only on the front. Most of your "average" Mustang guys end up with a 255/275 or 265/285 split. The Boss 302 comes in with 285's on the rear from Ford. That is going to make more sense to the generic "arrive and drive" crowd with Mustangs then saying "Go to ESP and run your local street tire PAX... if the region offers one for higher prep levels than stock". There is some of the local region influence in the reason I wrote in, as well as some national level inspired stuff. I think Littlehale kinda surprised the STEvo crowd in STU... who knows if a Mustang could do something similar with a little more power and a little more weight?

There might be some of the "easier to drive" with 285's square that could account for a larger drop in time than the standard ".7 seconds from 265 to 285's" we've come to know. Obviously, short of regional only, no one can build to STU... so we wont really know outside of bench racing what a Mustang in STU can do.

Good stuff. Thanks all!

Fair said:

A-ha, Dave Hardy from the SEB is chiming in. Good to know they are at least reading this proposal. So from what I found going from STX to STU we picked up closer to 2 seconds on a 60 second course, and we only had a 275mm tire (but +1" added in wheel width over STX). That was relative to the quick and consistent STX BMWs in our region as well as PAX placings. Of course this seems like more than 10-20mm of tire should add, but I just cannot explain how much easier the car was to drive on this tire and wheel upgrade.

And on a 295/35/18 Nitto NT05 200 treadwear tire on the same 18x10" wheels (shown above) this car won the autocross at an an Optima Challenge qualifier event, with a lot of heavy hitter cars up against us including: gutted/race prepped EVOs, a 755 whp ZR1 race car, and all of the $100K+ built Optima Challenge regulars. These Mustangs really wake up in a parking lot with more tire under them...

But will the S197s beat the top level STU classed EVOs and STis? Ehhh.... no, not likely. You cannot make up for 300-400 pounds and AWD with just a 285mm tire. But it will still be more fun to drive on 285s (or 295s! or 315s!) and at least more suited to the power and weight levels these cars have. The lightest we ever got the car in STU form was 3442 pounds, and it made 430 whp and 409 wtq in that form.

typical STX S197 in an autocross is sideways 50% of the time

The 265s are just THE SUCK on these cars at these weight and power levels. These cars are just a royal B!TCH to autox on skinny 9" wheels and the STX tire limits.

With the BFG Rival covering a lot of big sizes (295, 315 and 335mm in 18") I think it would be a lot more fun to race in STU than in STX.



Dave - please help fight for this move. Just get this car outta STX for now, as it is pure torture to drive there. We can push for more allowances later, hopefully...

Click to expand...

Right on!

Maybe the S197 wont be competitive at a national level under the current STU rules, but it should be regionally.

In STU the car will be more fun to drive and align with the type of tire sizes most Mustang owners would rather spend money on (thinking of those that come to an event here and there for fun and are not frequent runners).

Why do we all want to participate in such autosports (like autocross/solo)??? Because we find it fun... If we can't enjoy our vehicles and have fun... Why do it?

STU is the right direction for the S197, even without any additional rule changes:

-The car is much easier to control.
-The car is more fun to drive (due to better control and better edge in competition).
-Allows for competition with the other current pony/muscle cars (Camaro, Challenger, Charger).
-Provides an outlet for your typical, none-copetitive pony car owners to come out and have fun (thinking of the most popular mods done - larger tires, different wheel sizes/designs, lowering springs, street tunes, exhaust, CAI).
-Allows STU to further evolve and become more diverse.

I do agree that the lower control arm re-location brackets should be allowed as an addition rule though.

boardkat said:

FWIW, the allowance for slotting one of the lower strut holes for 2011+ 5.0's is actually right in the FSM, not some "shady" TSB.

Click to expand...

Ahh, sorry for the confusion. I meant that across ALL of Stock classes the slotting or crash bolt allowances were hugely inconsistent. Some McPherson strut cars can slot struts in Stock from TSBs, some manufacturers approve crash bolts in service manuals, etc... but other strut cars are left out in the cold. The rules for camber adjustment in all of the Stock classes were so varied and depended on each car model/year and approved service method that the SEB re-wrote these rules in the proposed "Street" category (that will replace stock in 2014) and go further - allowing camber plates.

This would save $$$ in the long run, just from front tire wear savings, and would make ALL cars in "Street" category a little more evenly matched. In this new class now ALL McPherson strut cars (especially those without slotting or crash bolt TSBs or approved service methods) could be on a bit more even footing, and there'd be no reason to suffer through front tire life measured in "10-12 autocross runs", that some cars were cursed with.

/topic

Well, the 20th has passed and the FasTrack is out... no word on whether or not we get to move, not even a mention of the letter. I guess my email saying a response would be in the FasTrack posted on the 20th was in error. Looks like we get to wait another month for a response...



EDIT: Turns out I got my letters confused. The email I received stating that the response would be in the FasTrack was for the Watts link clarification that effected ST and not for the move to STU. My letter, at least according to the SEB tracking system has yet to be reviewed by the STAC.