| AustinTX | 12-02-2003 11:24 PM |
January Fastrack
�
�
[url]http://www.scca.com/news/tech/fastrack/04-01fastrack.pdf[/url]
Check out Solo\Item4\2\B
Does this mean that STi front arms are allowed in STX now?
Check out Solo\Item4\2\B
Does this mean that STi front arms are allowed in STX now?
| MNbiker | 12-03-2003 12:11 AM |
Definitely some interesting items in there for STX drivers.
-Racing seats (15lbs or >) are now legal, with nary a mention of airbags. Can you say Sparco Evo2? :D
-It appears that adjustable lateral arms are now legal, but ONLY if you don't have camber plates or camber bolts installed. Hmm, it might be worth going to adjustable arms & STi upper mounts, just to get rid of the noisy pillowball mounts.....
-ABS & Traction Control may now be disabled.
-Wing restrictions were put in place, but they still allow for some pretty big $ss airfoils. Sooner or later, someone's going to come up with a REAL aero package for STX......
[EDIT] I just found another change. The intake system up to the engine inlet may be modified or replaced. For turbo engines, the engine inlet is defined as the compressor inlet. Contrary to my initial read, this means intercooler hoses and aftermarket intercoolers are NOT legal. :( [/EDIT]
Fun, fun, fun!
-Steve
-Racing seats (15lbs or >) are now legal, with nary a mention of airbags. Can you say Sparco Evo2? :D
-It appears that adjustable lateral arms are now legal, but ONLY if you don't have camber plates or camber bolts installed. Hmm, it might be worth going to adjustable arms & STi upper mounts, just to get rid of the noisy pillowball mounts.....
-ABS & Traction Control may now be disabled.
-Wing restrictions were put in place, but they still allow for some pretty big $ss airfoils. Sooner or later, someone's going to come up with a REAL aero package for STX......
[EDIT] I just found another change. The intake system up to the engine inlet may be modified or replaced. For turbo engines, the engine inlet is defined as the compressor inlet. Contrary to my initial read, this means intercooler hoses and aftermarket intercoolers are NOT legal. :( [/EDIT]
Fun, fun, fun!
-Steve
| bbimpreza | 12-03-2003 12:46 AM |
This will just cause for more moaning and groaning between everyone. It should be interesting to see how long these rules stay this way before they are clarified further.
Looks like I may just have to get rid of that big wing of mine, or move to SM. :p Oh well. Maybe I will finally get to do what I have always dreamed.
All these rules just suck the fun right out of everything. People should just learn to have fun racing and not have to worry about who wins or looses.
Billy Brooks
Looks like I may just have to get rid of that big wing of mine, or move to SM. :p Oh well. Maybe I will finally get to do what I have always dreamed.
All these rules just suck the fun right out of everything. People should just learn to have fun racing and not have to worry about who wins or looses.
Billy Brooks
| thechickencow | 12-03-2003 01:29 AM |
Wow...allowing IC upgrades seems like a stretch of those rules for one intrepretation, but well within them for another.
I'll say yes to an additional HP gain though!
Even just the IC hoses is a welcome addition.
I kinda feel bad for non-WRX'ers if the IC is allowed though. We've already got a pretty good advantage over most.
tcc
I'll say yes to an additional HP gain though!
Even just the IC hoses is a welcome addition.
I kinda feel bad for non-WRX'ers if the IC is allowed though. We've already got a pretty good advantage over most.
tcc
| KC | 12-03-2003 08:05 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by thechickencow[/i]
[B] Wow...allowing IC upgrades seems like a stretch of those rules for one intrepretation, but well within them for another.
I'll say yes to an additional HP gain though!
Even just the IC hoses is a welcome addition.
I kinda feel bad for non-WRX'ers if the IC is allowed though. We've already got a pretty good advantage over most.
tcc [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. We'll have to see if the 2004 RuleBook has the "This does not allow any changes to intercoolers." clause. If it does (and it might still be there the way the SEB works) it would just mean hoses. Remember, they 'Clarified' the rule... they didn't 'Replace' it. So that last sentence could still be there. Won't know until publication. If it's gone... it's definitely argumentative... because an IC 'IS' part of the air intake 'system'. That'd be nice not having to switch ICs between STX and ESP. :D
Now I need to find some new front fenderwells. I dug a hole in them when I was running in GS (the old DS). :)
--kC
[B] Wow...allowing IC upgrades seems like a stretch of those rules for one intrepretation, but well within them for another.
I'll say yes to an additional HP gain though!
