| Orion | 08-01-2002 02:12 PM |
Solo II STX-specific debate
OK, so IC sprayers are illegal, but what about spraying down your IC [b]in the pits[/b] with water [b]between[/b] runs?
At our regional events the drivers of just about every turbo'd car (not just Subies) is out of the car using a bug sprayer full of water to help cool the IC after every run. Obviously no one is protesting them at the Regionals but is it protestable at Divisionals and higher?
Basically, is this legal at all?
At our regional events the drivers of just about every turbo'd car (not just Subies) is out of the car using a bug sprayer full of water to help cool the IC after every run. Obviously no one is protesting them at the Regionals but is it protestable at Divisionals and higher?
Basically, is this legal at all?
| Gary (gg) | 08-01-2002 02:52 PM |
It it legal for all solo2 events.
| KC | 08-01-2002 03:03 PM |
I concur. It's legal. :)
| CamaroFS34 | 08-01-2002 03:07 PM |
Re: Solo II STX-specific debate
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by orionf [/i]
[B]OK, so IC sprayers are illegal... [/B][/QUOTE]Where did you see this?
Karen
[B]OK, so IC sprayers are illegal... [/B][/QUOTE]Where did you see this?
Karen
| TyrannoSullyRex | 08-01-2002 03:08 PM |
dammit, Orion I've told you a hundred times, it's legal!!!
:D
:D
| WRXster | 08-01-2002 03:40 PM |
Of course you should be careful not to spray so much water that it dribbles over onto your competitors tires. THey get so fussy about that...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Gary (gg) [/i]
[B]It it legal for all solo2 events. [/B][/QUOTE]
I find a 10 lb bag of ice sits right on top, I'm a stock WRX, doesn't drip much and really chills the IC if you leave it there long enuff. Pop it back in the chest between runs.
Ah, Houston area probably needs one bag per run :)
Hot hot hot!!!
Kimball
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Gary (gg) [/i]
[B]It it legal for all solo2 events. [/B][/QUOTE]
I find a 10 lb bag of ice sits right on top, I'm a stock WRX, doesn't drip much and really chills the IC if you leave it there long enuff. Pop it back in the chest between runs.
Ah, Houston area probably needs one bag per run :)
Hot hot hot!!!
Kimball
| ChrisW | 08-01-2002 03:43 PM |
It's legal. I do it all the time.
It is especially helpful when you have multiple drivers. I have seen a few national champions spray down their tires too. With multiple drivers it also helps to spray down the tires to cool them down.
It is especially helpful when you have multiple drivers. I have seen a few national champions spray down their tires too. With multiple drivers it also helps to spray down the tires to cool them down.
| Orion | 08-01-2002 04:02 PM |
Re: Re: Solo II STX-specific debate
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CamaroFS34 [/i]
[B]Where did you see this?
Karen [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm... Good question.
I think I may have been mixed up with SP's 14.10 C. "The use of chilled liquids... ...is prohibited."
I'll have to go through the Fastracks to get the full STX rules.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW [/i]
[B]It's legal. I do it all the time.
It is especially helpful when you have multiple drivers. I have seen a few national champions spray down their tires too. With multiple drivers it also helps to spray down the tires to cool them down. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is the exact reason I was asking. My Nats co-driver will be in the car for the SW Div. #2 also.
There was some debate locally and I wanted to clear it up before next weekend's (Aug. 10-11) SW Divisional.
Thanks! See y'all in Topeka with my water!
:)
[B]Where did you see this?
Karen [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm... Good question.
I think I may have been mixed up with SP's 14.10 C. "The use of chilled liquids... ...is prohibited."
I'll have to go through the Fastracks to get the full STX rules.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW [/i]
[B]It's legal. I do it all the time.
It is especially helpful when you have multiple drivers. I have seen a few national champions spray down their tires too. With multiple drivers it also helps to spray down the tires to cool them down. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is the exact reason I was asking. My Nats co-driver will be in the car for the SW Div. #2 also.
There was some debate locally and I wanted to clear it up before next weekend's (Aug. 10-11) SW Divisional.
Thanks! See y'all in Topeka with my water!
:)
| trhoppe | 08-01-2002 04:22 PM |
I spray down the intercooler, radiator and tires HEAVILY at the Pros. Its legal and everyone does it.
-Tom
-Tom
| Patrick L | 08-01-2002 05:02 PM |
Heck, go get some dry ice for the TMIC.
That's even better.
Pat Lipsinic
STS #95
That's even better.
Pat Lipsinic
STS #95
| Xio | 08-01-2002 05:41 PM |
Orion- I'm fairly sure you are correct in your assessment of in-car IC watersprayer. The reason is that the water runs out the bottom of the car onto the track.
