| boxerT | 07-17-2002 05:21 PM |
WRX Aluminum control arms - legal in STX?
Yes or No?
| ChrisW | 07-17-2002 06:46 PM |
no. Not legal for DS, STX, STS, DSP, or ESP.
This mod will effectively put you in SM or one of the modified classes.
Why? it's not a part that we can recieve on a WRX or RS that was part of the factory assembly.
Once the STI gets here, then we will be allowed under the update backdate rules to use these parts (and other STI goodies) in SP or above. Not sure about the update backdate rules under STX
This mod will effectively put you in SM or one of the modified classes.
Why? it's not a part that we can recieve on a WRX or RS that was part of the factory assembly.
Once the STI gets here, then we will be allowed under the update backdate rules to use these parts (and other STI goodies) in SP or above. Not sure about the update backdate rules under STX
| RK Performance | 07-18-2002 02:21 AM |
[QUOTE]Why? it's not a part that we can recieve on a WRX or RS that was part of the factory assembly. [/QUOTE]
ahhhh, maybe you could help me figure this one out...An aftermarket intake, high flow exhaust, coilovers, or many other parts aren't parts we can recieve from the factory. But they are legal in STS/STX. So what's up? Where do they draw the line in the street touring classes as far as mods...Something that will change suspention geometry is illegal, although just dropping is legal??? I guess I should read my rule book!!! But it doesn't seem to make since to me. Ugh, rules, rules, rules, gotta hate 'em.
ahhhh, maybe you could help me figure this one out...An aftermarket intake, high flow exhaust, coilovers, or many other parts aren't parts we can recieve from the factory. But they are legal in STS/STX. So what's up? Where do they draw the line in the street touring classes as far as mods...Something that will change suspention geometry is illegal, although just dropping is legal??? I guess I should read my rule book!!! But it doesn't seem to make since to me. Ugh, rules, rules, rules, gotta hate 'em.
| KC | 07-18-2002 08:14 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RK Performance [/i]
[B]
ahhhh, maybe you could help me figure this one out...An aftermarket intake, high flow exhaust, coilovers, or many other parts aren't parts we can recieve from the factory. But they are legal in STS/STX. So what's up? Where do they draw the line in the street touring classes as far as mods...Something that will change suspention geometry is illegal, although just dropping is legal??? I guess I should read my rule book!!! But it doesn't seem to make since to me. Ugh, rules, rules, rules, gotta hate 'em. [/B][/QUOTE]Swapping out a suspension is legal because almost everyone can get parts for thier car, hence coilovers, springs, sway bars, etc... are legal.
The reasoning behind the aluminum a-arms is "Why do you want them" or "What is the performance gained" They materially reduce weight. Not all cars can get them, therefore, it sort of unequalizes the playing field.
And I'd have to say, once the STi gets here, they STILL wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed because the STi is a special strain from from the regular WRX, made by a tuning company. In other words, the A-arms will not be an option on the regular WRX.
Example: Saleen Mustang. It's not legal to remove certain components from the Saleen and put them in the GT/Cobra because Saleen is a Tuner. You can order a Saleen from a Ford dealer, just as you'd be able to order an STi from a Subaru dealer, but some parts are not legally swappable. STi is the factory 'Tuner' for Subaru, akin to Saleen (or Roushe).
The line that exists is so that everyone across different models won't have one specific advantage over someone else who the parts they cannot get or add to their car, even though they may want to. The whole Pully/Dampner thing comes to mind. It comes down to what it's called in the service manual. And even then it can come under scrutiney. This is why some want to remove the 2,.5RS and turbos out of STS... because they cannot get their cars with AWD, Turbos and VC Limited slips. So, they want a 2wd class, no turbos, no limited slips, hoping it'll level the playing field. It won't though. The Civics will clean house and if you don't own a civic, don't even bother playing. (I have seen the future).
Moving these cars out thins the playing field, and makes the class much less competitive.
--kC
[B]
ahhhh, maybe you could help me figure this one out...An aftermarket intake, high flow exhaust, coilovers, or many other parts aren't parts we can recieve from the factory. But they are legal in STS/STX. So what's up? Where do they draw the line in the street touring classes as far as mods...Something that will change suspention geometry is illegal, although just dropping is legal??? I guess I should read my rule book!!! But it doesn't seem to make since to me. Ugh, rules, rules, rules, gotta hate 'em. [/B][/QUOTE]Swapping out a suspension is legal because almost everyone can get parts for thier car, hence coilovers, springs, sway bars, etc... are legal.
The reasoning behind the aluminum a-arms is "Why do you want them" or "What is the performance gained" They materially reduce weight. Not all cars can get them, therefore, it sort of unequalizes the playing field.
And I'd have to say, once the STi gets here, they STILL wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed because the STi is a special strain from from the regular WRX, made by a tuning company. In other words, the A-arms will not be an option on the regular WRX.
Example: Saleen Mustang. It's not legal to remove certain components from the Saleen and put them in the GT/Cobra because Saleen is a Tuner. You can order a Saleen from a Ford dealer, just as you'd be able to order an STi from a Subaru dealer, but some parts are not legally swappable. STi is the factory 'Tuner' for Subaru, akin to Saleen (or Roushe).
The line that exists is so that everyone across different models won't have one specific advantage over someone else who the parts they cannot get or add to their car, even though they may want to. The whole Pully/Dampner thing comes to mind. It comes down to what it's called in the service manual. And even then it can come under scrutiney. This is why some want to remove the 2,.5RS and turbos out of STS... because they cannot get their cars with AWD, Turbos and VC Limited slips. So, they want a 2wd class, no turbos, no limited slips, hoping it'll level the playing field. It won't though. The Civics will clean house and if you don't own a civic, don't even bother playing. (I have seen the future).
Moving these cars out thins the playing field, and makes the class much less competitive.
--kC
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 10:05 AM |
[quote]They materially reduce weight[/quote]
Actually a few people have weighed them and the stock peices, and they are the same weight. The advantage comes in stiffness.
Are they really illegal? They dont change the suspension mounting points or geometry.
Am I missing something?
[quote]Not all cars can get them, therefore, it sort of unequalizes the playing field. [/quote]
Nothing is preventing a e30/mini/mustang,etc driver to get some A arms custom fabbed if they arent available for their car.
I just dont understand the "if the other car cant have them neither can you"
[quote]Example: Saleen Mustang. It's not legal to remove certain components from the Saleen and put them in the GT/Cobra because Saleen is a Tuner[/quote]
? Sure its legal if its within the rules.
this isnt stock class or update/backdate. If a mustang driver wants to put a cobra suspension or SVT motor mounts on his mustang its completely legal, since it is within the rules
Now if the reason that they are illegal that you cant use different a-arms [i]at all[/i] then that is fine but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are STi
The rules are a bit vauge on this, it says that control arms can in fact be changed, but only to compensate for camber changes as a result of lowering the car.
Actually a few people have weighed them and the stock peices, and they are the same weight. The advantage comes in stiffness.
Are they really illegal? They dont change the suspension mounting points or geometry.
Am I missing something?
[quote]Not all cars can get them, therefore, it sort of unequalizes the playing field. [/quote]
Nothing is preventing a e30/mini/mustang,etc driver to get some A arms custom fabbed if they arent available for their car.