Even just the IC hoses is a welcome addition.
I kinda feel bad for non-WRX'ers if the IC is allowed though. We've already got a pretty good advantage over most.
tcc [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. We'll have to see if the 2004 RuleBook has the "This does not allow any changes to intercoolers." clause. If it does (and it might still be there the way the SEB works) it would just mean hoses. Remember, they 'Clarified' the rule... they didn't 'Replace' it. So that last sentence could still be there. Won't know until publication. If it's gone... it's definitely argumentative... because an IC 'IS' part of the air intake 'system'. That'd be nice not having to switch ICs between STX and ESP. :D
Now I need to find some new front fenderwells. I dug a hole in them when I was running in GS (the old DS). :)
--kC
| AustinTX | 12-03-2003 09:10 AM |
I'm confused. Since the intercooler hoses are past the compressor inlet, shouldn't that make them illegal to change?
| ConeMasher | 12-03-2003 09:20 AM |
[QUOTE]I'm confused. Since the intercooler hoses are past the compressor inlet, shouldn't that make them illegal to change?[/QUOTE]
AustinTX, you're right. I think everyone got a bit excited here. The compressor inlet is right after the MAF & turbo inlet pipe, and before the intercooler. Only logical considering the intercooler is there to cool the newly compressed air before it hits the intake manifold.
By specifying the compressor inlet as the definition of 'intake' for a turbocharged car, they eliminate any grounds for upgrade of intercooler or intercooler piping. It's the clarification the rule needed, even if it doesn't fall in our favor :-/
If anyone is still confused, here's MattR's lovely diagram of the WRX intake and exhaust system:
[IMG]http://www.mattrandolph.com/wrx/wrx-intake-exhaust-diagram.gif[/IMG]
-- Gary
AustinTX, you're right. I think everyone got a bit excited here. The compressor inlet is right after the MAF & turbo inlet pipe, and before the intercooler. Only logical considering the intercooler is there to cool the newly compressed air before it hits the intake manifold.
By specifying the compressor inlet as the definition of 'intake' for a turbocharged car, they eliminate any grounds for upgrade of intercooler or intercooler piping. It's the clarification the rule needed, even if it doesn't fall in our favor :-/
If anyone is still confused, here's MattR's lovely diagram of the WRX intake and exhaust system:
[IMG]http://www.mattrandolph.com/wrx/wrx-intake-exhaust-diagram.gif[/IMG]
-- Gary
| dwx | 12-03-2003 10:07 AM |
For those of you who may be in SM, they clarified rule 16.1.F and replacement steering racks are now legal in SM. So you could get a 12.5:1 revlab rack and not be in EM class or whatever. Originally it was published in Fastrack as a "rule proprosal" as something that might go into effect in 2005.
I know what I'm saving my pennies for now.
I don't think the changes are all that radical, the seats thing was going to happen. And yes the compressor inlet thing just clarifies that you can change the inlet tube, and that's it.
Phil
I know what I'm saving my pennies for now.
I don't think the changes are all that radical, the seats thing was going to happen. And yes the compressor inlet thing just clarifies that you can change the inlet tube, and that's it.
Phil
| KC | 12-03-2003 10:09 AM |
[Slaps Forehead] Well that clears that up. 2 separate systems for ESP then. :( Oh well. I guess they cleared it up enough.
Another case in point for those that remember when Doug Gill said that the hoses would be legal, the SEB/STAC says otherwise... when goes to show that whatever Doug says as far as rules does not matter, even though he is the TD.
Another case in point for those that remember when Doug Gill said that the hoses would be legal, the SEB/STAC says otherwise... when goes to show that whatever Doug says as far as rules does not matter, even though he is the TD.
| KC | 12-03-2003 10:17 AM |
Oh... and since this is the Jan Fastrack... looks like STX is supplimental again... no mention of them being official for the 2004 season.
| trhoppe | 12-03-2003 11:27 AM |
From the way I read it, STX *is* national next year.
"The following rule changes, in conjunction with the Tech Bulletins below and in support of National class status for STX, have
been recommended by the STAC and have
been approved by the SEB: "
-Tom
"The following rule changes, in conjunction with the Tech Bulletins below and in support of National class status for STX, have
been recommended by the STAC and have
been approved by the SEB: "
-Tom
| ChrisW | 12-03-2003 11:28 AM |
Interesting changes on the suspension side.
Now if you use the Group-N upper mounts, it looks like you can use the STI lower control arms in front with the whiteline bushing kit for extra caster, and use the MRT adjustable control arms for the rear....
very interesting.
But yeah, no intercooler mods are allowed.
Now if you use the Group-N upper mounts, it looks like you can use the STI lower control arms in front with the whiteline bushing kit for extra caster, and use the MRT adjustable control arms for the rear....
very interesting.
But yeah, no intercooler mods are allowed.
| trhoppe | 12-03-2003 11:35 AM |
Now way you could get the camber you want with the STi front arms.
I think the best STX combo for next year would be
FRONT: stock arms with the Whiteline "st legal" ALK bushing and a Group N bushing in the other spot with some type of camber plate up top.
REAR: STi top mounts with the sti pink (or whiteline for cheap) adjustable lateral links.
-Tom
I think the best STX combo for next year would be
FRONT: stock arms with the Whiteline "st legal" ALK bushing and a Group N bushing in the other spot with some type of camber plate up top.
REAR: STi top mounts with the sti pink (or whiteline for cheap) adjustable lateral links.
-Tom
| solo-x | 12-03-2003 12:04 PM |
i think you guys are getting a little carried away with your interpretation.
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate
| TheWRX | 12-03-2003 12:21 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Oh... and since this is the Jan Fastrack... looks like STX is supplimental again... no mention of them being official for the 2004 season. [/B][/QUOTE]
Mark Sipe mentioned something about a BoD vote middle of December in a thread on sccaforums.com: "Note that STX national status and potential ruleset changes are still outstanding for approval by the BoD for 2004, approx. around mid-Dec."
[B]Oh... and since this is the Jan Fastrack... looks like STX is supplimental again... no mention of them being official for the 2004 season. [/B][/QUOTE]
Mark Sipe mentioned something about a BoD vote middle of December in a thread on sccaforums.com: "Note that STX national status and potential ruleset changes are still outstanding for approval by the BoD for 2004, approx. around mid-Dec."
| thechickencow | 12-03-2003 12:31 PM |
Doh. Maybe I was drunk.
| Butt Dyno | 12-03-2003 12:55 PM |
Were calipers always unrestricted? Not that it's a big help for autocross, but it'd be nice to be able to get a set of 4-pots without having to bump out of STX.
-john
-john
| trhoppe | 12-03-2003 12:57 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ButtDyno[/i]
[B] Were calipers always unrestricted? Not that it's a big help for autocross, but it'd be nice to be able to get a set of 4-pots without having to bump out of STX.
-john [/B][/QUOTE]
Yup
-Tom
[B] Were calipers always unrestricted? Not that it's a big help for autocross, but it'd be nice to be able to get a set of 4-pots without having to bump out of STX.
-john [/B][/QUOTE]
Yup
-Tom
| KC | 12-03-2003 01:24 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheWRX[/i]
[B] Mark Sipe mentioned something about a BoD vote middle of December in a thread on sccaforums.com: "Note that STX national status and potential ruleset changes are still outstanding for approval by the BoD for 2004, approx. around mid-Dec." [/B][/QUOTE]
I think the BOD won't have an issue with it. ;)
It was the SEB holding it up. But maybe I'm confused with the wording of what it says in the fastrack. I see the way they read in the fastrack is they're adjusting the rules. Not "STX will be a national class for 2004 pending approval by the BOD." (like they do for all the other classes).
As usual, what's published is clear as mud.
[B] Mark Sipe mentioned something about a BoD vote middle of December in a thread on sccaforums.com: "Note that STX national status and potential ruleset changes are still outstanding for approval by the BoD for 2004, approx. around mid-Dec." [/B][/QUOTE]
I think the BOD won't have an issue with it. ;)
It was the SEB holding it up. But maybe I'm confused with the wording of what it says in the fastrack. I see the way they read in the fastrack is they're adjusting the rules. Not "STX will be a national class for 2004 pending approval by the BOD." (like they do for all the other classes).
As usual, what's published is clear as mud.
| ChrisW | 12-03-2003 01:33 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by solo-x[/i]
[B] i think you guys are getting a little carried away with your interpretation.
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate [/B][/QUOTE]
The Group-N mounts are not offset in anyway ;) so our interpretation is correct.
[B] i think you guys are getting a little carried away with your interpretation.
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate [/B][/QUOTE]
The Group-N mounts are not offset in anyway ;) so our interpretation is correct.
| mlambert | 12-03-2003 03:28 PM |
So Cusco adjustable rears are now STX legal?
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid86/p4aef04e3104286ff99bba3213d5cc59c/fab207e3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid86/pff9680fa246f7b4cba7e8aeeda5f7f0d/fab207df.jpg[/IMG]
Full caster/camber adjustment in the rear for $1500.
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid86/p4aef04e3104286ff99bba3213d5cc59c/fab207e3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid86/pff9680fa246f7b4cba7e8aeeda5f7f0d/fab207df.jpg[/IMG]
Full caster/camber adjustment in the rear for $1500.
| trhoppe | 12-03-2003 03:37 PM |
Wow, what a waste of $$!!
The whiteline ones are $230 for all 4 lateral links ;)
-Tom
The whiteline ones are $230 for all 4 lateral links ;)
-Tom
| mlambert | 12-03-2003 05:09 PM |
That includes trailing arms as well. But if the $230 whitelines are beefy...
gotta link?
gotta link?
| angryfist | 12-03-2003 05:37 PM |
if im reading the rules correctly the lateral links that are now legal can be adjustable but must use bushings of the same material (not metal) as stated in rule 17.8. coreect me if im wrong. but if this is correct arent a lot of the lateral links illegal beacuse they use spherical ends which are metal bushings.
also this rule still makes aftermarket trailing arms illegal correct?
-Jason
also this rule still makes aftermarket trailing arms illegal correct?
-Jason
| driggity | 12-03-2003 05:39 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mlambert [/i]
[B]That includes trailing arms as well. But if the $230 whitelines are beefy...
gotta link? [/B][/QUOTE]
I think the Noltecs are the same.
[IMG]http://www.oakos.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/NOL62034.jpg[/IMG]
Hotchkis makes a set as well
[IMG]http://www.hotchkistuning.com/bin/images/products/Subaru/13406_lg.jpg[/IMG]
I think that some people haven broken the whiteline ones. Right where the bushings are maybe.
If you wanted caster adjustment in the rear you could use the Cusco trailing arms. Does rear caster adjustment get you much?
[B]That includes trailing arms as well. But if the $230 whitelines are beefy...
gotta link? [/B][/QUOTE]
I think the Noltecs are the same.
[IMG]http://www.oakos.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/NOL62034.jpg[/IMG]
Hotchkis makes a set as well
[IMG]http://www.hotchkistuning.com/bin/images/products/Subaru/13406_lg.jpg[/IMG]
I think that some people haven broken the whiteline ones. Right where the bushings are maybe.
If you wanted caster adjustment in the rear you could use the Cusco trailing arms. Does rear caster adjustment get you much?
| MNbiker | 12-03-2003 08:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by solo-x [/i]
[B]i think you guys are getting a little carried away with your interpretation.
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate [/B][/QUOTE]
Nate,
Nope we're reading it right. You can't do camber bolts or adjustable/offset strut tops if you have adjustable lower arms. However, who needs them, if you have the wide range of adustment provided by threaded lower arms?
-Steve
[B]i think you guys are getting a little carried away with your interpretation.
[I]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
17.8 B., C., or H. may be used,[B] but
not both.[/B][/I]
offset strut mounts and crash bolts are also disallowed if you change the control arm, not just the camber plates.
nate [/B][/QUOTE]
Nate,
Nope we're reading it right. You can't do camber bolts or adjustable/offset strut tops if you have adjustable lower arms. However, who needs them, if you have the wide range of adustment provided by threaded lower arms?
-Steve
| dwx | 12-03-2003 08:51 PM |
I know people were using the rear adjustable lateral links already in STX. I contested they weren't legal because they are control arms which prior could not be replaced, but people said I was wrong. Most of the ones that are adjustable use rubber bushings. The two exceptions I know of are the Cusco and JIC ones which use pillowball mounts. People have broken the MRT ones, which were the only ones other than the Cuscos on the market for a long time. I have them on my car and they have been fine.
| Patrick L | 12-04-2003 11:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker [/i]
[B]
-Racing seats (15lbs or >) are now legal, with nary a mention of airbags. Can you say Sparco Evo2? :D
[/B][/QUOTE]
Can you say, save money and get a Kirky.
[B]
-Racing seats (15lbs or >) are now legal, with nary a mention of airbags. Can you say Sparco Evo2? :D
[/B][/QUOTE]
Can you say, save money and get a Kirky.
| MNbiker | 12-05-2003 07:41 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Top_Dog [/i]
[B]Can you say, save money and get a Kirky. [/B][/QUOTE]
If my car was a dedicated race/autox car, maybe. For a street-driven car, something from Sparco, Corbeau, Recaro, etc. makes a lot more sense. Standard slider brackets available, easier installation, easier ingress/egress.
