Cal Club Autocross Forums

ill buy the car if he sells...

Michael Wood wrote:Seriously, I don't think it is the fugly factor (although Miatae with wings are dang fugly..) so much as the whole idea of aero, given the intent of ST, is the problem. Talk about the law of diminshing returns...I can think of innumerous mods that cost far less, take far less "engineering", provide far greater results in both speed and fun to drive and are much more in line with ST. Aero is fine for classes like SM or Mod, but is just dumb for a low buck/low barriers to entry class like ST/STS.
STX and STU are a little different story, as many of the cars had functional aero from the factory...

All that seems well and good, but it's assuming we - the SCCA - are operating in a vacuum. Other sanctioning bodies *are* courting the exact cars we're allowing in STR, and they're allowed to use wings in those other events. Do we want to see if they'll take the wing off and show up to SCCA events? Or might it be better simply to leave the existing allowance as it is and attract those competitors to the new class? The SCCA is, after all, a business.

Mike, I've seen lots of opinions on both sides of this argument. I mean *lots*. I personally don't think wings meeting the ST allowance have a significant effect, but I can say they add a competitive dynamic that I find quite interesting, especially when they're so inexpensive. One donor trunk lid - maybe $75-$100 - and about $300 for the wing and you can test it out. Yes, the suspension setup will probably need to be changed slightly, but I tested my STU car with and without the wing and it simply wasn't clear that one way or the other was quicker at the kind of speeds ST cars see. I can say where they're quite effective: drawing a crowd around your car at practice events. My bet is they intimidate a lot of the competition too.

Again, I'm not advocating one position or the other. I'm just putting some ideas out there.

Mike

Wings are dumb.

Furthermore, they have no business in grassroots motorsports.

10" high spoilers are dumb too.


Everyone who agrees raise your hand.

Robert Puertas wrote:Wings are dumb.

Furthermore, they have no business in grassroots motorsports.

10" high spoilers are dumb too.


Everyone who agrees raise your hand.

:unimpressed:

unnecessary

Mike Simanyi wrote:My bet is they intimidate a lot of the competition too.

Until you put fairy stickers on them.

Greg Peng wrote:

Mike Simanyi wrote:My bet is they intimidate a lot of the competition too.

Until you put fairy stickers on them.

Robert Puertas wrote:Wings are dumb.

Furthermore, they have no business in grassroots motorsports.

10" high spoilers are dumb too.


Everyone who agrees raise your hand.

By that reasoning, R compound tires, $4k shocks, $2k wheels, added turbos & superchargers, and people telling other people what they can and can not due based on what they want or not want to do/spend $$ on is dumb too - but my guess is you are being facetious...

Oh, and btw, biga$$ 10" spoilers work, but you probably already knew that...

Mike Simanyi wrote:Not that anyone leasing a car would run it in SCCA Solo events... ;)

He don't know me vewy well, do he?

Can't you guys tell when Robert is joking?

John Coffey wrote:

Jason, the most common reason people don't want the wing allowance - at least what I'm hearing - is they don't like the appearance of the wing on their car. They think it's ugly.

That's the "Its not whether I win or lose, its how good I look on the course" autocross philosophy. That philosophy leads to people to driving BMWs and teal Civics.