I just dont understand the "if the other car cant have them neither can you"
[quote]Example: Saleen Mustang. It's not legal to remove certain components from the Saleen and put them in the GT/Cobra because Saleen is a Tuner[/quote]
? Sure its legal if its within the rules.
this isnt stock class or update/backdate. If a mustang driver wants to put a cobra suspension or SVT motor mounts on his mustang its completely legal, since it is within the rules
Now if the reason that they are illegal that you cant use different a-arms [i]at all[/i] then that is fine but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are STi
The rules are a bit vauge on this, it says that control arms can in fact be changed, but only to compensate for camber changes as a result of lowering the car.
| 2QUICK4U | 07-18-2002 12:22 PM |
I completely agree with elgorey. And KC, you are completely off with the Saleen analogy. STi is not a tuner, they are the motorsport division of Subaru (hence Subaru Technica Intl), just like SVT, or AMG, or ///M for BMW, which do apply to the update/backdate rules.
| rosss | 07-18-2002 12:43 PM |
You're probably going to be screwed on the update/backdate anyway, since the STi and WRX probably won't be in the same SP class. In order to update/backdate in ST or SP, the different cars not only have to be in the same class, they have to be listed on the same line in the rule book. I doubt that's going to happen.
Sean
[url]www.subrew.com[/url]
Sean
[url]www.subrew.com[/url]
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 01:05 PM |
right, Im saying its [i]not[/i] update/backdate
| KC | 07-18-2002 01:53 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]I completely agree with elgorey. And KC, you are completely off with the Saleen analogy. STi is not a tuner, they are the motorsport division of Subaru (hence Subaru Technica Intl), just like SVT, or AMG, or ///M for BMW, which do apply to the update/backdate rules. [/B][/QUOTE]Crap, that's the point I was trying to make. Doh. I picked Saleen thinking of SVT. (Bad KC... slap... no bannana for you tonight). It's not legal to update a 325 with an M-Spec motor. That's along the lines I am talking about. If the M has different control arms, it's NOT legal to swap them out and call it update unless you want to go play in prepared.
As far as I understand, you cannot update a Non-M with specific M-Spec parts. I was thinking along those lines (unless it's in the rules...)
[quote]The advantage comes in stiffness[/quote] Not legal, even in SP or SM. Unless you wanted to go to Prepared If I could, it would mean I could custom fabricate almost anything that attaches to the suspension.
See here... suspension section: [url]http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead/prepcompare.htm[/url]
--kC
[B]I completely agree with elgorey. And KC, you are completely off with the Saleen analogy. STi is not a tuner, they are the motorsport division of Subaru (hence Subaru Technica Intl), just like SVT, or AMG, or ///M for BMW, which do apply to the update/backdate rules. [/B][/QUOTE]Crap, that's the point I was trying to make. Doh. I picked Saleen thinking of SVT. (Bad KC... slap... no bannana for you tonight). It's not legal to update a 325 with an M-Spec motor. That's along the lines I am talking about. If the M has different control arms, it's NOT legal to swap them out and call it update unless you want to go play in prepared.
As far as I understand, you cannot update a Non-M with specific M-Spec parts. I was thinking along those lines (unless it's in the rules...)
[quote]The advantage comes in stiffness[/quote] Not legal, even in SP or SM. Unless you wanted to go to Prepared If I could, it would mean I could custom fabricate almost anything that attaches to the suspension.
See here... suspension section: [url]http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead/prepcompare.htm[/url]
--kC
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 02:13 PM |
(you werent [i]that[/i] far off with the saleen analogy, you can in fact buy it at the dealer, its just not affiliated with ford)
oh ok, so basically control arm replacement arent allowed at all in any of the street classes? I was under the impression that suspension mods were (relatively) unlimited as long as the mounting points and geometry were kept the same.
[QUOTE]it would mean I could custom fabricate almost anything that attaches to the suspension.[/QUOTE]
yeah why not if it kept the same mounting points and geometry...?
[quote]See here... suspension section: [url]http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead/prepcompare.htm[/url][/quote]
I dont trust that simple checklist 100% Its a nice catchall, but doesnt really capture the rules that are a more specific and have conditions.
[url]http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Rules/street_touring.html[/url]
in the suspension section E
I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this rule:
"may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points. "
so technically you can replace control arms, [b]if[/b] it is to compensate for camber changes.
Personally, I would tend to say that this means the STi arms arent legal, since the intention of the STi arms is to stiffen the arms, not as a camber adjustment tool (how an arm would be used to correct camber I dont even know....)
Evan
-who is not planning on getting these and just debating this hypothetically
oh ok, so basically control arm replacement arent allowed at all in any of the street classes? I was under the impression that suspension mods were (relatively) unlimited as long as the mounting points and geometry were kept the same.
[QUOTE]it would mean I could custom fabricate almost anything that attaches to the suspension.[/QUOTE]
yeah why not if it kept the same mounting points and geometry...?
[quote]See here... suspension section: [url]http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead/prepcompare.htm[/url][/quote]
I dont trust that simple checklist 100% Its a nice catchall, but doesnt really capture the rules that are a more specific and have conditions.
[url]http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Rules/street_touring.html[/url]
in the suspension section E
I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this rule:
"may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points. "
so technically you can replace control arms, [b]if[/b] it is to compensate for camber changes.
Personally, I would tend to say that this means the STi arms arent legal, since the intention of the STi arms is to stiffen the arms, not as a camber adjustment tool (how an arm would be used to correct camber I dont even know....)
Evan
-who is not planning on getting these and just debating this hypothetically
| boxerT | 07-18-2002 02:28 PM |
So if aluminum control arms were not legal even in SM let alone STX, should a Supra Twin Turbo converted to a single turbo be legal in SM, or a WRX with a 2.5L motor for that matter?
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 02:35 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by boxerT [/i]
[B]So if aluminum control arms were not legal even in SM let alone STX, should a Supra Twin Turbo converted to a single turbo be legal in SM, or a WRX with a 2.5L motor for that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats totally different, engines made by the same manufacturer may be used, and forced induction is unlimited.
According to the chart that KC posted, the control arms are in fact legal for SM
under the "Unrestricted suspension using using original attachment points" SM has a check
[B]So if aluminum control arms were not legal even in SM let alone STX, should a Supra Twin Turbo converted to a single turbo be legal in SM, or a WRX with a 2.5L motor for that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats totally different, engines made by the same manufacturer may be used, and forced induction is unlimited.
According to the chart that KC posted, the control arms are in fact legal for SM
under the "Unrestricted suspension using using original attachment points" SM has a check
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 02:36 PM |
Interesting to note that on that chart, Silicone replacement hoses are checked as legal for STX, which would mean that the samco hoses are in fact legal.
| Orion | 07-18-2002 02:41 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by elgorey [/i]
[B]Interesting to note that on that chart, Silicone replacement hoses are checked as legal for STX, which would mean that the samco hoses are in fact legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
I believe it states the are legal as long as they have a similar performance level.
I'd argue that the BOV return and the Throttle body hose do NOT add any performance, but the Y pipe does.
[B]Interesting to note that on that chart, Silicone replacement hoses are checked as legal for STX, which would mean that the samco hoses are in fact legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
I believe it states the are legal as long as they have a similar performance level.
I'd argue that the BOV return and the Throttle body hose do NOT add any performance, but the Y pipe does.
| jeffg | 07-18-2002 03:08 PM |
Really this all comes down to a very simple solution.
If it is not specifically mentioned in the allowed modications for your SCCA class, then it is Illegal.
STX does not say you can change any control arms, so you are illegal with any control arms that are not stock.
J
If it is not specifically mentioned in the allowed modications for your SCCA class, then it is Illegal.
STX does not say you can change any control arms, so you are illegal with any control arms that are not stock.
J
| elgorey | 07-18-2002 03:13 PM |
read my above post. it does say they are legal under circumstances
| Tangmere | 07-18-2002 05:16 PM |
Good news for SM
According to the latest issue of Sportscar effective 1/1/03 the rules for SM will allow.
"The update/backdate allowance as inherited from the Street Prepared rules is extended to models of the same vehicle produced to non-American specifications. Parts from a (for example) Euro-spec vehicle may be thus exchanged with a US-spec vehicle of the same model and generation. As there is no praticla way to allow for all possible permutations of ligitimate update/backdate targets to be listed within these rules (as is done for Street Prepared) competitors must who make use of this allowance must be prepared to provide documentation that demonstrates the eligibility of update/backdate between their vehicle and the intended update/backdate target.
Impact structures and/or bumpers maybe updated/backdated, and/or given minor clearances to facilitate the installation of allowed parts (intercoolers, alternate facias, etc) but not completely removed. A ll vehicles are to retain front and rear impact structures."
"The update/backdate allowance as inherited from the Street Prepared rules is extended to models of the same vehicle produced to non-American specifications. Parts from a (for example) Euro-spec vehicle may be thus exchanged with a US-spec vehicle of the same model and generation. As there is no praticla way to allow for all possible permutations of ligitimate update/backdate targets to be listed within these rules (as is done for Street Prepared) competitors must who make use of this allowance must be prepared to provide documentation that demonstrates the eligibility of update/backdate between their vehicle and the intended update/backdate target.
Impact structures and/or bumpers maybe updated/backdated, and/or given minor clearances to facilitate the installation of allowed parts (intercoolers, alternate facias, etc) but not completely removed. A ll vehicles are to retain front and rear impact structures."
| KC | 07-18-2002 05:42 PM |
Oh that is soo sweet.
Hmmm 2.2 with an STi V5 conversion? :D
--kC
Hmmm 2.2 with an STi V5 conversion? :D
--kC
| ChrisW | 07-18-2002 07:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by elgorey [/i]
[B]Interesting to note that on that chart, Silicone replacement hoses are checked as legal for STX, which would mean that the samco hoses are in fact legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Only some of the hoses would be legal. under the rule, you could replace your radiator hoses, but not the Y hose under the intercooler. (intercooler mod, not legal for STX. Its the only reason I run ESP)
The question of the day is the inlet hose. Is it part of the air intake, or the turbo, or the intercooler?
[B]Interesting to note that on that chart, Silicone replacement hoses are checked as legal for STX, which would mean that the samco hoses are in fact legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Only some of the hoses would be legal. under the rule, you could replace your radiator hoses, but not the Y hose under the intercooler. (intercooler mod, not legal for STX. Its the only reason I run ESP)
The question of the day is the inlet hose. Is it part of the air intake, or the turbo, or the intercooler?
| 2QUICK4U | 07-18-2002 07:30 PM |
I still don't see how any of the hoses can be interpreted as illegal. Especially the inlet hose, which is definitely part of the intake tract. The hoses that connect to the intercooler are not part of the intercooler, just like the radiator hoses are part of the radiator. I think it is rediculous that upgrading a hose from rubber to a stronger silicon can be illegal. In my mind it is not even a performance mod, it's a reliability mod.
| Orion | 07-18-2002 08:20 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]I still don't see how any of the hoses can be interpreted as illegal. Especially the inlet hose, which is definitely part of the intake tract. The hoses that connect to the intercooler are not part of the intercooler, just like the radiator hoses are part of the radiator. I think it is rediculous that upgrading a hose from rubber to a stronger silicon can be illegal. In my mind it is not even a performance mod, it's a reliability mod. [/B][/QUOTE]
There's more than a few of us that believe the Y pipe is simply a hose and NOT part of the IC. I will not run the Y pipe in STX competition until the rule is clarified as to not attract a protest.
I do believe there is a slight performance improvement by swapping the Y pipe with the Samco piece, but it's just a hose that CONNECTS to the IC not an actual part of the IC.
[B]I still don't see how any of the hoses can be interpreted as illegal. Especially the inlet hose, which is definitely part of the intake tract. The hoses that connect to the intercooler are not part of the intercooler, just like the radiator hoses are part of the radiator. I think it is rediculous that upgrading a hose from rubber to a stronger silicon can be illegal. In my mind it is not even a performance mod, it's a reliability mod. [/B][/QUOTE]
There's more than a few of us that believe the Y pipe is simply a hose and NOT part of the IC. I will not run the Y pipe in STX competition until the rule is clarified as to not attract a protest.
I do believe there is a slight performance improvement by swapping the Y pipe with the Samco piece, but it's just a hose that CONNECTS to the IC not an actual part of the IC.
| ChrisW | 07-18-2002 11:43 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by orionf [/i]
[B]
There's more than a few of us that believe the Y pipe is simply a hose and NOT part of the IC. I will not run the Y pipe in STX competition until the rule is clarified as to not attract a protest.
I do believe there is a slight performance improvement by swapping the Y pipe with the Samco piece, but it's just a hose that CONNECTS to the IC not an actual part of the IC. [/B][/QUOTE]
Belive what ever you want. But when you take off the intercooler, what hose is phsically attached to the intercooler?
[SIZE=1]Hint: Anything going from the turbocharger to the throttle body is considered part of the intercooling system... Somthing you can't touch under the STX rules.[/SIZE]
[B]
There's more than a few of us that believe the Y pipe is simply a hose and NOT part of the IC. I will not run the Y pipe in STX competition until the rule is clarified as to not attract a protest.
I do believe there is a slight performance improvement by swapping the Y pipe with the Samco piece, but it's just a hose that CONNECTS to the IC not an actual part of the IC. [/B][/QUOTE]
Belive what ever you want. But when you take off the intercooler, what hose is phsically attached to the intercooler?
[SIZE=1]Hint: Anything going from the turbocharger to the throttle body is considered part of the intercooling system... Somthing you can't touch under the STX rules.[/SIZE]
| KC | 07-19-2002 08:15 AM |
Chris has it correctly. Talking about SCCA allowable mods are starting to become like talking about religion. Everyone has their own belief. But in this case, there's only one bible of which we all must abide. :D
--kC
--kC
| Orion | 07-19-2002 08:18 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW [/i]
[B]
Belive what ever you want. But when you take off the intercooler, what hose is physically attached to the intercooler?
[SIZE=1]Hint: Anything going from the turbocharger to the throttle body is considered part of the intercooling system... Something you can't touch under the STX rules.[/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]
Then they need to re-write the rule to say [i]intercooling system[/i] as opposed to [i]intercooler[/i].;)
As I mentioned before, [b]I[/b] will not be running [b]any[/b] IC hoses in STX at any level. I'm sure there will be some people pushing the issue since the silicone hose rule is there.
I do hope they clean up the rules for next year as they seem to leave the door open too much to speculation this year.
[B]
Belive what ever you want. But when you take off the intercooler, what hose is physically attached to the intercooler?
[SIZE=1]Hint: Anything going from the turbocharger to the throttle body is considered part of the intercooling system... Something you can't touch under the STX rules.[/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]
Then they need to re-write the rule to say [i]intercooling system[/i] as opposed to [i]intercooler[/i].;)
As I mentioned before, [b]I[/b] will not be running [b]any[/b] IC hoses in STX at any level. I'm sure there will be some people pushing the issue since the silicone hose rule is there.
I do hope they clean up the rules for next year as they seem to leave the door open too much to speculation this year.
| ChrisW | 07-19-2002 10:29 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by orionf [/i]
[B]
Then they need to re-write the rule to say [i]intercooling system[/i] as opposed to [i]intercooler[/i].;)
[/b]
Agreed.
[b]
As I mentioned before, [b]I[/b] will not be running [b]any[/b] IC hoses in STX at any level. I'm sure there will be some people pushing the issue since the silicone hose rule is there.
[/b]
You might not, but your right in your assumption about others.
[b]
I do hope they clean up the rules for next year as they seem to leave the door open too much to speculation this year. [/B][/QUOTE]
I would say get used to it. If you take a conservative view of the rule book, then some of the rules start making sense. If you look at it with this anti-turbo attitude, then the rules are crystal clear.:rolleyes:
[B]
Then they need to re-write the rule to say [i]intercooling system[/i] as opposed to [i]intercooler[/i].;)
[/b]
Agreed.
[b]
As I mentioned before, [b]I[/b] will not be running [b]any[/b] IC hoses in STX at any level. I'm sure there will be some people pushing the issue since the silicone hose rule is there.
[/b]
You might not, but your right in your assumption about others.
[b]
I do hope they clean up the rules for next year as they seem to leave the door open too much to speculation this year. [/B][/QUOTE]
I would say get used to it. If you take a conservative view of the rule book, then some of the rules start making sense. If you look at it with this anti-turbo attitude, then the rules are crystal clear.:rolleyes:
| 2QUICK4U | 07-19-2002 10:51 AM |
Last night I went home and read through the rulebook again. I guess Chris I agree that it could be the point of view you are looking at it from, Turbo guy or anti-turbo guy.
But, the way I interpret it is that the stock rules say "any silicon hose may be used"... "where it does not conflict with section 13" of which the Samco hoses in no way do. So it comes down to the intercooler, and like orionf said, the rule does not say intercooler system. Which I think is pretty clear that means no actual changes to the unit itself.
So my question to those who think the Samco hoses are illegal is, when I show up to Nationals with the Samco hoses on, what will your protest be based on?
But, the way I interpret it is that the stock rules say "any silicon hose may be used"... "where it does not conflict with section 13" of which the Samco hoses in no way do. So it comes down to the intercooler, and like orionf said, the rule does not say intercooler system. Which I think is pretty clear that means no actual changes to the unit itself.
So my question to those who think the Samco hoses are illegal is, when I show up to Nationals with the Samco hoses on, what will your protest be based on?
| Orion | 07-19-2002 10:59 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]Last night I went home and read through the rulebook again. I guess Chris I agree that it could be the point of view you are looking at it from, Turbo guy or anti-turbo guy.
But, the way I interpret it is that the stock rules say "any silicon hose may be used"... "where it does not conflict with section 13" of which the Samco hoses in no way do. So it comes down to the intercooler, and like orionf said, the rule does not say intercooler system. Which I think is pretty clear that means no actual changes to the unit itself.
So my question to those who think the Samco hoses are illegal is, when I show up to Nationals with the Samco hoses on, what will your protest be based on? [/B][/QUOTE]
Good question!:)
I can't wait to hear an answer...
Also, if we look at it with my perspective, what does that mean for the BOV? Everytime I've seen the statement about BOV's being illegal it's due to the 'intercooler' rule also.
[B]Last night I went home and read through the rulebook again. I guess Chris I agree that it could be the point of view you are looking at it from, Turbo guy or anti-turbo guy.
But, the way I interpret it is that the stock rules say "any silicon hose may be used"... "where it does not conflict with section 13" of which the Samco hoses in no way do. So it comes down to the intercooler, and like orionf said, the rule does not say intercooler system. Which I think is pretty clear that means no actual changes to the unit itself.
So my question to those who think the Samco hoses are illegal is, when I show up to Nationals with the Samco hoses on, what will your protest be based on? [/B][/QUOTE]
Good question!:)
I can't wait to hear an answer...
Also, if we look at it with my perspective, what does that mean for the BOV? Everytime I've seen the statement about BOV's being illegal it's due to the 'intercooler' rule also.
| WHTWRX | 07-19-2002 11:34 AM |
Has anyone compiled a list of the items you can modify on your WRX and stay in STX?
I've looked over the SCCA STX rules (from the SportsCar mag, posted on various websites). These are SOOOOOOOOO vague to me.