Plus, the cost difference isn't as much as one might think. A Kirkey Deluxe Road Race Seat is almost exactly the same cost as the Sparco Evo2, and might actually end up costing more, depending on fabrication costs for mounting. The Intermediate Road Race Seat could potentially save you $200+ per seat, but you still have the other issues to deal with for a street-driven car.
-Steve
[B]Can you say, save money and get a Kirky. [/B][/QUOTE]
If my car was a dedicated race/autox car, maybe. For a street-driven car, something from Sparco, Corbeau, Recaro, etc. makes a lot more sense. Standard slider brackets available, easier installation, easier ingress/egress.
Plus, the cost difference isn't as much as one might think. A Kirkey Deluxe Road Race Seat is almost exactly the same cost as the Sparco Evo2, and might actually end up costing more, depending on fabrication costs for mounting. The Intermediate Road Race Seat could potentially save you $200+ per seat, but you still have the other issues to deal with for a street-driven car.
-Steve
| WRX_Mundi | 12-05-2003 01:08 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Top_Dog [/i]
[B]Can you say, save money and get a Kirky. [/B][/QUOTE]I've sat in an RX-7 with very lightweight Kirkey seats, and it was horrible. Wonderful car, terribly uncomfortable seats. The guy had a co-driver lined up, and after one day autocrossing he bailed out -- said it just hurt too much. I note the driver has since replaced them with Sparco Evo seats, which I find personally to be quite nice.
[B]Can you say, save money and get a Kirky. [/B][/QUOTE]I've sat in an RX-7 with very lightweight Kirkey seats, and it was horrible. Wonderful car, terribly uncomfortable seats. The guy had a co-driver lined up, and after one day autocrossing he bailed out -- said it just hurt too much. I note the driver has since replaced them with Sparco Evo seats, which I find personally to be quite nice.
| zosima | 12-05-2003 01:55 PM |
Just re-read the brake rules as I am looking at doing the H6 rear upgrade/it was mentioned here... can someone clarify the line "Calipers are unrestricted, but must mount to the original attachment points." It seems that this prohibits moving the caliper around/different caliper brackets, but that would make upgrading to larger rotors very hard/impossible (which the rules allow). Since I have shown (and probably will continue to show) ignorance in interpretting these rules, can someone explain to me/prove that alternative caliper brackets are okay?
Question 2: it is the concensus that rear adjustable lower arms are much better than rear camber plates? That is what I read from MNBiker's post.
Thanks Guys!!! :D
Question 2: it is the concensus that rear adjustable lower arms are much better than rear camber plates? That is what I read from MNBiker's post.
Thanks Guys!!! :D
| MNbiker | 12-05-2003 02:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zosima [/i]
[B]Just re-read the brake rules as I am looking at doing the H6 rear upgrade/it was mentioned here... can someone clarify the line "Calipers are unrestricted, but must mount to the original attachment points." It seems that this prohibits moving the caliper around/different caliper brackets, but that would make upgrading to larger rotors very hard/impossible (which the rules allow). Since I have shown (and probably will continue to show) ignorance in interpretting these rules, can someone explain to me/prove that alternative caliper brackets are okay?[/B][/QUOTE]
The H6 upgrade and other BBK's are completely legal. The mounting point is the hub, not the caliper bracket.
(On a related note, I have an H6 upgrade sitting in my garage, waiting to be installed! :D )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zosima [/i]
[B]Question 2: it is the concensus that rear adjustable lower arms are much better than rear camber plates? That is what I read from MNBiker's post. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not necessarily better in all cases. If you're starting from ground zero, the lower arms are probably a better way to go for most people, as they A) offer more adjustability than camber plates B) also upgrade the lower arm bushings C) don't have the cabin noise issues associated with camber plates and D) are about the same cost as camber plates (assuming you get Whiteline or similar).
In my case, I won't be getting adjustable lower arms because I already own some Cusco camber plates. If adjustable lower arms AND camber plates were legal together, I'd probably go with both. That would give me more ways to adjust the suspenstion to fit WIDE tires on my wagon.:devil:
-Steve
[B]Just re-read the brake rules as I am looking at doing the H6 rear upgrade/it was mentioned here... can someone clarify the line "Calipers are unrestricted, but must mount to the original attachment points." It seems that this prohibits moving the caliper around/different caliper brackets, but that would make upgrading to larger rotors very hard/impossible (which the rules allow). Since I have shown (and probably will continue to show) ignorance in interpretting these rules, can someone explain to me/prove that alternative caliper brackets are okay?[/B][/QUOTE]
The H6 upgrade and other BBK's are completely legal. The mounting point is the hub, not the caliper bracket.
(On a related note, I have an H6 upgrade sitting in my garage, waiting to be installed! :D )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zosima [/i]
[B]Question 2: it is the concensus that rear adjustable lower arms are much better than rear camber plates? That is what I read from MNBiker's post. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not necessarily better in all cases. If you're starting from ground zero, the lower arms are probably a better way to go for most people, as they A) offer more adjustability than camber plates B) also upgrade the lower arm bushings C) don't have the cabin noise issues associated with camber plates and D) are about the same cost as camber plates (assuming you get Whiteline or similar).
In my case, I won't be getting adjustable lower arms because I already own some Cusco camber plates. If adjustable lower arms AND camber plates were legal together, I'd probably go with both. That would give me more ways to adjust the suspenstion to fit WIDE tires on my wagon.:devil:
-Steve
| zosima | 12-05-2003 03:25 PM |
Thanks! Didn't actually know that it was the rear tires that prevented using :devil:-wide tires. Learning more all the time :D
| Patrick L | 12-05-2003 08:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker [/i]
[B]If my car was a dedicated race/autox car, maybe. For a street-driven car, something from Sparco, Corbeau, Recaro, etc. makes a lot more sense. Standard slider brackets available, easier installation, easier ingress/egress.
Plus, the cost difference isn't as much as one might think. A Kirkey Deluxe Road Race Seat is almost exactly the same cost as the Sparco Evo2, and might actually end up costing more, depending on fabrication costs for mounting. The Intermediate Road Race Seat could potentially save you $200+ per seat, but you still have the other issues to deal with for a street-driven car.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Ah wussy. :D
The Kirky seat I am talking about is the Economy Layback (Single Rib) Seat 07000 Series for $89.50 and if you need added padding. Get a pad for the seat bottom for the long trips.
[img]http://www.kirkeyracing.com/images/seats/08000w.jpg[/img]
I could shave off about 30lbs at least with a pair of these.
My only question about the rule is the 15lbs min. Is that just the seat or the seat with the braket and sliders?
[B]If my car was a dedicated race/autox car, maybe. For a street-driven car, something from Sparco, Corbeau, Recaro, etc. makes a lot more sense. Standard slider brackets available, easier installation, easier ingress/egress.
Plus, the cost difference isn't as much as one might think. A Kirkey Deluxe Road Race Seat is almost exactly the same cost as the Sparco Evo2, and might actually end up costing more, depending on fabrication costs for mounting. The Intermediate Road Race Seat could potentially save you $200+ per seat, but you still have the other issues to deal with for a street-driven car.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Ah wussy. :D
The Kirky seat I am talking about is the Economy Layback (Single Rib) Seat 07000 Series for $89.50 and if you need added padding. Get a pad for the seat bottom for the long trips.
[img]http://www.kirkeyracing.com/images/seats/08000w.jpg[/img]
I could shave off about 30lbs at least with a pair of these.
My only question about the rule is the 15lbs min. Is that just the seat or the seat with the braket and sliders?
| MNbiker | 12-05-2003 09:36 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Top_Dog [/i]
[B]Ah wussy. :D
The Kirky seat I am talking about is the Economy Layback (Single Rib) Seat 07000 Series for $89.50 and if you need added padding. Get a pad for the seat bottom for the long trips.
I could shave off about 30lbs at least with a pair of these.
My only question about the rule is the 15lbs min. Is that just the seat or the seat with the braket and sliders? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm a wuss. A $90 Kirkey seat is not my idea of fun for 1000 mile cross-country drives in a car with 500lb springs!:p
As for seat weight, it's 15 lbs, not counting the brackets, so something like the Kirkey Intermediate Race would be legal, but some of the really minimal models would not.
-Steve
[B]Ah wussy. :D
The Kirky seat I am talking about is the Economy Layback (Single Rib) Seat 07000 Series for $89.50 and if you need added padding. Get a pad for the seat bottom for the long trips.
I could shave off about 30lbs at least with a pair of these.
My only question about the rule is the 15lbs min. Is that just the seat or the seat with the braket and sliders? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm a wuss. A $90 Kirkey seat is not my idea of fun for 1000 mile cross-country drives in a car with 500lb springs!:p
As for seat weight, it's 15 lbs, not counting the brackets, so something like the Kirkey Intermediate Race would be legal, but some of the really minimal models would not.
-Steve
| Patrick L | 12-06-2003 11:11 AM |
I guess I could add ballest to the bottom of the seat but I thought the rule that the rule was going to include the braket.
| RebelINS | 12-06-2003 02:04 PM |
On page 7 it says
"The seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
So it is definitely just the seat weight.
-Wes
"The seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
So it is definitely just the seat weight.
-Wes
| Patrick L | 12-06-2003 04:59 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RebelINS [/i]
[B]On page 7 it says
"The seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
So it is definitely just the seat weight.
-Wes [/B][/QUOTE]
Hardware could mean alot of things. The bolts for example. Heck, you could weld a braket to my own aluminum seat and call it part of the seat. They need to be more specific on what they call "Hardware".
[B]On page 7 it says
"The seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
So it is definitely just the seat weight.
-Wes [/B][/QUOTE]
Hardware could mean alot of things. The bolts for example. Heck, you could weld a braket to my own aluminum seat and call it part of the seat. They need to be more specific on what they call "Hardware".
| BIGSKYWRX | 01-02-2004 10:53 AM |
Well this is mighty interesting, but confusing (what's new there). I was going to be moving to SM for three mods- turbo inlet pipe (now appears legal?), IC hoses (possibly legal?), the last mod was STi front control arms (transverse links).
Now it appears the STi control arms would be legal, but w/ the caveot of not having anything that changes camber(?). If the control arm (like the STi one) change has no effect on camber, does this still hold true? I'm running Noltec plates and plan on no change as I have the camber/caster dialed in where I want it.
I think I know the answer (welcome to SM), but if I was allowed to run STX w/ my STi arms and my Noltecs- I'd stay.
TIA
Big Sky
Now it appears the STi control arms would be legal, but w/ the caveot of not having anything that changes camber(?). If the control arm (like the STi one) change has no effect on camber, does this still hold true? I'm running Noltec plates and plan on no change as I have the camber/caster dialed in where I want it.
I think I know the answer (welcome to SM), but if I was allowed to run STX w/ my STi arms and my Noltecs- I'd stay.
TIA
Big Sky
| trhoppe | 01-02-2004 12:19 PM |
You *could* have the STi arms, but no camber plates. You get to choose one, even if they do no camber adjustment, the "camber adjust" rule is the only rule that would allow those control arms.
The turbo inlet hose does in fact appear legal and I'm thinking about picking one up, but don't know if on the stock turbo the gains justify the costs and the install PITA. The IC hoses though are definetly NOT legal now.
-Tom
The turbo inlet hose does in fact appear legal and I'm thinking about picking one up, but don't know if on the stock turbo the gains justify the costs and the install PITA. The IC hoses though are definetly NOT legal now.
-Tom
| BIGSKYWRX | 01-02-2004 01:25 PM |
Hi, my name is Mike and I'm in Street Modified......
That's kind of what I thought. I'm no going to be giving up -2.2 of camber and 4.8 of caster just so I can run my aluminum arms.
Get the turbo inlet pipe, it will give you a few precious ponies and a quicker spool. I wrote up a tutorial in sccobymods.com a while ago (I think it is still there), it's not too bad an install. You do have to hack up your oe inlet pipe to get it out- the alternative is removing the intake manifold- and that truly would be a PITA.
IC hoses are definitely out as well? Not part of the"intake tract"? Not that it matters for me:D
Big Sky
That's kind of what I thought. I'm no going to be giving up -2.2 of camber and 4.8 of caster just so I can run my aluminum arms.
Get the turbo inlet pipe, it will give you a few precious ponies and a quicker spool. I wrote up a tutorial in sccobymods.com a while ago (I think it is still there), it's not too bad an install. You do have to hack up your oe inlet pipe to get it out- the alternative is removing the intake manifold- and that truly would be a PITA.
IC hoses are definitely out as well? Not part of the"intake tract"? Not that it matters for me:D
Big Sky
| KC | 01-02-2004 01:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BIGSKYWRX[/i]
[B] Hi, my name is Mike and I'm in Street Modified......[/B][/QUOTE]
[CROWD] Hi Mike! [/CROWD]
Let's begin the affirmation....
[Chanting]
There's only one way to do things,
no other way for you to look,
but reach in that glove compartment
and consult that borrowed rule book.
Yes! Consult that rule book!
For as you'll learn to see,
if it doesn't say you can,
than you can't is the way it'll be.
[/Chanting]
--kC
(Kill me later....)
[B] Hi, my name is Mike and I'm in Street Modified......[/B][/QUOTE]
[CROWD] Hi Mike! [/CROWD]
Let's begin the affirmation....
[Chanting]
There's only one way to do things,
no other way for you to look,
but reach in that glove compartment
and consult that borrowed rule book.
Yes! Consult that rule book!
For as you'll learn to see,
if it doesn't say you can,
than you can't is the way it'll be.
[/Chanting]
--kC
(Kill me later....)
| BIGSKYWRX | 01-02-2004 02:08 PM |
How did you know the rule book was borrowed! Now I'll probably have to give it back.
Quote from KC "As usual, what's published is clear as mud";)
Big Sky
Quote from KC "As usual, what's published is clear as mud";)
Big Sky
| Patrick L | 01-12-2004 01:58 AM |
I guess this adjustable lateral arm rule does not cover the trailing arms. KC, what is your opinion.
| KC | 01-12-2004 08:31 AM |
I don't know much about them so I really can't answer. I'm learning about them myself. :)
| DetroitWRX | 01-12-2004 09:46 AM |
I noted that you can't replace the "main arms" or trailing arms. So a full STi setup or that Cusco one will not be legal. The "locating arms" or lateral links can be replaced.
As always we will have to wait for the new 2004 book and then see if it explains it better.
My question is if STX become official then will you be able to run R compounds. Some one told be that street mod ran street tires until it became official then they could run R compounds. Either way I don't care cuz Detroit region has street tires for all classes so the new people don't freek getting killed by the guy on R compounds.
Rob
As always we will have to wait for the new 2004 book and then see if it explains it better.
My question is if STX become official then will you be able to run R compounds. Some one told be that street mod ran street tires until it became official then they could run R compounds. Either way I don't care cuz Detroit region has street tires for all classes so the new people don't freek getting killed by the guy on R compounds.
Rob
| KC | 01-12-2004 10:15 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DetroitWRX[/i]
[B]My question is if STX become official then will you be able to run R compounds. Some one told be that street mod ran street tires until it became official then they could run R compounds. Either way I don't care cuz Detroit region has street tires for all classes so the new people don't freek getting killed by the guy on R compounds.
Rob [/B][/QUOTE] The national SM class has always allowed R-Compound.
There are no plans for STX to run R-Compound (uless they put treadwear 140 on the side :devil: ). Adding R-compounds to your STX legal 'stock brake caliper car' would put you in SP.
--kC
[B]My question is if STX become official then will you be able to run R compounds. Some one told be that street mod ran street tires until it became official then they could run R compounds. Either way I don't care cuz Detroit region has street tires for all classes so the new people don't freek getting killed by the guy on R compounds.
Rob [/B][/QUOTE] The national SM class has always allowed R-Compound.
There are no plans for STX to run R-Compound (uless they put treadwear 140 on the side :devil: ). Adding R-compounds to your STX legal 'stock brake caliper car' would put you in SP.
--kC
| bbimpreza | 01-12-2004 01:29 PM |
Quick question concerning the rules updates in the Fastrack. The engine mount upgrades, does this include STS, or is this just for STX because it does say, "The following previously-published proposals, revised here to reflect the Street Touring is now Section 14, are being recommend to the BOD:", and I have been getting conflicting answers. I know that these are recommendations and will not be official until they are published in the rule book, but I would like to get the car together for next season. Also, when they say engine mounts, does this include pitch mounts? I have also been told that tranny mounts are legal for STX, but I have never seen anything stating that this is true. If it is, are they also legal for STS? These may be unanswerabe questions at this time, but something to think about.
Billy Brooks
Billy Brooks
| trhoppe | 01-12-2004 02:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Top_Dog[/i]
[B] I guess this adjustable lateral arm rule does not cover the trailing arms. Tom, what is your opinion. [/B][/QUOTE] ;)
I believe only the lateral links are legal. The trailing link has no impact whatsoever on camber adjustment and I don't see how it could be fit under the rule. You can (and I did this past weekend) replace the rubber bushings in it with poly. I wonder if I will be able to tell a difference.
-Tom
[B] I guess this adjustable lateral arm rule does not cover the trailing arms. Tom, what is your opinion. [/B][/QUOTE] ;)
I believe only the lateral links are legal. The trailing link has no impact whatsoever on camber adjustment and I don't see how it could be fit under the rule. You can (and I did this past weekend) replace the rubber bushings in it with poly. I wonder if I will be able to tell a difference.
-Tom
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét