May FasTrack

General discussions about Solo

Moderator: Mike Simanyi

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 »

Vincent Wong wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:Yep, or (as was pointed out) offset control arm bushings can give gains. But, both are seen as not reasonable, it seems. In one case, you're replacing a significant component of the oem design (control arm). In the other, you are required to either hire a shop or have on hand specialized tools to do bushings. Both end up feeling pretty "prepared" and not consistent with an entry level, minimum prep class.
Replacing control arms is actually quite easy to do. Depending on the design, some can be adjusted easily. I feel that camber plates are just as "prepared" as adjustable control arms. To me, entry level and minimum prep are basically arrive, clear out the inside of the car and trunk, set tire pressures, and go!!!
Michael Wood wrote:SLA cars, blessed with favorable camber curve and factory eccentrics to allow alignment options, don't have the same issues. They're fun from the get go...and also allow more oem alignment tuning options to make them even more fun.
Not all SLA cars come with adjustable camber option from the factory. Most Hondas in the 90s didn't. Modern SLA examples include all Audi A4/S4/RS4/A5/S5/RS5, the front camber can't be adjusted in these cars.


This is like beating a dead horse! Changing the control arms on the Lotus is just as easy and probably costs much lesser than camber plates. Either ALLOW control arms AND camber plates or DISALLOW them altogether!!!

Just like the power-to-weight SEB reasoning between a stock Elise vs. Z06/GT3. But that is a whole 'nother story.
"Smooth is fast, but fast is quicker"
User avatar
Bill Martin
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: GRA
Car#: 74

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bill Martin »

Okay -- too lazy to read it all. If it's okay to change camber for the fun of the sport (agreed) who cares if some cars don't need camber plates? Just make them legal for everyone and those that don't need them won't buy them. And if there are easier/cheaper ways for some to get camber, allow that too.

So obviously I'm missing something -- enlighten me.
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Mako Koiwai wrote:Would allowing a bit more Spacer width on strut cars help even things out :?:
What do you mean? A rim spacer??
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 »

So basically, we're all lobbying for our own self interests: the SLA guys are saying "no fair" and the strut guys are saying "this is great." I guess we just count up which group has more members.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't really care if the people with SLA setups are allowed to take measures to change their camber, as long as the camber plates are still on the table for McStut cars. I'm not going to be competing against them anyway.
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
Tom Denham
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 237

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Tom Denham »

Kurt Rahn wrote:So basically, we're all lobbying for our own self interests: the SLA guys are saying "no fair" and the strut guys are saying "this is great." I guess we just count up which group has more members.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't really care if the people with SLA setups are allowed to take measures to change their camber, as long as the camber plates are still on the table for McStut cars. I'm not going to be competing against them anyway.

CAMBER PLATES FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!
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 »

Kurt Rahn wrote:So basically, we're all lobbying for our own self interests: the SLA guys are saying "no fair" and the strut guys are saying "this is great." I guess we just count up which group has more members.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't really care if the people with SLA setups are allowed to take measures to change their camber, as long as the camber plates are still on the table for McStut cars. I'm not going to be competing against them anyway.

Well yes and no.

My main point is, is it the mission of the SEB to attempt to equalize every car in every class in every way. When my butt was being kicked by an Elise several years ago in SS I didn't go whining to the SEB to add some weight or size to a car that was an overdog on every "little car" course.

So what is the mission of the SEB? Do they have a directive/mission statement? Make it "fun" for everyone. Make it "fair" for everyone. Make it "easier" for everyone? T-ball anyone?

:thumbup:
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 »

I.2.3 Core Values
The decisions of the SEB are based upon three core values that together
equate with member value. These core values are as follows:

1. Increased participation and involvement.
2. Providing a variety of classes to satisfy a range of economies and
commitments.
3. Evolving rules in a planned manner.

Each topic before the SEB is compared to these core values to ensure
an overall positive effect. It is recognized that an individual decision
may at times result in a disadvantage or increased cost to some individual
members, but that the decision reached is based on the long-term
benefit for the majority of the members.
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
Mako Koiwai
Posts: 6490
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 34
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mako Koiwai »

:thumbup:
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:My main point is, is it the mission of the SEB to attempt to equalize every car in every class in every way.
My main point is that an attempt to equalize isn't what's happening.