I'd hate to spend a lot of $$ and find out I screwed the pooch!
I've looked over the SCCA STX rules (from the SportsCar mag, posted on various websites). These are SOOOOOOOOO vague to me.
I'd hate to spend a lot of $$ and find out I screwed the pooch!
| Orion | 07-19-2002 11:39 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHTWRX [/i]
[B]Has anyone compiled a list of the items you can modify on your WRX and stay in STX?
I've looked over the SCCA STX rules (from the SportsCar mag, posted on various websites). These are SOOOOOOOOO vague to me.
I'd hate to spend a lot of $$ and find out I screwed the pooch! [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think there's been a list of allowable mods, yet. Most info points out what you can't use.
If you haven't checked the AutoX rules sticky above, try there.
[B]Has anyone compiled a list of the items you can modify on your WRX and stay in STX?
I've looked over the SCCA STX rules (from the SportsCar mag, posted on various websites). These are SOOOOOOOOO vague to me.
I'd hate to spend a lot of $$ and find out I screwed the pooch! [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think there's been a list of allowable mods, yet. Most info points out what you can't use.
If you haven't checked the AutoX rules sticky above, try there.
| gary p | 07-19-2002 01:36 PM |
Over the years, more than one inquizative idivdual has actully protested [i]themselves[/i] in order to force the SCCA to rule one way or the other on a "gray area" mod. Any takers for Nationals, somebody who doesn't expect to finish in the trophies?
| 2QUICK4U | 07-19-2002 01:44 PM |
I'm planning on winning! :D
That's why I want to know if you guys are going to protest or not over a silicon hose :rolleyes: .
That's why I want to know if you guys are going to protest or not over a silicon hose :rolleyes: .
| Warp3 | 07-19-2002 02:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by elgorey [/i]
[B]I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this rule:
"may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points. "
so technically you can replace control arms, [b]if[/b] it is to compensate for camber changes.
Personally, I would tend to say that this means the STi arms arent legal, since the intention of the STi arms is to stiffen the arms, not as a camber adjustment tool (how an arm would be used to correct camber I dont even know....)[/B][/QUOTE]
That was also taken out of context. The full rule is:
[B]"Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points."[/B]
Subarus use "McPherson strut type suspensions" so this rule doesn't even apply to us. We follow the one a few rules up that allows cars with "McPherson strut type suspensions" to fix their camber via upper strut mounts. Basically, those rules are intended to make sure all cars in the class can the fix camber changes associated with lowering.
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
STS 729 -- CCar Region
[B]I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this rule:
"may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points. "
so technically you can replace control arms, [b]if[/b] it is to compensate for camber changes.
Personally, I would tend to say that this means the STi arms arent legal, since the intention of the STi arms is to stiffen the arms, not as a camber adjustment tool (how an arm would be used to correct camber I dont even know....)[/B][/QUOTE]
That was also taken out of context. The full rule is:
[B]"Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points."[/B]
Subarus use "McPherson strut type suspensions" so this rule doesn't even apply to us. We follow the one a few rules up that allows cars with "McPherson strut type suspensions" to fix their camber via upper strut mounts. Basically, those rules are intended to make sure all cars in the class can the fix camber changes associated with lowering.
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
STS 729 -- CCar Region
| KC | 07-19-2002 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 2QUICK4U [/i]
[B]I'm planning on winning! :D
That's why I want to know if you guys are going to protest or not over a silicon hose :rolleyes: . [/B][/QUOTE]Aren't we all? :D
If you beat me by .001, I'm gonna protest yer ass. :D Hehe :devil:
--kC
[B]I'm planning on winning! :D
That's why I want to know if you guys are going to protest or not over a silicon hose :rolleyes: . [/B][/QUOTE]Aren't we all? :D
If you beat me by .001, I'm gonna protest yer ass. :D Hehe :devil:
--kC
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét