| 10th Warrior | 05-22-2006 04:10 PM |
June Fastrack
�
�
[url]http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-6-fastrack.pdf[/url]
lots of interesting stuff in there. SSB & SSC won't be folded into Touring.
The SEB is proposing a higher speed Solo Trials program for next year, which sounds pretty cool.
Joel seems to have worked his new found SPACiness to great effect, clarifying the strut ear rules. Also good for Steve :)
I don't like the 'new' interpretation of the SP areo allowances. Seems pretty trite to me, and its just another thing that throws off the progression from ST to SP.
The move of SM's to FSP has also been recinded :disco:
And, most importantly, ref. 06-066 (cole's rant) was dismissed :banana:
lots of interesting stuff in there. SSB & SSC won't be folded into Touring.
The SEB is proposing a higher speed Solo Trials program for next year, which sounds pretty cool.
Joel seems to have worked his new found SPACiness to great effect, clarifying the strut ear rules. Also good for Steve :)
I don't like the 'new' interpretation of the SP areo allowances. Seems pretty trite to me, and its just another thing that throws off the progression from ST to SP.
The move of SM's to FSP has also been recinded :disco:
And, most importantly, ref. 06-066 (cole's rant) was dismissed :banana:
| Scooby South | 05-22-2006 05:07 PM |
k...I am trying to *decipher* it now...I am trying REALLY HARD to understand what they are saying...
Bill
Bill
| AtomicRacer | 05-22-2006 05:46 PM |
"On MacPherson strut equipped cars, the strut's lower integral mounting bracket, for attachment to the upright or spindle, is unrestricted
provided it attaches to the stock location. Any change to the position of the strut centerline is allowed. Such brackets shall serve no other
purpose. This does not allow for changes to the integral steering arm on cars that have the steering arm integrated with the strut body."
This fine for the SP classes but what about the ST classes? Will this trickle down?
Also, what about mounting brackets that are slotted that allow for camber changes (specifically rear in our case)? In the case of our Subies that is not a factory option and contrues "another purpose" served by the mouting brackets. Thoughts?
-Paul
provided it attaches to the stock location. Any change to the position of the strut centerline is allowed. Such brackets shall serve no other
purpose. This does not allow for changes to the integral steering arm on cars that have the steering arm integrated with the strut body."
This fine for the SP classes but what about the ST classes? Will this trickle down?
Also, what about mounting brackets that are slotted that allow for camber changes (specifically rear in our case)? In the case of our Subies that is not a factory option and contrues "another purpose" served by the mouting brackets. Thoughts?
-Paul
| trhoppe | 05-22-2006 06:13 PM |
:banana: SSC stays :)
-Tom
-Tom
| 10th Warrior | 05-22-2006 06:29 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]k...I am trying to *decipher* it now...I am trying REALLY HARD to understand what they are saying...
Bill[/QUOTE]
about the struts? It all comes from the blowup about the zzyzx coilovers and their lengthed ears, and whether or not that constituted a geometery change or was simply a replacement housing. Well, now we have a definitive answer :)
Bill[/QUOTE]
about the struts? It all comes from the blowup about the zzyzx coilovers and their lengthed ears, and whether or not that constituted a geometery change or was simply a replacement housing. Well, now we have a definitive answer :)
| zzyzx | 05-22-2006 07:06 PM |
I was informed it'll be the same for ST* and SP*. All the other comparable rules are.
Joel wasn't on the committee when this was ruled on. It was "out there" for quite a while and I expected it to show up two Fastracks ago. Good to see it has finally been published. Or course, it's not stated in ST*, but my guess is that it will be.
Note that this is a clarification, not a rule change. The rule said "any strut" and this clarification is simply reinforcing a common-sense interpretation of what "any strut" is.... it's [i]any strut[/i]. This is why it should apply to ST* - because the SP and ST* strut rules are identical.
Now we don't have to deal with other tortured interpretations.
