| Mind | 08-16-2006 05:57 PM |
Fender Brace Cowl Stay AutoX Classing
�
�
Anyone know what AutoX class these place you in? Can you run it in ST-, or will it bump you into a more prepared/modified class?
Thanks.
Thanks.
| WRX8XB | 08-16-2006 06:24 PM |
don't tell anyone you have them! :D
not sure on classing as you're not "adding" any bracing just replacing a factory part.
that is if you have the happi motoring ones.
not sure on classing as you're not "adding" any bracing just replacing a factory part.
that is if you have the happi motoring ones.
| speedyHAM | 08-16-2006 11:05 PM |
Modified. Have fun. Oh yeah- and to legally run in that class you need an electrical cutoff switch on the hood or rear bumper.
| flyboymike | 08-16-2006 11:41 PM |
[QUOTE=speedyHAM]Modified. Have fun. Oh yeah- and to legally run in that class you need an electrical cutoff switch on the hood or rear bumper.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work in Prepared? That's kind of surprising.
Doesn't work in Prepared? That's kind of surprising.
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 12:04 AM |
Just install it and have fun in whatever class your car best fits in. Nobody will care unless you're trying to actually win a class.
| teiva-boy | 08-17-2006 02:36 AM |
Let alone to actually see that mod installed...
| Turn in Concepts | 08-17-2006 02:57 AM |
Especially if the braces are a nice hidden black color, but you didn't hear that from me....
| Butt Dyno | 08-17-2006 10:19 AM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Just install it and have fun in whatever class your car best fits in. Nobody will care unless you're trying to actually win a class.[/QUOTE]
And whatever class his car "best fits in," would be the class where the part is legal. Even if he/she isn't at the top of their class, they still might be beating people who are legally prepared for the class, and that's no good.
Basically the OP has two options:
-be serious about being competitive, pick a class, and only do legal mods for that class
-not care about being competitive, install whatever they want to, and either
run non-competition (fun) runs, or run in the appropriate legal class, and compare times with STX, ESP, whatever
If they don't have a performance benefit, you shouldn't install them, and if they do, you should run fun runs or pick the right class.
john
And whatever class his car "best fits in," would be the class where the part is legal. Even if he/she isn't at the top of their class, they still might be beating people who are legally prepared for the class, and that's no good.
Basically the OP has two options:
-be serious about being competitive, pick a class, and only do legal mods for that class
-not care about being competitive, install whatever they want to, and either
run non-competition (fun) runs, or run in the appropriate legal class, and compare times with STX, ESP, whatever
If they don't have a performance benefit, you shouldn't install them, and if they do, you should run fun runs or pick the right class.
john
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 01:15 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]And whatever class his car "best fits in," would be the class where the part is legal. Even if he/she isn't at the top of their class, they still might be beating people who are legally prepared for the class, and that's no good.
Basically the OP has two options:
-be serious about being competitive, pick a class, and only do legal mods for that class
-not care about being competitive, install whatever they want to, and either
run non-competition (fun) runs, or run in the appropriate legal class, and compare times with STX, ESP, whatever
If they don't have a performance benefit, you shouldn't install them, and if they do, you should run fun runs or pick the right class.
john[/QUOTE]
Well, then if the information in this post is accurate, that means his car won't be legal for autocrossing at all unless he also installs an electrical cut-off switch on the hood or rear bumper. Sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
Do I have the option to pay my money for my designated number of runs and not be classified?
If you're beaing guys in SM or even SP just because you have a couple of non legal chassis braces that means the drivers who are trying to be competitive are driving grossly underprepared cars, or just don't know how to drive to begin with. Either way you're not ruining anyone's day.
Basically the OP has two options:
-be serious about being competitive, pick a class, and only do legal mods for that class
-not care about being competitive, install whatever they want to, and either
run non-competition (fun) runs, or run in the appropriate legal class, and compare times with STX, ESP, whatever
If they don't have a performance benefit, you shouldn't install them, and if they do, you should run fun runs or pick the right class.
john[/QUOTE]
Well, then if the information in this post is accurate, that means his car won't be legal for autocrossing at all unless he also installs an electrical cut-off switch on the hood or rear bumper. Sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
Do I have the option to pay my money for my designated number of runs and not be classified?
If you're beaing guys in SM or even SP just because you have a couple of non legal chassis braces that means the drivers who are trying to be competitive are driving grossly underprepared cars, or just don't know how to drive to begin with. Either way you're not ruining anyone's day.
| LOLSTi | 08-17-2006 01:29 PM |
NASA Classing > SCCA Classing.
Just run SM, if you start winning, then just tell everyone you have the braces if the feeling compells you, if they care, they will probably get mad. Furthermore, if you are winning SM:
1) Your region does [b]not[/b] have a competitive SM class. or
2) You are a competant enough driver to win SM without the braces.
Just run SM, if you start winning, then just tell everyone you have the braces if the feeling compells you, if they care, they will probably get mad. Furthermore, if you are winning SM:
1) Your region does [b]not[/b] have a competitive SM class. or
2) You are a competant enough driver to win SM without the braces.
| Butt Dyno | 08-17-2006 01:44 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Well, then if the information in this post is accurate, that means his car won't be legal for autocrossing at all unless he also installs an electrical cut-off switch on the hood or rear bumper. Sounds pretty damn stupid to me.[/quote]That's the cost of doing mods that are a little off the beaten path :) Maybe they'll be legal someday...
[QUOTE=Mykl]Do I have the option to pay my money for my designated number of runs and not be classified?[/quote]Most places will let you run fun runs... so in this situation you could run STX fun or STU-fun or something so you can easily compare times, but can't win trophies or anything.
[QUOTE=Mykl]If you're beaing guys in SM or even SP just because you have a couple of non legal chassis braces that means the drivers who are trying to be competitive are driving grossly underprepared cars, or just don't know how to drive to begin with. Either way you're not ruining anyone's day.[/QUOTE]Probably, but it might matter to them :)
john
[QUOTE=Mykl]Do I have the option to pay my money for my designated number of runs and not be classified?[/quote]Most places will let you run fun runs... so in this situation you could run STX fun or STU-fun or something so you can easily compare times, but can't win trophies or anything.
[QUOTE=Mykl]If you're beaing guys in SM or even SP just because you have a couple of non legal chassis braces that means the drivers who are trying to be competitive are driving grossly underprepared cars, or just don't know how to drive to begin with. Either way you're not ruining anyone's day.[/QUOTE]Probably, but it might matter to them :)
john
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 01:59 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]That's the cost of doing mods that are a little off the beaten path :) Maybe they'll be legal someday...[/quote]
Actually, I would say that that's the cost of competing in an organization with a broken ruleset.
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]Most places will let you run fun runs... so in this situation you could run STX fun or STU-fun or something so you can easily compare times, but can't win trophies or anything. [/quote]
That's good.
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]
Probably, but it might matter to them :)
john[/QUOTE]
I have never heard of a sixth place finisher protesting a fifth place finisher. But since the above is true and you can run fun runs with pretty much any modifications, then this is unimportant.
Actually, I would say that that's the cost of competing in an organization with a broken ruleset.
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]Most places will let you run fun runs... so in this situation you could run STX fun or STU-fun or something so you can easily compare times, but can't win trophies or anything. [/quote]
That's good.
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]
Probably, but it might matter to them :)
john[/QUOTE]
I have never heard of a sixth place finisher protesting a fifth place finisher. But since the above is true and you can run fun runs with pretty much any modifications, then this is unimportant.
| Butt Dyno | 08-17-2006 02:07 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Actually, I would say that that's the cost of competing in an organization with a broken ruleset.[/QUOTE]The goal of the ruleset is competitive equity and stability, not letting people do whatever mods they want :)
| DrBiggly | 08-17-2006 03:11 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]The goal of the ruleset is competitive equity and stability, not letting people do whatever mods they want :)[/QUOTE]
Agreed. If fender braces are allowed for a class series, what do those braces do for the other cars in that ruleset? Could be something altogether different.
It's not hard to be legal. Either run legal or fall into whatever category you want and run for fun. It's not a hard choice. One will garner quite a bit of respect for telling other competitors in the class you'd like to compare against that you can't run it because you aren't legal for xyz mod (and they will know that it doesn't matter for times.) :)
-Biggly
Agreed. If fender braces are allowed for a class series, what do those braces do for the other cars in that ruleset? Could be something altogether different.
It's not hard to be legal. Either run legal or fall into whatever category you want and run for fun. It's not a hard choice. One will garner quite a bit of respect for telling other competitors in the class you'd like to compare against that you can't run it because you aren't legal for xyz mod (and they will know that it doesn't matter for times.) :)
-Biggly
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 05:27 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]The goal of the ruleset is competitive equity and stability, not letting people do whatever mods they want :)[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it does so at the expense of amateurs who use their cars for multiple purposes and it basically shoe-horns everybody into the same upgrades in order to be competitive in any given class.
Bear in mind that I am talking about SCCA Solo II rules, not all autocross organizations have such a convoluted structure.
Yes, and it does so at the expense of amateurs who use their cars for multiple purposes and it basically shoe-horns everybody into the same upgrades in order to be competitive in any given class.
Bear in mind that I am talking about SCCA Solo II rules, not all autocross organizations have such a convoluted structure.
| WRX8XB | 08-17-2006 05:31 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Yes, and it does so at the expense of amateurs who use their cars for multiple purposes and it basically shoe-horns everybody into the same upgrades in order to be competitive in any given class.
Bear in mind that I am talking about SCCA Solo II rules, not all autocross organizations have such a convoluted structure.[/QUOTE]
what's your point? isn't that the purpose of having classes?
it allows for fair competition.
in a stock STi you wouldn't want to race a ASP prepped Z06.
maybe i missed your point.
Bear in mind that I am talking about SCCA Solo II rules, not all autocross organizations have such a convoluted structure.[/QUOTE]
what's your point? isn't that the purpose of having classes?
it allows for fair competition.
in a stock STi you wouldn't want to race a ASP prepped Z06.
maybe i missed your point.
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 05:34 PM |
[QUOTE=WRX8XB]what's your point? isn't that the purpose of having classes?
it allows for fair competition.
in a stock STi you wouldn't want to race a ASP prepped Z06.
maybe i missed your point.[/QUOTE]
My point is that sending somebody all the way up to modified for a beefier chassis brace is stupid. Just like it's stupid that I can't run BSP with an upgraded aluminum radiator to enhance my engine's cooling capacity for PDE's, or that I can't run two piece rotors in SP, although you can in ST (wtf?).
SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.
it allows for fair competition.
in a stock STi you wouldn't want to race a ASP prepped Z06.
maybe i missed your point.[/QUOTE]
My point is that sending somebody all the way up to modified for a beefier chassis brace is stupid. Just like it's stupid that I can't run BSP with an upgraded aluminum radiator to enhance my engine's cooling capacity for PDE's, or that I can't run two piece rotors in SP, although you can in ST (wtf?).
SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.
| WRX8XB | 08-17-2006 05:37 PM |
sounds like SM is your class.
what's wrong with SM?
unless you've got the fender braces....;)
what's wrong with SM?
unless you've got the fender braces....;)
| Turn in Concepts | 08-17-2006 05:39 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]
SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Sit down and read several chapters in a row. You'll see a pattern of "Oh hey, I have these and I want them so I'll make them legal since I write the book or serve on the committee." The problem is this has taken place over years, and now the classing rules are just a jumbled mess.
SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Sit down and read several chapters in a row. You'll see a pattern of "Oh hey, I have these and I want them so I'll make them legal since I write the book or serve on the committee." The problem is this has taken place over years, and now the classing rules are just a jumbled mess.
| Mykl | 08-17-2006 05:47 PM |
[QUOTE=WRX8XB]sounds like SM is your class.
what's wrong with SM?
unless you've got the fender braces....;)[/QUOTE]
heh, funny how that works out. lol
[QUOTE=Turn in Concepts]I agree. Sit down and read several chapters in a row. You'll see a pattern of "Oh hey, I have these and I want them so I'll make them legal since I write the book or serve on the committee." The problem is this has taken place over years, and now the classing rules are just a jumbled mess.[/QUOTE]
While I don't have anything more than a basic understanding of how NASA does their classifications, I love the idea of a "points for modification" rule where they assign points for specific upgrades, and the points total is what determins your class.
Basically what I'd love to see is this... a class system where cars are assigned a letter. Say A through Z (maybe less). Then upgrades such as race tires, headers, chassis braces, whatever are each assigned a points value. If you want to run in the A (B, C, D, whatever) Stock class, you can have a certain amount of points so you can deal with small inherent weaknesses from the factory, little stuff like camber bolts or maybe an upgraded swaybar. After that maybe a Super Stock class, where the same cars who were competing with each other in Stock are still competing against one another, but you get more points for upgrades... then after that maybe a few other classes with more points allowances.
I'm sure this system isn't perfect, but it greatly reduces the human element. All people need to do is evaluate how effective certain upgrades are and assign points values to them. People also need to figure out which cars are as close as competitive as possible to other cars and classify them.
This would even make protests easier. If you think somebody is running more upgrades than they claim on their entry list, and you find it, they lose.
Small tweaks here and there to the points each modification is allowed wouldn't be as financially ruinous as it can be today. As it sits, every time the SCCA moves a car or takes away an upgrade for a class a lot of people are out of a lot of money. I think a points/modification system would create more a lot more flexibility in this area.
It's a shame that the SCCA could never go for such a thing.
what's wrong with SM?
unless you've got the fender braces....;)[/QUOTE]
heh, funny how that works out. lol
[QUOTE=Turn in Concepts]I agree. Sit down and read several chapters in a row. You'll see a pattern of "Oh hey, I have these and I want them so I'll make them legal since I write the book or serve on the committee." The problem is this has taken place over years, and now the classing rules are just a jumbled mess.[/QUOTE]
While I don't have anything more than a basic understanding of how NASA does their classifications, I love the idea of a "points for modification" rule where they assign points for specific upgrades, and the points total is what determins your class.
