May 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:

May FasTrack

Post by Jason Isley BS RX8 »

Full: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... ck-may.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Solo: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... y-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 11

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Marshall Grice »

sneaky how they're changing the ST category treadwear limit from 140 to 200 by pointing back to the street rules instead of specifically defining it in the ST rules.
User avatar
Bobby Beyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bobby Beyer »

Someone must really have an axe to grind against the R1R :x ... and there goes all the pony car tire options.
"Promise mediocrity. Deliver just slightly better." - Jarrett Bellini
User avatar
Anthony Munoz
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 50
Location: Los Angeles

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Anthony Munoz »

...and you can remove the factory top shock mounting plate and Adjustable camber plates may be installed...

However, Replacement control arms for vehicles having intergral bushing/arms assemblies must be standard factory parts as per Section 12.4 and 13.0.

Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.
"Smooth is fast, but fast is quicker"
User avatar
Steve Lepper
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: TCC
Car#: 355
Location: Orange, CA
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Steve Lepper »

Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.
Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.
User avatar
Anthony Munoz
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 50
Location: Los Angeles

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Anthony Munoz »

Steve Lepper wrote:
Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.
Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.

Looks like the blind leading the blind. :lol:
"Smooth is fast, but fast is quicker"
User avatar
Jason Isley BS RX8
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Car#: 0
Location: Coto de Caza
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Jason Isley BS RX8 »

Anthony Munoz wrote:
Steve Lepper wrote:
Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.
Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.

Looks like the blind leading the blind. :lol:
Its magic... Get people to focus on something stupid like a new exhaust change so you can take their tires away. :lol:
Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Michael Wood »

First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Michael Wood wrote:First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.
Camber plates for MC strut cars Yes All years of production please.
Last edited by Tom Denham on Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kurt Rahn
Posts: 3923
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 88
Location: Pasadena

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Kurt Rahn »

Michael Wood wrote:First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.
As a McStrut car driver, my wallet loves the camber plates! I was thinking about revising my exhaust to put in a substitutable downturn under the car, but now that the rules will prohibit it, that's off the table. Not a big deal though, since it never got past the consideration stage and it probably would've been a pain to have to swap in and out for events.
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
David Barrish
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 58
Location: Lake Arrowhead

Re: May FasTrack

Post by David Barrish »

The camber plates on Mc Strut cars will help.

The stock springs and spring hats will limit how much negative camber will be available. My car is a tad positive as it sits.

I look forward to the change and will live with what ever I gain by the new rules.
User avatar
Bobby Beyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bobby Beyer »

Michael Wood wrote: On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.
I think the wording would be better if the requirement was the exhaust must exit at the perimeter of the vehicle behind the driver. That way you still create an allowance for some creative or interesting exhausts and remove the dumps that are the problem in question. The wording on the proposal as I read it is like this, if I have a rear exit exhaust that turns to the right/left it would now be illegal because its no longer exiting in the original location even though it fits with the intention of the rule.
"Promise mediocrity. Deliver just slightly better." - Jarrett Bellini
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: May FasTrack

Post by KJ Christopher »

Michael Wood wrote: Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC.
What do you mean by that?
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
Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Michael Wood »

KJ, I believe the exhaust suggestion was related to ST* cars and then also submitted to the SAC to close the loop.

Bobby, I hear you on the wording. We struggled with that one, a bit. In certain instances, the easy button might be a central exit, below the bumper and extending beyond the body's perimeter...that would be completely in line with the intention of the proposed rule, but considered illega.
User avatar
Jason Isley BS RX8
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Car#: 0
Location: Coto de Caza
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Jason Isley BS RX8 »

Michael Wood wrote:
On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.
The old Showroom Stock rule might be a place to start if you feel the need to make a change:

26. Exhaust system may be removed and or modified within the
following parameters:
A. Any part of the exhaust system beyond the catalytic
converter(s) may be replaced provided:
1. Said replacement system retains the same original
configuration, e.g., routing, single, dual, etc.
2. The system exits from beneath the body in the same
approximate location(s) as the original. When a factory
(OEM) single exhaust system is cosmetically split into
dual outlets, it is permitted to continue as a single system
provided it exits in approximately the same location as
one of the originals.
3. The system meets all appropriate event-specific sound
level requirements.
User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Sebastian Rios »

My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.
User avatar
Anthony Munoz
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 50
Location: Los Angeles

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Anthony Munoz »

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.
What I was going to say along those lines, but you beat me to it. Couldn't have said it better myself. So there!!!
"Smooth is fast, but fast is quicker"
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.
All cars are not equal. Some gain negative camber under load, some gain positive camber. You know that.
User avatar
Bob Pl
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: GRA
Car#: 26

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bob Pl »

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.
I agree, otherwise the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Or is that the point of this SEB?

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

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Will Kalman »

Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.
Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).
User avatar
Kurt Rahn
Posts: 3923
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 88
Location: Pasadena

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Kurt Rahn »

To the folks who are complaining about camber plates for cars with struts: how much negative camber can you dial in with your stock-class suspension configuration?
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
User avatar
Bobby Beyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bobby Beyer »

Kurt it depends on how the suspension is setup, if you have a typical 2 bolt ear like a lot of cars you can get somewhere between -1.5-3 degrees camber where as cars like the Mini need a plate to get any negative camber since the strut attaches to the spindle.

I could get ~-2.5 if I used 2 crash bolts in my Yaris and I have -4.5 with slotting the strut and have no option of a camber plate, and I could get around -1.1 drilling out the stud on the upper mount and another -1-2 degrees using camber bolts so around -2.5-3 give or take total if I did all of that on my Mustang before event thinking about camber plates and slotting.

The only cars that NEED camber plates are cars that don't have mounting ears that can use crash bolts aka German Cars(BMW, Mini, VW, Audi, Porshe) and the Mazda 3. I'm sure there are more out there but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong but if bolts/slotting was opened up for the Subaru would you be able to get sufficient camber?
"Promise mediocrity. Deliver just slightly better." - Jarrett Bellini
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Will Kalman wrote:
Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.
Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).

I only got 20.
Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Jonathan Lugod »

:popcorn:
http://www.osgiken.net
4 BSP- 2019 Mazda ND Miata - 2001 SSM Honda S2000
OS Giken / Bride / ShaftWorks USA
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Jonathan Lugod wrote::popcorn:
Can i have some.
Post Reply