Spraying water from a lawn sprayer, bag of ice, etc, while in the pits is OK as long as you aren't dripping on the way to the startline.
Spraying water from a lawn sprayer, bag of ice, etc, while in the pits is OK as long as you aren't dripping on the way to the startline.
| KC | 08-01-2002 07:29 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xio [/i]
[B]Orion- I'm fairly sure you are correct in your assessment of in-car IC watersprayer. The reason is that the water runs out the bottom of the car onto the track. [/B][/QUOTE] I'll expand a little more to this.
There exists the POSSIBILITY with a mounted IC Sprayer that one could use it on the course, which would be illegal if it dripped onto the 140 degree asphalt that will evaporate it within 20 seconds. :D
In short: it could put water on the course. (No benefits to turbo cars at all) :D
--kC
[B]Orion- I'm fairly sure you are correct in your assessment of in-car IC watersprayer. The reason is that the water runs out the bottom of the car onto the track. [/B][/QUOTE] I'll expand a little more to this.
There exists the POSSIBILITY with a mounted IC Sprayer that one could use it on the course, which would be illegal if it dripped onto the 140 degree asphalt that will evaporate it within 20 seconds. :D
In short: it could put water on the course. (No benefits to turbo cars at all) :D
--kC
| 2QUICK4U | 08-02-2002 12:49 PM |
anyone interested in revisiting the topic of IC hoses, and the turbo inlet hose?
| Orion | 08-02-2002 01:52 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]anyone interested in revisiting the topic of IC hoses, and the turbo inlet hose? [/B][/QUOTE]
Turbo inlet = legal
IC hoses (any of the 3) = illegal, although Silicone hoses are if they are not performance enhancing. :confused:
[B]anyone interested in revisiting the topic of IC hoses, and the turbo inlet hose? [/B][/QUOTE]
Turbo inlet = legal
IC hoses (any of the 3) = illegal, although Silicone hoses are if they are not performance enhancing. :confused:
| 2QUICK4U | 08-02-2002 02:09 PM |
who has officially proven/determined the IC hoses to be performance enhancing.
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence."
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence."
| trhoppe | 08-02-2002 02:13 PM |
All I have to say is go ahead and run them in STX if you want.
If you get protested its up to whoever protests you to prove that they are "performance enhancing".
Compare them to the stock unit side by side and you will see that they are much bigger and flow much smoother, therefore enhancing performance.
-Tom
If you get protested its up to whoever protests you to prove that they are "performance enhancing".
Compare them to the stock unit side by side and you will see that they are much bigger and flow much smoother, therefore enhancing performance.
-Tom
| 2QUICK4U | 08-02-2002 02:18 PM |
I'm planning on it, I'm just trying to do all the research I can, and get everyones point of view. I'm not planning on driving all the way from San Diego to get DQ'd.
I haven't felt any real improvement from them, but I replaced them when I blew one of the stock hoses off, under heavy acceleration while left foot braking. (didn't actuallu blow the hose, but the seal cam loose, it was probably just not tight)
I haven't felt any real improvement from them, but I replaced them when I blew one of the stock hoses off, under heavy acceleration while left foot braking. (didn't actuallu blow the hose, but the seal cam loose, it was probably just not tight)
| trhoppe | 08-02-2002 02:27 PM |
IMHO I would take them off. If I was in STX and you had the IC hoses and you beat me by less than 0.5 secs and I was in a crappy mood, I would protest you.
Thats just my opinion.
You could always search around. I think someone did some before and after dyno tests and they showed quite a few hp to the wheels.
-Tom
Thats just my opinion.
You could always search around. I think someone did some before and after dyno tests and they showed quite a few hp to the wheels.
-Tom
| Orion | 08-02-2002 02:32 PM |
Honestly, I'd just run the throttle body and BOV return hose, but not the Y pipe. The other 2 offer no advantage over the OEM hoses.
I can try to dig up some dyno info on the Y pipe if need be. Changing the Y pipe alone showed a gain that I'd estimate is well beyond the accepted % error of back to back runs of a bone stock vehicle.
I'd probably be forced to protest as Tom said.
I can try to dig up some dyno info on the Y pipe if need be. Changing the Y pipe alone showed a gain that I'd estimate is well beyond the accepted % error of back to back runs of a bone stock vehicle.