Basically what I'd love to see is this... a class system where cars are assigned a letter. Say A through Z (maybe less). Then upgrades such as race tires, headers, chassis braces, whatever are each assigned a points value. If you want to run in the A (B, C, D, whatever) Stock class, you can have a certain amount of points so you can deal with small inherent weaknesses from the factory, little stuff like camber bolts or maybe an upgraded swaybar. After that maybe a Super Stock class, where the same cars who were competing with each other in Stock are still competing against one another, but you get more points for upgrades... then after that maybe a few other classes with more points allowances.
I'm sure this system isn't perfect, but it greatly reduces the human element. All people need to do is evaluate how effective certain upgrades are and assign points values to them. People also need to figure out which cars are as close as competitive as possible to other cars and classify them.
This would even make protests easier. If you think somebody is running more upgrades than they claim on their entry list, and you find it, they lose.
Small tweaks here and there to the points each modification is allowed wouldn't be as financially ruinous as it can be today. As it sits, every time the SCCA moves a car or takes away an upgrade for a class a lot of people are out of a lot of money. I think a points/modification system would create more a lot more flexibility in this area.
It's a shame that the SCCA could never go for such a thing.
| Mind | 08-17-2006 10:38 PM |
Whoa, thanks for the replies.
So, is the general consensus that this would put me in modified?
Just FYI, I'm currently losing STU almost every single time, being that I'm new at AutoX and I'm competing with STi's, Evo's, and M3's. I just want to know what class I should register with if I get these. Not to mention I'm severely under-equipped, with just a rear sway bar. But it sure is fun, and a good way to drive my car at the limits and not put myself and others at risk. Either way, if I'm running with SCCA, it's their playground, so I just wanted to know what class to register for if I ran these braces. If I actually start being competitive, maybe I'll remove them and start trying to go after some points. But I think it will be a looooong time before that starts happening.
But, it would be funny to see 11th place protesting for 10th... :lol:
I don't think the fender braces will help my times, but all the reviews I read of them said they were great for driving feel, so I figured I'd give them a shot. Besides, I can't stop buying things from TiC. I consider them like engine mounts... won't necessarily make you faster, but they sure feel great and add a lot to the driving experience.
Just my experience as a noob to AutoX... it does seem that the SCCA rules are complicated... once I got past stock and ST- classes, I got the same kind of feeling I got when I was reading the tax code. Okay, exaggerating... maybe... I do think the NASA classification or points-based systems make more sense.
So, is the general consensus that this would put me in modified?
Just FYI, I'm currently losing STU almost every single time, being that I'm new at AutoX and I'm competing with STi's, Evo's, and M3's. I just want to know what class I should register with if I get these. Not to mention I'm severely under-equipped, with just a rear sway bar. But it sure is fun, and a good way to drive my car at the limits and not put myself and others at risk. Either way, if I'm running with SCCA, it's their playground, so I just wanted to know what class to register for if I ran these braces. If I actually start being competitive, maybe I'll remove them and start trying to go after some points. But I think it will be a looooong time before that starts happening.
But, it would be funny to see 11th place protesting for 10th... :lol:
I don't think the fender braces will help my times, but all the reviews I read of them said they were great for driving feel, so I figured I'd give them a shot. Besides, I can't stop buying things from TiC. I consider them like engine mounts... won't necessarily make you faster, but they sure feel great and add a lot to the driving experience.
Just my experience as a noob to AutoX... it does seem that the SCCA rules are complicated... once I got past stock and ST- classes, I got the same kind of feeling I got when I was reading the tax code. Okay, exaggerating... maybe... I do think the NASA classification or points-based systems make more sense.
| Butt Dyno | 08-17-2006 10:44 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]I'm sure this system isn't perfect, but it greatly reduces the human element. All people need to do is evaluate how effective certain upgrades are and assign points values to them. People also need to figure out which cars are as close as competitive as possible to other cars and classify them.[/QUOTE]And you think this wouldn't cause the exact same issues? :)
Okay...
Meh, this thread should probably be in Motorsports.
edit: moved it.
john
Okay...
Meh, this thread should probably be in Motorsports.
edit: moved it.
john
| PhilC | 08-18-2006 08:56 AM |
I'll chime in on why the SCCA rules are superior to the NASA points rules. $$$$. Any idea how much money you have to spend to determine what different modifications worth the same amount of points result in the fastest car? About 10 times what it costs to race in a rules system that is structured and easy for anyone to follow if they want to. Am I faster on Rs, absolutely, but am I faster on Rs with a 10" rim than I am on Rs with an 8" rim and a set of coilovers (same point value). What about Rs, 8" rim, springs and shocks, camber plates, and increased boost (also same point value)? Want to win, you'll possibly have to try dozens of combinations all at $$$.
Are the SCCA rules perfect? Definitely not but they are reasonably stable and clearly defined if you use some common sense in reading them. IMHO everyone who spends a significant amount of time bitching about the rules should probably not bother to show up to an event because they'll be so busy bitching about something that doesn't matter that they won't have fun, which is what this is about at a local level, and will ruin it for other people who just want to run the car they own.
First time my wife and I ever showed up at an autocross we got her BMW stuck in FP. The rules at the time didn't have a clear place for the car that we had for the street. So what? We raced, had fun, started racing my Celica in GS and then DS, bought a set of R-compounds a year or so later and when we decided to be serious about it we built a car to the rules that we race with now.
Run what you brung in the class your car is actually in. Have fun, learn to drive. If you're in mod I can pretty much gaurantee you that a local region will not be enforcing the electrical cutoff rule on street going cars.
Are the SCCA rules perfect? Definitely not but they are reasonably stable and clearly defined if you use some common sense in reading them. IMHO everyone who spends a significant amount of time bitching about the rules should probably not bother to show up to an event because they'll be so busy bitching about something that doesn't matter that they won't have fun, which is what this is about at a local level, and will ruin it for other people who just want to run the car they own.
First time my wife and I ever showed up at an autocross we got her BMW stuck in FP. The rules at the time didn't have a clear place for the car that we had for the street. So what? We raced, had fun, started racing my Celica in GS and then DS, bought a set of R-compounds a year or so later and when we decided to be serious about it we built a car to the rules that we race with now.
Run what you brung in the class your car is actually in. Have fun, learn to drive. If you're in mod I can pretty much gaurantee you that a local region will not be enforcing the electrical cutoff rule on street going cars.
| KC | 08-18-2006 09:14 AM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Just like it's stupid that I can't run BSP with an upgraded aluminum radiator to enhance my engine's cooling capacity for PDE's[/QUOTE]
It's your choice to have the car to do PDEs with. It's not SCCAs 'fault' that you want a dual purpose car, or rules that fit both.
That's like saying I play softball, so when I play baseball, I want them to pitch underhand beacuse it makes my life easier.
Sports/clubs have rules, and reasons for those rules. Follow them, or don't participate if you don't want to play by those rules.
Just because your PDE prepped car doesn't fit within SCCA structure isn't SCCAs fault. Can't please everyone.
[QUOTE]or that I can't run two piece rotors in SP, although you can in ST (wtf?).[/QUOTE]
Different levels/reasons of classing. (2 piece rotors will not benefit a car on street tires as much as a car prepped to the hilt in SP on r-comps).
Besides, you actually *can* run 2 piece rotors in SP. If you have a car that's prepped to ST* rules and legal for an ST* class, you can use SPs Tire/wheel rules and run in the appropriate SP class, as long as you don't do any other SP mods that aren't legal in ST*.