In review:
1) The hole centerline to strut centerline in unrestricted in dimension.
2) The hole(s) can be slotted.
I'll do a more in-depth write-up of how this transpired on my website.
- Steve Sulatycki
[url="http://zzyzxmotorsports.com"]Zzyzx Motorsports[/url]
Joel wasn't on the committee when this was ruled on. It was "out there" for quite a while and I expected it to show up two Fastracks ago. Good to see it has finally been published. Or course, it's not stated in ST*, but my guess is that it will be.
Note that this is a clarification, not a rule change. The rule said "any strut" and this clarification is simply reinforcing a common-sense interpretation of what "any strut" is.... it's [i]any strut[/i]. This is why it should apply to ST* - because the SP and ST* strut rules are identical.
Now we don't have to deal with other tortured interpretations.
In review:
1) The hole centerline to strut centerline in unrestricted in dimension.
2) The hole(s) can be slotted.
I'll do a more in-depth write-up of how this transpired on my website.
- Steve Sulatycki
[url="http://zzyzxmotorsports.com"]Zzyzx Motorsports[/url]
| nKoan | 05-22-2006 07:36 PM |
Looks like the Subaru Legacy 2.5GT (06+) is now in ESP.
So, the 05 is still in FSP, or should we consider this a typo?
So, the 05 is still in FSP, or should we consider this a typo?
| 10th Warrior | 05-22-2006 07:42 PM |
[quote]Joel wasn't on the committee when this was ruled on. It was "out there" for quite a while and I expected it to show up two Fastracks ago. Good to see it has finally been published.[/quote]
ah, ok. thanks for the inside info, Steve.
ah, ok. thanks for the inside info, Steve.
| jcroy66 | 05-23-2006 08:05 AM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]And, most importantly, ref. 06-066 (cole's rant) was dismissed :banana:[/QUOTE]#666 huh?? Seems appropriate somehow. :D
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 08:22 AM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]about the struts? It all comes from the blowup about the zzyzx coilovers and their lengthed ears, and whether or not that constituted a geometery change or was simply a replacement housing. Well, now we have a definitive answer :)[/QUOTE]
haha..no...the aero portion....I have read and reread it ....and since I have "Aero" mods...I am trying to see how this pertains to me...I have a M3 lip spoiler on the back on the wing...
[IMG]http://www.scoobysouth.net/spoiler%20034.jpg[/IMG]
Along with a Roof Vane Vortec generator.... like this...
[IMG]http://www.avoturbo.com/avonews/data/dyno_shootout_small.data/size_2/_L2Y9567.jpg[/IMG]
So I am a little confused on what the AERO rule is saying...I don't have cardboard or tape "Blocking the rear" to enhance downforce...but I have a stick on lip...I havn't 'altered' my wing...as per the rules...but I have "enhanced" it...
Since I do HPDE's...these items made the rear end WAY More stable at speed...
What do you guys think...
Bill
haha..no...the aero portion....I have read and reread it ....and since I have "Aero" mods...I am trying to see how this pertains to me...I have a M3 lip spoiler on the back on the wing...
[IMG]http://www.scoobysouth.net/spoiler%20034.jpg[/IMG]
Along with a Roof Vane Vortec generator.... like this...
[IMG]http://www.avoturbo.com/avonews/data/dyno_shootout_small.data/size_2/_L2Y9567.jpg[/IMG]
So I am a little confused on what the AERO rule is saying...I don't have cardboard or tape "Blocking the rear" to enhance downforce...but I have a stick on lip...I havn't 'altered' my wing...as per the rules...but I have "enhanced" it...
Since I do HPDE's...these items made the rear end WAY More stable at speed...
What do you guys think...