I'd probably be forced to protest as Tom said.
| Orion | 08-02-2002 03:12 PM |
Here's a thread by Shiv at Vishnu: [url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142272&highlight=Samco+hoses+dyno+gains[/url]
[QUOTE][b]Stock Y-Pipe vs. Samco silicon Y-Pipe[/b]
Also, as expected, the Samco piece increased flow of the stock IC measureably. At 35" of vacuum (we also tested at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 47"), airflow increased by 14.2%. You could actuall hear the difference in airflow sound. The stock pipe was noisy and turbulent while the Samco pipe was deep and smooth.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][b]Stock Y-Pipe vs. Samco silicon Y-Pipe[/b]
Also, as expected, the Samco piece increased flow of the stock IC measureably. At 35" of vacuum (we also tested at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 47"), airflow increased by 14.2%. You could actuall hear the difference in airflow sound. The stock pipe was noisy and turbulent while the Samco pipe was deep and smooth.
[/QUOTE]
| KC | 08-02-2002 06:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]who has officially proven/determined the IC hoses to be performance enhancing.
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence." [/B][/QUOTE]This rule exists so you can purchase other hoses (Acme) other than paying out the nose for OEM hoses. As long as they are the same size, shape, location and performance equivelant.
[B]who has officially proven/determined the IC hoses to be performance enhancing.
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence." [/B][/QUOTE]This rule exists so you can purchase other hoses (Acme) other than paying out the nose for OEM hoses. As long as they are the same size, shape, location and performance equivelant.
| ChrisW | 08-02-2002 08:41 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]who has officially proven/determined the IC hoses to be performance enhancing.
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence." [/B][/QUOTE]
IC hoses are not legal.... You cannot change any part of the intercooler system for STX. It has to be stock.
[QUOTE]
Stock Y-Pipe vs. Samco silicon Y-Pipe
Also, as expected, the Samco piece increased flow of the stock IC measureably. At 35" of vacuum (we also tested at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 47"), airflow increased by 14.2%. You could actuall hear the difference in airflow sound. The stock pipe was noisy and turbulent while the Samco pipe was deep and smooth.
[/QUOTE]
The difference in airflow is enough to get you protested despite the fact that anything going from the turbo to the IC is considered part of the IC.... I went through this again and again with my DSM, the WRX is no different.
Until I see a definative statement on the issue by the SEB, I will maintian my position on this.
The part physically bolts onto the IC, the mod is not legal for STX.
Like KC said, as long as the part is for APEARANCE ONLY and does not increase or change the airflow to the IC then it is legal.
[edit]
come on guys... what is it, are you afraid of running ESP or something?
[B]who has officially proven/determined the IC hoses to be performance enhancing.
Stock Class Rule 13.10.J.
"Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components, provided they meet the requirements of section 13.0 with regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence." [/B][/QUOTE]
IC hoses are not legal.... You cannot change any part of the intercooler system for STX. It has to be stock.
[QUOTE]
Stock Y-Pipe vs. Samco silicon Y-Pipe
Also, as expected, the Samco piece increased flow of the stock IC measureably. At 35" of vacuum (we also tested at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 47"), airflow increased by 14.2%. You could actuall hear the difference in airflow sound. The stock pipe was noisy and turbulent while the Samco pipe was deep and smooth.
[/QUOTE]
The difference in airflow is enough to get you protested despite the fact that anything going from the turbo to the IC is considered part of the IC.... I went through this again and again with my DSM, the WRX is no different.
Until I see a definative statement on the issue by the SEB, I will maintian my position on this.
The part physically bolts onto the IC, the mod is not legal for STX.
Like KC said, as long as the part is for APEARANCE ONLY and does not increase or change the airflow to the IC then it is legal.
[edit]
come on guys... what is it, are you afraid of running ESP or something?
| 2QUICK4U | 08-03-2002 06:27 PM |
Actually, I currently run ESP, but only because we don't have STX in my region.
Even though I still disagree, I guess I'm going to have to choose my battles wisely. I appreciate your honesty guys, looks like I'll be running the OEM hoses at Nationals. It's not worth the 4000 mile round trip to get DQ'd.
Even though I still disagree, I guess I'm going to have to choose my battles wisely. I appreciate your honesty guys, looks like I'll be running the OEM hoses at Nationals. It's not worth the 4000 mile round trip to get DQ'd.
| Orion | 08-04-2002 11:32 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]Actually, I currently run ESP, but only because we don't have STX in my region.
Even though I still disagree, I guess I'm going to have to choose my battles wisely. I appreciate your honesty guys, looks like I'll be running the OEM hoses at Nationals. It's not worth the 4000 mile round trip to get DQ'd. [/B][/QUOTE]
Goo idea.;) Glad we can keep it on a friendly level. :)
I'm just wondering what's gonna happen concerning the exhaust issue. What turbo-backs are going to be legal with the "cats can be replaced with hi-flow ones as long as they are within 6" of the primary cat"???
By that definition any turbo back with a catless DP is illegal, correct?
[B]Actually, I currently run ESP, but only because we don't have STX in my region.
