August Fastrack is posted:

Curt Luther · Post by **Curt Luther** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:32 pm

Brian Peters wrote:How much tire can those old 911's really fit under them though?

255s shouldn't be a problem in the back. I'm guessing they would fit in the front with the right offset and fender rolling...

Brian Peters · Post by **Brian Peters** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Steve Ekstrand wrote:They did have a turbo look version with the flares that's got a 4" wider track. But it also weighs 100lbs more.
On the standard car they did have an option for 225's. So, I imagine 255's with fit, but I was curious of the same thing.

I'm more concerned with the front end.

Robert Puertas · Post by **Robert Puertas** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:08 pm

I'm told a 225 will fit up front with no problem.

I'd take that to mean a bit more could be squeezed in with creativity...

Brian Peters · Post by **Brian Peters** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:11 pm

Robert Puertas wrote:I'm told a 225 will fit up front with no problem.

I'd take that to mean a bit more could be squeezed in with creativity...

Yeah, and a 275 fits an NB Miata..... ;)

Robert Puertas · Post by **Robert Puertas** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:14 pm

Yeah, but that would be illegal in STR. ;)
Plus, the 911 only has 39% of it's 2600 lbs. on the front tires. I doubt you'd ever run a 911 with the same tires all the way around.

What was the weight & %'s for your CSP car?

Brian Peters · Post by **Brian Peters** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:23 pm

I realize the weight distribution probably won't require much meat up front on a 911, but I'm still curious how much *usable* tire will fit. I just don't see there being much room for some adequate wheel support.

I think my MX-5 weighed in at about 2370 (52/48) in comp trim. Ron's was pretty much maxed out on the weight loss and about 70 lbs lighter IIRC.

KJ Christopher · Post by **KJ Christopher** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:11 pm

Ken Motonishi wrote:
Steve Ekstrand wrote:We're talk 1989 Carrera 3.2's.... I'd think those are relatively cheap compared to STU.
Are people concerned about parts and upgrades?
Mechanical fuel injection?

3.2s are electronic, with numerous chips on the market.

Not that I have been looking for an excuse to own one.

Robert Puertas · Post by **Robert Puertas** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:34 pm

What's the current rule in ST on replacing the AFM with a MAF?

Bob Beamesderfer · Post by **Bob Beamesderfer** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:02 pm

Robert Puertas wrote:What's the current rule in ST on replacing the AFM with a MAF?

I believe intake is unrestricted up to the throttle body.

Mako Koiwai · Post by **Mako Koiwai** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:22 pm

9" wheels for 2wd cars ... like these?

Mako Koiwai · Post by **Mako Koiwai** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:25 pm

With STR coming, will our local SST class be dropped?

Steve Lepper · Post by **Steve Lepper** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:18 pm

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Robert Puertas wrote:What's the current rule in ST on replacing the AFM with a MAF?
I believe intake is unrestricted up to the throttle body.

No, that's an SP rule: for ST, whatever OE part is there must remain unmodified.

Steve Lepper · Post by **Steve Lepper** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:21 pm

Mako Koiwai wrote:9" wheels for 2wd cars ... like these?

Bring a big hammer.

I was very happy to see that, although I was voting for tire size limits only. Now, if we could just find a way to get a little more power...

Bob Beamesderfer · Post by **Bob Beamesderfer** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:15 am

Steve Lepper wrote:
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Robert Puertas wrote:What's the current rule in ST on replacing the AFM with a MAF?
I believe intake is unrestricted up to the throttle body.
No, that's an SP rule: for ST, whatever OE part is there must remain unmodified.

No, the SP rule is that the entire intake is unrestricted all the way to the cylinder head.

Craig Naylor · Post by **Craig Naylor** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:00 pm

The thing I find most curious with the revised STR rules is the inclusion of rim width & tire widths for AWD cars.... but nair an AWD car in the inclusion list.

Mako Koiwai · Post by **Mako Koiwai** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:28 pm

Nice catch Craig. So what's up with that? IS there an AWD 2 seater car that might be considered?

(Perhaps someone was thinking of the Suby RS's in STS?)

Robert Puertas · Post by **Robert Puertas** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:36 pm

I'd bet they're just planning for the future...

Max Hayter · Post by **Max Hayter** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:36 pm

Craig Naylor wrote:The thing I find most curious with the revised STR rules is the inclusion of rim width & tire widths for AWD cars.... but nair an AWD car in the inclusion list.

As I understand it, it is for future AWD cars that may (or may not) be classed. It's not relevant in the current inclusion list.

Steve Lepper · Post by **Steve Lepper** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:48 pm

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Steve Lepper wrote:
No, that's an SP rule: for ST, whatever OE part is there must remain unmodified.

No, the SP rule is that the entire intake is unrestricted all the way to the cylinder head.[/quote]

Yes, that's right about SP. ST still requires stock sensors to be there.

Mike Simanyi · Post by **Mike Simanyi** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:11 am

14.10.C

You have to retain stock emissions and engine management components in the intake system.

You can download the 2009 rulebook from the SCCA.com website: http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

Robert Puertas · Post by **Robert Puertas** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:33 am

Bummer.
I've seen dynos of MAF converted 3.2's making over 250 hp.

Sebastian Rios · Post by **Sebastian Rios** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:37 am

The E30 M3 STX drivers would love to be able to do a MAF conversion...

Bob Beamesderfer · Post by **Bob Beamesderfer** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:46 am

Mike Simanyi wrote:14.10.C

You have to retain stock emissions and engine management components in the intake system.

You can download the 2009 rulebook from the SCCA.com website: http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

I gots that one. Don't spend much time with ST rules.

Mike Simanyi · Post by **Mike Simanyi** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:08 pm

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
I gots that one. Don't spend much time with ST rules.

That was less for you and Robert than some of our newer participants. It's always nice to be able to access the official rule book, for free, without having to search the SCCA site.

Mike

Giovanni Jaramillo · Post by **Giovanni Jaramillo** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:It's always nice to be able to access the official rule book, for free, without having to search the SCCA site.

Which by the way is hosted on our website as well. Go to the main page (Solo2.com) and on the left hand side is a link titled 2009 NATIONAL SOLO RULES

Cal Club Autocross Forums

August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted:

Re: August Fastrack is posted: