| KC | 06-22-2004 02:11 PM |
August FasTrack is out
�
�
[url]http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/04-08-fastrack.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE]The previously-published proposal to move all AWD vehicles to STX is still under consideration. The SEB has indicated that this proposal is based on conceptual consistency within each of the ST classes, not necessarily on the performance of the affected vehicles.[/QUOTE]
I still see the word 'ALL' beng used. Why do you guys think I'm paranoid? If they're want to work on the conception of the class as a whole and moving "ALL" AWD vehicles in to fit a concept, the wording still needs 'some work'. Still doesn't look like it's just STS here... especially the way this is worded.
[QUOTE]The STAC has recommended the following rule change proposal, effective 1/1/2005 and submitted here for member comment:
ITEM 12) Add to 14.11.A.8: "Replacement brake components must have weights equal to or greater than those of the standard parts, respectively (e.g. caliper-caliper, rotor-rotor)."[/QUOTE]
Looks like they want to remove why people buy big brake kits... for removal of unsprung weight.
Yep... I can prety much say this is my last year with this class.
I know these are proposals... and they're seeking member feedback... but 1st seats with airbags, then big brake kits/rotors, what's next?
There's more Items on the table in the fastrack than this... but this is just what I felt like commenting on. ;)
E-Mail addresses:
[email][email�protected][/email]
[email][email�protected][/email]
--kC
[QUOTE]The previously-published proposal to move all AWD vehicles to STX is still under consideration. The SEB has indicated that this proposal is based on conceptual consistency within each of the ST classes, not necessarily on the performance of the affected vehicles.[/QUOTE]
I still see the word 'ALL' beng used. Why do you guys think I'm paranoid? If they're want to work on the conception of the class as a whole and moving "ALL" AWD vehicles in to fit a concept, the wording still needs 'some work'. Still doesn't look like it's just STS here... especially the way this is worded.
[QUOTE]The STAC has recommended the following rule change proposal, effective 1/1/2005 and submitted here for member comment:
ITEM 12) Add to 14.11.A.8: "Replacement brake components must have weights equal to or greater than those of the standard parts, respectively (e.g. caliper-caliper, rotor-rotor)."[/QUOTE]
Looks like they want to remove why people buy big brake kits... for removal of unsprung weight.
Yep... I can prety much say this is my last year with this class.
I know these are proposals... and they're seeking member feedback... but 1st seats with airbags, then big brake kits/rotors, what's next?
There's more Items on the table in the fastrack than this... but this is just what I felt like commenting on. ;)
E-Mail addresses:
[email][email�protected][/email]
[email][email�protected][/email]
--kC
| zzyzx | 06-22-2004 02:20 PM |
Motorized bar stools are no longer allowed. :(
- Steve
- Steve
| Orion | 06-22-2004 02:26 PM |
Re: August FasTrack is out
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B][url]http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/04-08-fastrack.pdf[/url]
I still see the word 'ALL' beng used. Why do you guys think I'm paranoid? If they're want to work on the conception of the class as a whole and moving "ALL" AWD vehicles in to fit a concept, the wording still needs 'some work'. Still doesn't look like it's just STS here... especially the way this is worded.
Looks like they want to remove why people buy big brake kits... for removal of unsprung weight.
Yep... I can prety much say this is my last year with this class.
I know these are proposals... and they're seeking member feedback... but 1st seats with airbags, then big brake kits/rotors, what's next?
There's more Items on the table in the fastrack than this... but this is just what I felt like commenting on. ;)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm with ya.
Looks like I may be headed to DS according to Stock Item 11.;)
[B][url]http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/04-08-fastrack.pdf[/url]
I still see the word 'ALL' beng used. Why do you guys think I'm paranoid? If they're want to work on the conception of the class as a whole and moving "ALL" AWD vehicles in to fit a concept, the wording still needs 'some work'. Still doesn't look like it's just STS here... especially the way this is worded.
Looks like they want to remove why people buy big brake kits... for removal of unsprung weight.
Yep... I can prety much say this is my last year with this class.
I know these are proposals... and they're seeking member feedback... but 1st seats with airbags, then big brake kits/rotors, what's next?
There's more Items on the table in the fastrack than this... but this is just what I felt like commenting on. ;)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm with ya.