What they're trying to do is make stock cars not suck to drive, not equalize them. If it helps a given car too much, the SEB may reclass it. You're fixating on a tree and ignoring the forest.
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 »

Will Kalman wrote:What they're trying to do is make stock cars not suck to drive, not equalize them.
Thank You! :gpower: :gpower: :gpower:
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
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 »

Will Kalman wrote:
Bob Pl wrote:My main point is, is it the mission of the SEB to attempt to equalize every car in every class in every way.
My main point is that an attempt to equalize isn't what's happening.

What they're trying to do is make stock cars not suck to drive, not equalize them. If it helps a given car too much, the SEB may reclass it. You're fixating on a tree and ignoring the forest.
That'll be a tall order (make stock cars not suck to drive), the least of the problem will probably be camber. Electronic handling nannies and tire pressure nannies forced on the manufacturers by the feds will likely take the fun out of stock classes much more directly than alignment adjustments. We just aren't quite there yet.

That's the really big picture for stock/street.

Corvair was a fun car to drive. :mrgreen: For the younger dudes, Google/Wiki it.
Last edited by Bob Pl on Thu May 02, 2013 3:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

KJ Christopher wrote:I.2.3 Core Values
The decisions of the SEB are based upon three core values that together
equate with member value. These core values are as follows:

1. Increased participation and involvement.
2. Providing a variety of classes to satisfy a range of economies and
commitments.
3. Evolving rules in a planned manner.

Each topic before the SEB is compared to these core values to ensure
an overall positive effect. It is recognized that an individual decision
may at times result in a disadvantage or increased cost to some individual
members, but that the decision reached is based on the long-term
benefit for the majority of the members.
Thanks KJ, that's pretty wide open, they can do whatever they please I guess.
User avatar
Vincent Wong
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 107
Location: West Covina
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Vincent Wong »

Kurt Rahn wrote:So basically, we're all lobbying for our own self interests: the SLA guys are saying "no fair" and the strut guys are saying "this is great." I guess we just count up which group has more members.
I'm a member of both groups. :lol:
Julian Manolov
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 2

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Julian Manolov »

Michael Wood wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:Ignoring the suspension geometry advantage of SLA cars and the mechanical grip of a 200TW street vs an A6 for a moment...

Can anyone propose a reasonable method to gain static camber on an SLA car?
the SLA equivalent of camber plates are replacement adjustable upper control arms.
Yep, or (as was pointed out) offset control arm bushings can give gains. But, both are seen as not reasonable, it seems. In one case, you're replacing a significant component of the oem design (control arm). In the other, you are required to either hire a shop or have on hand specialized tools to do bushings. Both end up feeling pretty "prepared" and not consistent with an entry level, minimum prep class.
This is BS.
Replacing an upper front control arm is usually much easier and quicker (I got both SLA and strut cars) than replacing a strut top hat (you need spring compressor, etc.).
Probably In most cases it is easier/cheaper get adjustable upper control arms made than machined top hats.

Or if not replacing the arm, changing bushings with offset ones is even quicker and way way cheaper that camber plates.
I.e. in a Miata once you remove the upper arm bolt, it takes about 5 seconds to push the old bushings out with a c-clamp and an impact.
Then another minute to install the offset ones (most of that minute is spent on greasing them).

If you give the camber plate option to the strut cars, just allow the SLA cars to run offset bushings in the front upper control arms or replace the upper control arms.
Claiming that offset bushings is unreasonable (while it is cheaper and quicker to install) vs camber plates is BS.
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 »

I sent my letter proposing that the stock ruleset stay the same with the exception to the change to street tires. As I can tell, the main underlying problem we are really trying to fix here is tire performance longevity. This problem would already be solved by going to street tires (20 competitive run hoosiers vs 120 competitive street tire). Of course the level of performance can't match the hoosier in grip but the longevity of sustainable grip is there. Remember that this is a stock category. We should try to limit any more allowances than are needed. If you want to have a car that is more fun to drive and on street tires move onto street touring.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 BSP- 2019 Mazda ND Miata - 2001 SSM Honda S2000
OS Giken / Bride / ShaftWorks USA
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 »

Jonathan Lugod wrote: We should try to limit any more allowances than are needed. If you want to have a car that is more fun to drive and on street tires move onto street touring.
These are my sentiments as well. Only problem is that not every car is allowed in the Street Touring category.
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:
Jonathan Lugod wrote: We should try to limit any more allowances than are needed. If you want to have a car that is more fun to drive and on street tires move onto street touring.
These are my sentiments as well. Only problem is that not every car is allowed in the Street Touring category.
I agree, I would rather the SEB allow more cars into Street Touring rather than turn "Stock/street" into a "prepared" class. If you take Dot R tires out of stock/street and then allow camber mods isn't that what they call "chasing your tail"?

:?
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 »

Bob Pl wrote:
Sebastian Rios wrote:
Jonathan Lugod wrote: We should try to limit any more allowances than are needed. If you want to have a car that is more fun to drive and on street tires move onto street touring.
These are my sentiments as well. Only problem is that not every car is allowed in the Street Touring category.
I agree, I would rather the SEB allow more cars into Street Touring rather than turn "Stock/street" into a "prepared" class. If you take Dot R tires out of stock/street and then allow camber mods isn't that what they call "chasing your tail"?

:?
A very slippery slope.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 BSP- 2019 Mazda ND Miata - 2001 SSM Honda S2000
OS Giken / Bride / ShaftWorks USA
Michael Wood
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Michael Wood »

Jonathan Lugod wrote:I sent my letter proposing that the stock ruleset stay the same with the exception to the change to street tires. As I can tell, the main underlying problem we are really trying to fix here is tire performance longevity. This problem would already be solved by going to street tires (20 competitive run hoosiers vs 120 competitive street tire). Of course the level of performance can't match the hoosier in grip but the longevity of sustainable grip is there. Remember that this is a stock category. We should try to limit any more allowances than are needed. If you want to have a car that is more fun to drive and on street tires move onto street touring.
Not speaking for the SAC, but don't disagree with anything you're saying. I would add "and don't care about using the car as a daily driver" to your last sentence. Street is meant to represent the practical, real world daily driver as autocross car solution, which clearly isn't part of the ST* intent any longer.

The allowance for changes in wheel diameter in the Street proposal is needed, however. Personally, I like the +1/-1, as it allows more options and minimizes the chance of not having "the" tire available for any given car that members would like to run. But, I also understand why some like the round up to 15/round down to 18 idea. I just don't think that method is fair to all competitors.
User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Craig Naylor »

Michael Wood wrote:But, I also understand why some like the round up to 15/round down to 18 idea. I just don't think that method is fair to all competitors.
I believe the primary reason for the +1/-1, is to assist those cars with factory 14's, do to a lack of competitive tires.

If we're recognizing that 14's are hard to come by in a competitive tire, why are we limiting those on 13's to 14's with the +1 rule.

The biggest reason for the round up to 15 has to do with cars with '13's. While the 30 year rule is proposed, there are many (though not necessary the most competitive) cars from the late '80's and early to mid '90's that came with factory 13's.

Case in point, an '89 Civic (non Si) has factory 13's. The car isn't competitive on the non-Si motor in STC, so one would stay stock. With the 30 year rule, the car is still legal for another 5 yrs. But on 13's it's regulated out on the new tire rule. BUT it could be competitive on the Hoosers allowed today on '13's. With this change, a competitive tire option is removed, and a non competitive tire rule set is put in place.

These cars (13 rim shod) may not be common, but the inverse of the tire rule change concept will be applied specifically to cars on 13's if they can't upgrade to 15's.
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 »

Craig Naylor wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:But, I also understand why some like the round up to 15/round down to 18 idea. I just don't think that method is fair to all competitors.
I believe the primary reason for the +1/-1, is to assist those cars with factory 14's, do to a lack of competitive tires.
I just feel like its another can of worms catered towards OLD CARS and I can also understand some cars that are stuck with oddball size rims. However, you would be hard pressed to find 17x6.5" for a Honda S2000 (99-03)AP1 since those came with 16x6.5" stock ....etc..

On the other hand newer cars are starting and continue to trend to much larger wheel sizes. I can definitely see a benefit for the future of "stock" by allowing a generous downsize clause for 19-20" wheels since COST/AVAILABILITY is an issue for performance tires in those sizes.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 BSP- 2019 Mazda ND Miata - 2001 SSM Honda S2000
OS Giken / Bride / ShaftWorks USA
User avatar
Bobby Beyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Bobby Beyer »

Jonathan Lugod wrote:
Craig Naylor wrote:
Michael Wood wrote:But, I also understand why some like the round up to 15/round down to 18 idea. I just don't think that method is fair to all competitors.
I believe the primary reason for the +1/-1, is to assist those cars with factory 14's, do to a lack of competitive tires.
I just feel like its another can of worms catered towards OLD CARS and I can also understand some cars that are stuck with oddball size rims. However, you would be hard pressed to find 17x6.5" for a Honda S2000 (99-03)AP1 since those came with 16x6.5" stock ....etc..

On the other hand newer cars are starting and continue to trend to much larger wheel sizes. I can definitely see a benefit for the future of "stock" by allowing a generous downsize clause for 19-20" wheels since COST/AVAILABILITY is an issue for performance tires in those sizes.
Don't forget about the weird backspacing issues that'll start to crop up and the custom rims required to be legal.
"Promise mediocrity. Deliver just slightly better." - Jarrett Bellini
User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Craig Naylor »

Jonathan Lugod wrote:I just feel like its another can of worms catered towards OLD CARS and I can also understand some cars that are stuck with oddball size rims. However, you would be hard pressed to find 17x6.5" for a Honda S2000 (99-03)AP1 since those came with 16x6.5" stock ....etc..
IMHO the primary reason for the change after dot's are banned, is to make competitive tire choices available, not the myriad of other advantages a rim change might make on various cars. 14's to 15's helps make tires available. 13's to 14's is no help. While other advantages could be found in your example, there is no lack of availability of 16" competitive tires.
Bobby Beyer wrote:Don't forget about the weird backspacing issues that'll start to crop up and the custom rims required to be legal.
Totally agree. The 1+/- works well for those with full inch diameter OEM's but for those with .5 or other oddball mm widths, it's practically of no use, unless they open that can of worms too.
User avatar
Doug Teulie
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 99
Location: Orange County CA

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Doug Teulie »

Craig Naylor wrote:
Jonathan Lugod wrote:I just feel like its another can of worms catered towards OLD CARS and I can also understand some cars that are stuck with oddball size rims. However, you would be hard pressed to find 17x6.5" for a Honda S2000 (99-03)AP1 since those came with 16x6.5" stock ....etc..
IMHO the primary reason for the change after dot's are banned, is to make competitive tire choices available, not the myriad of other advantages a rim change might make on various cars. 14's to 15's helps make tires available. 13's to 14's is no help. While other advantages could be found in your example, there is no lack of availability of 16" competitive tires.
Bobby Beyer wrote:Don't forget about the weird backspacing issues that'll start to crop up and the custom rims required to be legal.
Totally agree. The 1+/- works well for those with full inch diameter OEM's but for those with .5 or other oddball mm widths, it's practically of no use, unless they open that can of worms too.

I think I have most of the odd cars with the odd wheel sizes. I have cars that came with 13s, 14s, 15s, 16s and 17s. The S2000 AP1 is a very difficult wheel to work with a +1 dia. The stagger and offset is not common in 16” aftermarket but then take that to a 17 (same offset, width and stager) and it is….. :roll: It would be soooooo nice to just use the STOCK OEM 17” AP2 wheel. In the case of all my other cars that have 13s-15s it would great to use the OEM +1 wheels too. OEM +1 wheels are easier to work with than aftermarket. Think about all the wheels and checking offsets on all the cars.
Doug T
PSCC CSCC #99 /SCNAX SD #151 LT Points 23,600.
TEAM DHE/FAST 1976 KARMANN 8V FSP MK1 SILVER SCIROCCO
TEAM DHE/FAST 1980 KARMANN 8V FSP MK1 RED SCIROCCO
Need VW parts?--->http://www.parts4vws.com Need Wax?--> Mother's
User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Craig Naylor »

Doug Teulie wrote:OEM +1 wheels are easier to work with than aftermarket. Think about all the wheels and checking offsets on all the cars.
I understand some of the handling benefits some cars like the AP1 might get from new rims... But again the primary reason they tossed this out was to counter the lack of competitive tire availabilities on the extreme ends of the spectrum once the existing DOT tires are banned.

This is one of the reasons the plain 1+/-, just doesn't really work, and I suggested a 15x6 as a minimum upgrade. (I just don't know the other end of the spectrum to address it) Tossing the 13's aside, the NA Miata on 14x5.5's would probably like to move up (as would a whole lot of Toyota & Honda products from the '90's). But they will be stuck on those 14x5.5' because there just aren't 15x5.5 aftermarket wheels out there.

Just to confirm, I called both TireRack, and Discount Tire. Neither carries a 15 x5.5 from ANY mfg they represent. Yes Ebay did source several never heard of brands in such size, that meet "International quality standards".... I guess that means the Chinese government did not ban them from production? Not a one mentioned DOT approval, as such I don't consider those actual options.

While the 1+/- sounds great in theory, it application it will not serve those who for whom the need it's trying to address. It appears only those with no practical tire need may benefit.
Post Reply