[QUOTE]SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.[/QUOTE]
I find them very consistant based on the competition categories.
Stock
Street Touring
Street Prepared
Street Modified
Prepared
Modified
In all the above categories, there are cars grouped together that have 'like' performance. Kinda simple if you ask me.
--kC
It's your choice to have the car to do PDEs with. It's not SCCAs 'fault' that you want a dual purpose car, or rules that fit both.
That's like saying I play softball, so when I play baseball, I want them to pitch underhand beacuse it makes my life easier.
Sports/clubs have rules, and reasons for those rules. Follow them, or don't participate if you don't want to play by those rules.
Just because your PDE prepped car doesn't fit within SCCA structure isn't SCCAs fault. Can't please everyone.
[QUOTE]or that I can't run two piece rotors in SP, although you can in ST (wtf?).[/QUOTE]
Different levels/reasons of classing. (2 piece rotors will not benefit a car on street tires as much as a car prepped to the hilt in SP on r-comps).
Besides, you actually *can* run 2 piece rotors in SP. If you have a car that's prepped to ST* rules and legal for an ST* class, you can use SPs Tire/wheel rules and run in the appropriate SP class, as long as you don't do any other SP mods that aren't legal in ST*.
[QUOTE]SCCA rules are inconsistent and overly complex.[/QUOTE]
I find them very consistant based on the competition categories.
Stock
Street Touring
Street Prepared
Street Modified
Prepared
Modified
In all the above categories, there are cars grouped together that have 'like' performance. Kinda simple if you ask me.
--kC
| randy zimmer | 08-18-2006 09:21 AM |
AHHHH, the eternal struggle in SCCA.
Two camps, the "I want to win and I don't care what it takes" and
the "I have a car and want to drive it on the street, race, rally, solo and run the local dirt track too" guys.
There have been class consolidation efforts, rule parity efforts, cost containment efforts and that's where all the "convoluted" rules come from as these initiatives fall apart as each group demands changes "for the good of the sport".
Have fun.
rz
Two camps, the "I want to win and I don't care what it takes" and
the "I have a car and want to drive it on the street, race, rally, solo and run the local dirt track too" guys.
There have been class consolidation efforts, rule parity efforts, cost containment efforts and that's where all the "convoluted" rules come from as these initiatives fall apart as each group demands changes "for the good of the sport".
Have fun.
rz
| crystalhelix | 08-18-2006 09:21 AM |
I thought radiators were open in BSP last I looked.
| KC | 08-18-2006 09:33 AM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Small tweaks here and there to the points each modification is allowed wouldn't be as financially ruinous as it can be today. As it sits, every time the SCCA moves a car or takes away an upgrade for a class a lot of people are out of a lot of money. I think a points/modification system would create more a lot more flexibility in this area.
It's a shame that the SCCA could never go for such a thing.[/QUOTE]
I have nothing against NASA and hold no grudges and I am not interested in the politics or bashing of any other clubs.
When you have ANY car that's prepped to the max for the class, any changes will affect a car. This holds true for NASA & SCCA and any other motorsport club.
In NASA, if you have a very competitive car with maximum points for the class, and they up the point value for a modification by 1 point, or .5 points, guess what? You are now on the bottom rung of the next class and wholly uncompetitive there too. Now, you have to spend $Texas$ to get it back up to being competitive in your new level/tier, if it can be done.
On top of that... with similar cars with similiar attributes, with both having the same points (call it maxed for their tier) and modifications, one is *still* going to be better than the other. Again, that's true with almost any motorsport that isn't 'spec'.
I like the point structure *idea* (not yours, just the idea of one). However, you're going to find more cars are not as competitive as others vs the classing structure that SCCA uses... and as Phil said, the $$ for figuring out what's the best way to be the best in your tier is astrinomical.
When SCCA does a re-shuffle, they try and make sure that when cars get moved, the car could at least be competitive. I have never heard of a car in SCCA going from top of one class to being an immediate backmarker. They are still competitive with the class they are in.
And here's the #1 reason why I prefer the SCCA: [B]Solo National Championships[/B]. The big dance. The thought that you can prove yourself to be the best of the best against all your peers every year.
--kC
It's a shame that the SCCA could never go for such a thing.[/QUOTE]
I have nothing against NASA and hold no grudges and I am not interested in the politics or bashing of any other clubs.
When you have ANY car that's prepped to the max for the class, any changes will affect a car. This holds true for NASA & SCCA and any other motorsport club.
In NASA, if you have a very competitive car with maximum points for the class, and they up the point value for a modification by 1 point, or .5 points, guess what? You are now on the bottom rung of the next class and wholly uncompetitive there too. Now, you have to spend $Texas$ to get it back up to being competitive in your new level/tier, if it can be done.
On top of that... with similar cars with similiar attributes, with both having the same points (call it maxed for their tier) and modifications, one is *still* going to be better than the other. Again, that's true with almost any motorsport that isn't 'spec'.
I like the point structure *idea* (not yours, just the idea of one). However, you're going to find more cars are not as competitive as others vs the classing structure that SCCA uses... and as Phil said, the $$ for figuring out what's the best way to be the best in your tier is astrinomical.
When SCCA does a re-shuffle, they try and make sure that when cars get moved, the car could at least be competitive. I have never heard of a car in SCCA going from top of one class to being an immediate backmarker. They are still competitive with the class they are in.
And here's the #1 reason why I prefer the SCCA: [B]Solo National Championships[/B]. The big dance. The thought that you can prove yourself to be the best of the best against all your peers every year.
--kC
| crystalhelix | 08-18-2006 10:04 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]
And here's the #1 reason why I prefer the SCCA: [B]Solo National Championships[/B]. The big dance. The thought that you can prove yourself to be the best of the best against all your peers every year.
--kC[/QUOTE]
woot - first time going this year! KC - I run the same days as you, I'll try to find you to say hi!
And here's the #1 reason why I prefer the SCCA: [B]Solo National Championships[/B]. The big dance. The thought that you can prove yourself to be the best of the best against all your peers every year.
--kC[/QUOTE]
woot - first time going this year! KC - I run the same days as you, I'll try to find you to say hi!
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 11:08 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]It's your choice to have the car to do PDEs with. It's not SCCAs 'fault' that you want a dual purpose car, or rules that fit both.
That's like saying I play softball, so when I play baseball, I want them to pitch underhand beacuse it makes my life easier.[/QUOTE]
That's a ridiculously dumb analogy. If you really think that is a situation anything like wanting to upgrade a radiator for increased cooling capacity... then I just don't even know what to say.
-Mike
That's like saying I play softball, so when I play baseball, I want them to pitch underhand beacuse it makes my life easier.[/QUOTE]
That's a ridiculously dumb analogy. If you really think that is a situation anything like wanting to upgrade a radiator for increased cooling capacity... then I just don't even know what to say.
-Mike
| KC | 08-18-2006 11:14 AM |
[QUOTE=grippgoat]That's a ridiculously dumb analogy. If you really think that is a situation anything like wanting to upgrade a radiator for increased cooling capacity... then I just don't even know what to say.
-Mike[/QUOTE]
Not really. The point is you're trying to mix sports that have different rules and allowances but are similar, but want to suit *you* personally. Hence, I want to use something that's done in softball, when I play baseball. To say it can't be done is, in Mykl's words, "stupid".
I want a slower pitch in baseball because I play softball too.
I want a bigger radiator for auto-x because I do PDEs too.
--kC
-Mike[/QUOTE]
Not really. The point is you're trying to mix sports that have different rules and allowances but are similar, but want to suit *you* personally. Hence, I want to use something that's done in softball, when I play baseball. To say it can't be done is, in Mykl's words, "stupid".
I want a slower pitch in baseball because I play softball too.
I want a bigger radiator for auto-x because I do PDEs too.
--kC
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 11:27 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]Not really. The point is you're trying to mix sports that have different rules and allowances but are similar, but want to suit *you* personally. Hence, I want to use something that's done in softball, when I play baseball. To say it can't be done is, in Mykl's words, "stupid".
I want a slower pitch in baseball because I play softball too.
I want a bigger radiator for auto-x because I do PDEs too.
--kC[/QUOTE]
But you're completely skewing the magnitude of the issues. He's not talking about wanting to run R-comps in ST because he's too lazy to take them off after going to the track or something.
A radiator upgrade is primarily a reliability upgrade, and it doesn't even come into play in an autocross. There may be some cars out there that would lose weight going to an aluminum race radiator, but I think for most modern cars, you're probably gaining weight because you're increasing the amount of water in the system, increasing the physical size of the radiator, and replacing plastic with metal. If you throw more fans in to boot, you're almost surely gaining weight.
It's extremely easy to make an argument that upgraded radiators should be allowed to promote cross-over use, while there's no way to make a good argument why the rule change should be made in your baseball/softball analogy.
-Mike
I want a slower pitch in baseball because I play softball too.
I want a bigger radiator for auto-x because I do PDEs too.
--kC[/QUOTE]
But you're completely skewing the magnitude of the issues. He's not talking about wanting to run R-comps in ST because he's too lazy to take them off after going to the track or something.
A radiator upgrade is primarily a reliability upgrade, and it doesn't even come into play in an autocross. There may be some cars out there that would lose weight going to an aluminum race radiator, but I think for most modern cars, you're probably gaining weight because you're increasing the amount of water in the system, increasing the physical size of the radiator, and replacing plastic with metal. If you throw more fans in to boot, you're almost surely gaining weight.
It's extremely easy to make an argument that upgraded radiators should be allowed to promote cross-over use, while there's no way to make a good argument why the rule change should be made in your baseball/softball analogy.
-Mike
| KC | 08-18-2006 11:41 AM |
You missed the point. Totally.
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
You would prefer to run a better radiator, but you have to run in a harder class.
It makes sense to me. Sorry you're not getting it. Rules allow or prevent what one can and cannot do in any sport. The rules don't allow for a better radiator for your track prepped car in solo. Thems the rules.
--kC
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
You would prefer to run a better radiator, but you have to run in a harder class.
It makes sense to me. Sorry you're not getting it. Rules allow or prevent what one can and cannot do in any sport. The rules don't allow for a better radiator for your track prepped car in solo. Thems the rules.
--kC
| Calamity Jesus | 08-18-2006 12:08 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]It makes sense to me. Sorry you're not getting it. Rules allow or prevent what one can and cannot do in any sport. The rules don't allow for a better radiator for your track prepped car in solo. Thems the rules.
--kC[/QUOTE]
But, and this is the most important part.. if you don't like the rules as thems is.. you can always join the SCCA and petition to change them. Of course, bitching about the rules on the internets is way easier.
--kC[/QUOTE]
But, and this is the most important part.. if you don't like the rules as thems is.. you can always join the SCCA and petition to change them. Of course, bitching about the rules on the internets is way easier.
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 12:32 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]You missed the point. Totally.
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
You would prefer to run a better radiator, but you have to run in a harder class.
It makes sense to me. Sorry you're not getting it. Rules allow or prevent what one can and cannot do in any sport. The rules don't allow for a better radiator for your track prepped car in solo. Thems the rules.
--kC[/QUOTE]
I actually don't care about baseball, I haven't autocrossed in years, and it was someone else that wanted a bigger radiator. I also understand that rules are rules and if you want to compete, you have to follow the rules.
And your analogy is still ridiculous.
-Mike
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
You would prefer to run a better radiator, but you have to run in a harder class.
It makes sense to me. Sorry you're not getting it. Rules allow or prevent what one can and cannot do in any sport. The rules don't allow for a better radiator for your track prepped car in solo. Thems the rules.
--kC[/QUOTE]
I actually don't care about baseball, I haven't autocrossed in years, and it was someone else that wanted a bigger radiator. I also understand that rules are rules and if you want to compete, you have to follow the rules.
And your analogy is still ridiculous.
-Mike
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 12:36 PM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]But, and this is the most important part.. if you don't like the rules as thems is.. you can always join the SCCA and petition to change them. Of course, bitching about the rules on the internets is way easier.[/QUOTE]
And this actually supports my point. If you submitted a petition to allow radiator upgrades in more classes, you'd have a decent chance of convincing people. If you petitioned that everyone but you should have to run on all-season tires while you're allowed run yokohama slicks, people would laugh at you and call you a retard. Just like they would in baseball if you asked them to pitch slower. The analogy is ridiculous.
I guess I need to move my comments to the "Trying to get people to be realistic" forum. Oh wait, this is the internet. *sigh*
-Mike
And this actually supports my point. If you submitted a petition to allow radiator upgrades in more classes, you'd have a decent chance of convincing people. If you petitioned that everyone but you should have to run on all-season tires while you're allowed run yokohama slicks, people would laugh at you and call you a retard. Just like they would in baseball if you asked them to pitch slower. The analogy is ridiculous.
I guess I need to move my comments to the "Trying to get people to be realistic" forum. Oh wait, this is the internet. *sigh*
-Mike
| JMS Landshark | 08-18-2006 12:41 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC]I'll chime in on why the SCCA rules are superior to the NASA points rules. $$$$. Any idea how much money you have to spend to determine what different modifications worth the same amount of points result in the fastest car? About 10 times what it costs to race in a rules system that is structured and easy for anyone to follow if they want to. Am I faster on Rs, absolutely, but am I faster on Rs with a 10" rim than I am on Rs with an 8" rim and a set of coilovers (same point value). What about Rs, 8" rim, springs and shocks, camber plates, and increased boost (also same point value)? Want to win, you'll possibly have to try dozens of combinations all at $$$.
Are the SCCA rules perfect? Definitely not but they are reasonably stable and clearly defined if you use some common sense in reading them. IMHO everyone who spends a significant amount of time bitching about the rules should probably not bother to show up to an event because they'll be so busy bitching about something that doesn't matter that they won't have fun, which is what this is about at a local level, and will ruin it for other people who just want to run the car they own.
First time my wife and I ever showed up at an autocross we got her BMW stuck in FP. The rules at the time didn't have a clear place for the car that we had for the street. So what? We raced, had fun, started racing my Celica in GS and then DS, bought a set of R-compounds a year or so later and when we decided to be serious about it we built a car to the rules that we race with now.
Run what you brung in the class your car is actually in. Have fun, learn to drive. If you're in mod I can pretty much gaurantee you that a local region will not be enforcing the electrical cutoff rule on street going cars.[/QUOTE]
I understand the sentimient, but the point is, you won't have a beater running against a stripped out racecar because of one $100 part on your car. I have driven SCCA and NASA and prefer the NASA classing myself for exactly that reason.
People who have the money to throw away will do so on multiple setups regaurdless of which set of rules they follow, and people who only do it on a budget for fun won't.
Example: My '99 M Roadster has a 240hp motor in BS just like the 240hp M3. The 2001 M Roadster motor has a 325hp in AS just like the 333hp M3. When I got a software flash and wider tires, SCCA moves me to ASP where the M3 goes in BSP. Why? SP allows motor update/backdate meaning I would need to drop a whole new motor in my car to be competitive. What other cars are in ASP? Z06 (SS), FD RX7(SS), etc.
Currently I am getting raped in SM2 because I have a set of mild cams with my car still under 250rwhp and 3000+ pounds where I would need lots of boost to keep up. Otherwise I would be getting raped in ASP for having the wrong motor. See what I am getting at?
Are the SCCA rules perfect? Definitely not but they are reasonably stable and clearly defined if you use some common sense in reading them. IMHO everyone who spends a significant amount of time bitching about the rules should probably not bother to show up to an event because they'll be so busy bitching about something that doesn't matter that they won't have fun, which is what this is about at a local level, and will ruin it for other people who just want to run the car they own.
First time my wife and I ever showed up at an autocross we got her BMW stuck in FP. The rules at the time didn't have a clear place for the car that we had for the street. So what? We raced, had fun, started racing my Celica in GS and then DS, bought a set of R-compounds a year or so later and when we decided to be serious about it we built a car to the rules that we race with now.
Run what you brung in the class your car is actually in. Have fun, learn to drive. If you're in mod I can pretty much gaurantee you that a local region will not be enforcing the electrical cutoff rule on street going cars.[/QUOTE]
I understand the sentimient, but the point is, you won't have a beater running against a stripped out racecar because of one $100 part on your car. I have driven SCCA and NASA and prefer the NASA classing myself for exactly that reason.
People who have the money to throw away will do so on multiple setups regaurdless of which set of rules they follow, and people who only do it on a budget for fun won't.
Example: My '99 M Roadster has a 240hp motor in BS just like the 240hp M3. The 2001 M Roadster motor has a 325hp in AS just like the 333hp M3. When I got a software flash and wider tires, SCCA moves me to ASP where the M3 goes in BSP. Why? SP allows motor update/backdate meaning I would need to drop a whole new motor in my car to be competitive. What other cars are in ASP? Z06 (SS), FD RX7(SS), etc.
Currently I am getting raped in SM2 because I have a set of mild cams with my car still under 250rwhp and 3000+ pounds where I would need lots of boost to keep up. Otherwise I would be getting raped in ASP for having the wrong motor. See what I am getting at?
| PKer | 08-18-2006 12:49 PM |
[quote=gripgoat]And this actually supports my point. If you submitted a petition to allow radiator upgrades in more classes, you'd have a decent chance of convincing people. If you petitioned that everyone but you should have to run on all-season tires while you're allowed run yokohama slicks, people would laugh at you and call you a retard. Just like they would in baseball if you asked them to pitch slower. The analogy is ridiculous.
I guess I need to move my comments to the "Trying to get people to be realistic" forum. Oh wait, this is the internet. *sigh*
-Mike[/quote]
[url="http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx"]http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx[/url]
Is this your thread?
I guess I need to move my comments to the "Trying to get people to be realistic" forum. Oh wait, this is the internet. *sigh*
-Mike[/quote]
[url="http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx"]http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx[/url]
Is this your thread?
| solo-x | 08-18-2006 01:37 PM |
bah, the casual autocrosser/HDPE'r just doesn't understand what is involved with a full on nationally competitive solo car. thinking NASA's point system is a better approach to classing is wrong. it only seems to makes sense because the drivers in NASA aren't as fast as the SCCA drivers and when an SCCA driver shows up at a NASA event they've built a car for SCCA's rules, NOT NASA rules.
for example, i ran with a club that used the points system very similar to NASA's. i quickly skimmed the rules and found no fewer then 10 different ways to get the same benefit from a mod that added points without doing the mod the way they were assigning points for it. for example, they hit you with points for a coil over setup but not for shocks/springs. ok, i'll go and have custom wound springs made up and save 4 points. i think i figured out how to get a car together on r-comps that came in with fewer points then an ST car that would have been several seconds faster.
point is, you THINK the points system works because nobody has shown you just how badly it DOESN'T work. kind of like communism. works on paper, but not in real life when you include the nature of humans (and competition).
kc's analogy makes perfect sense btw. some of you are just too butt hurt by it to admit it. face it. your asking for a Cole'esq "I" classing allowance.
for example, i ran with a club that used the points system very similar to NASA's. i quickly skimmed the rules and found no fewer then 10 different ways to get the same benefit from a mod that added points without doing the mod the way they were assigning points for it. for example, they hit you with points for a coil over setup but not for shocks/springs. ok, i'll go and have custom wound springs made up and save 4 points. i think i figured out how to get a car together on r-comps that came in with fewer points then an ST car that would have been several seconds faster.
point is, you THINK the points system works because nobody has shown you just how badly it DOESN'T work. kind of like communism. works on paper, but not in real life when you include the nature of humans (and competition).
kc's analogy makes perfect sense btw. some of you are just too butt hurt by it to admit it. face it. your asking for a Cole'esq "I" classing allowance.
| Kostamojen | 08-18-2006 01:53 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]You missed the point. Totally.
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
--kC[/QUOTE]
A better analogy is bringing a corked bat to a softball game a few of your friends put together...
Sure its cheating, but no one cares.
If you take that same corked bat to a major league game (IE SCCA Nationals) well, good luck with that...
You can throw an underhand pitch in baseball. There's no rule against it. ;) It's just not preferred. The whole point of my arument is 'because its easier for *me*.
But since I prefer a slower pitch in baseball, can I play little league? :lol:. No. There are rules that would prevent me from doing so.
I would 'Prefer' a slower pitch, so I should play little league because it's 'easier' and I won't get hit as hard.
--kC[/QUOTE]
A better analogy is bringing a corked bat to a softball game a few of your friends put together...
Sure its cheating, but no one cares.
If you take that same corked bat to a major league game (IE SCCA Nationals) well, good luck with that...
| Wolfen42 | 08-18-2006 02:11 PM |
[QUOTE=randy zimmer]AHHHH, the eternal struggle in SCCA.
Two camps, the "I want to win and I don't care what it takes" and
the "I have a car and want to drive it on the street, race, rally, solo and run the local dirt track too" guys.
There have been class consolidation efforts, rule parity efforts, cost containment efforts and that's where all the "convoluted" rules come from as these initiatives fall apart as each group demands changes "for the good of the sport".
Have fun.
rz[/QUOTE]
And then there's the guy at a local autox who runs his Bugeye Impreza in G Stock with front and rear swaybars, camber plates, a completely replaced intake, a different exhaust, and lowering springs... Sigh.... :huh:
Oooh... hey... that previous comment about corked bats sure works out nice...
If he's been running a wrx in DS like that and I was competing directly against him I'd be irritated... :furious:
Two camps, the "I want to win and I don't care what it takes" and
the "I have a car and want to drive it on the street, race, rally, solo and run the local dirt track too" guys.
There have been class consolidation efforts, rule parity efforts, cost containment efforts and that's where all the "convoluted" rules come from as these initiatives fall apart as each group demands changes "for the good of the sport".
Have fun.
rz[/QUOTE]
And then there's the guy at a local autox who runs his Bugeye Impreza in G Stock with front and rear swaybars, camber plates, a completely replaced intake, a different exhaust, and lowering springs... Sigh.... :huh:
Oooh... hey... that previous comment about corked bats sure works out nice...
If he's been running a wrx in DS like that and I was competing directly against him I'd be irritated... :furious:
| DrBiggly | 08-18-2006 02:20 PM |
:lol: @ Cole reference
-Biggly
-Biggly
| fliz | 08-18-2006 02:41 PM |
[QUOTE=grippgoat]But you're completely skewing the magnitude of the issues. He's not talking about wanting to run R-comps in ST because he's too lazy to take them off after going to the track or something.
A radiator upgrade is primarily a reliability upgrade, and it doesn't even come into play in an autocross. There may be some cars out there that would lose weight going to an aluminum race radiator, but I think for most modern cars, you're probably gaining weight because you're increasing the amount of water in the system, increasing the physical size of the radiator, and replacing plastic with metal. If you throw more fans in to boot, you're almost surely gaining weight.
It's extremely easy to make an argument that upgraded radiators should be allowed to promote cross-over use, while there's no way to make a good argument why the rule change should be made in your baseball/softball analogy.
-Mike[/QUOTE]
For you, a radiator upgrade is going to be about reliability.
For a hard-core SP autox'er, if you let them upgrade the radiator, they're going to cut the capacity down to nothing, so the car will only run for 2 minutes at a time, but will be 20-30 lbs lighter.
A radiator upgrade is primarily a reliability upgrade, and it doesn't even come into play in an autocross. There may be some cars out there that would lose weight going to an aluminum race radiator, but I think for most modern cars, you're probably gaining weight because you're increasing the amount of water in the system, increasing the physical size of the radiator, and replacing plastic with metal. If you throw more fans in to boot, you're almost surely gaining weight.
It's extremely easy to make an argument that upgraded radiators should be allowed to promote cross-over use, while there's no way to make a good argument why the rule change should be made in your baseball/softball analogy.
-Mike[/QUOTE]
For you, a radiator upgrade is going to be about reliability.
For a hard-core SP autox'er, if you let them upgrade the radiator, they're going to cut the capacity down to nothing, so the car will only run for 2 minutes at a time, but will be 20-30 lbs lighter.
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 03:36 PM |
[QUOTE=PKer][url="http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx"]http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/207231/ShowThread.aspx[/url]
Is this your thread?[/QUOTE]
No, I never go on the scca forums.
-Mike
Is this your thread?[/QUOTE]
No, I never go on the scca forums.
-Mike
| grippgoat | 08-18-2006 03:46 PM |
[QUOTE=fliz]For you, a radiator upgrade is going to be about reliability.
For a hard-core SP autox'er, if you let them upgrade the radiator, they're going to cut the capacity down to nothing, so the car will only run for 2 minutes at a time, but will be 20-30 lbs lighter.[/QUOTE]
But that argument is defeated by existing rules. Just look at the wording for cutting a bumper beam to allow an FMIC. If they wanted to allow it for reliability of cross-over vehicles without providing any performance benefit, they could figure out the wording to make it work without too much trouble.
-Mike
For a hard-core SP autox'er, if you let them upgrade the radiator, they're going to cut the capacity down to nothing, so the car will only run for 2 minutes at a time, but will be 20-30 lbs lighter.[/QUOTE]
But that argument is defeated by existing rules. Just look at the wording for cutting a bumper beam to allow an FMIC. If they wanted to allow it for reliability of cross-over vehicles without providing any performance benefit, they could figure out the wording to make it work without too much trouble.
-Mike
| Scooby South | 08-18-2006 04:00 PM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix]I thought radiators were open in BSP last I looked.[/QUOTE]
no sir.....intercoolers in stock location...yes...aluminum upgraded rads...Nope...
trust me..I read the rules about 1000 times thinking I was going to find something about a rad upgrade...wish we could...
Bill
no sir.....intercoolers in stock location...yes...aluminum upgraded rads...Nope...
trust me..I read the rules about 1000 times thinking I was going to find something about a rad upgrade...wish we could...
Bill
| BAN SUVS | 08-18-2006 04:01 PM |
For radiators, they would just have to require the replacement to be greater or equal capacity, similar to the wording for fuel cells.
| Mykl | 08-18-2006 06:00 PM |
Concerning this subject... I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anybody. I'm just saying that I'm not satisfied with the SCCA ruleset that in some instances, requires you to actually downgrade your car to go to a faster class... which seems backwards and silly to me. Feel free to disagree. At least credit me with one thing... that I offered a solution instead of just complaining about it.
I'm still going to go to local SCCA events and I will continue to have fun. But at the same time I'm going to hope that somebody comes to their senses and realizes that the rules are broke, although I certainly do not ever actually expect that to happen.
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]:lol: @ Cole reference
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I know Cole personally and I drive in his region. I am fully aware of what people think of him on the SCCA forums and I have no opinion on that particular subject. But I will say that Cole is an exceptional person and always goes the extra mile at his events to ensure that everybody has a great time.
I'm still going to go to local SCCA events and I will continue to have fun. But at the same time I'm going to hope that somebody comes to their senses and realizes that the rules are broke, although I certainly do not ever actually expect that to happen.
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]:lol: @ Cole reference
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I know Cole personally and I drive in his region. I am fully aware of what people think of him on the SCCA forums and I have no opinion on that particular subject. But I will say that Cole is an exceptional person and always goes the extra mile at his events to ensure that everybody has a great time.
| WRX8XB | 08-18-2006 06:07 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]requires you to actually downgrade your car to go to a faster class... [/QUOTE]
are you referring to the ST to SP change?
you can run SP as long as you're legal for ST.
while running in SP in ST Trim you can lift the Street Tire requirement (not sure if you can lift the tire size requirement though). Note, to run ST you can't change boost while SP you can.
this is my understanding, if i'm misunderstanding please set it straight. :)
are you referring to the ST to SP change?
you can run SP as long as you're legal for ST.
while running in SP in ST Trim you can lift the Street Tire requirement (not sure if you can lift the tire size requirement though). Note, to run ST you can't change boost while SP you can.
this is my understanding, if i'm misunderstanding please set it straight. :)
| Mykl | 08-18-2006 06:14 PM |
[QUOTE=WRX8XB]are you referring to the ST to SP change?
you can run SP as long as you're legal for ST.
while running in SP in ST Trim you can lift the Street Tire requirement (not sure if you can lift the tire size requirement though). Note, to run ST you can't change boost while SP you can.
this is my understanding, if i'm misunderstanding please set it straight. :)[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, no. :( I only have the 2005 rules available to me, but here's what it says...
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules
you can run SP as long as you're legal for ST.
while running in SP in ST Trim you can lift the Street Tire requirement (not sure if you can lift the tire size requirement though). Note, to run ST you can't change boost while SP you can.
this is my understanding, if i'm misunderstanding please set it straight. :)[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, no. :( I only have the 2005 rules available to me, but here's what it says...
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules
| BAN SUVS | 08-18-2006 06:17 PM |
No, if you read the first page of the SP rules, it states that a bunch of different classes of cars are SP eligbile provided they conform to their respective rules. ST prepared cars can run in SP if they are 100% ST legal, plus they can run any tire that will fit under ST legal bodywork on ST legal wheels. the allowance in this case is intended to allow STX drivers to run on R compounds.
| WRX8XB | 08-18-2006 06:21 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Unfortunately, no. :( I only have the 2005 rules available to me, but here's what it says...
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SCCA 2006 Rule book Pg. 79]Cars listed as eligible in and prepared to the current national Street
Touring (ST) class rules are permitted to compete in their respective
Street Prepared classes, with the additional allowance that they
may use any tire which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits on
the ST-legal wheels and within the ST-legal bodywork.[/QUOTE]
as the book says.
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SCCA 2006 Rule book Pg. 79]Cars listed as eligible in and prepared to the current national Street
Touring (ST) class rules are permitted to compete in their respective
Street Prepared classes, with the additional allowance that they
may use any tire which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits on
the ST-legal wheels and within the ST-legal bodywork.[/QUOTE]
as the book says.
| KC | 08-18-2006 06:26 PM |
[QUOTE=Mykl]Unfortunately, no. :( I only have the 2005 rules available to me, but here's what it says...
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules[/QUOTE]
Download the 2006 rules. It changed. Unless you have me blocked, 1/2 way though this post: [url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14935791&postcount=24[/url] I told you that you can run an ST car in SP, and how.
--kC
"A vehicle may compete in the Street Prepared Category if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below."
So if you have a car prepared to the hilt for ST competition, you're going to have to remove a few upgrades to legally compete in SP.
*edit* that quote came from the very first page of the SP class rules[/QUOTE]
Download the 2006 rules. It changed. Unless you have me blocked, 1/2 way though this post: [url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14935791&postcount=24[/url] I told you that you can run an ST car in SP, and how.
--kC
| Mykl | 08-18-2006 06:40 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Download the 2006 rules. It changed. Unless you have me blocked, 1/2 way though this post: [url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14935791&postcount=24[/url] I told you that you can run an ST car in SP, and how.
--kC[/QUOTE]
Why would I have you blocked? :confused: We simply disagree on a subject, it isn't like you're being rude or disrespectful.
Remember how I said the rules are overly complicated? This is a perfect example of that. Now you can have two different cars, under two different rulesets that can run in the same exact class.
It's nice that they made that allowance. But it's a bandaid, not a cure. Unfortunately the cure would require certain people to either spend even more money to be competitive for SP, or ST runners losing money because modifications are taken away from them.
--kC[/QUOTE]
Why would I have you blocked? :confused: We simply disagree on a subject, it isn't like you're being rude or disrespectful.
Remember how I said the rules are overly complicated? This is a perfect example of that. Now you can have two different cars, under two different rulesets that can run in the same exact class.
It's nice that they made that allowance. But it's a bandaid, not a cure. Unfortunately the cure would require certain people to either spend even more money to be competitive for SP, or ST runners losing money because modifications are taken away from them.
| PKer | 08-18-2006 06:48 PM |
[QUOTE=grippgoat]No, I never go on the scca forums.
-Mike[/QUOTE]
Well you should check it out, it looks like it could be put out for member comment if it gets worded correctly.
I'd support it with the right wording.
-Mike[/QUOTE]
Well you should check it out, it looks like it could be put out for member comment if it gets worded correctly.
I'd support it with the right wording.
| crystalhelix | 08-18-2006 09:48 PM |
KC - you have dedication...
everyone have fun on the rules debate, I am on my way to the beach in 5 hours! woot!
everyone have fun on the rules debate, I am on my way to the beach in 5 hours! woot!
| KC | 08-19-2006 05:37 AM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix]KC - you have dedication...[/QUOTE]
Is that what they call it? It used to be called bull-headed and stubborn. :D
--kC
Is that what they call it? It used to be called bull-headed and stubborn. :D
--kC
| PhilC | 08-19-2006 07:33 AM |
Why do you consider letting ST cars run in SP with Rs a bandaid instead of a fix? A letter was written saying "I'd like to run my ST* car in *SP and I currently cannot. I'd like to propose that ST cars that follow all the ST rules except for wheels and tires be allowed to run in SP even though they might have modifications that are not normally allowed." Or something along those lines. And the SPAC and SEB agreed, that would be a good idea and it got done. And so Craig Wilcox, who I assume wrote such a letter or at least expressed his support of it, can now run in STX and DSP with the same car even though it has aftermarket brakes.
Currently SP doesn't currently allow modified brakes which STX\STU do and camber kits which all of ST does. A lot of people feel and have posted on bulletine boards like this one that these two things should be allowed in SP but has anyone actually written a letter about it? Don't like the rules? There is a mechanism in place for those rules to change and it isn't bitching about them on the intarweb. And for god's sake if you're going to harp and bitch about how much the rules and SCCA suck at least take the time to download the current rules which are available for free in PDF format.
Note on the above: I'd be for a brake rule in SP worded the same was as the ST rule but against the camber kit rule which I don't think ST should have despite the fact that I use one on our car. Also note that SP allows alternate master cylinders, boosters and ducts already which ST doesn't which may open up some interesting high dollar options that you or I can't currently think of but might be detrimental to the class.
Edit: Re-written because I think it's clearer this way.
Currently SP doesn't currently allow modified brakes which STX\STU do and camber kits which all of ST does. A lot of people feel and have posted on bulletine boards like this one that these two things should be allowed in SP but has anyone actually written a letter about it? Don't like the rules? There is a mechanism in place for those rules to change and it isn't bitching about them on the intarweb. And for god's sake if you're going to harp and bitch about how much the rules and SCCA suck at least take the time to download the current rules which are available for free in PDF format.
Note on the above: I'd be for a brake rule in SP worded the same was as the ST rule but against the camber kit rule which I don't think ST should have despite the fact that I use one on our car. Also note that SP allows alternate master cylinders, boosters and ducts already which ST doesn't which may open up some interesting high dollar options that you or I can't currently think of but might be detrimental to the class.
Edit: Re-written because I think it's clearer this way.
| RainMaker | 12-30-2006 12:04 PM |
Of note, since the new 07s have significantly better fender cowl braces, I think the Subaru part should now be legal for STis (from what I understand...pls. correct me if Im wrong).
| sciolist | 12-30-2006 02:19 PM |
^ Take a look at 15.1.C. That's the UD/BD rule, which begins in SP. The cars in question have to be listed on the same line in Appendix A, and the other criteria listed apply.
16.1.A and B carry UD/BD over to SM with some qualifications.
16.1.A and B carry UD/BD over to SM with some qualifications.
| Scooby South | 12-30-2006 05:24 PM |
its BSP for me..:)... UD/BD is your friend...:)
Bill
Bill
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét