| KC | 05-26-2004 10:44 AM |
July Fastrack is Out - ST Changes
�
�
Proposals for 1/1/2005 (write your letters and address them to the SEB/STAC!)
SOLO II STREET TOURING CATEGORY
Competitors are reminded that 13.3.B does apply to the ST category; a tire model which is not available by the April 30th deadline is not eligible for use in ST classes at National events. This may affect the 2004 eligibility of the Hankook Ventus Z212.
The STAC has suggested reminding Regional programs that they are free to implement additional allowances, particularly regarding boost control, for Regional level events.
The following rule change proposals are submitted for member comment:
ITEM 5) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.2.B: "OE seats which contain integral airbags may not be replaced."
[I]Defeats the purpose of having racing seats allowed in ST. I'm against this rule. It should be all cars allowed to replace seats or none.[/I]
ITEM 6) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.11.A.8: "Brake backing plates (dust shields) plates may be modified the minimum amount necessary to accommodate allowed alternate rotors and calipers."
ITEM 7) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.10.C: "Alternate oxygen sensors, including heated types and the wiring to facilitate them, are permitted." NOTE: This permits 3-wire and 4-wire sensors.
The following classing change proposal is submitted for member input:
ITEM 8) Effective 1/1/2005, move all AWD vehicles to STX.
[I]NO!!! The 2.5RS is no longer the overdog in STS. Why move it? It's not competitive with an STX WRX or any STX cars. It's no longer classed like it once was with the Type-R in stock, it can never keep up in STX trim either, and it still has a hard time keeping up with STS prepped Civics.[/I]
The following items from the STX allowances are proposed to be applied to the entire ST category, into the sections shown, effective 1/1/2005:
ITEM 9) From 14.11.A.1.B (to 14.2.E)
"Camber kits, also known as camber compensators, may be installed. These kits consist of either adjustable length arms or arm mounts that provide an adjustment to the effective length of a control arm. Alignment outside the factory specifications is allowed. The following restrictions apply:
1. On double/unequal arm suspensions, only the upper arms OR lower arms may be modified or replaced, but not both.
2.On arm-and-strut (MacPherson/Chapman) suspensions, the lower arms may be modified/replaced OR other methods of camber adjustment as allowed by paragraphs 14.8 B., C., or D. may be used, but not both.
3. On swing or trailing arm suspensions, the main arms may not be modified but locating links/arms may be modified or replaced.
4. The replacement arms or mounts must attach to the original mounting points. All bushings must meet the requirements of
14.8 B. The knuckle/bearing housing/spindle assembly cannot be modified or replaced."
ITEM 10) From 14.11.A.7 (to 14.8)
"Suspension bump stops may be altered or removed."
ITEM 11) From 14.11.A.9 (to 14.6)
"Original equipment ABS braking systems may be electrically disabled, but not removed or altered in any other way."
ITEM 12) From 14.11.A.10 (to 14.10)
"Original equipment traction control systems may be electrically disabled, but not removed or altered in any other way."
------
I'm for everything except for 5 & 8. Those are stpes backwards, IMHO.
More from the Fastrack....
TECH BULLETINS (These rules are now in effect)
4) Street Touring: Per STAC recommendation, the Pirelli P Zero Corsa is added to the ST tire exclusion list.
5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
6) Street Touring: Relocation of the oxygen sensor on the header is permitted under 14.10.C.
7) Street Touring: The "Works" Mini Cooper S is added to the STU inclusion list.
8) Street Touring: 14.6.B should read "B. Brake lines may be substituted with alternate DOT approved flexible brake lines." (ref. 04-218)
9) Street Touring: 14.2.C should read: "C. Removal of factory trim (rub strips, emblems, mud flaps) is allowed." (ref. 04-218)
10) Street Touring: 14.10.C should read: "C. Exhaust manifolds and headers may be replaced with alternate units that are emissions legal" (ref. 04-218)
SOLO II STREET TOURING CATEGORY
Competitors are reminded that 13.3.B does apply to the ST category; a tire model which is not available by the April 30th deadline is not eligible for use in ST classes at National events. This may affect the 2004 eligibility of the Hankook Ventus Z212.
The STAC has suggested reminding Regional programs that they are free to implement additional allowances, particularly regarding boost control, for Regional level events.
The following rule change proposals are submitted for member comment:
ITEM 5) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.2.B: "OE seats which contain integral airbags may not be replaced."
[I]Defeats the purpose of having racing seats allowed in ST. I'm against this rule. It should be all cars allowed to replace seats or none.[/I]
ITEM 6) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.11.A.8: "Brake backing plates (dust shields) plates may be modified the minimum amount necessary to accommodate allowed alternate rotors and calipers."
ITEM 7) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.10.C: "Alternate oxygen sensors, including heated types and the wiring to facilitate them, are permitted." NOTE: This permits 3-wire and 4-wire sensors.
The following classing change proposal is submitted for member input:
ITEM 8) Effective 1/1/2005, move all AWD vehicles to STX.
[I]NO!!! The 2.5RS is no longer the overdog in STS. Why move it? It's not competitive with an STX WRX or any STX cars. It's no longer classed like it once was with the Type-R in stock, it can never keep up in STX trim either, and it still has a hard time keeping up with STS prepped Civics.[/I]
The following items from the STX allowances are proposed to be applied to the entire ST category, into the sections shown, effective 1/1/2005:
ITEM 9) From 14.11.A.1.B (to 14.2.E)
"Camber kits, also known as camber compensators, may be installed. These kits consist of either adjustable length arms or arm mounts that provide an adjustment to the effective length of a control arm. Alignment outside the factory specifications is allowed. The following restrictions apply:
1. On double/unequal arm suspensions, only the upper arms OR lower arms may be modified or replaced, but not both.
2.On arm-and-strut (MacPherson/Chapman) suspensions, the lower arms may be modified/replaced OR other methods of camber adjustment as allowed by paragraphs 14.8 B., C., or D. may be used, but not both.
3. On swing or trailing arm suspensions, the main arms may not be modified but locating links/arms may be modified or replaced.
4. The replacement arms or mounts must attach to the original mounting points. All bushings must meet the requirements of
14.8 B. The knuckle/bearing housing/spindle assembly cannot be modified or replaced."
ITEM 10) From 14.11.A.7 (to 14.8)
"Suspension bump stops may be altered or removed."
ITEM 11) From 14.11.A.9 (to 14.6)
"Original equipment ABS braking systems may be electrically disabled, but not removed or altered in any other way."
ITEM 12) From 14.11.A.10 (to 14.10)
"Original equipment traction control systems may be electrically disabled, but not removed or altered in any other way."
------
I'm for everything except for 5 & 8. Those are stpes backwards, IMHO.
More from the Fastrack....
TECH BULLETINS (These rules are now in effect)
4) Street Touring: Per STAC recommendation, the Pirelli P Zero Corsa is added to the ST tire exclusion list.
5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
6) Street Touring: Relocation of the oxygen sensor on the header is permitted under 14.10.C.
7) Street Touring: The "Works" Mini Cooper S is added to the STU inclusion list.
8) Street Touring: 14.6.B should read "B. Brake lines may be substituted with alternate DOT approved flexible brake lines." (ref. 04-218)
9) Street Touring: 14.2.C should read: "C. Removal of factory trim (rub strips, emblems, mud flaps) is allowed." (ref. 04-218)
10) Street Touring: 14.10.C should read: "C. Exhaust manifolds and headers may be replaced with alternate units that are emissions legal" (ref. 04-218)
| del105 | 05-26-2004 11:15 AM |
[QUOTE]ITEM 5) Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.2.B: "OE seats which contain integral airbags may not be replaced." [/QUOTE]
This is BS
[QUOTE]5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)[/QUOTE]
This is also BS
This is BS
[QUOTE]5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)[/QUOTE]
This is also BS
| Orion | 05-26-2004 11:21 AM |
Glad I haven't ponird up the money for seats yet, although that might just be the final nail in ST to send me to SP. Airbags seats weight a TON so it' would benefit those seats most.:furious:
All AWD cars in STX is a joke. That is unless they allow front diffs to be added. Then the RS [i]might[/i] have a chance on the right course.
Pathetic. They can't leave well enough alone. First STS2 is just another Miata/MR2 class and now these stupid rules.
All AWD cars in STX is a joke. That is unless they allow front diffs to be added. Then the RS [i]might[/i] have a chance on the right course.
Pathetic. They can't leave well enough alone. First STS2 is just another Miata/MR2 class and now these stupid rules.
| KC | 05-26-2004 11:22 AM |
I sent my e-mail/letter in already.
--kC
--kC
| del105 | 05-26-2004 11:28 AM |
Im really gonna have to write them now. I can live with the stupid air bag seats as much as I don't want to, But making me keep the giant STi wing is crossing the line.
| BriDrive | 05-26-2004 11:29 AM |
"4) Street Touring: Per STAC recommendation, the Pirelli P Zero Corsa is added to the ST tire exclusion list."
What's the reasoning on this one KC?
There is one model of this tire (215/45/17) that meets the 140 treadwear threshold......
BriDrive
What's the reasoning on this one KC?
There is one model of this tire (215/45/17) that meets the 140 treadwear threshold......
BriDrive
| KC | 05-26-2004 11:38 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BriDrive[/i]
[B] "4) Street Touring: Per STAC recommendation, the Pirelli P Zero Corsa is added to the ST tire exclusion list."
What's the reasoning on this one KC?
There is one model of this tire (215/45/17) that meets the 140 treadwear threshold......
BriDrive [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the exact reason....they fall back on the stock rules for multiple sizes available "to use" for all different cars in the class. Since there's only one tire available with the 140 treadware.. bzzzt... not legal for ST.
--kC
[B] "4) Street Touring: Per STAC recommendation, the Pirelli P Zero Corsa is added to the ST tire exclusion list."
What's the reasoning on this one KC?
There is one model of this tire (215/45/17) that meets the 140 treadwear threshold......
BriDrive [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the exact reason....they fall back on the stock rules for multiple sizes available "to use" for all different cars in the class. Since there's only one tire available with the 140 treadware.. bzzzt... not legal for ST.
--kC
| Corey | 05-26-2004 11:41 AM |
Re: July Fastrack is Out - ST Changes
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]
ITEM 8) Effective 1/1/2005, move all AWD vehicles to STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
OK, we could use everyone's help on this one... AGAIN! This is horrible. I thought the nail was already in this coffin but it just keeps comming up. PLEASE write.
BTW... are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?
Corey #89 STS
[B]
ITEM 8) Effective 1/1/2005, move all AWD vehicles to STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
OK, we could use everyone's help on this one... AGAIN! This is horrible. I thought the nail was already in this coffin but it just keeps comming up. PLEASE write.
BTW... are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?
Corey #89 STS
| KC | 05-26-2004 11:45 AM |
Yes. I need to see if I can get the minuted to the town hall meeting from last year when I brought this up to the SEB.
"No, we never considered it."
By the way, it was Aug 2002 Fastrack, Page F-187, Item 24.
That change should die a flaming death... it's been a one sided debate that the 2.5RS (nor any other AWD cars in STS) is of no harm in STS for Solo-II. The 2.5RS is the only competitve one, and not, by any means an overdog... and moving it to STX... would be a nail in the coffin to all STS AWD cars.
I have a suspiscion that it's linked to the 2.5RS in ProSolo.. but that cannot be proved... and Solo-II classing should not be done, at all, based on ProSolo results.
--kC
"No, we never considered it."
By the way, it was Aug 2002 Fastrack, Page F-187, Item 24.
That change should die a flaming death... it's been a one sided debate that the 2.5RS (nor any other AWD cars in STS) is of no harm in STS for Solo-II. The 2.5RS is the only competitve one, and not, by any means an overdog... and moving it to STX... would be a nail in the coffin to all STS AWD cars.
I have a suspiscion that it's linked to the 2.5RS in ProSolo.. but that cannot be proved... and Solo-II classing should not be done, at all, based on ProSolo results.
--kC
| Orion | 05-26-2004 11:49 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]That's the exact reason....they fall back on the stock rules for multiple sizes available "to use" for all different cars in the class. Since there's only one tire available with the 140 treadware.. bzzzt... not legal for ST.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Explain the RE070 ans A046 then. It's really an R tire.
What you've got with the Zero Corsa is a misprint on the tire.
[B]That's the exact reason....they fall back on the stock rules for multiple sizes available "to use" for all different cars in the class. Since there's only one tire available with the 140 treadware.. bzzzt... not legal for ST.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Explain the RE070 ans A046 then. It's really an R tire.
What you've got with the Zero Corsa is a misprint on the tire.
| KC | 05-26-2004 11:53 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Orion [/i]
[B]Explain the RE070 ans A046 then. It's really an R tire.
What you've got with the Zero Corsa is a misprint on the tire. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good and valid points. However, those tires comes as OE equipment on cars, and are legal. If the P-Zero corsa was an OEM tire on any ST car, then it should also be legal.
[QUOTE]13.3 Any tire which is O.E.M. on a car eligible for Stock Category may be used. Non-O.E.M. tires must meet the following requirements to be eligible for use in Stock category:[/QUOTE]
The P-Zero Corsa in that one size actually has a greater tread depth than the others... and that line is considered a 'Compeition' Tire instead of a "Max Performance Summer Tire" like the RE070 and the A046.
--kC
[B]Explain the RE070 ans A046 then. It's really an R tire.
What you've got with the Zero Corsa is a misprint on the tire. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good and valid points. However, those tires comes as OE equipment on cars, and are legal. If the P-Zero corsa was an OEM tire on any ST car, then it should also be legal.
[QUOTE]13.3 Any tire which is O.E.M. on a car eligible for Stock Category may be used. Non-O.E.M. tires must meet the following requirements to be eligible for use in Stock category:[/QUOTE]
The P-Zero Corsa in that one size actually has a greater tread depth than the others... and that line is considered a 'Compeition' Tire instead of a "Max Performance Summer Tire" like the RE070 and the A046.
--kC
| Orion | 05-26-2004 12:01 PM |
gotcha.
i love my OEM tires.:D
i love my OEM tires.:D
| MNbiker | 05-26-2004 12:21 PM |
Question - if I understand Federal Safety regulations correctly, front airbags are required by Federal regulations, but side airbags are not? If this is the case, the SCCA's proposed seat rule would go beyond Federal safety requirements. :rolleyes:
-Steve
-Steve
| KC | 05-26-2004 12:35 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] Question - if I understand Federal Safety regulations correctly, front airbags are required by Federal regulations, but side airbags are not? If this is the case, the SCCA's proposed seat rule would go beyond Federal safety requirements. :rolleyes:
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Put that in your letter that you'll write. :)
[B] Question - if I understand Federal Safety regulations correctly, front airbags are required by Federal regulations, but side airbags are not? If this is the case, the SCCA's proposed seat rule would go beyond Federal safety requirements. :rolleyes:
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Put that in your letter that you'll write. :)
| TheWRX | 05-26-2004 01:04 PM |
Corey, I'll be sending my letter. After driving my own car and Billy's (very nicely set up) RS back to back at the Topeka Pro, I can't believe that an STX move is still being discussed. The 2.5 RS is perfectly fine in STS, and I haven't seen any results that would support moving it.
The suggested seat rule seems unfair. If they have a problem with people getting rid of their side airbags, then make everybody keep their stock seats.
The suggested seat rule seems unfair. If they have a problem with people getting rid of their side airbags, then make everybody keep their stock seats.
| trhoppe | 05-26-2004 01:09 PM |
[quote]Effective 1/1/2005, add to 14.11.A.8: "Brake backing plates (dust shields) plates may be modified the minimum amount necessary to accommodate allowed alternate rotors and calipers."[/quote]
Oh nOs, w/o this my car is illegal this year :lol:
I'll be writing a letter too. KC, can you forward me yours as I'm too lazy to write one from scrach? I have a slight feeling both of ours will basically the same :)
-Tom
Oh nOs, w/o this my car is illegal this year :lol:
I'll be writing a letter too. KC, can you forward me yours as I'm too lazy to write one from scrach? I have a slight feeling both of ours will basically the same :)
-Tom
| KC | 05-26-2004 01:12 PM |
[QUOTE]STAC & SEB:
I read with intrest the latest Fastrack for July in regards to the proposed rule changes for 1/1/05 for Street Touring.
I'm fine with most of them except two, Items 5 and 8.
Item 5 is the suggestion that OE Seats with airbags cannot be changed.
This defeats the existing rule and places a hardship on those who have already made the purchase/investment of buying race seats for the 2004 season (as allowed by the rules) for their previously OE air-bag equipped seat in their ST car. My suggestion is instead of implementing a rule only for cars with integrated airbacgs in their seats (which is becoming more common these days) to eliminate the race seat rule all-together to let all cars be on equal footing as far as seats go, or... continue to allow ANY seat to be ussed as long as it fits within the current rules (which would be no change to the existing rule). I say do not allow this rule change.
Item 8 (All AWD into STX) is near and dear to my heart (I have brought this subject up at the past 2 Town Hall meetings and have been told... we (the SEB) never considered it.. must have just been the STAC then). It's been considered before (Aug 2002 Fastrack, Page F-187, Item 24) and for some reason was never finally ruled upon or sent to the SEB for a decision, I'd like to think member comment was the reason.
For years, the 2.5RS and the Integra Type-R were in the same stock class, and were never, ever competitive in times driven by top talent at national Solo-II event. (I will not deny they do better at ProSolos... but are still not the overdogs) The 2.5RS found a home in STS, away from the Integra Type-R where they could do well. Now, the Subaru 2.5RS is competitive in STS along with a myriad of other cars (hardly any AWD are compeitive there)... and you want to move it (and all the other STS-classed AWD cars) into a class where they will definitely no longer be competitive, just as they aren't now nor in the past, with the WRX and ITR. You're taking a GS/HS car(s) and moving them into a DS+ (What I call STX) class. I suggest the SEB/STAC continue to look at AWD cars on a case by case basis as they are produced, or through results over the years and class them as they have. This would have a drastic impact both locally and nationally. I say do not allow this rule change.
Sincerely,
Keith Casey
SCCA NER Member #R273269
[/QUOTE]
I read with intrest the latest Fastrack for July in regards to the proposed rule changes for 1/1/05 for Street Touring.
I'm fine with most of them except two, Items 5 and 8.
Item 5 is the suggestion that OE Seats with airbags cannot be changed.
This defeats the existing rule and places a hardship on those who have already made the purchase/investment of buying race seats for the 2004 season (as allowed by the rules) for their previously OE air-bag equipped seat in their ST car. My suggestion is instead of implementing a rule only for cars with integrated airbacgs in their seats (which is becoming more common these days) to eliminate the race seat rule all-together to let all cars be on equal footing as far as seats go, or... continue to allow ANY seat to be ussed as long as it fits within the current rules (which would be no change to the existing rule). I say do not allow this rule change.
Item 8 (All AWD into STX) is near and dear to my heart (I have brought this subject up at the past 2 Town Hall meetings and have been told... we (the SEB) never considered it.. must have just been the STAC then). It's been considered before (Aug 2002 Fastrack, Page F-187, Item 24) and for some reason was never finally ruled upon or sent to the SEB for a decision, I'd like to think member comment was the reason.
For years, the 2.5RS and the Integra Type-R were in the same stock class, and were never, ever competitive in times driven by top talent at national Solo-II event. (I will not deny they do better at ProSolos... but are still not the overdogs) The 2.5RS found a home in STS, away from the Integra Type-R where they could do well. Now, the Subaru 2.5RS is competitive in STS along with a myriad of other cars (hardly any AWD are compeitive there)... and you want to move it (and all the other STS-classed AWD cars) into a class where they will definitely no longer be competitive, just as they aren't now nor in the past, with the WRX and ITR. You're taking a GS/HS car(s) and moving them into a DS+ (What I call STX) class. I suggest the SEB/STAC continue to look at AWD cars on a case by case basis as they are produced, or through results over the years and class them as they have. This would have a drastic impact both locally and nationally. I say do not allow this rule change.
Sincerely,
Keith Casey
SCCA NER Member #R273269
[/QUOTE]
| rockt104 | 05-26-2004 01:27 PM |
Re: Re: July Fastrack is Out - ST Changes
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Corey [/i]
[B]are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Is this the correct email? I will write for ya Corey...even if it is just because I don't want you guys in my class:lol:
Kevin
[B]are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Is this the correct email? I will write for ya Corey...even if it is just because I don't want you guys in my class:lol:
Kevin
| trojan9x | 05-26-2004 01:33 PM |
Re: July Fastrack is Out - ST Changes
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
[/B][/QUOTE]
This of coarse allows to change of a wing, correct? just not totally removing it.
[B]5) Street Touring: An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
[/B][/QUOTE]
This of coarse allows to change of a wing, correct? just not totally removing it.
| MNbiker | 05-26-2004 01:37 PM |
Re: Re: July Fastrack is Out - ST Changes
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Corey [/i]
[B]BTW... are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?[/B][/QUOTE]
Send to [email][email�protected][/email] and copy [email][email�protected][/email].
-Steve
[B]BTW... are we still sending our email to [email][email�protected][/email] ?[/B][/QUOTE]
Send to [email][email�protected][/email] and copy [email][email�protected][/email].
-Steve
| trhoppe | 05-26-2004 01:50 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trojan9x[/i]
[B] This of coarse allows to change of a wing, correct? just not totally removing it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good catch. Yes, the exact way its worded is that you cannot remove, it completely. It does not say anything about not being able to replace it though (for a WRX wing), which another rule allows :)
-Tom
[B] This of coarse allows to change of a wing, correct? just not totally removing it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good catch. Yes, the exact way its worded is that you cannot remove, it completely. It does not say anything about not being able to replace it though (for a WRX wing), which another rule allows :)
-Tom
| del105 | 05-26-2004 02:00 PM |
[QUOTE]Good catch. Yes, the exact way its worded is that you cannot remove, it completely. It does not say anything about not being able to replace it though (for a WRX wing), which another rule allows [/QUOTE]
Tom, are you sure? because if I have to go back to the giant wing I'll ...
andrew
Tom, are you sure? because if I have to go back to the giant wing I'll ...
andrew
| 10th Warrior | 05-26-2004 02:10 PM |
[quote]Good catch. Yes, the exact way its worded is that you cannot remove, it completely[/quote]
i agree this is the intent, but i'm not sure as its written this is true. you have to [i]remove[/i] the original to afix the "body kit". and you can't do something illegal to complete a legal mod. methinks it needs rewording. and i can't believe they're trying to move the RS [b]again[/b]. foolishness. I think Pat demonstrated quite effectively it just can't compete in STX last year.
i agree this is the intent, but i'm not sure as its written this is true. you have to [i]remove[/i] the original to afix the "body kit". and you can't do something illegal to complete a legal mod. methinks it needs rewording. and i can't believe they're trying to move the RS [b]again[/b]. foolishness. I think Pat demonstrated quite effectively it just can't compete in STX last year.
| trojan9x | 05-26-2004 02:18 PM |
LIttle OT, but why did you cancel DC KC?
| DrBiggly | 05-26-2004 02:26 PM |
KC,
Do you have a snail mail address? I can type up a letter of support as well and send it along in the mail. Those are harder to ignore. :)
Do you have a snail mail address? I can type up a letter of support as well and send it along in the mail. Those are harder to ignore. :)
| KC | 05-26-2004 02:27 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trojan9x[/i]
[B] LIttle OT, but why did you cancel DC KC? [/B][/QUOTE]
Traffic and hotel costs/location. Towing a car through CT, NY, NJ, MD... on 95... to an event that's 2 miles away from where they are dedicating a new memorial where about 1 million people are expected. Nope... no way.
Dr. Biggly... [url]http://www.scca.com[/url] has the address, someplace where you can send a letter.
[B] LIttle OT, but why did you cancel DC KC? [/B][/QUOTE]
Traffic and hotel costs/location. Towing a car through CT, NY, NJ, MD... on 95... to an event that's 2 miles away from where they are dedicating a new memorial where about 1 million people are expected. Nope... no way.
Dr. Biggly... [url]http://www.scca.com[/url] has the address, someplace where you can send a letter.
| Scooby South | 05-26-2004 02:27 PM |
the RS should stay in STS.....a well prepped honduh will beat it....and definately NOT for the seat rule......Thats just plain stupid....so buy a kia....and be able to change the seats...or a WRX and don't....silly...
these don't apply to my SM preped RS....but it irks me just the same...yeah...really fair....to throw a RS to the wolves in STX....hmmmm....Wonder how MK or KC or TH would fair....
TH: Have you driven Freds car????? is it as competive as your WRX????
Bill
these don't apply to my SM preped RS....but it irks me just the same...yeah...really fair....to throw a RS to the wolves in STX....hmmmm....Wonder how MK or KC or TH would fair....
TH: Have you driven Freds car????? is it as competive as your WRX????
Bill
| trhoppe | 05-26-2004 02:36 PM |
KC - what dedication are you talking about. Can't find anything on teh googel
SS - I haven't driven it lately, but no, its not nearly as fast. Especially on more open courses. Its stupid to think a 2.5RS can compete with a WRX (equal drivers)....At regional level, cars don't matter that much, its all about the driver..
-Tom
SS - I haven't driven it lately, but no, its not nearly as fast. Especially on more open courses. Its stupid to think a 2.5RS can compete with a WRX (equal drivers)....At regional level, cars don't matter that much, its all about the driver..
-Tom
| BriDrive | 05-26-2004 02:43 PM |
TH, he's probably referring to the WWII memorial....I also saw Ashcroft/Tenet and others mention possible terrorist threats being thrown around for that event...........yikes!
| cac3780 | 05-26-2004 03:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]KC - what dedication are you talking about. Can't find anything on teh googel
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
WWII Memorial. That is why hotels were so hard to find around there.
[url]http://www.wwiimemorial.com/[/url]
[B]KC - what dedication are you talking about. Can't find anything on teh googel
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
WWII Memorial. That is why hotels were so hard to find around there.
[url]http://www.wwiimemorial.com/[/url]
| trhoppe | 05-26-2004 03:47 PM |
That blows....
Only consolation is that getting to the site at 6:30am and leaving at 6:00pm might not be THAT hard as the "Gates Open" at 8:00am to the memorial and the actual dedication is at 2:00pm.
Note to self: don't expect to go out for lunch :lol:
-Tom
Only consolation is that getting to the site at 6:30am and leaving at 6:00pm might not be THAT hard as the "Gates Open" at 8:00am to the memorial and the actual dedication is at 2:00pm.
Note to self: don't expect to go out for lunch :lol:
-Tom
| Fred | 05-26-2004 04:21 PM |
Scooby South - my car's not completely prepped for STS (springs, some of the power stuff, optimum tires), but even if it was I don't see it being able to beat Tom's car if we both drove them as fast as they could go. If it was a really tight course where power would play no role whatsoever, maybe. But on a course where the extra 100hp could be utilized...
And I just bought the second RS so I could compete national level next year in STfriggenS. I'll be sending an email AND a letter.
:furious:
And I just bought the second RS so I could compete national level next year in STfriggenS. I'll be sending an email AND a letter.
:furious:
| Butt Dyno | 05-26-2004 05:41 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]That blows....
Only consolation is that getting to the site at 6:30am and leaving at 6:00pm might not be THAT hard as the "Gates Open" at 8:00am to the memorial and the actual dedication is at 2:00pm.
Note to self: don't expect to go out for lunch :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]There's restaurants near Fedex that don't require you to hit 95..
john
[B]That blows....
Only consolation is that getting to the site at 6:30am and leaving at 6:00pm might not be THAT hard as the "Gates Open" at 8:00am to the memorial and the actual dedication is at 2:00pm.
Note to self: don't expect to go out for lunch :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]There's restaurants near Fedex that don't require you to hit 95..
john
| omahasubaru | 05-26-2004 06:37 PM |
I see no reason why one would think a well prepared STX 2.5 RS isn't going to be competitive against an STX WRX. Maybe it's just me, but they have some distinct advantages over the WRX... yet the WRX has some advantages too.
Did Patrick L. run his RS in STX at nationals last year and beat quite a few WRX folk?
Jon
Did Patrick L. run his RS in STX at nationals last year and beat quite a few WRX folk?
Jon
| KC | 05-26-2004 07:01 PM |
Can't tell you.. national results are no where to be found with the SCCA site redesign.
| MNbiker | 05-26-2004 07:24 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by omahasubaru [/i]
[B]Did Patrick L. run his RS in STX at nationals last year and beat quite a few WRX folk? [/B][/QUOTE]
Pat was 13th - just out of the trophies.
[B]Did Patrick L. run his RS in STX at nationals last year and beat quite a few WRX folk? [/B][/QUOTE]
Pat was 13th - just out of the trophies.
| jbrennen | 05-26-2004 07:56 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]...an event that's 2 miles away from where they are dedicating a new memorial where about 1 million people are expected.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's actually almost 10 miles away. FedEx Field is well outside the DC city limits.
Of course, I would expect to see traffic issues more than the average weekend, but probably not much effect at 7 AM, when most autoXers will be arriving at FedEx Field. I'm not looking forward to the evening drive home to Northern Virginia Saturday or Sunday, though.
[B]...an event that's 2 miles away from where they are dedicating a new memorial where about 1 million people are expected.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's actually almost 10 miles away. FedEx Field is well outside the DC city limits.
Of course, I would expect to see traffic issues more than the average weekend, but probably not much effect at 7 AM, when most autoXers will be arriving at FedEx Field. I'm not looking forward to the evening drive home to Northern Virginia Saturday or Sunday, though.
| del105 | 05-26-2004 09:16 PM |
Just to confirm this before I put a stock STi wing back on my car.
Tom are you sure I can use the wrx wing on my STi?
The old rule is:
STS 14.2.F
"Addition of spoilers, body kits, rear wings, ect which do not require remmoval of standard parts other than the substitution of rear wings/spoilers and valances/bumper covers. The drilling of holes for the purpose of mounting these is permitted. "
STX/STU replace 14.2.f with
"The total area when viewed from the top of the airfoil sections of all wings shall not exceed 8 square feet. The area shall be
cimputed by multiplying the width depth of the wing without regard to the curvature of the wing. Any airfoil shadowed by another airfoil with more than six inches between them will have its own projected area added to the wing area calculation."
The new rule:
An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
I don't know where this new rule is supposed to be added in regard to the other rules about spoilers/wings.
Tom are you sure I can use the wrx wing on my STi?
The old rule is:
STS 14.2.F
"Addition of spoilers, body kits, rear wings, ect which do not require remmoval of standard parts other than the substitution of rear wings/spoilers and valances/bumper covers. The drilling of holes for the purpose of mounting these is permitted. "
STX/STU replace 14.2.f with
"The total area when viewed from the top of the airfoil sections of all wings shall not exceed 8 square feet. The area shall be
cimputed by multiplying the width depth of the wing without regard to the curvature of the wing. Any airfoil shadowed by another airfoil with more than six inches between them will have its own projected area added to the wing area calculation."
The new rule:
An OE spoiler may not be removed unless the model was available from the factory without a spoiler. (ref. 04-149)
I don't know where this new rule is supposed to be added in regard to the other rules about spoilers/wings.
| Corey | 05-26-2004 09:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]
I have a suspiscion that it's linked to the 2.5RS in ProSolo.. but that cannot be proved...
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Ding. Ding. Ding...
The RS didn't start out the year right with a 1-2 finish in Atlanta against some of the best STS civics, followed by Hiroo's win in San Bernadino against THE best STS civics...:lol:
Then all of a sudden somebody wakes up:huh: :eek:
"Oh yea, didn't we move those pesky Subaru's yet? Let's get back on that...":furious:
Corey #89 STS
[B]
I have a suspiscion that it's linked to the 2.5RS in ProSolo.. but that cannot be proved...
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Ding. Ding. Ding...
The RS didn't start out the year right with a 1-2 finish in Atlanta against some of the best STS civics, followed by Hiroo's win in San Bernadino against THE best STS civics...:lol:
Then all of a sudden somebody wakes up:huh: :eek:
"Oh yea, didn't we move those pesky Subaru's yet? Let's get back on that...":furious:
Corey #89 STS
| KC | 05-26-2004 09:23 PM |
I'm reading it as they just don't want just the absence of a wing if delete wasn't an option. Looks like it's good to replace tho.
I wouldn't worry about it.
--kC
I wouldn't worry about it.
--kC
| del105 | 05-26-2004 09:29 PM |
Ok then, I won't worry about it.
| Scooby South | 05-26-2004 10:26 PM |
Thanks Kevin...preciate it.....but thats exactly my point.....no way no how....at the divisionals....I drove my arse off...and still was 4-5 secs behind.....not that I am the best representation of driving skills...but I hold my own....My Opinion is that on National style courses..where you have a chance to get into the horsepower a little...a WRX will win everytime...and if you think 13th is decent for a RS showing....in STX...your nuts....that sux.....look at the times....3 sec's back....off of KC 's times...not to mention the limited selection of rubber you can use to clear the fenders....I know OF NO RS's running wider than 225 rubber...and thats beating the hell out of the fenders...especially in rear...Horse feathers....13th is barely 'AVG.....in the overall scheme of things...
THanks Tom and Kevin for your honest inputs....hope the SEB see it that way...My personal opinion is that the SCCA needs to TOTALLY reevaluate classing of ALL cars....is Pax good??? yes and No....they need a total revamp of the system.... this goes back to the ESP/STU/STX debate.....Like I say...I think it needs a facelift...to make it fairer....
My letter is gone also....
Bill Cook
BUCCANEER Region SCCA
#R134778
THanks Tom and Kevin for your honest inputs....hope the SEB see it that way...My personal opinion is that the SCCA needs to TOTALLY reevaluate classing of ALL cars....is Pax good??? yes and No....they need a total revamp of the system.... this goes back to the ESP/STU/STX debate.....Like I say...I think it needs a facelift...to make it fairer....
My letter is gone also....
Bill Cook
BUCCANEER Region SCCA
#R134778
| Patrick L | 05-27-2004 12:47 AM |
Scooby South, you need to jsut look at the south course times for STX cause they ran caught me off guard and I had never driven in a SoloII event in the rain but the RS it not competitive in STX against the WRX's and E30 M3's. They have not chance in Hell.
They should call it STC now if you knwo what I mean
Pat L.
They should call it STC now if you knwo what I mean
Pat L.
| Soon2BRex | 05-27-2004 12:54 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]I sent my e-mail/letter in already.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
I will send me letter in KC. However I don't completely agree with the letter you sent to the SCCA. You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.
Just my $.02
Well done BTW!
[B]I sent my e-mail/letter in already.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
I will send me letter in KC. However I don't completely agree with the letter you sent to the SCCA. You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.
Just my $.02
Well done BTW!
| TheWRX | 05-27-2004 01:52 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Soon2BRex [/i]
[B]You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.[/B][/QUOTE]
The Mini can add a LSD, while at least some other competitive STX cars (like the ITR) already came with one stock, or can't touch what they got (WRX). So the Mini profits much more from STX preparation. A Cooper S with LSD would also be a DS car.
[B]You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.[/B][/QUOTE]
The Mini can add a LSD, while at least some other competitive STX cars (like the ITR) already came with one stock, or can't touch what they got (WRX). So the Mini profits much more from STX preparation. A Cooper S with LSD would also be a DS car.
| zzyzx | 05-27-2004 02:31 AM |
Please everybody support this and send in a letter regarding the AWD to STX issue.
I hope to have mine done tomorrow and I'll post it up.
I also need to respond to Phil's comment on the issue on the streettouring list. I find his explanation totally unacceptable.
The most revealing comment comes from a Heyward, a STAC member:
[quote]
As a STS driver, would I be happier if I never stage beside a 2.5 RS again? You bet. However, as a STAC member I see the 2.5 as one of the few true threats to the Civic and I feel that it belongs in STS.
[/quote]
He actually doesn't agree with the move. However, clearly he's referring to ProSolo competition. Funny that, considering Solo II classification should have nothing to do with ProSolo competition...
- Steve
I hope to have mine done tomorrow and I'll post it up.
I also need to respond to Phil's comment on the issue on the streettouring list. I find his explanation totally unacceptable.
The most revealing comment comes from a Heyward, a STAC member:
[quote]
As a STS driver, would I be happier if I never stage beside a 2.5 RS again? You bet. However, as a STAC member I see the 2.5 as one of the few true threats to the Civic and I feel that it belongs in STS.
[/quote]
He actually doesn't agree with the move. However, clearly he's referring to ProSolo competition. Funny that, considering Solo II classification should have nothing to do with ProSolo competition...
- Steve
| KC | 05-27-2004 07:48 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Soon2BRex[/i]
[B] I will send me letter in KC. However I don't completely agree with the letter you sent to the SCCA. You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.
Just my $.02
Well done BTW! [/B][/QUOTE]
It was in DS before they moved it, and I beleive they are coming out with an LSD stock, no? Then I expect to see it back in DS. It was moved due to lack of power being able to get to the ground (peg leg burnouts). ;)
--kC
[B] I will send me letter in KC. However I don't completely agree with the letter you sent to the SCCA. You consider STX to be more of a DS+ class, but the Mini Cooper S does fairly well in STX coming from GS.
Just my $.02
Well done BTW! [/B][/QUOTE]
It was in DS before they moved it, and I beleive they are coming out with an LSD stock, no? Then I expect to see it back in DS. It was moved due to lack of power being able to get to the ground (peg leg burnouts). ;)
--kC
| trhoppe | 05-27-2004 09:28 AM |
My letter just got emailed :)
-Tom
-Tom
| Corey | 05-27-2004 09:50 AM |
Just went out...
[I]
May 27, 2004
Dear SEB Members,
I am writing to comment on Item #8 in the July 2004 Fastrack. Moving all AWD cars to STX will directly affect me, as a competitor who drives a Nationally competitive 2.5RS in STS. Here are some of the reasons why I think that moving all AWD cars to STX would be a bad decision.
#1. Currently, the 2.5RS is NOT a dominant car in National STS competition. Sure, it is competitive, but recent National results show that it is in no way dominating the competition. I have driven the top placing 2.5RS at every National Tour that I have competed in, and my best finish has been 2nd place in Ft. Myers of this year. There have been no recent wins in National Tours by the car, and it barely made the top 10 in the 2003 National Championships. This is not domination.
#2. While the 2.5RS and any AWD car may have an advantage over open diff FWD cars, it also pays a severe penalty in weight. My car is the lightest Nationally competitive 2.5RS in the country (that I know of) and it still weighs 2680lbs. Giving up 600lbs to the dominant cars in the class should be enough of a competition adjustment.
#3. The 2.5RS would in no way be competitive with the cars that are currently in STX. Its sister, the WRX, carries over 100 more HP, can fit 245 tires (no chance on an RS) and can truly benefit from most of the additional rules that STX allows over STS.
I believe that this was put out for member comment in 2002, when the 2.5RS was a more dominant car. The past 2 years have proved that this is no longer the case, with Civics dominating the competition in most recent events. I think that it would be irresponsible to ignore the recent change in AWD supremacy, and base your decision on something that is no longer a problem. I suggest the SEB/STAC continue to look at AWD cars on a case-by-case basis as they are produced.
Please do not move all AWD cars to STX.
Regards,
Corey Ridgick #89 STS
Philly Region Member #307XXX
[/I]
[I]
May 27, 2004
Dear SEB Members,
I am writing to comment on Item #8 in the July 2004 Fastrack. Moving all AWD cars to STX will directly affect me, as a competitor who drives a Nationally competitive 2.5RS in STS. Here are some of the reasons why I think that moving all AWD cars to STX would be a bad decision.
#1. Currently, the 2.5RS is NOT a dominant car in National STS competition. Sure, it is competitive, but recent National results show that it is in no way dominating the competition. I have driven the top placing 2.5RS at every National Tour that I have competed in, and my best finish has been 2nd place in Ft. Myers of this year. There have been no recent wins in National Tours by the car, and it barely made the top 10 in the 2003 National Championships. This is not domination.
#2. While the 2.5RS and any AWD car may have an advantage over open diff FWD cars, it also pays a severe penalty in weight. My car is the lightest Nationally competitive 2.5RS in the country (that I know of) and it still weighs 2680lbs. Giving up 600lbs to the dominant cars in the class should be enough of a competition adjustment.
#3. The 2.5RS would in no way be competitive with the cars that are currently in STX. Its sister, the WRX, carries over 100 more HP, can fit 245 tires (no chance on an RS) and can truly benefit from most of the additional rules that STX allows over STS.
I believe that this was put out for member comment in 2002, when the 2.5RS was a more dominant car. The past 2 years have proved that this is no longer the case, with Civics dominating the competition in most recent events. I think that it would be irresponsible to ignore the recent change in AWD supremacy, and base your decision on something that is no longer a problem. I suggest the SEB/STAC continue to look at AWD cars on a case-by-case basis as they are produced.
Please do not move all AWD cars to STX.
Regards,
Corey Ridgick #89 STS
Philly Region Member #307XXX
[/I]
| Patrick L | 05-27-2004 10:33 AM |
What address you guys sending it too?
| KC | 05-27-2004 10:37 AM |
| 10th Warrior | 05-27-2004 10:59 AM |
2680lbs :eek: nice. i wish my car weighed that little :) as it is, i'm giving up over 500lbs to those pesky celicas.
| bbimpreza | 05-27-2004 12:14 PM |
I wonder if I woke up the debt about kicking out the RS again at the Pro-Solo Finale last year. It is not like I dominanted the field, I just won by a few thousandths of a second. The civic is still the dominant car in STS. The RS will do well in Pro-Solo because of the tighter more technical courses, where the low end power is great for, but the civic will still kill us at a Tour event due to the courses being more wide open. Let me know who I can email.
Billy Brooks
Billy Brooks
| KC | 05-27-2004 12:17 PM |
ProSolo results should have no bearing on Solo-II classing. I'm thinking people, somewhere, are forgetting that.
[email][email�protected][/email] and also e-mail [email][email�protected][/email] (He will forward them to the STAC)
[email][email�protected][/email] and also e-mail [email][email�protected][/email] (He will forward them to the STAC)
| trhoppe | 05-27-2004 12:33 PM |
Yea, thanks billy good job chief :lol:
-Tom
-Tom
| bvondran | 05-27-2004 01:12 PM |
I posted this on the street touring yahoo group too. It seems from the wording that AWD cars aren't being moved because of dominance, but instead precisely because they are AWD. Discussions on the ST yahoo board awhile back indicated the class was never intended to have AWD cars, and therefore, this rule was just a little housekeeping to clean up the class rules.
Which is what really pisses me off, since there is [B]NO OTHER[/B] solo II class which specifically bumps people to a faster class just because they have AWD. Certainly not in stock or SP, where cars are classed based on their performance, go figure. So why in the hell is the SCCA going to screw up the ST classes with this stupid "No AWD" rule, What if somebody came out with a 90hp AWD car. Whoops, straight to STX. It's stupid. If they are worried about an overdog, say, a lightweight AWD car (ha!!) with good power, put it on the exclusion list.
Or, we should class all the Audi's and Subaru's in AS, as well as sending the RS and WRX to STU so we can keep all the AWD cars together. AAAAAHHH!
Brian
Which is what really pisses me off, since there is [B]NO OTHER[/B] solo II class which specifically bumps people to a faster class just because they have AWD. Certainly not in stock or SP, where cars are classed based on their performance, go figure. So why in the hell is the SCCA going to screw up the ST classes with this stupid "No AWD" rule, What if somebody came out with a 90hp AWD car. Whoops, straight to STX. It's stupid. If they are worried about an overdog, say, a lightweight AWD car (ha!!) with good power, put it on the exclusion list.
Or, we should class all the Audi's and Subaru's in AS, as well as sending the RS and WRX to STU so we can keep all the AWD cars together. AAAAAHHH!
Brian
| kwh29 | 05-27-2004 02:45 PM |
Also, I've had better results sending letters I've written to the SEB address. ([email�protected]) It seems that Doug Gill sometimes filters stuff before it's ever seen by the appropriate committee. Be sure to include your name, address, phone number, member number, and region to your signature. It makes things much easier to track.
--Kevin H.
--Kevin H.
| zzyzx | 05-27-2004 03:59 PM |
I just got off the phone with Charlie Clark, Area 6 Director. I figured his 40 years of experience in the SCCA would help clarify things.
Basically, he says things have been sent out for member comment before more than once. It's generally because they didn't have enough input, the the opinions received lead to a split.
Bottom line, get a letter in to the SEB/Doug Gill regardless of how much detail you do/don't get into on the topic and call it good.
There is no data to support this move and I think we're at least half way there in killing this issue altogether.
- Steve
Basically, he says things have been sent out for member comment before more than once. It's generally because they didn't have enough input, the the opinions received lead to a split.
Bottom line, get a letter in to the SEB/Doug Gill regardless of how much detail you do/don't get into on the topic and call it good.
There is no data to support this move and I think we're at least half way there in killing this issue altogether.
- Steve
| Scooby South | 05-27-2004 04:47 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] ProSolo results should have no bearing on Solo-II classing. I'm thinking people, somewhere, are forgetting that.
[email][email�protected][/email] and also e-mail [email][email�protected][/email] (He will forward them to the STAC) [/B][/QUOTE]
FINALLY.....thats what I have been trying to say....Thanks Keith...
Bill
[B] ProSolo results should have no bearing on Solo-II classing. I'm thinking people, somewhere, are forgetting that.
[email][email�protected][/email] and also e-mail [email][email�protected][/email] (He will forward them to the STAC) [/B][/QUOTE]
FINALLY.....thats what I have been trying to say....Thanks Keith...
Bill
| MNbiker | 05-27-2004 04:51 PM |
Just sent my letter off to Doug & the SEB.
-Steve
-Steve
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét