June Fastrack

General discussions about Solo

Moderator: Mike Simanyi

User avatar
Jason Isley BS RX8
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Car#: 0
Location: Coto de Caza
Contact:

June Fastrack

Post by Jason Isley BS RX8 » Fri May 20, 2011 8:09 pm

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... k-june.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

solo: http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... e-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Tom Denham » Fri May 20, 2011 8:59 pm

STOCK
- Per the SAC, the following rule change proposal is provided for member comment:
- Change 13.8.E to read as follows:
“If offered by the manufacturer for a particular model and year, the use of shims, special bolts, removal of material to enlarge mounting holes, and similar methods are allowed and the resulting alignment settings are permitted even if outside the normal specification or range of specifications recommended by the manufacturer. If enlarging mounting holes is specifically authorized but no material removal limits are specified, material removal is restricted to the amount necessary to achieve the maximum factory alignment specification.” (3801, 3827, 4142, 4152, 4205)
- Per the SAC, the origin of Stock sway bar rule was an allowance to improve vehicle dynamics at a time when sway bars were not commonplace in new cars, and RWD was the most common layout in the automobile industry. FWD and AWD are common today, and throughout the years there have been comments pointing out that FWD cars would benefit more from a rear sway bar change. In an effort to broaden the field of competitive vehicles across the entire range of the Stock classes, the SAC would like to introduce the option of changing or adding the front OR rear sway bar. The committee believes this promotes the core values of the club by increasing participation with broader choices of competitive models, improved tire wear and improved handling for specific vehicle drive trains. To that end, the following rule change proposal is submitted for member comment (4530):
- Change 13.7 to read as follows:
“13.7 ANTI-ROLL (SWAY) BARS
A. Substitution, addition, or removal of a single anti-roll bar and supporting hardware (brackets, end links, bushings, etc.) is permitted.
B. Substitution, addition, or removal of an anti-roll bar may serve no other purpose than that of an anti-roll bar.
C. The use of any bushing material is permitted. A bushing may be implemented as a bearing.
D. No modification to the body, frame, or other components to accommodate anti-roll bar addition or substitution is allowed except for the drilling of holes for mounting bolts. Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted.

User avatar
KJ Christopher
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: No$
Car#: 11
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Re: June Fastrack

Post by KJ Christopher » Fri May 20, 2011 9:21 pm

Per the KAC, the following class name change proposals are published for member comment (3833, 3834, 3844, 3977,
4007, 4045, 4046, 4126):
- F125 becomes KM
- FJA becomes JA
- FJB becomes JB
- FJC becomes JC
KM = Kart Modified? }:)
kj
Use the email link. I don't read nor get notified of PMs.
Former No$ Club Rep | Former SCCA Area 11 Director |Former CSCC Solo Chair
Caged Z Motorsports - automotive consultation
The ACME Special Now with Super Speed Vitamins

User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7433
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Steve Ekstrand » Fri May 20, 2011 11:43 pm

KJ Christopher wrote: KM = Kart Modified? }:)

"KartMan"

Obviously it can't be Kart Modified. Our local CPM guys have proved beyond a shadow of a chupacabra that Karts are not in Modified.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600

Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Michael Wood » Sat May 21, 2011 8:39 am

Thanks for pointing out the sway bar and camber allowances proposed for stock.

Not speaking for the SAC, but my take is that the sway bar proposal is to level the playing field to a greater degree in terms of platforms (AWD, FWD, RWD) and that the thinking behind the alignment methodology allowance is to capture more factory (manufacturer) provided/approved solutions, while keeping aftermarket stuff off the table.

Comments and letters welcomed, this is pretty significant stuff we're putting out there, imho. :)

User avatar
Eric Clements
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 883
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: No$
Car#: 30
Location: Pasadena

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Eric Clements » Sat May 21, 2011 9:55 am

Has anyone successfully submitted feedback recently? I've sent a few letters thru the SEBSCCA site with no reply and Brian Harmer tells me I'd didn't get a response because Nothing has been received from me!

Why did they dump the old system? :x

User avatar
Steve Coe
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 75
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Steve Coe » Sat May 21, 2011 1:32 pm

If we want to level the playing field why not remove the sway bar rule? Not I'm for or against it. I wonder if if was considered?

Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Michael Wood » Sat May 21, 2011 6:17 pm

Steve Coe wrote:If we want to level the playing field why not remove the sway bar rule? Not I'm for or against it. I wonder if if was considered?
Yep.

User avatar
Aaron Goldsmith
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:22 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 32
Location: HB, CA
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Aaron Goldsmith » Mon May 23, 2011 8:38 am

Eric Clements wrote:Has anyone successfully submitted feedback recently? I've sent a few letters thru the SEBSCCA site with no reply and Brian Harmer tells me I'd didn't get a response because Nothing has been received from me!

Why did they dump the old system? :x
Yeah, I submitted one last week, seemed to work ok.

But check it out, MR2 Turbos will get to run in asp AND bsp, neato!

User avatar
Bob Pl
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: GRA
Car#: 26

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Bob Pl » Mon May 23, 2011 9:08 am

Steve Coe wrote:If we want to level the playing field why not remove the sway bar rule? Not I'm for or against it. I wonder if if was considered?
I sent my comment letter to the "new" seb address & it got acknowledged (automated).

I agree with Steve.

The new sway bar rule is like saying you can put DA custom shocks on either end, but must keep stock on the other end.

Or you can run Dot R on one end but must keep factory stock tires on the other end.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 11

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Marshall Grice » Mon May 23, 2011 9:26 am

Bob Pl wrote:
Steve Coe wrote:If we want to level the playing field why not remove the sway bar rule? Not I'm for or against it. I wonder if if was considered?
I sent my comment letter to the "new" seb address & it got acknowledged (automated).

I agree with Steve.

The new sway bar rule is like saying you can put DA custom shocks on either end, but must keep stock on the other end.

Or you can run Dot R on one end but must keep factory stock tires on the other end.

Doesn't make any sense to me.
what?!? You get to make arguably the most important change to a suspension(RSB) in stock class and it doesn't make any sense? in fact it's nothing like the examples you sited above. Each of your examples talks about things that modify 4 discrete functions, where as the swaybar only modifies one thing, corner balance. There is no requirement to do a front and rear bar together in order to enable them to function correctly.

I think it sounds like a great idea. will easily make a lot of cars that are currently just painful to drive in stock class into a ton of fun. A RSB is really the right tool to get rid of the intentional understeer setup in all stock cars.

User avatar
Bob Pl
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: GRA
Car#: 26

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Bob Pl » Mon May 23, 2011 10:02 am

OK, take brake pads, is that a better example? Or windshield wipers?

Please explain what would be the problem with being able to modify both ends?

I am not arguing the engineering of it, I would like to know what goes thru the minds of the committee that makes up the proposal?

It's like they were thinking, "Let's add this new allowable modification to stock, but if we let the competitors do BOTH ENDS, OMG xxxx will happen"

What's the xxxx?

:)
Last edited by Bob Pl on Mon May 23, 2011 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Sebastian Rios » Mon May 23, 2011 10:51 am

More important (to ME) is the new proposal for ST*. OK haters, (Yom!) no more complaining that 20+ year old crapboxes are killing the sport.

So let's play pick the best car for ST(New). I'll take a Mazda 2 with Proparts valved Konis and extra black magic.

User avatar
Vincent Wong
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 107
Location: West Covina
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Vincent Wong » Mon May 23, 2011 2:13 pm

Bob Pl wrote:It's like they were thinking, "Let's add this new allowable modification to stock, but if we let the competitors do BOTH ENDS, OMG xxxx will happen"

What's the xxxx?
I think you looked at this the wrong way. Currently, the Stock rules only allow the FRONT sway bar to be added/upgraded/removed, however almost all FWD and AWD cars won't benefit from this (actually, I don't know why it will benefit a RWD car either :ibrightdea: ). With this proposal, it allows the option to add/upgrade/remove either the front or the rear sway bar, not both. So now, all cars (FWD/AWD/RWD) can benefit from the sway bar allowance. IMO, I think it's totally fair.

I guess an M3 rear sway bar will be on my wishlist for next year. Now, let's get back to the street tires vs. R-comp tires debate. }:) :lol:

User avatar
Jayson Woodruff
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 51

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Jayson Woodruff » Mon May 23, 2011 2:53 pm

Vincent Wong wrote: Currently, the Stock rules only allow the FRONT sway bar to be added/upgraded/removed, however almost all FWD and AWD cars won't benefit from this (actually, I don't know why it will benefit a RWD car either :ibrightdea: ).
I see it as a moderization of the rules. I've been told the sway bar allowance was put on there for safety reasons since so many original cars were tippy. Back in the founding almost all solo cars were RWD, so in that context front sway only makes sence. Now your getting more of an equal allowance for all the FWD and AWDs that have joined the fun.

Jay W

User avatar
Jason Isley BS RX8
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Car#: 0
Location: Coto de Caza
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Jason Isley BS RX8 » Mon May 23, 2011 2:58 pm

Vincent Wong wrote: I think you looked at this the wrong way. Currently, the Stock rules only allow the FRONT sway bar to be added/upgraded/removed, however almost all FWD and AWD cars won't benefit from this (actually, I don't know why it will benefit a RWD car either :ibrightdea: ). With this proposal, it allows the option to add/upgrade/remove either the front or the rear sway bar, not both. So now, all cars (FWD/AWD/RWD) can benefit from the sway bar allowance. IMO, I think it's totally fair.

I guess an M3 rear sway bar will be on my wishlist for next year. Now, let's get back to the street tires vs. R-comp tires debate. }:) :lol:
It helps to settle down the back of a tail happy car (like an AP1 S2K), and helps powerful cars (especially those with an open diff) put power down. Wait till you see what a big rear bar does for your one-legging wonder - don't be shocked when you put on a big rear bar on your BMW and slow down. :lol:

Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Michael Wood » Mon May 23, 2011 9:16 pm

Sebastian Rios wrote:More important (to ME) is the new proposal for ST*. OK haters, (Yom!) no more complaining that 20+ year old crapboxes are killing the sport.

So let's play pick the best car for ST(New). I'll take a Mazda 2 with Proparts valved Konis and extra black magic.
Can someone remind me why "ST lite" is being added? I don't get it.

User avatar
Eric Clements
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 883
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: No$
Car#: 30
Location: Pasadena

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Eric Clements » Mon May 23, 2011 9:24 pm

Aaron Goldsmith wrote: Yeah, I submitted one last week, seemed to work ok.
but check it out, MR2 Turbos will get to run in asp AND bsp, neato!
The Double classed MR2's was one of my letters.

I also got some feedback about it being a mobile device issue.

User avatar
Will Kalman
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:24 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 232

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Will Kalman » Mon May 23, 2011 9:36 pm

Michael Wood wrote:Can someone remind me why "ST lite" is being added? I don't get it.
Because ST is dominated by cars that are smaller, lower, and lighter than just about anything made in the last 20 years and anything that will probably be produced again. If anything other than an older car is going to be competitive, they need to be separated as there is a clear difference in performance that will likely never be bridged. Although ST is currently highly subscribed, the pain of maintaining increasingly older cars to SCCA rules increases every year and it's not a good idea to wait until each and every one is exhausted before something else can come in and play.

Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Michael Wood » Mon May 23, 2011 9:49 pm

Will Kalman wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:Can someone remind me why "ST lite" is being added? I don't get it.
Because ST is dominated by cars that are smaller, lower, and lighter than just about anything made in the last 20 years and anything that will probably be produced again. If anything other than an older car is going to be competitive, they need to be separated as there is a clear difference in performance that will likely never be bridged. Although ST is currently highly subscribed, the pain of maintaining increasingly older cars to SCCA rules increases every year and it's not a good idea to wait until each and every one is exhausted before something else can come in and play.
Good point, but it has seemed (to me, anyhow) that the membership is looking more for another sports car ST class..."ST heavy", not "ST lite". All your points about the current ST make total sense, but the class still is very healthy (healthy enough to have the "merge" idea pulled off the table), so why add another fwd econobox class, if there's (theoretically) only room for one more ST class at this time?

.

User avatar
Will Kalman
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:24 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 232

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Will Kalman » Mon May 23, 2011 10:18 pm

Michael Wood wrote:
Will Kalman wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:Can someone remind me why "ST lite" is being added? I don't get it.
Because ST is dominated by cars that are smaller, lower, and lighter than just about anything made in the last 20 years and anything that will probably be produced again. If anything other than an older car is going to be competitive, they need to be separated as there is a clear difference in performance that will likely never be bridged. Although ST is currently highly subscribed, the pain of maintaining increasingly older cars to SCCA rules increases every year and it's not a good idea to wait until each and every one is exhausted before something else can come in and play.
Good point, but it has seemed (to me, anyhow) that the membership is looking more for another sports car ST class..."ST heavy", not "ST lite". All your points about the current ST make total sense, but the class still is very healthy (healthy enough to have the "merge" idea pulled off the table), so why add another fwd econobox class, if there's (theoretically) only room for one more ST class at this time?

.
Hmmm, I went back and read the Fastrack and don't see a reference for "lite" but I do see a new class with the temporary name "ST new" and I thought that is what you were talking about. There's room for another FWD econbox class because new FWD econoboxes are vastly different in performance than older ones with little chance of that being bridged (and making a redundant class). Since it is the new cars that are being left out in the cold and that's where new membership comes in, where the car prep isn't 80% restoration work, and 7+ year-old depreciated cars are available that don't upset the performance balance (or status quo) of the class, it makes sense to make a new class. If it were new cars that were dominant over old ones, we could say assume there wasn't a big demand for members who wanted to restore a 20-year-old car that wasn't competitive. We find ourselves in this spot because within the realm of econobox autocross performance, there is an inversion in the "newer is better" trend that we see in almost every other facet of automotive engineering.

User avatar
John Stimson
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 124

Re: June Fastrack

Post by John Stimson » Tue May 24, 2011 3:28 pm

The change to the alignment allowance seems to me to be more restrictive, not more open. Before, you could install any part that was authorized by the manufacturer. Now, it has to be supplied by the manufacturer for your model and year. I don't see how this allows anything new; it just seems to be a clarification to inhibit the overly-eager.

As for sway bars:

Most FWD cars already pick up a rear wheel with the stock suspension -- I don't see how a stiffer rear swaybar alone will change the balance in steady state cornering. Once that wheel leaves the ground, the anti-roll rate on that axle becomes irrelevant. A rear swaybar allowance seems more likely to be used by RWD or AWD cars, to put in a more compliant (softer) rear bar to reduce rear inside wheel spin.

If both front and rear bars were allowed, competitors could choose to use arbitrarily high anti-roll rates and get to choose the steady state cornering balance. You might as well allow spring changes at that point. With only one bar allowed, the usable rate is limited by how much the competitor is willing to change the handling balance.

User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Sebastian Rios » Tue May 24, 2011 3:41 pm

Mark Sipe brought up what I think is a very good point on SCCAforums.

Stock class allowances were built around replacement of wear items and in the case of the front anti-sway bar, safety. Since the safety issue is no longer relevant, why introduce an allowance that is clearly aimed at improving performance?

User avatar
Steve Coe
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 75
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Steve Coe » Tue May 24, 2011 3:46 pm

Sebastian Rios wrote:Mark Sipe brought up what I think is a very good point on SCCAforums.

Stock class allowances were built around replacement of wear items and in the case of the front anti-sway bar, safety. Since the safety issue is no longer relevant, why introduce an allowance that is clearly aimed at improving performance?

Well said!

Steve

Webster Jessup
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:57 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 122
Location: SoCal

Re: June Fastrack

Post by Webster Jessup » Tue May 24, 2011 4:01 pm

John Stimson wrote: As for sway bars:

Most FWD cars already pick up a rear wheel with the stock suspension -- I don't see how a stiffer rear swaybar alone will change the balance in steady state cornering. Once that wheel leaves the ground, the anti-roll rate on that axle becomes irrelevant. A rear swaybar allowance seems more likely to be used by RWD or AWD cars, to put in a more compliant (softer) rear bar to reduce rear inside wheel spin.
A stiffer rear sway bar in a FWD car is paramount in autocross. Factory cars have a really soft or nothing for a rear sway bar. This is the lawsuit factor. It keeps the car understeering even in a mid-corner lift off situation.

A stiff rear sway bar allows the car to do two things. 1) Rotate or oversteer via an increase in rear outside tire slip angle. 2) A change in weight transfer to front wheels providing an increase in traction for the front inside tire.

Couple this with good shocks, tires, and a FWD with stock springs can be pretty damn fun to drive.

Post Reply