Even though I still disagree, I guess I'm going to have to choose my battles wisely. I appreciate your honesty guys, looks like I'll be running the OEM hoses at Nationals. It's not worth the 4000 mile round trip to get DQ'd. [/B][/QUOTE]
Goo idea.;) Glad we can keep it on a friendly level. :)
I'm just wondering what's gonna happen concerning the exhaust issue. What turbo-backs are going to be legal with the "cats can be replaced with hi-flow ones as long as they are within 6" of the primary cat"???
By that definition any turbo back with a catless DP is illegal, correct?
| ChrisW | 08-04-2002 12:08 PM |
sorry if my post offended.... Guess the frustration of not being able to go to the nationals is showing through, sorry... :(
FWIW, I run ESP on the regional level too...;) If I was going to the nationals, I would most likely run STX.
FWIW, I run ESP on the regional level too...;) If I was going to the nationals, I would most likely run STX.
| 2QUICK4U | 08-04-2002 01:26 PM |
Orion,
as far as the exhaust issue is concerned, that is my understanding as well. As long is there is a cat in the downpipe it should be legal.
Anyone else have any comments on the exhaust? What are you guys running? I have the MRT.
as far as the exhaust issue is concerned, that is my understanding as well. As long is there is a cat in the downpipe it should be legal.
Anyone else have any comments on the exhaust? What are you guys running? I have the MRT.
| Orion | 08-04-2002 04:10 PM |
Stock DP, Scoobysport front and rear center sections, and TurboXS muffler. I have a Stage 1 Unichip, but it's coming out of the car today for next weekends SW Divisional. Gotta love the ability to adapt! We don't have STX here (yet) but we have a ST Unlimited that I run in.
| trhoppe | 08-04-2002 05:55 PM |
[QUOTE]By that definition any turbo back with a catless DP is illegal, correct?[/QUOTE] NO!
If you read into the rule it states that the replacement cat must be within 6" of the MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom
If you read into the rule it states that the replacement cat must be within 6" of the MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom
| dwx | 08-04-2002 07:00 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B] NO!
If you read into the rule it states that the replacement cat must be within 6" of the MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
YES!
That rule was superceded by the clarification in the June fastrack which reads:
"The "pre-cat(s)" and primary catalytic converter may all be replaced by a single converter, provided the resultant configuration meets Federal emissions inspection standards at
normal vehicle operation temperature."
The spirit of that rule is you can replace all/any of the cats in the WRX with a single cat. The "pre-cat" covers both the uppipe cat and the downpipe cat. Our primary cat is the third one in the midpipe. To meet federal emissions standards you'd need one in either the downpipe or midpipe.
[B] NO!
If you read into the rule it states that the replacement cat must be within 6" of the MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
YES!
That rule was superceded by the clarification in the June fastrack which reads:
"The "pre-cat(s)" and primary catalytic converter may all be replaced by a single converter, provided the resultant configuration meets Federal emissions inspection standards at
normal vehicle operation temperature."
The spirit of that rule is you can replace all/any of the cats in the WRX with a single cat. The "pre-cat" covers both the uppipe cat and the downpipe cat. Our primary cat is the third one in the midpipe. To meet federal emissions standards you'd need one in either the downpipe or midpipe.
| Orion | 08-05-2002 08:21 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B] NO!
...MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the info I wasn't sure of. Is it because the sensor is in it?
This opens the door for TurboXS and Scoobysport DP's that are catless but utilize a high flow cat attaching to the end of the DP.
I had been thinking of getting the Ss DP but wasn't sure of legality.
[B] NO!
...MAIN catalytic converter which happens to be our 3rd one.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the info I wasn't sure of. Is it because the sensor is in it?
This opens the door for TurboXS and Scoobysport DP's that are catless but utilize a high flow cat attaching to the end of the DP.
I had been thinking of getting the Ss DP but wasn't sure of legality.
| TheWRX | 08-05-2002 09:44 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dwx [/i]
[B]"The "pre-cat(s)" and primary catalytic converter may all be replaced by a single converter, provided the resultant configuration meets Federal emissions inspection standards at
normal vehicle operation temperature."[/B][/QUOTE]
I was never sure if this rule is an addition to the existing rule, or if it replaces it. If it's a replacement for the old rule, this one doesn't say anything about 6", so the high-flow cat could be anywhere you want. If it's an addition, we really need a definition of "main".
[B]"The "pre-cat(s)" and primary catalytic converter may all be replaced by a single converter, provided the resultant configuration meets Federal emissions inspection standards at
normal vehicle operation temperature."[/B][/QUOTE]
I was never sure if this rule is an addition to the existing rule, or if it replaces it. If it's a replacement for the old rule, this one doesn't say anything about 6", so the high-flow cat could be anywhere you want. If it's an addition, we really need a definition of "main".
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét