June Fastrack

[Jason Isley BS RX8]

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?

In my letter to the SEB/SAC I cited the sunset rule, which they put in place, as a reason the "safety" card is no longer relevant when it comes to the swaybar allowance. We should no longer have any of these old "unsafe" cars that lack swaybars in stock, so remove the allowance.

Sure, on the surface it looks like a cheap mod. But when the off the shelf stuff does not get the desired result we will see $1k custom blade rear bars. And we have already seen the "need" for bracing on ST Hondas with the big rear bars, how long before that request comes in for stock?

[Michael Wood]

The growing consensus seems to be either both bars or no bars, I've yet to hear anyone say that the current rule is the best solution (even though it may be where things end up)...How does no bars change current classing? What does it do to overall stock class interest levels? If (big "if") stock goes to street tires, does it become less or more important?

(I'm just throwin' stuff out, not speaking as an SAC member...and i already know the answers to the above questions...in my own mind!)

[Jason Isley BS RX8]

The growing consensus seems to be either both bars or no bars, I've yet to hear anyone say that the current rule is the best solution (even though it may be where things end up)...How does no bars change current classing? What does it do to overall stock class interest levels? If (big "if") stock goes to street tires, does it become less or more important?

(I'm just throwin' stuff out, not speaking as an SAC member...and i already know the answers to the above questions...in my own mind!)

The only way to not have an impact is to change nothing. No bars, or either bar, has an impact on potentially every class. Which one has the bigger downside?

Either bar: Allowances cost competitors money, no way around it.
No bar: Only cost money if you tossed your OE bar.
Both will require setup changes. Could be as simple as a toe change, or it could mean cars like the S2K have to go back to the OE type staggered tire setup to keep the back behind them. It will cost money to figure it out - some creative people will likely play with $hock$ to make up for the bar change. Both could have some impact on what cars rise to the top. Is the SAC sure the category needs a shake up?

[John Stimson]

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.

I know what a rear swaybar does theoretically, but I don't understand how it can have either of those effects when only one rear wheel is in contact with the ground. My Integra would tricycle on the stock suspension and 2nd-tier, two generations ago, street tires. I don't think that it was unusual among front wheel drive cars in that behavior. I could see a rear bar being a great benefit, in conjunction with a front bar or springs that would keep the roll angle small enough that the rear tires would stay on the ground.

[Warren Leach]

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.

VERY good post, Will. You summed it up in three sentences.

The current proposal is much better than the 'merge'. While the early civic could logically be put in STS, too many other cars were getting dragged with them (the 2.5 in STS?, C'mon!). The present proposal is the way to go. I see no reason why the civic drivers would object, which is an extra benefit, because nobody likes to hear high pitched voices squealing in the distance.

But where is the Matrix?


nalbar

[Sebastian Rios]

But where is the Matrix?


nalbar

NOC...If you want it classed, write a letter.

[Michael Wood]

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.

Will, I get all that, but if the short term choice, given only one new class, is between the proposed ST-new (which I'm calling "ST lite") and another sport car class, I think the answer is obvious.

STR was a home run. Mostly because it leveraged off of a universe of fun to drive sports cars that really come alive with the ST rule set mods. Why not take that concept to the next level?

Instead, we get a move further down the performance scale. Do you really think that owners of Yaris', Mazda 2, Fiesta etc are going to invest thousands into those cars to autocross? I might be wrong, but I don't see the pent up demand, I don't see any "bang for the buck" (in terms of performance potential vs. capital cost) and I don't see the class being needed...yet. Maybe it siphons off some HS Minis, but I can't see it making numbers.

btw, I supported keeping the Civic out of STS, but I see that as an unrelated topic.

[John Coffey]

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?

Worked for me.

[Will Kalman]

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.

Not necessarily true for stock-class cars, particularly the softer-sprung ones in the slower classes. Usually, the stock spring rates are so low that limiting overall body roll to reduce camber-change is far more beneficial than trying to move roll couple to the rear. What John is saying is true because once you lift the rear wheel, the outside rear contact patch becomes your rear roll center and the car will roll *diagonally* towards the outside front, increasing the weight transfer to that wheel as well (which is already overloaded) and much more body roll that increases positive camber.

In Curt's HS Civic, we installed a massive *front* sway bar (32mm, IIRC). The balance was already at terminal understeer levels so making it more so didn't make much of a difference. But the less-positive camber (with respect to the road) in turns was worth a great deal more grip. Rotation isn't everything - what you're really after is changing the direction of a moving mass. Think of the car as a 55-gallon drum of water on caster wheels where you need to change its direction, not as an arrow that moves where it's pointed.

Now, when you get to ST, SP, and above, you can start to do actual tuning with springs so the usual rules apply as you've stated.

[Bill Martin]

I've been told the sway bar allowance was put on there for safety reasons since so many original cars were tippy.
Jay W

Close. It came from the jacking behavior of swing axle VW's, Corvairs and Spitfires way back when. Larger front swaybars and aftermarket camber compensators were allowed for safety reasons. Prior to that, those cars were scheduled to be banned.