Looks like I may be headed to DS according to Stock Item 11.;)
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 02:53 PM |
Wow, another letter sent :rolleyes:
-Tom
-Tom
| KC | 06-22-2004 02:57 PM |
Oh yeah... whatever happened to "Rules Stability?"
| del105 | 06-22-2004 03:12 PM |
Doug Gill just responded to me yesterday about the July fasttrack complaints and now I have to send complaints about august. :mad:
I'm just wondering what they are trying to get at, besides clearing out the ST classes?
I'm just wondering what they are trying to get at, besides clearing out the ST classes?
| TyrannoSullyRex | 06-22-2004 03:18 PM |
might as well throw all the required e-mail addresses up there KC
| jcroy66 | 06-22-2004 03:21 PM |
Vince Bly said this weekend that he feels strongly that the ST* classes should be classes in which a competitor could race a streetable car and not feel like they're at a significant disadvantage because they don't trailer their car (and that he understands that some people might CHOOSE to trailer their car for convenience, etc, but that he feels that the class should not require it).
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you.
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you.
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 03:22 PM |
I am writing this letter to the SEB about item # 12 in the August Fastrack. I do not believe that a rule such as this has any place in STX where currently brake components are open. Any aftermarket upgraded brake component available for any new car will weigh less then the standard OEM components. Adding this rule will prohibit anyone from modifying their brake system at all. Even OEM "replacement" rotors, which are much cheaper then their full OEM counterparts, are usually lighter then the stock units, especially if they are cross drilled or slotted. Having a rule such as this would require competitors to purchase the more expensive OEM rotors while competing in a class where supposedly "brake components are free". Last but not least, any current STX car that has upgraded their brake component in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, will be illegal if this rule is applied.
5 Examples
1) Todd Meade. 1997 Integra Type R. Nissin "big brake kit" front brakes. All components are lighter then stock - illegal
2) Mike King. 2004 Subaru WRX. Subaru OEM 4 pot brakes from JDM and EDM WRXs which are lighter then stock - illegal
3) Myself. 2002 Subaru WRX. Currently using 2003 WRX front calipers (which are a few ounces lighter) as they were a cheaper replacement for my broken 2002 units - illegal
4) Any current competitor who is using slotted or cross drilled OEM replacement rotors which are very slightly lighter then stock - illegal
5) Any other current competitor who is using an aftermarket "big brake kit" from ANY manufacturer - illegal
I very strongly advise against adding this section into the 2005 rule set.
-Tom Hoppe
SCCA SEDIV
5 Examples
1) Todd Meade. 1997 Integra Type R. Nissin "big brake kit" front brakes. All components are lighter then stock - illegal
2) Mike King. 2004 Subaru WRX. Subaru OEM 4 pot brakes from JDM and EDM WRXs which are lighter then stock - illegal
3) Myself. 2002 Subaru WRX. Currently using 2003 WRX front calipers (which are a few ounces lighter) as they were a cheaper replacement for my broken 2002 units - illegal
4) Any current competitor who is using slotted or cross drilled OEM replacement rotors which are very slightly lighter then stock - illegal
5) Any other current competitor who is using an aftermarket "big brake kit" from ANY manufacturer - illegal
I very strongly advise against adding this section into the 2005 rule set.
-Tom Hoppe
SCCA SEDIV
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 03:24 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Vince Bly said this weekend that he feels strongly that the ST* classes should be classes in which a competitor could race a streetable car and not feel like they're at a significant disadvantage because they don't trailer their car (and that he understands that some people might CHOOSE to trailer their car for convenience, etc, but that he feels that the class should not require it).
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Bull****. No current car in any ST class *needs* to be trailered. We all *choose* to trailer our cars.
They might as well disallow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:
edit: for speeling
-Tom
[B] Vince Bly said this weekend that he feels strongly that the ST* classes should be classes in which a competitor could race a streetable car and not feel like they're at a significant disadvantage because they don't trailer their car (and that he understands that some people might CHOOSE to trailer their car for convenience, etc, but that he feels that the class should not require it).
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Bull****. No current car in any ST class *needs* to be trailered. We all *choose* to trailer our cars.
They might as well disallow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:
edit: for speeling
-Tom
| del105 | 06-22-2004 03:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
They might as well dissalow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:[/QUOTE]
hmmm...
They might as well dissalow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:[/QUOTE]
hmmm...
| KC | 06-22-2004 03:32 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Vince Bly said this weekend that he feels strongly that the ST* classes should be classes in which a competitor could race a streetable car and not feel like they're at a significant disadvantage because they don't trailer their car (and that he understands that some people might CHOOSE to trailer their car for convenience, etc, but that he feels that the class should not require it).
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Vince is right (ST cars ARE streetable right now) and it's the EXACT same as why there are people in STOCK that trailer their car.
Hmmm... tow the car knowing I can get home when I'm 24 hrs away if something breaks or risk it..... not only that, but having extra room in the tow vehicle for other things like tires, and stuff.
VERY poor reasoning for coming up with a proposed rule change tho. Streetable is in the eye of the beholder. You can't regulate comfort in rules.
--kC
[B] Vince Bly said this weekend that he feels strongly that the ST* classes should be classes in which a competitor could race a streetable car and not feel like they're at a significant disadvantage because they don't trailer their car (and that he understands that some people might CHOOSE to trailer their car for convenience, etc, but that he feels that the class should not require it).
Perhaps that's part of the motivation??
I certainly agree about rule stability, though. Definitely annoying to build to a set of rules, only to have the rules continuously changing underneath you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Vince is right (ST cars ARE streetable right now) and it's the EXACT same as why there are people in STOCK that trailer their car.
Hmmm... tow the car knowing I can get home when I'm 24 hrs away if something breaks or risk it..... not only that, but having extra room in the tow vehicle for other things like tires, and stuff.
VERY poor reasoning for coming up with a proposed rule change tho. Streetable is in the eye of the beholder. You can't regulate comfort in rules.
--kC
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 03:33 PM |
More importantly how would having "lighter brake components" or "replacement seats instead of your POS OEM Airbag seats" make a car not driveable on the street???
-Tom
-Tom
| Corey | 06-22-2004 03:50 PM |
[QUOTE]The previously-published proposal to move all AWD vehicles to STX is still under consideration. The SEB has indicated that this proposal is based on conceptual consistency within each of the ST classes, not necessarily on the performance of the affected vehicles.[/QUOTE]
I still don't understand.:mad:
Can someone explain to me what "conceptual consistency" is. No really, what are they talking about. I think they need to dumb it down for people like me.:huh:
Corey #89 STS
I still don't understand.:mad:
Can someone explain to me what "conceptual consistency" is. No really, what are they talking about. I think they need to dumb it down for people like me.:huh:
Corey #89 STS
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 03:58 PM |
Corey - I think the SEB got flooded with letters this week since Doug has been out of the office for almost a month. I bet this meeting was right before he got back and forwarded a ton of email to them, so they didn't have enough comment to make a decision. This is their way of saying "wait till next month"
-Tom
-Tom
| zzyzx | 06-22-2004 03:59 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Corey [/i]
[B]I still don't understand.:mad:
Can someone explain to me what "conceptual consistency" is. No really, what are they talking about. I think they need to dumb it down for people like me.:huh:
Corey #89 STS [/B][/QUOTE]
For consistency when benchracing in the off season.
- Steve
[B]I still don't understand.:mad:
Can someone explain to me what "conceptual consistency" is. No really, what are they talking about. I think they need to dumb it down for people like me.:huh:
Corey #89 STS [/B][/QUOTE]
For consistency when benchracing in the off season.
- Steve
| trhoppe | 06-22-2004 05:25 PM |
got this back from doug gill :lol:
[quote]Just wanted to let you know that your letter has been logged <snip> <snip>
However, next time, don't beat around the bush - just come right out and say how you feel! ;)
[/quote]
:lol:
-Tom
[quote]Just wanted to let you know that your letter has been logged <snip> <snip>
However, next time, don't beat around the bush - just come right out and say how you feel! ;)
[/quote]
:lol:
-Tom
| Orion | 06-22-2004 08:31 PM |
I haven't written my letter regarding the July FT yet, and now I doubt I'll bother. If we have to deal with ridiculousness every month it will make it that much easier to jump to ESP to get destroyed by Strano. I may never be competitive Nationally or even Divisionally there, but dammit I know the rules won't change every 5 seconds.
Looks like in my garage will be an ESP WRX and a DS '05 Cooper S.
Looks like in my garage will be an ESP WRX and a DS '05 Cooper S.
| MNbiker | 06-22-2004 11:10 PM |
These latest rules proposals have pretty much sealed my decision to move into Street Prepared next year. Far less of this nebulous "streetability" crap to deal with. Racing seats? No problem. Replace the steering wheel? no problem. Heck, you can even run leaded gas!
Next year, I'll likely be running something VERY similar to this:
[IMG]http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/News/293/04-TimAroToledo-0622.jpg[/IMG]
-Steve
Next year, I'll likely be running something VERY similar to this:
[IMG]http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/News/293/04-TimAroToledo-0622.jpg[/IMG]
-Steve
| Kitsune | 06-22-2004 11:19 PM |
...is why I do not run autocross anymore.
:-/
:-/
| MK19_ | 06-23-2004 01:34 AM |
I'll just stick with SM... although I agree with how everyone feels.
| jcroy66 | 06-23-2004 10:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B] 3) Myself. 2002 Subaru WRX. Currently using 2003 WRX front calipers (which are a few ounces lighter) as they were a cheaper replacement for my broken 2002 units - illegal [/B][/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
Also as a clarification for everyone, I don't know if any of these rule change proposals are connected to the "streetability" aspect that Vince mentioned. I was just conjecturing that they MIGHT be related. I didn't mean to put any words into Vince's (or anyone else's) mouth! :)
[B] 3) Myself. 2002 Subaru WRX. Currently using 2003 WRX front calipers (which are a few ounces lighter) as they were a cheaper replacement for my broken 2002 units - illegal [/B][/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
Also as a clarification for everyone, I don't know if any of these rule change proposals are connected to the "streetability" aspect that Vince mentioned. I was just conjecturing that they MIGHT be related. I didn't mean to put any words into Vince's (or anyone else's) mouth! :)
| trhoppe | 06-23-2004 10:29 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
[/B][/QUOTE]
No teh UD/BD in ST* right now......
-Tom
[B] Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
[/B][/QUOTE]
No teh UD/BD in ST* right now......
-Tom
| KC | 06-23-2004 10:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
Also as a clarification for everyone, I don't know if any of these rule change proposals are connected to the "streetability" aspect that Vince mentioned. I was just conjecturing that they MIGHT be related. I didn't mean to put any words into Vince's (or anyone else's) mouth! :) [/B][/QUOTE]
That also makes sence regarding the integradted seats/airbag issue last month combined with the brakes this month.
"Streetability"
--kC
[B] Wouldn't that still be legal via UD/BD (at least until/if they get rid of UD/BD in ST* :p )?
Also as a clarification for everyone, I don't know if any of these rule change proposals are connected to the "streetability" aspect that Vince mentioned. I was just conjecturing that they MIGHT be related. I didn't mean to put any words into Vince's (or anyone else's) mouth! :) [/B][/QUOTE]
That also makes sence regarding the integradted seats/airbag issue last month combined with the brakes this month.
"Streetability"
--kC
| jcroy66 | 06-23-2004 11:55 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B] No teh UD/BD in ST* right now......[/B][/QUOTE]
I knew they'd proposed eliminating UD/BD, but I thought it had not (yet) passed. Oops!
[B] No teh UD/BD in ST* right now......[/B][/QUOTE]
I knew they'd proposed eliminating UD/BD, but I thought it had not (yet) passed. Oops!
| Warp3 | 06-23-2004 03:17 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B]"Streetability"[/B][/QUOTE]
...and why they want to move all the AWD cars to...no wait, that's just a witch hunt...nevermind... :lol:
Shane -- SM 729
[B]"Streetability"[/B][/QUOTE]
...and why they want to move all the AWD cars to...no wait, that's just a witch hunt...nevermind... :lol:
Shane -- SM 729
| ChrisW | 06-23-2004 07:36 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B]
They might as well disallow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:
/B][/QUOTE]
jeez Tom, don't give them any ideas!!
These rule changes are ludicrous at best. What the hell have they been smoking?
On the other hand, they did reject the pickup truck proposal(04-254).
[B]
They might as well disallow "stiff" suspensions now :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :monkey:
/B][/QUOTE]
jeez Tom, don't give them any ideas!!
These rule changes are ludicrous at best. What the hell have they been smoking?
On the other hand, they did reject the pickup truck proposal(04-254).
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét