April Fastrack

[Anthony Munoz]

I thought the concept is good, but there are a few things I don't like.

1. Camber allowance appears to apply only to McPherson strut suspension, and not A-arm suspension. (Good for my BMW, bad for my Audi)

+ 1 The Lotus has A-arms. Stiffest anti-swaybar setting helps, but is not enough.

[Ed Holley]

Can someone provide an educated guess for reasoning behind the wheel diameter allowance proposal?

The rest of the proposed allowances seem to be about leveling the the playing field for McStrut cars, save $$$ on tire wear, and reduce the need for uber-fancy shocks.

The wheel diameter allowance has me scratching my head. Doesn't this tosses in a whole mess of new variables into play (gearing, ride height, available sizes, etc..) that would make even classing even more difficult?

I would rather see wheel width allowance vs diameter, personally. It would widen the selection of allowable wheels (maybe open the door for sponsors?) and a bit more stretch to keep the tires happier (would fall in line with the camber and sway bar allowances, I guess).

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but in my case with 14" rims, tire choices were becoming more and more limited. At 15" diameter, there are considerably more choices at the same rim width.

[Ed Holley]

But no I meant the sport with clubs.

OUR sport has clubs, CASOC being the best of course.

[Craig Naylor]

Had many thoughts upon reading the Fastrack re "Street", thought I would see what others would post first.

Rims: Allow any car with a rim size smaller than a 15x7 an upgrade to that size.
Allow those with 19+ to move down to a 18" rim.
Allow a +/- 1/2" width change with the exception of the above minimum size upgrade

Reasoning. Both 13/14's and 19+ are difficult sizes to find deceit tires to run competitively, if at all, in the case of the smaller ones going forward. 19+ might change, and can be removed at a later date. While many cars with rim sizes between might benefit from rim changes, tires are available. In my mind this is no different than any other update/backdate issue any individual car might benefit from, it's what your year came with. The rim width, while potentially beneficial to some degree, will allow aftermarket rims within reason, specifically for those with bazaar OEM widths not available in the aftermarket, while not dramatically changing a cars performance.

Tire step change: If the 200tw is the goal, Just make the change in 2014.

Reasoning: Few beyond myself scratch multiple years out of their tires. My guess however, is this gives a high level sponsor Toyo, time to make changes without getting run of the track as the saying goes. Maybe Headquarters has inside info, this change is coming anyway, and that's the timing needed.

Name: Street.
Just leave the name "stock". These changes don't make the proposal any less stock, than the class is now. If anything, the proposal's actually less adulterated than today. We have always promoted "Run what you brung". Stock at least sound like you don't need to do anything to your car to run, even if some allowances allowed. And... it will be less confusing to newb's than Street / Street Touring / Street Prepared limited / Street Prepared / Street Modified, will be. Just makes one to many "streets".

Shocks: Single adjustable, or OEM if greater.

This would bring down the cost issue. Yes those with expensive systems would be out money. But the vast majority of non-Nat's types don't have double adjustable anyway. Let this be one of those differences that you make when stepping up to a more prepared class.

Remote reservoir: I agree with their elimination.

This would also bring down the cost, and would co-inside with the single adjustable limitation I proposed. Again a step up in prep level if you choose from "Stock"/"Street". What they didn't address is what one has to do in the few cases of OEM installs. They also need to address the existing hole issue for those who did install when they were allowed. You can't just un-drill a hole, and an attempt to fill it would look bad and effect resale down the road.

Otherwise.... it's about time!!! I might even undo the partial STS setup, and return to the revised class.

[Leonard Cachola]

Vehicles Equipped with 16" = allow up size to 17" (except Leonard!! LOL)

It's funnier when you consider I'm hardly your biggest threat in RTR.

I'm more curious about the upcoming class shakeup that's been hinted at in all this.

[Sean Fenstermacher]

Vehicles Equipped with 16" = allow up size to 17" (except Leonard!! LOL)

It's funnier when you consider I'm hardly your biggest threat in RTR.

I'm more curious about the upcoming class shakeup that's been hinted at in all this.

LOL!! Sorry Leonard! Couldn't resist!

[Mike Yanase]

Vehicles Equipped with 16" = allow up size to 17" (except Leonard!! LOL)

It's funnier when you consider I'm hardly your biggest threat in RTR.

I'm more curious about the upcoming class shakeup that's been hinted at in all this.

hahaa i must have skimmed over that part







but as mentioned earlier these are all just proposals. now i wonder how many make it through the final cut

[Vincent Wong]

Rims: Allow any car with a rim size smaller than a 15x7 an upgrade to that size.
Allow those with 19+ to move down to a 18" rim.
Allow a +/- 1/2" width change with the exception of the above minimum size upgrade

Reasoning. Both 13/14's and 19+ are difficult sizes to find deceit tires to run competitively, if at all, in the case of the smaller ones going forward. 19+ might change, and can be removed at a later date. While many cars with rim sizes between might benefit from rim changes, tires are available. In my mind this is no different than any other update/backdate issue any individual car might benefit from, it's what your year came with. The rim width, while potentially beneficial to some degree, will allow aftermarket rims within reason, specifically for those with bazaar OEM widths not available in the aftermarket, while not dramatically changing a cars performance.

I like this idea. Sent your comments in yet, Craig?

[Kurt Rahn]

I could end up spending $30,000 to save money on tires.

[Kurt Rahn]

Funny, I was looking at this from the other end of the spectrum, and didn't even think of the people with the smaller diameters. I was thinking about the people who have a car that comes on 19" wheels that would prefer to run 18" wheels. When I was car shopping, one of the cars I looked at was the Hyundai Genesis Coupe R-Spec, which came with 19" wheels. I then went to tire rack and looked up the price of tires, and that car went immediately off my radar. This would solve that problem, I suppose.

4) I don't think the wheel change is a big deal, 1" doesn't really save anything, but it starts to create the lingering effect. Why should I care that the guy with the 20+yo car can't buy 13" competitive street tires? Maybe its not a bad idea to just let some cars die off or move up in classes. Its probably a good move for the corvettes and other SS/AS/FS cars but I don't think there will be a move en mass to the Street class anyway.

[Marshall Grice]

Remote reservoir: I agree with their elimination.

This would also bring down the cost, and would co-inside with the single adjustable limitation I proposed. Again a step up in prep level if you choose from "Stock"/"Street". What they didn't address is what one has to do in the few cases of OEM installs. They also need to address the existing hole issue for those who did install when they were allowed. You can't just un-drill a hole, and an attempt to fill it would look bad and effect resale down the road.

I can drive a bus through the loophole this creates if the objective is to reduce cost or performance. I can drive a bus through the single adjustable limitation as well when you have the allowance to convert any adjustable shock to non adjustable by locking the knobs.

example 1: http://www.ohlinsusa.com/ttx40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
F1 level shock, meets the street class limitations

example 2: http://koniracing.com/2812mk2.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
every bit as good as a set of penske remote reservoir, meets the street class limitations.

getting rid of external reservoir shocks only hides their superiority from the uninformed. How about we just mandate that you must paint any external reservoirs black so the newbs don't see them.

[Marshall Grice]

I thought the concept is good, but there are a few things I don't like.

1. Camber allowance appears to apply only to McPherson strut suspension, and not A-arm suspension. (Good for my BMW, bad for my Audi)

+ 1 The Lotus has A-arms. Stiffest anti-swaybar setting helps, but is not enough.

i don't think the point is to make every suspension as good as it can be. the point is to make every suspension "fun enough". i certainly think your lotus suspension is fun enough. i don't think a vw golf's suspension (newer ones specifically) is fun enough. 0* of camber with struts TOTALLY BLOWS. -1.5* negative camber with double a-arms is workable.

It's not like giving camber plates to a car with stock diameter springs is going to result in -6* of camber. I'd be surprised if most cars could get over 2* before the spring hits the strut tower. on the evo to get -5* we can't even have the brake line in between the strut body and the chassis, it's that close.

[Marshall Grice]

all in all, sounds like a fair trade for giving up the R-comps. other than pissing off everyone that already owns the blingy shocks.

The people who've been running R-comps on blingy shocks still have a place to play in limited prep SP classes if they want to keep doing it! I actually love this part of the proposal.

as a SP competitor, i HATE this part of the proposal. i don't really care about what goes on in stock but don't come in and F-up SP because of it.

My proposal would be that we should give SS the additional allowances that are proposed for the limited prep class and make it a catch all class for street. If you wanna run the big boy tires, go run in the big boy class. That gives the guys who want to run r-comps a place to play and does the best to preserve what is currently the most successful stock class we have (SS). It would be similar to the classing structure in prepared where the top class (XP) has additional allowances above what is allowed in the rest of prepared and is a catch all for all other prepared cars that want to come play with the extra stuff.

[Bobby Beyer]

I thought the concept is good, but there are a few things I don't like.

1. Camber allowance appears to apply only to McPherson strut suspension, and not A-arm suspension. (Good for my BMW, bad for my Audi)

+ 1 The Lotus has A-arms. Stiffest anti-swaybar setting helps, but is not enough.

i don't think the point is to make every suspension as good as it can be. the point is to make every suspension "fun enough". i certainly think your lotus suspension is fun enough. i don't think a vw golf's suspension (newer ones specifically) is fun enough. 0* of camber with struts TOTALLY BLOWS. -1.5* negative camber with double a-arms is workable.

It's not like giving camber plates to a car with stock diameter springs is going to result in -6* of camber. I'd be surprised if most cars could get over 2* before the spring hits the strut tower. on the evo to get -5* we can't even have the brake line in between the strut body and the chassis, it's that close.

I could get -3.5 out of my mustang with camber plates and even more if I used camber bolts with that as well.

I just don't feel it would be fair to some competitors if your car can get ton of negative camber and others can't. A spec camber allowance which would be easily policeable and allow some give while still keeping the streetability aspect in mind.

[Bill Martin]

I could end up spending $30,000 to save money on tires.

[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I didn't write that. But now that you mention it...

[Marshall Grice]

3) This is the one I have the most issues with, what stops someone from going super large on swaybars and gaining the roll stiffness of a ST car, this and the camber rule is where the lines of street/street touring start to really blur. I can see quite a bit of sway mounts and some creative engineering to make giant ARBs fit so people can get the perceived/potential gain.

what stops someone from going super large on sway bars in classes where they're unrestricted? eventually a swaybar quits providing handling benefits with increased size. it's going to be a different limit for each car and each driver. I think the open upper limit is on purpose, otherwise the rules makers are picking winners and losers.

[Marshall Grice]

I could get -3.5 out of my mustang with camber plates and even more if I used camber bolts with that as well.

I just don't feel it would be fair to some competitors if your car can get ton of negative camber and others can't. A spec camber allowance which would be easily policeable and allow some give while still keeping the streetability aspect in mind.

with stock springs?

good point about using both camber plates and camber bolts. perhaps a limitation of either/or would be prudent.

i don't think we're trying to form spec classes. what ever limit you arbitrarily choose is going to favor some car over another. what happens to the car that has camber plates and they slip on course going over some spec limit?

[Bobby Beyer]

3) This is the one I have the most issues with, what stops someone from going super large on swaybars and gaining the roll stiffness of a ST car, this and the camber rule is where the lines of street/street touring start to really blur. I can see quite a bit of sway mounts and some creative engineering to make giant ARBs fit so people can get the perceived/potential gain.

what stops someone from going super large on sway bars in classes where they're unrestricted? eventually a swaybar quits providing handling benefits with increased size. it's going to be a different limit for each car and each driver. I think the open upper limit is on purpose, otherwise the rules makers are picking winners and loosers.

Your right about that, but this rule really blurs the limit between st and street. Roll stiffness is roll stiffness, yes there are diminishing returns once you hit the upper limit but this still still be a case of haves and have nots. As is the case with the existing rules on shocks there are the percieved gains from going to a uber thick swaybar, and people will see that and were in the same situation we're in now. I think the one side rule was perfectly fine since all you can really do is affect the balance of the car by adjusting roll stiffness on one side.

I really don't like this proposal, I think the current ruleset with adjustments to tires is appropriate. You cannot govern how much someone is willing to spend in order to win, just not possible.

If I bought a brand shiny new FRS and wanted to race tomorrow after buying the new hotness Rival tires, I can be reasonably competitive right off the shelf, with the new rule set, I would need to get as much camber as possible and some hotness swaybars along with shocks to be competitive. A stock car is supposed to be a roly poly mess, not this quasi "street" car with custom real ARB mounts and such.

[Bobby Beyer]

I could get -3.5 out of my mustang with camber plates and even more if I used camber bolts with that as well.

I just don't feel it would be fair to some competitors if your car can get ton of negative camber and others can't. A spec camber allowance which would be easily policeable and allow some give while still keeping the streetability aspect in mind.

with stock springs?

good point about using both camber plates and camber bolts. perhaps a limitation of either/or would be prudent.

i don't think we're trying to form spec classes. what ever limit you arbitrarily choose is going to favor some car over another. what happens to the car that has camber plates and they slip on course going over some spec limit?

They were "bullitt" springs which is 1" lower than stock, but yes I got that much. The bore hole for the strut top is something like 4" across plus on a SN95 and the spring is on the control arm so there is tons of space.

Same thing that happens when someone boost controller or cat fails on course.

Of course but that's what racing is about, there is simply no way you can make ever car available competitive and the new rules won't do much to change that no matter how hard you try.

[David Barrish]

I am looking forward to not being the only car Max will be making snide remarks about as we try to scrape the door handles around the corners.

Drive it down on the bump stops and hang on! ;)

[Anthony Munoz]

[/quote]


+ 1 The Lotus has A-arms. Stiffest anti-swaybar setting helps, but is not enough.[/quote]
i don't think the point is to make every suspension as good as it can be. the point is to make every suspension "fun enough". i certainly think your lotus suspension is fun enough. i don't think a vw golf's suspension (newer ones specifically) is fun enough. 0* of camber with struts TOTALLY BLOWS. -1.5* negative camber with double a-arms is workable.

It's not like giving camber plates to a car with stock diameter springs is going to result in -6* of camber. I'd be surprised if most cars could get over 2* before the spring hits the strut tower. on the evo to get -5* we can't even have the brake line in between the strut body and the chassis, it's that close.[/quote]


I could get -3.5 out of my mustang with camber plates and even more if I used camber bolts with that as well.

I just don't feel it would be fair to some competitors if your car can get ton of negative camber and others can't. A spec camber allowance which would be easily policeable and allow some give while still keeping the streetability aspect in mind.[/quote]


Thank you, Bobby. Removing all my shims on the A-arms only gives me -0.8° camber. Not fun, especially if the competition has gobs of power: Corvette Z06 = 0.1579 hp/lb; Porsche GT3 = 0.1484 hp/lb; Lotus Elise 0.09645 hp/lb. Just updating the upper A-arm would drastically improve handling. Current configuration is either a too much push or too much uncontrolled oversteer due to its very short wheelbase. Now, if I can only afford a-$10,000 Moton shocks just like the owner of the Lotus Matthew Braun used to drive. Then again I could install a supercharger and allow me more suspension and setup tuning in SSP....

[Doug Teulie]

Of course but that's what racing is about, there is simply no way you can make every car available competitive and the new rules won't do much to change that no matter how hard you try.

It clearly is not the goal to make every car available competitive. I don’t see too many LTDs out on Sunday chasing cones. LTD drivers don’t have to be told not to come back. The problem has been that the rules and SEB can make only one car competitive. I think people give up when they find out that they can't ever be competitive (like 3 seconds off the best class time) unless they get the one special year and trim package Miata that is the class darling.

Street class is at least an attempt to make it more fun to get killed in your class with the wrong car.

Why should I care that the guy with the 20+yo car can't buy 13" competitive street tires? Maybe its not a bad idea to just let some cars die off or move up in classes.

One thing to think about when thinking, XYZ cars should just not be supported is, We need more participation at the local level at all the regions in the country. SoCal is great but in some regions only 40 cars show up and 35 of them don’t run at nationals. They all run PAX and need a class to get a PAX. Shutting down the other 35 drivers that are having fun would kill the event for everyone. For years SCCA has focused on Nationals but forgotten that the local family part of the sport is just as important. Without the family helping setup and working the event none of the national level drivers would have the chance to practice at an event close to home. Some cars are just fun to drive and Auto-x is a place to become a better driver and have fun. Now SCCA sees numbers dropping, well.... it is wake up time, we need participants, start caring.

[Bobby Beyer]

Not an LTD but close enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mAbswOf ... r_embedded
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/02/meet ... -chevelle/

Hmm that place looks familiar.

Sorry about the off topic, I just couldn't resist.

[KJ Christopher]

i don't think we're trying to form spec classes. what ever limit you arbitrarily choose is going to favor some car over another. what happens to the car that has camber plates and they slip on course going over some spec limit?

Same thing that happens when someone boost controller or cat fails on course.

Don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure the requirement to have a legal car extends to the finish line of the course.

[Doug Teulie]

getting rid of external reservoir shocks only hides their superiority from the uninformed. How about we just mandate that you must paint any external reservoirs black so the newbs don't see them.

+1