Cal Club Autocross Forums

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/ ... ck-oct.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How is an e90 330 a threat in STX?
But an e46 330 zhp isn't?

Robert Puertas wrote:How is an e90 330 a threat in STX?
But an e46 330 zhp isn't?

More importantly, how is it that Keith Brown is the one that posted this on the Cal Club forums, for SHAME Marshall and Gio.

Hmm... I believe something was lost in translation. Looking into it now.

Mike

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:More importantly, how is it that Keith Brown is the one that posted this on the Cal Club forums, for SHAME Marshall and Gio.

I don't know WHAT system they have for notifying FasTrack subscribers that the latest issue is available but I believe carrier pigeons would be faster than what they have now!

EDIT: FasTrack Posted‏
From: membership@scca.com (membership@scca.com)
Sent: Wed 9/30/09 1:12 PM
To: gjaram@hotmail.com

Nissan GTR OE tire (ref. 09-430) Comment: the STAC sees no demonstrable evidence at this time to support excluding this
tire, but will remain vigilant.

Is the Nissan GTR an Street Touring car????

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Nissan GTR OE tire (ref. 09-430) Comment: the STAC sees no demonstrable evidence at this time to support excluding this
tire, but will remain vigilant.

Is the Nissan GTR an Street Touring car????

If a car is legal in Stock and not excluded, yes... it's legal in the ST category. If the GTR *were* legal in Stock, that would make it a 3800 lb 485+ hp car on 245 tires running in STU. Sounds like a winner! (Note: extreme sarcasm!)

Per the 2009 rules the GTR is excluded from Stock. I don't know if that has been revised for 2010.

Mike

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Nissan GTR OE tire (ref. 09-430) Comment: the STAC sees no demonstrable evidence at this time to support excluding this
tire, but will remain vigilant.

Is the Nissan GTR an Street Touring car????

If a car is legal in Stock and not excluded, yes... it's legal in the ST category. If the GTR *were* legal in Stock, that would make it a 3800 lb 485+ hp car on 245 tires running in STU. Sounds like a winner! (Note: extreme sarcasm!)

Per the 2009 rules the GTR is excluded from Stock. I don't know if that has been revised for 2010.

Mike

I'm guessing hte worry was putting the GTR's stock cheater tires on something else.

For ST and SP:

“Strut bars may be added, removed, modified, or substituted with all types of suspension.”

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Nissan GTR OE tire (ref. 09-430) Comment: the STAC sees no demonstrable evidence at this time to support excluding this
tire, but will remain vigilant.

Is the Nissan GTR an Street Touring car????

If a car is legal in Stock and not excluded, yes... it's legal in the ST category. If the GTR *were* legal in Stock, that would make it a 3800 lb 485+ hp car on 245 tires running in STU. Sounds like a winner! (Note: extreme sarcasm!)

Per the 2009 rules the GTR is excluded from Stock. I don't know if that has been revised for 2010.

Mike

I'm guessing hte worry was putting the GTR's stock cheater tires on something else.

Something like that... }:)
...
How do you roll fender lips without affecting, at least a little bit, the outer fender contour? The outer fender has to provide the equal-and-opposite force to the fender lip rolling mechanism to cause the lip itself to bend, and those forces will generally move the fender out and up. The only way I can think of to do it would be to pull the fender off the car (hard to do with quarterpanels) and build some kind of custom fender rolling jig where the fender's outside is supported in a manner that prevents its deflection as the fender-lip-rolling forces are incurred.

It would be much more easily verified/enforced if the allowance were changed to allow unlimited "rolling and pulling" so long as no metal is removed. Or maybe allowing a deviation of no more than 1" in any direction, could use the restriction to top-replacement allowances as a template-

...that the contour of any replacement panel surface
does not vary from the contour of the part being replaced by
more than 1 inch in any direction.

I know that probably sounds like allowing too much to some, but as so often happens, the current rule, while sounding nice and happy and in line with the intent and spirit of the class, is in a weird gray area that would be difficult to consistently enforce. Anybody who has rolled their fender lips is probably breaking it whether they know it, or meant to, or not.

Ok, off my soapbox for now...

Jason Rhoades wrote: I know that probably sounds like allowing too much to some, but as so often happens, the current rule, while sounding nice and happy and in line with the intent and spirit of the class, is in a weird gray area that would be difficult to consistently enforce. Anybody who has rolled their fender lips is probably breaking it whether they know it, or meant to, or not.

Ok, off my soapbox for now...

it's ok, i don't think anyone in ST follows the rules anyways. }:)

of course most of the rules are unfollow-able anyways.

Jason Rhoades wrote: How do you roll fender lips without affecting, at least a little bit, the outer fender contour?

Hammer, meet dolly.

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.

If you free up rolling to allow more than the inner lip to be moved, how many more people are gonna be whining about having to destroy their cars to remain competitive?

Mike

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.

Mike Simanyi wrote:
If you free up rolling to allow more than the inner lip to be moved, how many more people are gonna be whining about having to destroy their cars to remain competitive?

Mike

just because you are allowed to move the outer profile of the fender doesn't mean it has to look ugly. you should know, you're car looks awesome!

I mean if you have to pay for someone to do the body work with a hammer and dolly why not let them get their money's worth out of it? or the opposite, if you let them do it themselves with a fender roller, why does that make them illegal? btw I agree with Jason in that a fender roller will distort the outside profile while trying to bend the inner lip.

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.

Not exactly. It's the "I don't want to have to flare my car to remain competitive in ST" philosophy. I hear a *lot* of that. I mostly hear "I wanna roll my fenders and not care about bending the outer fender" from a few vocal BMW drivers.

Edited to add: my guess is we'll hear this argument much more frequently from competitors in older cars that want to fit 255, 265 or 285 tires allowed in several ST classes. Newer cars tend to fit wider rubber without much difficulty, and those are the people who don't want to "destroy" their cars with an allowance to effectively flare their cars. Not that anyone leasing a car would run it in SCCA Solo events... ;)

Ban the BMWs and a lot of classing "problems" are solved.

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Ban the RX8 and a lot of classing "problems" are solved.

Fixed that for ya! ;)

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Ban the RX8 and a lot of classing "problems" are solved.

Fixed that for ya! ;)

Yeah, because its the car that make BMW and Subi owners cry.

With a fender off the car there may be a chance to do a lip roll without an outer contour change, but I don't see it happening with the stuff on the car, or to a quarterpanel, by anything other than a supremely talented robot. Even with a hammer and dolly, or a block of some sort on the other side, the fender structure is going to absorb any impact from the hammer not perfectly countered by whatever you have on the other side. Since the rest of the car is holding the fender, those forces are going to bend it up and out. Maybe you can try to knock it back in to where it was, but now how would you even know exactly where that was? When I read

Street Touring: Per the STAC, only the inner lip of a fender may be rolled, per 14.2.E. The outer fender contour may not be
changed to provide additional tire clearance.

to me it means that if you have even moved 1 molecule of the outer fender further away from the tire by the tiniest amount, you are illegal.

IMO the rule should allow for the typical clearancing methods used by common racer types, which includes the eastwood-type roller tool, or the classic Louisville Slugger.

An alternative solution would be to somewhat neuter the restriction on outer fender contour to something that sounds warm and fuzzy but can't actually be enforced (like the aero's "signifcant" bit), and allows people to roll their fenders without living in fear of future protest. It's actually already part of the way there-

The intention is to
permit fitting the maximum allowable tire size, and the
modifications may serve no other purpose (e.g. air intake, brake
ducts, etc.).

How about "The intention is to permit fitting the maximum allowable tire size while maintaining the same basic outer fender shape...", then change "Fenders may not be cut or flared" to just say "Fenders may not be cut", since some people might consider rolling the inner fender lip's affects on outer contour, flaring.

Maybe what cracks me up the most is "Fenders may not be cut or flared", followed one paragraph later by the body kit allowance, "Body kits are limited to bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and fender flares". I know I'm somewhat to blame as I was on the STAC once too, but it's a sign that there's surely some work to be done in this area.

And thanks for taking the time to play Devil's Advocate Mike. As to the older cars on big tires thing - I think it applies to a lot of newer cars too, at least in the front. I think just about any car can be fun and good to autocross in ST with enough front tire. Loosening up fender rolling (even fuzzily) will allow more cars to fit another 10 or 20mm up front, which could do a lot for potential diversity.

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.

lol

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...

2. Street Touring: Per the STAC, OE bumper covers may be modified as part of the “Body Kit” allowance (14.2.F), including cutting
holes for the passage of air. NOTE: The STAC is looking to rework or remove 14.2.F for 2011, since its original “Sport
Compact” cosmetic intent is no longer relevant and it is being primarily used instead for performance benefit.

i read this as i am able to cut holes in the stock bumper for brake ducts yeh? or any other use of routing air.

Jason Rhoades wrote:I know I'm somewhat to blame as I was on the STAC once too, but it's a sign that there's surely some work to be done in this area.

And thanks for taking the time to play Devil's Advocate Mike.

Agreed. For the record, I'm not advocating one position or the other. I see both arguments - but your point about the added fender flares always cracks me up. How in the world did *that* make any sense? "You can't flare, but you can roll. Then you can put on fake flares. Have fun!"

Mike

John Coffey wrote: That philosophy leads to people to driving BMWs and teal Civics.

I feel pretty.... Oh so pretty!

Steve Ekstrand wrote:

John Coffey wrote: That philosophy leads to people to driving BMWs and teal Civics.

I feel pretty.... Oh so pretty!

Steve, how come you're still messin' round with 'dem Civics? You seem like a big Mopar guy, why not get an SRT-10 and come run with us in SS?

The Big Asp doesn't fit in the trailer.....