Bill
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 08:35 AM |
Here is what Fasttrack saids:
[QUOTE]5) Street Prepared : At this time the Solo Events Board would like to clarify the rules concerning spoilers in Street Prepared, as follows:
The Street Prepared rear spoiler allowance was originally intended to allow common aftermarket body kits and spoilers that have no notable aerodynamic effect at autocross speeds. [B]The rule, 5.2.H.2.b, states that "The spoiler may not function as a wing". [/B] For purposes of rulemaking and interpretation, a "wing" has been generally understood to mean an aerodynamic device making use of air passing both over and under a solid element to create aerodynamic force. A rear "spoiler" is generally understood to be an aerodynamic device fixed to the rear bodywork of the vehicle where air passes over, but not under, the solid element to create aerodynamic force. The base of a spoiler is contiguously attached to the bodywork (i.e., deck lid) of the vehicle to prevent airflow underneath the spoiler element. Some cars are equipped by the OEM with standard or optional bodywork elements that meet the definition of "wing" stated above, although they may be identified in marketing material, owner's manuals, shop manuals, and/or parts lists as a "spoiler". These bodywork elements may not be modified per 15.2.H.2.b, except to be replaced with either a standard or optional OEM element, or exact replica of a standard or optional OEM element in an alternate material, as per 15.2.H.2.a. [I][B][SIZE=3]"Plugging" the [SIZE=5]underside[/SIZE] opening of an OEM wing by any means, including but not limited to tape, cardboard, foam, etc., to turn it into a spoiler and allow additional spoiler additions is not a legal modification[/SIZE][/B][/I]Examples of such OEM
bodywork elements that would be considered wings by this definition include but are not limited to the '93-up Chevrolet Camaro, Subaru WRX STi, numerous Ford Mustang variations from 1987 on, Dodge SRT-4, and Mitsubishi Evolution
Note: 15.1.C is not affected by this clarification.
"15.1.C. Equipment and/or specifications may be exchanged between different years and models of a vehicle if (a) the item is standard in the year/model from which it was taken, and (b) the years/models are listed on the same line of Appendix A (Street Prepared Classes). The
updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be attached may not be altered, modified, machined or otherwise changed to facilitate theupdating/backdating allowance. Standard factory installation methods, locations, and configurations are allowed."
:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]5) Street Prepared : At this time the Solo Events Board would like to clarify the rules concerning spoilers in Street Prepared, as follows:
The Street Prepared rear spoiler allowance was originally intended to allow common aftermarket body kits and spoilers that have no notable aerodynamic effect at autocross speeds. [B]The rule, 5.2.H.2.b, states that "The spoiler may not function as a wing". [/B] For purposes of rulemaking and interpretation, a "wing" has been generally understood to mean an aerodynamic device making use of air passing both over and under a solid element to create aerodynamic force. A rear "spoiler" is generally understood to be an aerodynamic device fixed to the rear bodywork of the vehicle where air passes over, but not under, the solid element to create aerodynamic force. The base of a spoiler is contiguously attached to the bodywork (i.e., deck lid) of the vehicle to prevent airflow underneath the spoiler element. Some cars are equipped by the OEM with standard or optional bodywork elements that meet the definition of "wing" stated above, although they may be identified in marketing material, owner's manuals, shop manuals, and/or parts lists as a "spoiler". These bodywork elements may not be modified per 15.2.H.2.b, except to be replaced with either a standard or optional OEM element, or exact replica of a standard or optional OEM element in an alternate material, as per 15.2.H.2.a. [I][B][SIZE=3]"Plugging" the [SIZE=5]underside[/SIZE] opening of an OEM wing by any means, including but not limited to tape, cardboard, foam, etc., to turn it into a spoiler and allow additional spoiler additions is not a legal modification[/SIZE][/B][/I]Examples of such OEM
bodywork elements that would be considered wings by this definition include but are not limited to the '93-up Chevrolet Camaro, Subaru WRX STi, numerous Ford Mustang variations from 1987 on, Dodge SRT-4, and Mitsubishi Evolution
Note: 15.1.C is not affected by this clarification.
"15.1.C. Equipment and/or specifications may be exchanged between different years and models of a vehicle if (a) the item is standard in the year/model from which it was taken, and (b) the years/models are listed on the same line of Appendix A (Street Prepared Classes). The
updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be attached may not be altered, modified, machined or otherwise changed to facilitate theupdating/backdating allowance. Standard factory installation methods, locations, and configurations are allowed."
:[/QUOTE]
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 08:37 AM |
I read this to mean anything on the underside of the wing...not the [B][SIZE=4]top[/SIZE][/B] of the blade...????
Bill
Bill
| wvallwheeldrive | 05-23-2006 08:56 AM |
These bodywork elements may not be modified per 15.2.H.2.b, except to be replaced with either a standard or optional OEM element, or exact replica of a standard or optional OEM element in an alternate material, as per 15.2.H.2.a.
This says it may not be modified in any way
This says it may not be modified in any way
| wrx2.0 555 | 05-23-2006 10:01 AM |
[QUOTE]H. Spoilers and [B]cosmetic trim pieces are permitted[/B]. Side skirts may
not be used. Spoilers must comply with the following subsections.
The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly
available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which
[B]have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds[/B].[/QUOTE]
Could his mod be considered a "cosmetic trim piece"?
It certainly has "no significant function at solo speeds"..
not be used. Spoilers must comply with the following subsections.
The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly
available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which
[B]have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds[/B].[/QUOTE]
Could his mod be considered a "cosmetic trim piece"?
It certainly has "no significant function at solo speeds"..
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 10:22 AM |
see..this is what I am talking about...Fastrack says its clarifying it...and to me it made it more confusing...I see no one else wants to pipe up...and Scott..I agree with you..
ESPECIALLY at Solo speeds..this actually makes me :mad:...Especially since I see ASP Vettes with HUGE Plexiglass rear Spoilers mounted...on NATIONAL LEVEL cars...
THAT I can understand being illegal..
Bill
ESPECIALLY at Solo speeds..this actually makes me :mad:...Especially since I see ASP Vettes with HUGE Plexiglass rear Spoilers mounted...on NATIONAL LEVEL cars...
THAT I can understand being illegal..
Bill
| leecea | 05-23-2006 10:55 AM |
Read wvallwheeldrive's post.
The point is that anything allowing airflow over and under is a wing not a spoiler. Wings cannot be modified. Therefore [B]any modification [/B] to the "wing" on the WRX/STi is illegal regardless of whether or not it creates a benefit.
The point is that anything allowing airflow over and under is a wing not a spoiler. Wings cannot be modified. Therefore [B]any modification [/B] to the "wing" on the WRX/STi is illegal regardless of whether or not it creates a benefit.
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 11:11 AM |
thanks :rolleyes:....I appreciate your guys honesty...
Frekkin SUX ...that is all...because it ABSOLUTLY has NOTHING to do With SOLO 2
Frekkin SUX ...that is all...because it ABSOLUTLY has NOTHING to do With SOLO 2
| 10th Warrior | 05-23-2006 01:00 PM |
[QUOTE=leecea]Read wvallwheeldrive's post.
The point is that anything allowing airflow over and under is a wing not a spoiler. Wings cannot be modified. Therefore [B]any modification [/B] to the "wing" on the WRX/STi is illegal regardless of whether or not it creates a benefit.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that's the way I read it as well. Sorry Bill, but your wing mod seems illegal now (you dirty rotten cheater :p ). Now, the roof vanes would hopefully fall under 'cosmetic trim pieces', or at least I think they should. Then again, I think this wing rule is pretty dumb, too :)
The point is that anything allowing airflow over and under is a wing not a spoiler. Wings cannot be modified. Therefore [B]any modification [/B] to the "wing" on the WRX/STi is illegal regardless of whether or not it creates a benefit.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that's the way I read it as well. Sorry Bill, but your wing mod seems illegal now (you dirty rotten cheater :p ). Now, the roof vanes would hopefully fall under 'cosmetic trim pieces', or at least I think they should. Then again, I think this wing rule is pretty dumb, too :)
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 01:09 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]yeah, that's the way I read it as well. Sorry Bill, but your wing mod seems illegal now (you dirty rotten cheater :p ). Now, the roof vanes would hopefully fall under 'cosmetic trim pieces', or at least I think they should. Then again, I think this wing rule is pretty dumb, too :)[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it...I just got off the phone with Joel...to help me understand this...and its all because of an ESP Camaro...:rolleyes:...
The part that REALLY Bothers me is that my 'aero' mods have NOTHING to do with Solo... :furious: :furious:
Yes I am grumpy on this...But i like the Cosmetic trim idea...;)
Bill
Tell me about it...I just got off the phone with Joel...to help me understand this...and its all because of an ESP Camaro...:rolleyes:...
The part that REALLY Bothers me is that my 'aero' mods have NOTHING to do with Solo... :furious: :furious:
Yes I am grumpy on this...But i like the Cosmetic trim idea...;)
Bill
| KC | 05-23-2006 01:10 PM |
So you're a ricer? Is that waht you're saying? :lol:
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 01:29 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]So you're a ricer? Is that waht you're saying? :lol:[/QUOTE]
yeah...thats it..:)...:rolleyes:
yeah...thats it..:)...:rolleyes:
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 01:36 PM |
Actually thinking about it...bahh....nevermind...:lol:
| AtomicRacer | 05-23-2006 02:40 PM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]I was informed it'll be the same for ST* and SP*. All the other comparable rules are.
Joel wasn't on the committee when this was ruled on. It was "out there" for quite a while and I expected it to show up two Fastracks ago. Good to see it has finally been published. Or course, it's not stated in ST*, but my guess is that it will be.
Note that this is a clarification, not a rule change. The rule said "any strut" and this clarification is simply reinforcing a common-sense interpretation of what "any strut" is.... it's [i]any strut[/i]. This is why it should apply to ST* - because the SP and ST* strut rules are identical.
Now we don't have to deal with other tortured interpretations.
In review:
1) The hole centerline to strut centerline in unrestricted in dimension.
2) The hole(s) can be slotted.
I'll do a more in-depth write-up of how this transpired on my website.
- Steve Sulatycki
[url="http://zzyzxmotorsports.com"]Zzyzx Motorsports[/url][/QUOTE]
This is all good news. =)
-Paul
Joel wasn't on the committee when this was ruled on. It was "out there" for quite a while and I expected it to show up two Fastracks ago. Good to see it has finally been published. Or course, it's not stated in ST*, but my guess is that it will be.
Note that this is a clarification, not a rule change. The rule said "any strut" and this clarification is simply reinforcing a common-sense interpretation of what "any strut" is.... it's [i]any strut[/i]. This is why it should apply to ST* - because the SP and ST* strut rules are identical.
Now we don't have to deal with other tortured interpretations.
In review:
1) The hole centerline to strut centerline in unrestricted in dimension.
2) The hole(s) can be slotted.
I'll do a more in-depth write-up of how this transpired on my website.
- Steve Sulatycki
[url="http://zzyzxmotorsports.com"]Zzyzx Motorsports[/url][/QUOTE]
This is all good news. =)
-Paul
| CamaroFS34 | 05-23-2006 02:46 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]and its all because of an ESP Camaro...:rolleyes:...[/QUOTE]
Hey! What's wrong with that? :p
Seriously, I know the car in question, and it's been discussed for over a year that it wasn't necessarily a legal mod. Eguina finally put his name on the protest papers this spring, and now we know.
This may also have an effect on Madarash's car; I can't remember offhand what all of the iterations of the third gens had for spoiler ("wing" by the SEB definition) options.
Karen
Hey! What's wrong with that? :p
Seriously, I know the car in question, and it's been discussed for over a year that it wasn't necessarily a legal mod. Eguina finally put his name on the protest papers this spring, and now we know.
This may also have an effect on Madarash's car; I can't remember offhand what all of the iterations of the third gens had for spoiler ("wing" by the SEB definition) options.
Karen
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 03:00 PM |
[QUOTE=CamaroFS34]Hey! What's wrong with that? :p
Seriously, I know the car in question, and it's been discussed for over a year that it wasn't necessarily a legal mod. Eguina finally put his name on the protest papers this spring, and now we know.
This may also have an effect on Madarash's car; I can't remember offhand what all of the iterations of the third gens had for spoiler ("wing" by the SEB definition) options.
Karen[/QUOTE]
thanks Karen...appreciate it...
Let me put a piece of 12in Plexi on the back for good measure and thats legal..
Sometimes these things make NO friggen sense..
Bill
Seriously, I know the car in question, and it's been discussed for over a year that it wasn't necessarily a legal mod. Eguina finally put his name on the protest papers this spring, and now we know.
This may also have an effect on Madarash's car; I can't remember offhand what all of the iterations of the third gens had for spoiler ("wing" by the SEB definition) options.
Karen[/QUOTE]
thanks Karen...appreciate it...
Let me put a piece of 12in Plexi on the back for good measure and thats legal..
Sometimes these things make NO friggen sense..
Bill
| CamaroFS34 | 05-23-2006 03:19 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]Sometimes these things make NO friggen sense...[/QUOTE]
I know, but it gives us a reason to post about it, complaining, explaining, wondering, and pondering, right? ;)
When does a wingless STi come stateside?
Karen
I know, but it gives us a reason to post about it, complaining, explaining, wondering, and pondering, right? ;)
When does a wingless STi come stateside?
Karen
| 10th Warrior | 05-23-2006 03:42 PM |
[quote]When does a wingless STi come stateside?[/quote]
that's a good point. There is one coming (MY06 or 07, don't remember which) which would allow us to ditch the wing, since it just has a lip spoiler. Then we can bust out the nascar-esk kicker on the back and be embraced back into ESP ;)
that's a good point. There is one coming (MY06 or 07, don't remember which) which would allow us to ditch the wing, since it just has a lip spoiler. Then we can bust out the nascar-esk kicker on the back and be embraced back into ESP ;)
| Corey | 05-23-2006 03:57 PM |
[QUOTE=AtomicRacer]This is all good news. =)
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Don't get your hopes up yet... it's only been clarified for SP. Although as Steve said, it may be intended for both, nothing that I saw clarifies the ST wording and if it isn't on paper... :rolleyes:
Write your letters if you want to see the same for ST.
Corey #89 STS
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Don't get your hopes up yet... it's only been clarified for SP. Although as Steve said, it may be intended for both, nothing that I saw clarifies the ST wording and if it isn't on paper... :rolleyes:
Write your letters if you want to see the same for ST.
Corey #89 STS
| maxQ | 05-23-2006 05:19 PM |
[QUOTE=CamaroFS34]
When does a wingless STi come stateside?
Karen[/QUOTE]
It's here.
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url]
When does a wingless STi come stateside?
Karen[/QUOTE]
It's here.
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url]
| Scooby South | 05-23-2006 05:24 PM |
[QUOTE=maxQ]It's here.
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url][/QUOTE]
Actually I think she was asking when the dealers are going to get them..:)
and to answer that....Our Rep said the end of July...:)
Bill
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url][/QUOTE]
Actually I think she was asking when the dealers are going to get them..:)
and to answer that....Our Rep said the end of July...:)
Bill
| maxQ | 05-23-2006 05:31 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]
and to answer that....Our Rep said the end of July...:)
Bill[/QUOTE]
So they'll be here by Christmas? May be too late for Nats.
:p
and to answer that....Our Rep said the end of July...:)
Bill[/QUOTE]
So they'll be here by Christmas? May be too late for Nats.
:p
| sciolist | 05-23-2006 05:36 PM |
[QUOTE=maxQ]It's here.
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url][/QUOTE]
So my prayers have actually been answered? Is this a viable UD/BD? Anyone got a good shot of its rear end?
[url]http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/13/2007-impreza-wrx-sti-limited-less-show-same-go/[/url][/QUOTE]
So my prayers have actually been answered? Is this a viable UD/BD? Anyone got a good shot of its rear end?
| AUTOwrXER | 05-23-2006 06:33 PM |
[QUOTE=nKoan]Looks like the Subaru Legacy 2.5GT (06+) is now in ESP.
So, the 05 is still in FSP, or should we consider this a typo?[/QUOTE]
It's a typo. I pointed out that it should be 05+, but apparently it fell through the cracks.
So, the 05 is still in FSP, or should we consider this a typo?[/QUOTE]
It's a typo. I pointed out that it should be 05+, but apparently it fell through the cracks.
| AUTOwrXER | 05-23-2006 06:39 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]that's a good point. There is one coming (MY06 or 07, don't remember which) which would allow us to ditch the wing, since it just has a lip spoiler. Then we can bust out the nascar-esk kicker on the back and be embraced back into ESP ;)[/QUOTE]
;)
I'm only debating about the "kicker".
;)
I'm only debating about the "kicker".
| AUTOwrXER | 05-23-2006 06:44 PM |
FWIW, I still think the cosmetic trim piece defense has some validity. What was on the Botkin car was a plexiglass, downforce-producing "kicker" that was mounted to the OEM wing rather than the trunk lid. If we did a similar modification to our wing, it would certainly be illegal based on this clarification.
Now, if the modification to the wing (and in Bill's case the roof vanes and the diffusers) does not produce downforce then you could pass it off as cosmetic trim. The issue is that we don't have a wind tunnel in the protest shed, so this is going to be open to interpretation.
Bill - you should write a letter for further clarification.
Now, if the modification to the wing (and in Bill's case the roof vanes and the diffusers) does not produce downforce then you could pass it off as cosmetic trim. The issue is that we don't have a wind tunnel in the protest shed, so this is going to be open to interpretation.
Bill - you should write a letter for further clarification.
| nKoan | 05-23-2006 08:01 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]It's a typo. I pointed out that it should be 05+, but apparently it fell through the cracks.[/QUOTE]
I figured as much. I already went ahead and changed my class for this weekend. I figure no one will complain, since the cars are virtually identical (and in my case, I think actually identical except for MY on the VIN plate).
I figured as much. I already went ahead and changed my class for this weekend. I figure no one will complain, since the cars are virtually identical (and in my case, I think actually identical except for MY on the VIN plate).
| WReXer | 05-23-2006 09:23 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]k...I am trying to *decipher* it now...I am trying REALLY HARD to understand what they are saying...
Bill[/QUOTE]
Time to add a BOV and a big turbo. :lol:
Street mod once again. :rolleyes:
Bill[/QUOTE]
Time to add a BOV and a big turbo. :lol:
Street mod once again. :rolleyes:
| AUTOwrXER | 05-24-2006 12:54 PM |
[QUOTE=WReXer]Time to add a BOV and a big turbo. :lol:
Street mod once again. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
BOVs (or more appropriately CBVs) are legal in SP as of the last Fastrack.
Street mod once again. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
BOVs (or more appropriately CBVs) are legal in SP as of the last Fastrack.
| ChrisDP | 05-24-2006 01:03 PM |
Every wing/kicker/personal ninja strapped to the trunklid is going to have *some* effect on aerodynamics. So what's significant enough to be illegal? Hey, a big vertical wall in the airstream might not produce much in the way of downforce, but the drag *would* slow the car faster for braking... technically.
| CamaroFS34 | 05-25-2006 08:27 AM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]Let me put a piece of 12in Plexi on the back for good measure and thats legal..[/QUOTE]
This is the "problem child" that spawned the "clarification" in Fastrack (wording to be implemented in 2007, if no one squawks too loudly).
[img]http://ploney.shackspace.com/pics/SCCA/Atwater/atwater_pub1/atwater-P5064505.jpg[/img]
GM describes the rear piece as a "spoiler" on the Camaros. SCCA considers it a wing. But since a "wing" and a "spoiler" were not sufficiently defined in the Solo rulebook, the Botkins [i]ass[/i]umed that because GM billed it as a "spoiler" that it was a spoiler, and so could have material added. But, since it allows air underneath it (and dirt and sand and bits of napkin thrown out the window at speed), SCCA defines the piece as a wing, and the intent of the rule wasn't to allow modifications ([i]any[/i], sorry, Bill) to wings, besides the obvious UD/BD. So, while the protest of the car was disallowed due to the "gray area" of the current rule (being that wing and spoiler weren't defined), the new wording looks to clear it up by making the intent of the rule stick.
Karen
This is the "problem child" that spawned the "clarification" in Fastrack (wording to be implemented in 2007, if no one squawks too loudly).
[img]http://ploney.shackspace.com/pics/SCCA/Atwater/atwater_pub1/atwater-P5064505.jpg[/img]
GM describes the rear piece as a "spoiler" on the Camaros. SCCA considers it a wing. But since a "wing" and a "spoiler" were not sufficiently defined in the Solo rulebook, the Botkins [i]ass[/i]umed that because GM billed it as a "spoiler" that it was a spoiler, and so could have material added. But, since it allows air underneath it (and dirt and sand and bits of napkin thrown out the window at speed), SCCA defines the piece as a wing, and the intent of the rule wasn't to allow modifications ([i]any[/i], sorry, Bill) to wings, besides the obvious UD/BD. So, while the protest of the car was disallowed due to the "gray area" of the current rule (being that wing and spoiler weren't defined), the new wording looks to clear it up by making the intent of the rule stick.
Karen
| j-rho | 05-25-2006 11:25 AM |
The original protest defense in San Diego had more to do with the fact that no air was passing between the device in question and the bodywork of the car, as would be expected of a wing. The problem of course, is that the bodywork of all these Camaros in that area is already a wing...
Technically too, you could say that any spoiler functions as a wing, in that its overall effect on the shape of the entire car makes it a more autocross-friendly airfoil. Air still passes underneath the car, and thus underneath the device, so they're all wings in that respect. The only difference here is air passes underneath in two places, one in close proximity to the bottom of the device.
Technically too, you could say that any spoiler functions as a wing, in that its overall effect on the shape of the entire car makes it a more autocross-friendly airfoil. Air still passes underneath the car, and thus underneath the device, so they're all wings in that respect. The only difference here is air passes underneath in two places, one in close proximity to the bottom of the device.
| dowroa | 05-25-2006 12:37 PM |
[QUOTE=j-rho]The original protest defense in San Diego had more to do with the fact that no air was passing between the device in question and the bodywork of the car, as would be expected of a wing. The problem of course, is that the bodywork of all these Camaros in that area is already a wing...
Technically too, you could say that any spoiler functions as a wing, in that its overall effect on the shape of the entire car makes it a more autocross-friendly airfoil. Air still passes underneath the car, and thus underneath the device, so they're all wings in that respect. The only difference here is air passes underneath in two places, one in close proximity to the bottom of the device.[/QUOTE]
Yea, but in this case, it is local downforce to the rear of the car affecting the car's balance, hence the need for clarification, IMO.
- dow
Technically too, you could say that any spoiler functions as a wing, in that its overall effect on the shape of the entire car makes it a more autocross-friendly airfoil. Air still passes underneath the car, and thus underneath the device, so they're all wings in that respect. The only difference here is air passes underneath in two places, one in close proximity to the bottom of the device.[/QUOTE]
Yea, but in this case, it is local downforce to the rear of the car affecting the car's balance, hence the need for clarification, IMO.
- dow
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét