| BIGSKYWRX | 06-18-2006 06:17 PM |
Street Prepared question
�
�
It has to do w/ the use of two piece rotors. At the bottom of page 79- section 15 (Street Prepared)- it says "Cars listed as eligble in and [B]prepared[/B] to the current national Street Touring (ST) class rules are permitted to compete in their repsective Street Prepared classes." Looks like your restricted to ST size rims which is fine.
STX 14.11 A 7 says " Brake rotors may be replaced with [B]any[/B] rotor of equal or larger diameter made from ferrous or aluminum alloy." That sounds like two piece rotors are a go in STX????
If I'm reading it correctly then as long as I comply w/ STX wheel width I'm OK to compete in SP w/ two piece rotors?
Clear as mud :lol:
TIA
STX 14.11 A 7 says " Brake rotors may be replaced with [B]any[/B] rotor of equal or larger diameter made from ferrous or aluminum alloy." That sounds like two piece rotors are a go in STX????
If I'm reading it correctly then as long as I comply w/ STX wheel width I'm OK to compete in SP w/ two piece rotors?
Clear as mud :lol:
TIA
| mccanixx | 06-18-2006 06:36 PM |
Yep, clear as mud. If you have a BBK, or two piece rotors, as STX allows. And you want to play in SP, you suffer the wheel/tire width requirements of STX.
I hope that this will eventually be allowed to carry over into SP. It's stupid as the classes build on themselves. In theory.
I hope that this will eventually be allowed to carry over into SP. It's stupid as the classes build on themselves. In theory.
| jcroy66 | 06-18-2006 07:46 PM |
Remember that the car has to be legal for STX - you can't implement any mods that are SP-legal but not ST-legal. The ONLY exception is tires. You can use R-compounds (i.e. SP-legal tires), as long as they still meet the ST class's tire sizing restriction.
But you can't mix and match allowances (i.e. use the ST brake allowances with the SP clutch and flywheel allowances, for instance).
But you can't mix and match allowances (i.e. use the ST brake allowances with the SP clutch and flywheel allowances, for instance).
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-18-2006 07:55 PM |
great- thanks! That is what I was hoping to hear :)
I emailed the SEB asking for them to make STX braking requirements to carry over to SP- it makes sense (to me anyways). I know a lot of the guys (and gals :D) that are SP prepped are likely the same guys that would hit HPDE's as well.
I emailed the SEB asking for them to make STX braking requirements to carry over to SP- it makes sense (to me anyways). I know a lot of the guys (and gals :D) that are SP prepped are likely the same guys that would hit HPDE's as well.
| Whiteghost 2.5 | 06-18-2006 09:58 PM |
wrong guys, to compete in SP you are allowed anything in Stock and Prepared category. [url]www.scca.com[/url] solo rules pg 79,
"A vehicle may compete in Street Prepared if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below"
also 15.6 B Does not permit the use of a 2 piece hat/rotor assembly unless the standard configuration is 2 piece.
Just to clarify that.
Josh
"A vehicle may compete in Street Prepared if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below"
also 15.6 B Does not permit the use of a 2 piece hat/rotor assembly unless the standard configuration is 2 piece.
Just to clarify that.
Josh
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-18-2006 10:09 PM |
go to the bottom of pg 79 :)
| PhilC | 06-18-2006 10:10 PM |
Just to clarify, you're wrong.
A ST legal car is allowed to compete in it's respective SP class as already mentioned. It wouldn't be competitve because it wouldn't have the rest of the SP legal mods and would be stuck on limited width wheels. So if you want to race a WRX in ESP with a BBK you can but you also have to be completely STX legal, 8" wheels, stock clutch, stock flywheel, stock intake manifold, stock intercooler, stock boost, one cat, stock diffs. At any rate figure 2.5-3 seconds or so on a 60 second course off the pace even if you put R compounds on your STX legal 8" wide wheels. As Jen said you must be completely ST legal except for tires if you want to run your BBK in SP, want that to change and have BBKs allowed in SP then write a letter. There is a lot of opinion on both sides of that issue but I'd vote for allowing them.
Only person I know of who is actually taking advantage of this at a National level is Craig Wilcox in his JCW Mini in STX and DSP. And I think that is mostly because that car is being driven by no fewer than 4 people at some events.
A ST legal car is allowed to compete in it's respective SP class as already mentioned. It wouldn't be competitve because it wouldn't have the rest of the SP legal mods and would be stuck on limited width wheels. So if you want to race a WRX in ESP with a BBK you can but you also have to be completely STX legal, 8" wheels, stock clutch, stock flywheel, stock intake manifold, stock intercooler, stock boost, one cat, stock diffs. At any rate figure 2.5-3 seconds or so on a 60 second course off the pace even if you put R compounds on your STX legal 8" wide wheels. As Jen said you must be completely ST legal except for tires if you want to run your BBK in SP, want that to change and have BBKs allowed in SP then write a letter. There is a lot of opinion on both sides of that issue but I'd vote for allowing them.
Only person I know of who is actually taking advantage of this at a National level is Craig Wilcox in his JCW Mini in STX and DSP. And I think that is mostly because that car is being driven by no fewer than 4 people at some events.
| Whiteghost 2.5 | 06-18-2006 10:45 PM |
yeah that is true, thats one thing I wish I could do in SP have a bigger brake setup.
| Storm | 06-19-2006 12:27 AM |
[QUOTE=Whiteghost 2.5]yeah that is true, thats one thing I wish I could do in SP have a bigger brake setup.[/QUOTE]Smaller wheels= BBK......
BTW...getting these cars to slow down ain't the problem, or at least not where we're losing most of our edge.:rolleyes:
Jay Storm
BTW...getting these cars to slow down ain't the problem, or at least not where we're losing most of our edge.:rolleyes:
Jay Storm
| Whiteghost 2.5 | 06-19-2006 05:47 AM |
yeah I am not intrested in a BBK just may be a small 4 pot that will fit under the 15-16 in wheel. But yeah getting our cars to stop is not a major problem,
| KC | 06-19-2006 07:40 AM |
[QUOTE=Storm]Smaller wheels= BBK......
BTW...getting these cars to slow down ain't the problem, or at least not where we're losing most of our edge.:rolleyes:
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
2nded. Some BBKs only lighten the unsprung weight, but braking isn't that big a problem with good pads for an autox. Heck, you don't even have to worry about brake fluids boiling as you're not on the brakes for any long period of time.
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX] I know a lot of the guys (and gals ) that are SP prepped are likely the same guys that would hit HPDE's as well.[/QUOTE] Umm... if you have an auto-x car prepped to the limits of SP (or just some) most HPDE organizations, at that level of prep, would require a cage. At least the clubs in my area do. Asking to allow modifications in any Auto-x class because they might want to do track days with their car is not a really valid argument. Two different disciplines with very little crossover.
--kC
BTW...getting these cars to slow down ain't the problem, or at least not where we're losing most of our edge.:rolleyes:
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
2nded. Some BBKs only lighten the unsprung weight, but braking isn't that big a problem with good pads for an autox. Heck, you don't even have to worry about brake fluids boiling as you're not on the brakes for any long period of time.
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX] I know a lot of the guys (and gals ) that are SP prepped are likely the same guys that would hit HPDE's as well.[/QUOTE] Umm... if you have an auto-x car prepped to the limits of SP (or just some) most HPDE organizations, at that level of prep, would require a cage. At least the clubs in my area do. Asking to allow modifications in any Auto-x class because they might want to do track days with their car is not a really valid argument. Two different disciplines with very little crossover.
--kC
| Scooby South | 06-19-2006 07:51 AM |
There is a 'specific' rule in Street Prepared that DOES NOT ALLOW 2 peice rotors...I am trying to find the specific rule now..
Bill
Bill
| Scooby South | 06-19-2006 07:52 AM |
[QUOTE=Whiteghost 2.5]wrong guys, to compete in SP you are allowed anything in Stock and Prepared category. [url]www.scca.com[/url] solo rules pg 79,
"A vehicle may compete in Street Prepared if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below"
also 15.6 B Does not permit the use of a 2 piece hat/rotor assembly unless the standard configuration is 2 piece.
Just to clarify that.
Josh[/QUOTE]
never mind...Josh found it already..and it would depend on which "path" the car is coming from or going..with which rules are which...:)..
sorry didn't RTFQ... now I is imformed..:D
Bill
"A vehicle may compete in Street Prepared if the preparation of the vehicle has not exceeded the allowable modifications of the Stock Category, except as specified below"
also 15.6 B Does not permit the use of a 2 piece hat/rotor assembly unless the standard configuration is 2 piece.
Just to clarify that.
Josh[/QUOTE]
never mind...Josh found it already..and it would depend on which "path" the car is coming from or going..with which rules are which...:)..
sorry didn't RTFQ... now I is imformed..:D
Bill
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-19-2006 09:32 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]
Umm... if you have an auto-x car prepped to the limits of SP (or just some) most HPDE organizations, at that level of prep, would require a cage. At least the clubs in my area do. Asking to allow modifications in any Auto-x class because they might want to do track days with their car is not a really valid argument. Two different disciplines with very little crossover.
--kC[/QUOTE]
Not any HPDE I've ever been too. Possibly a time trial/hill climb.
I'd have to completely disagree. I think there is a fair amount of crossover. Just about everyone I meet at HPDE's, also autox. From my five years on this and other forums- I'd have to say there is a lot of folks that both autox and attend track days. I would think that the SCCA would want to encourage crossover- it would only help their efforts.
STX allows "free" brakes, would only make sense that SP- supposedly a "step up"- would as well.
A class that allows aftermarket clutches/flywheels/differentials seems to me would be appropriate for brake upgrades.
Umm... if you have an auto-x car prepped to the limits of SP (or just some) most HPDE organizations, at that level of prep, would require a cage. At least the clubs in my area do. Asking to allow modifications in any Auto-x class because they might want to do track days with their car is not a really valid argument. Two different disciplines with very little crossover.
--kC[/QUOTE]
Not any HPDE I've ever been too. Possibly a time trial/hill climb.
I'd have to completely disagree. I think there is a fair amount of crossover. Just about everyone I meet at HPDE's, also autox. From my five years on this and other forums- I'd have to say there is a lot of folks that both autox and attend track days. I would think that the SCCA would want to encourage crossover- it would only help their efforts.
STX allows "free" brakes, would only make sense that SP- supposedly a "step up"- would as well.
A class that allows aftermarket clutches/flywheels/differentials seems to me would be appropriate for brake upgrades.
| KC | 06-19-2006 11:04 AM |
[QUOTE]I'd have to completely disagree. I think there is a fair amount of crossover. Just about everyone I meet at HPDE's, also autox.[/QUOTE] :lol: :lol:
Really? That's amazing, because those that do HPDEs with any kind of regularity [I]despise[/I] auto-x, standing around for 4-8 min of seat time during the whole day. I know a few that do do both, however those that run on a track hardly ever come back to auto-x.
I'd buy it if you said there were people that "have" auto-xed before, but those that to both are few and far between in my experience. I can count about 5-10 of them in my area that do both... and they run in the appropriate class for their track mods.
As I said in the other thread... build an auto-x car, or build a track car and run in the appropriate auto-x class for your track car.
--kC
Really? That's amazing, because those that do HPDEs with any kind of regularity [I]despise[/I] auto-x, standing around for 4-8 min of seat time during the whole day. I know a few that do do both, however those that run on a track hardly ever come back to auto-x.
I'd buy it if you said there were people that "have" auto-xed before, but those that to both are few and far between in my experience. I can count about 5-10 of them in my area that do both... and they run in the appropriate class for their track mods.
As I said in the other thread... build an auto-x car, or build a track car and run in the appropriate auto-x class for your track car.
--kC
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-19-2006 03:00 PM |
I really like them both- certainly different in many respects, but both a lot of a fun :)
| zzyzx | 06-19-2006 03:23 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]You can use R-compounds (i.e. SP-legal tires), as long as they still meet the ST class's tire sizing restriction.[/QUOTE]
Could you please quote the section that says the R compounds used in an ST car in SP are restricted to the ST size requirement?
Could you please quote the section that says the R compounds used in an ST car in SP are restricted to the ST size requirement?
| jcroy66 | 06-19-2006 03:34 PM |
Oops, you're right. The wheels have to be ST-legal, the tires can be SP-legal (including lack of size restriction apparently).
[quote]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]
[quote]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]
| KC | 06-19-2006 03:35 PM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]Could you please quote the section that says the R compounds used in an ST car in SP are restricted to the ST size requirement?[/QUOTE]
Page 79... 6th paragraph:
[QUOTE]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 [B]which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits on the ST-legal wheels[/B] and within the ST-legal bodywork.[/QUOTE]
Any r-compound that fits on an ST wheel. :) But what does 'within ST-legal bodywork' mean? I don't think you'll be able to go much bigger than ST sized tires anyways without protruding from the bodywork.
--kC
Page 79... 6th paragraph:
[QUOTE]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 [B]which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits on the ST-legal wheels[/B] and within the ST-legal bodywork.[/QUOTE]
Any r-compound that fits on an ST wheel. :) But what does 'within ST-legal bodywork' mean? I don't think you'll be able to go much bigger than ST sized tires anyways without protruding from the bodywork.
--kC
| zzyzx | 06-19-2006 03:56 PM |
^ There always has to be some rediculous "gotcha", doesn't there? Within the bodywork? Please... is there even a rule that states that the ST* tires need to be within the bodywork?
| mccanixx | 06-19-2006 04:02 PM |
Come on :furious: . Do the tires seriously have to be with-in the body for ST?
Or does that mean with-in the rules of ST? And as always is poorly worded.
Which would also mean 0 camber up front because technically the bottoms are outside the fenders. :rolleyes:
Or does that mean with-in the rules of ST? And as always is poorly worded.
Which would also mean 0 camber up front because technically the bottoms are outside the fenders. :rolleyes:
| ChrisW | 06-19-2006 05:54 PM |
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX]Not any HPDE I've ever been too. Possibly a time trial/hill climb.
I'd have to completely disagree. I think there is a fair amount of crossover. Just about everyone I meet at HPDE's, also autox. From my five years on this and other forums- I'd have to say there is a lot of folks that both autox and attend track days. I would think that the SCCA would want to encourage crossover- it would only help their efforts.
STX allows "free" brakes, would only make sense that SP- supposedly a "step up"- would as well.
[b]A class that allows aftermarket clutches/flywheels/differentials seems to me would be appropriate for brake upgrades[/b].[/QUOTE]
that's called Street Mod...
I'd have to completely disagree. I think there is a fair amount of crossover. Just about everyone I meet at HPDE's, also autox. From my five years on this and other forums- I'd have to say there is a lot of folks that both autox and attend track days. I would think that the SCCA would want to encourage crossover- it would only help their efforts.
STX allows "free" brakes, would only make sense that SP- supposedly a "step up"- would as well.
[b]A class that allows aftermarket clutches/flywheels/differentials seems to me would be appropriate for brake upgrades[/b].[/QUOTE]
that's called Street Mod...
| Whiteghost 2.5 | 06-19-2006 07:12 PM |
in SP you can run a lightweight flywheel, and any differentials you want.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-19-2006 09:42 PM |
clutches too :)
| Whiteghost 2.5 | 06-19-2006 10:21 PM |
yup you can delete the cat too.
| TheWRX | 06-20-2006 12:22 AM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]Within the bodywork? Please... is there even a rule that states that the ST* tires need to be within the bodywork?[/QUOTE]
I don't read it that way. I think it's trying to say that the bodywork still needs to be within ST rules. So you can't do SP style bodywork modifications (like taking a sawzall to the fender :p ).
On the brakes: I think it would make sense to allow STX style brake modifications in SP. But I doubt that it would make SP cars more track ready. For an all-out SP setup, you would use the lightest (smallest, thinnest, lots of drilling) rotors that provide enough braking for auto-x. They would be much less suitable for track use than the rotors that are currently required in SP.
I don't read it that way. I think it's trying to say that the bodywork still needs to be within ST rules. So you can't do SP style bodywork modifications (like taking a sawzall to the fender :p ).
On the brakes: I think it would make sense to allow STX style brake modifications in SP. But I doubt that it would make SP cars more track ready. For an all-out SP setup, you would use the lightest (smallest, thinnest, lots of drilling) rotors that provide enough braking for auto-x. They would be much less suitable for track use than the rotors that are currently required in SP.
| KC | 06-20-2006 08:00 AM |
Here's the wording as it is right now...
..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.
There are two stipulations regarding tires in this one line. The 1st about the wheel restriction and the 2nd about being "within" the bodywork.
Now, I'm going to remove "on the ST-legal wheels" to see if it makes more sense.
...with the additional allowance that they may use any tire which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits within the ST-legal bodywork.
I agree it could be worded maybe a little better. That sure does sound as clear as mud. I can now see the interpretation that the rule tries to say that a competitor can't flair the fenders... but since you can't do that in ST ANYWAYS... why does it bear repeating here? It shouldn't.
That's why I thought this rule to be about the tires remaining 'within' the ST-Legal bodywork and not within (THE RULES OF) the ST-Legal bodywork.
And this argument, in the case of a protest, could be made either way. Thanks again to clearly worded rules. :)
--kC
..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.
There are two stipulations regarding tires in this one line. The 1st about the wheel restriction and the 2nd about being "within" the bodywork.
Now, I'm going to remove "on the ST-legal wheels" to see if it makes more sense.
...with the additional allowance that they may use any tire which meets the requirements of 15.3 and fits within the ST-legal bodywork.
I agree it could be worded maybe a little better. That sure does sound as clear as mud. I can now see the interpretation that the rule tries to say that a competitor can't flair the fenders... but since you can't do that in ST ANYWAYS... why does it bear repeating here? It shouldn't.
That's why I thought this rule to be about the tires remaining 'within' the ST-Legal bodywork and not within (THE RULES OF) the ST-Legal bodywork.
And this argument, in the case of a protest, could be made either way. Thanks again to clearly worded rules. :)
--kC
| jcroy66 | 06-20-2006 08:07 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]I can now see the interpretation that the rule tries to say that a competitor can't flair the fenders... but since you can't do that in ST ANYWAYS... why does it bear repeating here? It shouldn't.[/QUOTE]That's the "casual" interpretation I had always had. But based on a literal reading of the rule, I think I'd have to change my interpretation. Basically, if I were planning on making use of this rule and were concerned about the "within" portion of the rule, I would write the SEB for a clarification.
| AUTOwrXER | 06-20-2006 11:39 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]:lol: :lol:
Really? That's amazing, because those that do HPDEs with any kind of regularity [I]despise[/I] auto-x, standing around for 4-8 min of seat time during the whole day. I know a few that do do both, however those that run on a track hardly ever come back to auto-x.
--kC[/QUOTE]
I do both. I like the seat time I get at a track day, and the thrill of higher speed manuevers. I like the challenge of autocrossing (i.e. 3 runs to get it done, much more active in the car, etc.).
Really? That's amazing, because those that do HPDEs with any kind of regularity [I]despise[/I] auto-x, standing around for 4-8 min of seat time during the whole day. I know a few that do do both, however those that run on a track hardly ever come back to auto-x.
--kC[/QUOTE]
I do both. I like the seat time I get at a track day, and the thrill of higher speed manuevers. I like the challenge of autocrossing (i.e. 3 runs to get it done, much more active in the car, etc.).
| AUTOwrXER | 06-20-2006 11:47 AM |
Basically the allowance is there if you decide to throw some r-compounds on your ST car and try SP. In no circumstances will you be competitive with a car that is built for SP, in much the same way that cars classed for road racing are not SP class winners. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important is that the SPAC does not have control of the ST (or road racing) ruleset, and therefore a change made there could create a big issue with SP classing.
The issue of allowing BBKs in SP is something that I plan to discuss with the members of the SPAC. It is one of a few remaining items that would prevent someone from moving "up" from ST to SP if they so desired. We'll be discussing the BBK thing on our SPAC call tomorrow, but that is a major allowance that has never been in SP previously. I think it made it to ST first because of the popularity of BBKs in the import tuner scene.
The issue of allowing BBKs in SP is something that I plan to discuss with the members of the SPAC. It is one of a few remaining items that would prevent someone from moving "up" from ST to SP if they so desired. We'll be discussing the BBK thing on our SPAC call tomorrow, but that is a major allowance that has never been in SP previously. I think it made it to ST first because of the popularity of BBKs in the import tuner scene.
| ULLLOSE | 06-20-2006 12:32 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]The issue of allowing BBKs in SP is something that I plan to discuss with the members of the SPAC. It is one of a few remaining items that would prevent someone from moving "up" from ST to SP if they so desired. We'll be discussing the BBK thing on our SPAC call tomorrow, but that is a major allowance that has never been in SP previously. I think it made it to ST first because of the popularity of BBKs in the import tuner scene.[/QUOTE]
That and wings, body kits, bling etc.
That and wings, body kits, bling etc.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-20-2006 02:50 PM |
That's great you guys are discussing it- I sent a email to the SEB relating my thoughts- can't hurt :)
| KC | 06-20-2006 03:16 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]Basically the allowance is there if you decide to throw some r-compounds on your ST car and try SP. In no circumstances will you be competitive with a car that is built for SP, in much the same way that cars classed for road racing are not SP class winners. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important is that the SPAC does not have control of the ST (or road racing) ruleset, and therefore a change made there could create a big issue with SP classing.
The issue of allowing BBKs in SP is something that I plan to discuss with the members of the SPAC. It is one of a few remaining items that would prevent someone from moving "up" from ST to SP if they so desired. We'll be discussing the BBK thing on our SPAC call tomorrow, but that is a major allowance that has never been in SP previously. I think it made it to ST first because of the popularity of BBKs in the import tuner scene.[/QUOTE]
Good. Just fix the damn wording and all will be better. :D
Here's another reason why I read it the way I do... I remember a rule in Stock (IIRC SP) that read the tire cannot be visible standing over the fender and looking top to bottom.
--KC
The issue of allowing BBKs in SP is something that I plan to discuss with the members of the SPAC. It is one of a few remaining items that would prevent someone from moving "up" from ST to SP if they so desired. We'll be discussing the BBK thing on our SPAC call tomorrow, but that is a major allowance that has never been in SP previously. I think it made it to ST first because of the popularity of BBKs in the import tuner scene.[/QUOTE]
Good. Just fix the damn wording and all will be better. :D
Here's another reason why I read it the way I do... I remember a rule in Stock (IIRC SP) that read the tire cannot be visible standing over the fender and looking top to bottom.
--KC
| AUTOwrXER | 06-20-2006 05:51 PM |
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX]That's great you guys are discussing it- I sent a email to the SEB relating my thoughts- can't hurt :)[/QUOTE]
If your name is Michael M then I see your letter posted. In any event, there's a letter to discuss tomorrow so I have a good reason to bring the topic up (even if I am in the minority on BBK allowances in SP). We'll see how it goes...
If your name is Michael M then I see your letter posted. In any event, there's a letter to discuss tomorrow so I have a good reason to bring the topic up (even if I am in the minority on BBK allowances in SP). We'll see how it goes...
| Draken | 06-20-2006 06:08 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Good. Just fix the damn wording and all will be better. :D
Here's another reason why I read it the way I do... I remember a rule in Stock (IIRC SP) that read the tire cannot be visible standing over the fender and looking top to bottom.
--KC[/QUOTE]
I remember the wording about front tire not being visible past the fender when looking down being taken out, if i remember correctly, because a couple cars came that way from the factory, most noteably the later versions of the Pontiac Fiero. We had a Fiero nut in our local club with several low mileage examples of "rare" Fiero models, several with the front tires sticking out past the fender lip.
Yes I'm old, but at least I'm not 40 like KC!
Chris H.
Here's another reason why I read it the way I do... I remember a rule in Stock (IIRC SP) that read the tire cannot be visible standing over the fender and looking top to bottom.
--KC[/QUOTE]
I remember the wording about front tire not being visible past the fender when looking down being taken out, if i remember correctly, because a couple cars came that way from the factory, most noteably the later versions of the Pontiac Fiero. We had a Fiero nut in our local club with several low mileage examples of "rare" Fiero models, several with the front tires sticking out past the fender lip.
Yes I'm old, but at least I'm not 40 like KC!
Chris H.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-20-2006 09:30 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]If your name is Michael M then I see your letter posted. In any event, there's a letter to discuss tomorrow so I have a good reason to bring the topic up (even if I am in the minority on BBK allowances in SP). We'll see how it goes...[/QUOTE]
That would be me. You'll see I have a few facts off- hence my original thread questions. But yes the meat of my proposal is to allow the same allowances affored ST in regards to brakes to SP.
Thanks in advance.
That would be me. You'll see I have a few facts off- hence my original thread questions. But yes the meat of my proposal is to allow the same allowances affored ST in regards to brakes to SP.
Thanks in advance.
| AUTOwrXER | 06-21-2006 09:19 AM |
Cool. The call is at 9:00 PM tonight. Short of violating any of our confidentiality requirements, I'll let you know how it goes tomorrow.
| AUTOwrXER | 06-22-2006 10:48 AM |
Well we had the call, and we discussed the brake issue at length. The short story is that we are not planning to make an allowance in the short term, but this now has the attention of the SPAC. If there is significant interest from ST competitors who want to move into SP, but the lack of a similar brake allowance is hindering them, then this will be reconsidered (i.e. write your letters if you are in this situation).
There would need to be a number of constraints around any allowance granted, as the intent would be to allow true BBKs that competitors might use for track day events, PDEs, etc. We would not want significantly smaller and/or less effective brake assemblies made specifically to drop as much weight as possible. No carbon, ceramic, etc. If that is the case and we are talking about true BBKs (like the Stoptech, Prodrive, etc.), then I don't think anyone sees this as a significant performance advantage for Solo events, and I don't think this causes a class re-shuffling effect.
There are a few valid points to consider from the opposite point of view. First, we are uncertain why ST has this allowance in the first place, given the cost control issues in those classes and the fact that the allowance was granted knowing that there was nothing similar in SP. Second, competitors who are serious about moving a car from ST to SP should be looking at the SP ruleset when preparing the car. Third, there are still other ST allowances (show car stuff, bling, etc.) that are not present in SP that prevent a direct "advancement" path. Finally, if a BBK allowance is granted then it may be viewed as neccessary, thereby adding a significant expense to the (perceived) SP preparation budget.
There are valid arguments from both points of view. Without knowing how many people are affected by the lack of a SP BBK allowance, it is difficult to judge the benefit of granting something similar to what ST has today. I think Michael's letter is the first we've seen of that sort. Knowing how many people are directly affected by this situation would be good information.
Of course, all of this is unofficial and represents my perspective on the issue only.
There would need to be a number of constraints around any allowance granted, as the intent would be to allow true BBKs that competitors might use for track day events, PDEs, etc. We would not want significantly smaller and/or less effective brake assemblies made specifically to drop as much weight as possible. No carbon, ceramic, etc. If that is the case and we are talking about true BBKs (like the Stoptech, Prodrive, etc.), then I don't think anyone sees this as a significant performance advantage for Solo events, and I don't think this causes a class re-shuffling effect.
There are a few valid points to consider from the opposite point of view. First, we are uncertain why ST has this allowance in the first place, given the cost control issues in those classes and the fact that the allowance was granted knowing that there was nothing similar in SP. Second, competitors who are serious about moving a car from ST to SP should be looking at the SP ruleset when preparing the car. Third, there are still other ST allowances (show car stuff, bling, etc.) that are not present in SP that prevent a direct "advancement" path. Finally, if a BBK allowance is granted then it may be viewed as neccessary, thereby adding a significant expense to the (perceived) SP preparation budget.
There are valid arguments from both points of view. Without knowing how many people are affected by the lack of a SP BBK allowance, it is difficult to judge the benefit of granting something similar to what ST has today. I think Michael's letter is the first we've seen of that sort. Knowing how many people are directly affected by this situation would be good information.
Of course, all of this is unofficial and represents my perspective on the issue only.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-22-2006 03:01 PM |
Thanks- that's pretty encouraging :) I'll be sure to share it w/ others.
One way to possible/easy to get around the "tiny" brake issue- is to say equal oem rotor or larger- that's the current language in STX 14.11, 7.
One way to possible/easy to get around the "tiny" brake issue- is to say equal oem rotor or larger- that's the current language in STX 14.11, 7.
| AUTOwrXER | 06-22-2006 03:30 PM |
It would probably take at least that. You could make a larger diameter rotor that was 1/4" thick and non-vented also. I wouldn't want to write a policy that said OEM weight or higher either, as a two piece rotor with an AL hat is very common in a BBK.
| Scooby South | 06-22-2006 03:39 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]It would probably take at least that. You could make a larger diameter rotor that was 1/4" thick and non-vented also. I wouldn't want to write a policy that said OEM weight or higher either, as a two piece rotor with an AL hat is very common in a BBK.[/QUOTE]
ALA Shaun Bowen..;)
ALA Shaun Bowen..;)
| AUTOwrXER | 06-22-2006 03:55 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]ALA Shaun Bowen..;)[/QUOTE]
Shawn's brakes did drop quite a bit of weight. I'm surprised that you knew about that. They are still very usable, however. He was running track days at CMP with those brakes and far outperforming the stock M brakes (which aren't bad, fwiw). Shawn's brakes were designed by an engineer who made a career out of building racing brake systems. You could take that design to an extreme, however, and that is something that we wouldn't want to see with a brake allowance.
Shawn's brakes did drop quite a bit of weight. I'm surprised that you knew about that. They are still very usable, however. He was running track days at CMP with those brakes and far outperforming the stock M brakes (which aren't bad, fwiw). Shawn's brakes were designed by an engineer who made a career out of building racing brake systems. You could take that design to an extreme, however, and that is something that we wouldn't want to see with a brake allowance.
| PhilC | 06-22-2006 04:16 PM |
[url]http://www.titanmotorsports.com/zmitibrki.html[/url]
Only place I can find that actually sells them. ZMI makes a brake kit with titanium rotors, 335mm rotor with tophat weighing in at under 5 pounds for some of the kits. BIG bucks but that's a heck of a lot of unsprung rotational weight. Because of things like that I think you'll have to add some sort of wording along the lines of ferrous and aluminum like STX has.
Only place I can find that actually sells them. ZMI makes a brake kit with titanium rotors, 335mm rotor with tophat weighing in at under 5 pounds for some of the kits. BIG bucks but that's a heck of a lot of unsprung rotational weight. Because of things like that I think you'll have to add some sort of wording along the lines of ferrous and aluminum like STX has.
| j-rho | 06-22-2006 04:28 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC] It wouldn't be competitve because it wouldn't have the rest of the SP legal mods and would be stuck on limited width wheels. [/QUOTE]
There is no wheel width limitation, at least for 4-seat cars. Any STS or STX car is also an STU car, and can take advantage of that class's unlimited wheel width.
There is no wheel width limitation, at least for 4-seat cars. Any STS or STX car is also an STU car, and can take advantage of that class's unlimited wheel width.
| jcroy66 | 06-22-2006 04:53 PM |
Oooooo. Interesting point. Very interesting point. One I'm betting wasn't considered when the STS->SP allowance was changed to ST*->SP allowance.
Or does STU not count, since it's a supplemental class?
Or does STU not count, since it's a supplemental class?
| AUTOwrXER | 06-22-2006 04:57 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC][url]http://www.titanmotorsports.com/zmitibrki.html[/url]
Only place I can find that actually sells them. ZMI makes a brake kit with titanium rotors, 335mm rotor with tophat weighing in at under 5 pounds for some of the kits. BIG bucks but that's a heck of a lot of unsprung rotational weight. Because of things like that I think you'll have to add some sort of wording along the lines of ferrous and aluminum like STX has.[/QUOTE]
Oh sweet! They're on sale!
I think there is an SM2 'Vette running Ti brakes in Solo.
Only place I can find that actually sells them. ZMI makes a brake kit with titanium rotors, 335mm rotor with tophat weighing in at under 5 pounds for some of the kits. BIG bucks but that's a heck of a lot of unsprung rotational weight. Because of things like that I think you'll have to add some sort of wording along the lines of ferrous and aluminum like STX has.[/QUOTE]
Oh sweet! They're on sale!
I think there is an SM2 'Vette running Ti brakes in Solo.
| jcroy66 | 06-22-2006 04:57 PM |
If you're trying to avoid a loophole for ultra-lightweight brakes that disintegrate after 6 runs, couldn't someone already do that with very judicious use of 15.6.B (the drilled/slotted rotor allowance)?
| j-rho | 06-22-2006 05:45 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Oooooo. Interesting point. Very interesting point. One I'm betting wasn't considered when the STS->SP allowance was changed to ST*->SP allowance.
Or does STU not count, since it's a supplemental class?[/QUOTE]It was brought up, though I don't know if it ever received the consideration it might have merited.
Or does STU not count, since it's a supplemental class?[/QUOTE]It was brought up, though I don't know if it ever received the consideration it might have merited.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-22-2006 07:39 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]It would probably take at least that. You could make a larger diameter rotor that was 1/4" thick and non-vented also. I wouldn't want to write a policy that said OEM weight or higher either, as a two piece rotor with an AL hat is very common in a BBK.[/QUOTE]
Agreed- oem diameter AND width or greater should do the trick.
Agreed- oem diameter AND width or greater should do the trick.
| Storm | 06-23-2006 01:49 AM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]If you're trying to avoid a loophole for ultra-lightweight brakes that disintegrate after 6 runs, couldn't someone already do that with very judicious use of 15.6.B (the drilled/slotted rotor allowance)?[/QUOTE]I've got pics of an STS Civic that did just that.....The rotors were drilled with huge holes and more of them.....More air than material for sure. I didn't get a chance to see it run though.
Jay Storm
Jay Storm
| KC | 06-23-2006 07:47 AM |
[QUOTE=j-rho]There is no wheel width limitation, at least for 4-seat cars. Any STS or STX car is also an STU car, and can take advantage of that class's unlimited wheel width.[/QUOTE]
I bow to you oh great jrho. I am a mere spec of dust on dirt under your shoe when in your presence.
:)
I bow to you oh great jrho. I am a mere spec of dust on dirt under your shoe when in your presence.
:)
| solo-x | 06-23-2006 08:08 AM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]If you're trying to avoid a loophole for ultra-lightweight brakes that disintegrate after 6 runs, couldn't someone already do that with very judicious use of 15.6.B (the drilled/slotted rotor allowance)?[/QUOTE]
[quote=Storm]I've got pics of an STS Civic that did just that.....The rotors were drilled with huge holes and more of them.....More air than material for sure. I didn't get a chance to see it run though.
Jay Storm[/quote]
that was andy hollis' car. he only shed 1-2lbs per rotor doing that. their is a company that makes a lightweight front brake setup intended for drag racing cars. it drops nearly 20lbs off the caliper/rotor assembly. the rotor is a smaller diameter, the caliper is smaller and aluminum, and i think they even went solid rotor vs. vented. that sort of setup is what needs to be prevented. i could care less if someone lost 2lbs because they swiss cheesed their rotors to death. the chances of actually get a time benefit from something like that on course are slim. just a slight decrease in braking performance could easily negate any gains.
[quote=Storm]I've got pics of an STS Civic that did just that.....The rotors were drilled with huge holes and more of them.....More air than material for sure. I didn't get a chance to see it run though.
Jay Storm[/quote]
that was andy hollis' car. he only shed 1-2lbs per rotor doing that. their is a company that makes a lightweight front brake setup intended for drag racing cars. it drops nearly 20lbs off the caliper/rotor assembly. the rotor is a smaller diameter, the caliper is smaller and aluminum, and i think they even went solid rotor vs. vented. that sort of setup is what needs to be prevented. i could care less if someone lost 2lbs because they swiss cheesed their rotors to death. the chances of actually get a time benefit from something like that on course are slim. just a slight decrease in braking performance could easily negate any gains.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-23-2006 09:23 AM |
[QUOTE=solo-x] i could care less if someone lost 2lbs because they swiss cheesed their rotors to death. the chances of actually get a time benefit from something like that on course are slim. just a slight decrease in braking performance could easily negate any gains.[/QUOTE]
agreed :)
agreed :)
| BIGSKYWRX | 11-17-2006 10:25 PM |
Giving this a bump in the hopes they make take a closer look at the ST-> SP brake issue.
Sent another email to the SEB :)
Sent another email to the SEB :)
| AUTOwrXER | 11-20-2006 05:11 PM |
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX;16033429]Giving this a bump in the hopes they make take a closer look at the ST-> SP brake issue.
Sent another email to the SEB :)[/QUOTE]
I don't think your letter has been posted. Emai it to me and include your real name and member number. Email is apexlater(at)hotmail(dot)com
Joel
Sent another email to the SEB :)[/QUOTE]
I don't think your letter has been posted. Emai it to me and include your real name and member number. Email is apexlater(at)hotmail(dot)com
Joel
| BIGSKYWRX | 11-20-2006 07:34 PM |
Joel- forwarded a copy- thanks :)
| AUTOwrXER | 12-13-2006 04:36 PM |
Guys - just to let you know, we are still debating this in the SPAC. The problem is that Michael's letter is the only one we have (actually he wrote two). If you really want these allowances, write to [email][email�protected][/email]
KC recently sent a letter that gets back to my larger point of opening up the ST to SP transition path. If you want that to happen then write your letters and let the SPAC know that me, Michael, and KC aren't the only people interested in these things.
Joel
KC recently sent a letter that gets back to my larger point of opening up the ST to SP transition path. If you want that to happen then write your letters and let the SPAC know that me, Michael, and KC aren't the only people interested in these things.
Joel
| BIGSKYWRX | 12-13-2006 07:16 PM |
I know I can't be the only one w/ ST brakes that would possibly like to play in SP :)
| Butt Dyno | 12-13-2006 10:29 PM |
[QUOTE=BIGSKYWRX;16316704]I know I can't be the only one w/ ST brakes that would possibly like to play in SP :)[/QUOTE]
The STU cars are probably happy enough with their brakes, and the STX cars probably don't want to spend $texas doing an ESP build. I could write a letter in support because I think it makes sense that it should go S -> ST -> SP but the odds of me actually running in ESP are pretty much zero. I figure if I'm not going to be competitive, ESP and SM aren't that different (especially with Mr. Strano running ESP around these parts)
Good luck though :)
john
The STU cars are probably happy enough with their brakes, and the STX cars probably don't want to spend $texas doing an ESP build. I could write a letter in support because I think it makes sense that it should go S -> ST -> SP but the odds of me actually running in ESP are pretty much zero. I figure if I'm not going to be competitive, ESP and SM aren't that different (especially with Mr. Strano running ESP around these parts)
Good luck though :)
john
| BIGSKYWRX | 12-13-2006 11:10 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno;16318885] I could write a letter in support because I think it makes sense that it should go S -> ST -> SP
john[/QUOTE]
That would be appreciated :)
john[/QUOTE]
That would be appreciated :)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét