Cal Club Autocross Forums

Mako Koiwai wrote:http://kaimoku.com/formulav/formulav.htm

Yes, or a bunch of people have broken a rule.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Mako Koiwai wrote:http://kaimoku.com/formulav/formulav.htm

Yes, or a bunch of people have broken a rule.

Don't think this is legal in Stock,ST, SP or SM (any class with DOT tire rules). Just P, M and maybe Karts?

Is there a rule in the book, or just one of those things ... that if it's not mentioned, it can't be done?

Seems like a "common sense" money saver ... if it works.

Mako Koiwai wrote:Is there a rule in the book, or just one of those things ... that if it's not mentioned, it can't be done?

Seems like a "common sense" money saver ... if it works.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the rule book where it specifically mentions this as being allowed, so I do think it falls under, if it doesn't say you can, you can't. S/ST/SP all have effectively the same tire rules and it's not mentioned there. SM uses the S/ST/SP tire rules. P/M/K have much more open tire rules so it would be legal there.

So this is only a money saver and in no way a performance advantage? If it does work, what if you used it on brand new tires? FWIW, based on the current trend to use A6's in P/M in many cases, I'd think that ppl would be using it there (along with siping) if it did really work. Or maybe they are and are just keeping it quiet...

The only people I have heard using it are prep and mod people (in solo, I've heard of short trackers using it).

The complaint is that it is very short lived. The short trackers will sometimes use it for a qualifying lap.

I think Rocky Entriken in KS sells it.

Don't know what it would do to new tires ... we would just like to get some more life out of our practice R's. New 710's coming in for the Divisional.

I believe the rule book also doesn't say which lube's you can use. There could be a 3 to 5% HP advantage to using very thin expensive racing oils like Silkolene 0/20 ... good for 500 miles. You probably already know that. ;)

http://www.710oil.co.uk/raceprod.htm

Mako Koiwai wrote:Don't know what it would do to new tires ... we would just like to get some more life out of our practice R's. New 710's coming in for the Divisional.

I believe the rule book also doesn't say which lube's you can use. There could be a 3 to 5% HP advantage to using very thin expensive racing oils like Silkolene 0/20 ... good for 500 miles. You probably already know that. ;)

http://www.710oil.co.uk/raceprod.htm

My point was that I don't think you can make a good argument for it being a, "money saver" if there's potentially some extra performance to be gained. Not clear from above, but if you're using it only on tires for practices, it's not an issue (assuming there's no safety issues). Isn't the SD div our next event?

My understanding of it's benefits (if any) is pretty similar to what Steve said.

What class are you talking about in regards to "lube's". They are specifically allowed in stock which trickles down to most of the other classes,

"13.10.M. Any oil or grease, including synthetic, is permitted."

If you only want to use them for practice events or schools do what you want.

Jason Uyeda wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere in the rule book where it specifically mentions this as being allowed, so I do think it falls under, if it doesn't say you can, you can't.

Jason, I'm not picking on you, so don't get all defensive. It's just that you happened to be the one who mentioned the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" rule and I just have to make a comment.

Is there a point where "common sense" overrules "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"? Or is "doesn't say" the final word in all things Solo? Every time someone mentions something the least bit creative, then people get all up tight and quote the "doesn't say" rule.

I'm not really trying to stir things up, but if you take "doesn't say" to an extreme, then where does it state in the rules that head bolts/studs should be properly torqued or tightened? I searched and I couldn't find any mention of engine fasteners being tight. Does this mean everyone is in violation of the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" rule that's mentioned? They do mention wheel fasteners as having to be tight, but not head bolts.

It's actually kinda funny what SCCA feels are "performance " mods. You can spend a TON of money in "Stock" class on suspension and "R" compound tires and that's OK, but if you replace the shift knob (!), then that gives you some kind of a performance advantage and you're in violation.

OK, maybe I am stirring the pot a little, but I think it's time that SCCA take a look at the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" statement and perhaps qualify it a bit. Everyone, go ahead and flame away, I won't be reading any of the replies.

Bucky MacConaghy wrote:
OK, maybe I am stirring the pot a little, but I think it's time that SCCA take a look at the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" statement and perhaps qualify it a bit. Everyone, go ahead and flame away, I won't be reading any of the replies.

Bucky, the rest of the rule book "qualifies" that statement. There are many legal allowances, and competitors who choose to go beyond them should be held accountable.

Mike

I've used the Formula V before on old tires.....not recommended for new tires (not sure there is any advantage for new tires anyway). Anyone know some different use?

However for old tires that are hard and slippery, it can help to restore some of the performance (not to new tire levels by any stretch of the imagination - please note that). I wouldn't count on the old treated tires for a Tour or Nationals.

Therefore, I don't believe it would give someone any real advantage except over someone else with really old tires....

The only use for it as far as I know is to give some old, otherwise throw-away, tires some useful life for a few more runs......helps the pocket book. So, why not? Let 'em use it I say. :ibrightdea:

Cheers,

Reijo

Bucky MacConaghy wrote:

Jason Uyeda wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere in the rule book where it specifically mentions this as being allowed, so I do think it falls under, if it doesn't say you can, you can't.

Jason, I'm not picking on you, so don't get all defensive. It's just that you happened to be the one who mentioned the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" rule and I just have to make a comment.

Actually I think Mako mentioned it first I'm not taking this personally, but I find it a little curious that you qualify it that way, then end your post by saying that you won't be reading any of the replies.

Bucky MacConaghy wrote:Is there a point where "common sense" overrules "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"? Or is "doesn't say" the final word in all things Solo? Every time someone mentions something the least bit creative, then people get all up tight and quote the "doesn't say" rule.

I'm not really trying to stir things up, but if you take "doesn't say" to an extreme, then where does it state in the rules that head bolts/studs should be properly torqued or tightened? I searched and I couldn't find any mention of engine fasteners being tight. Does this mean everyone is in violation of the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" rule that's mentioned? They do mention wheel fasteners as having to be tight, but not head bolts.

It's actually kinda funny what SCCA feels are "performance " mods. You can spend a TON of money in "Stock" class on suspension and "R" compound tires and that's OK, but if you replace the shift knob (!), then that gives you some kind of a performance advantage and you're in violation.

OK, maybe I am stirring the pot a little, but I think it's time that SCCA take a look at the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" statement and perhaps qualify it a bit. Everyone, go ahead and flame away, I won't be reading any of the replies.

Hmm, where to start I think over the years we have seen plenty of creative attempts to follow the rules and gain an advantage, either financially or competitively ( a few of these attempts have happened locally ). Many of these have been clever and completely legal, some not so clear-cut, and others considered illegal. The rulebook continually grows partly because of such attempts...

I think competitors and protest committees do use "common sense" most of the time. Thing is, we're all human and common sense is not absolute, so no matter what there will be disagreements.

At the local level, I think there's lots of give-and-take between competitors and that's the way it should be. But at the same time, we are a self-policed sport, people should be aware that if they chose to do something beyond the norm, there may be consequences. I think it's complete BS that people complain about "weenie" protests and being protested in general. Once again we're all human and not everyone will see everything the same way. I'm constantly amazed at how hard it is for someone to admit they're wrong, or that they can't understand a different POV.

You're example of head bolts/studs is covered by the rules in Stock, not sure what class you're referring to, but every class with limited/no engine prep refers to the Stock class rules....

13 (paragraph 2) Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as defined by these Rules.

Does this mean that if you've over-torqued your head bolts and get protested for it you're going to get DQ'd??? I think not. But if there's some car out there, that could potentially have something to gain by running with loose studs or something like that, than they're might be an issue.

Shift knobs... If you replace your shift knob with one of similar size and weight, my opinion would be that it falls under C&C. But many have tried to gain an advantage from this in the past, switching to a shorter/lighter knob... So if you really care about results, you should be careful. This is true of anything that you think might fall under C&C though...

There must be some competitive advantage to be gained by using this stuff or it wouldn't be marketed (mostly to dirt track racers) as "undetectable", and the scrutineers wouldn't be testing for it.
Many of these products are marketed with the claim of lowering lap times 3-5 tenths so if it works and is legal how come it's not part of all of our autocross essentials?

Sebastian Rios wrote:There must be some competitive advantage to be gained by using this stuff or it wouldn't be marketed (mostly to dirt track racers) as "undetectable", and the scrutineers wouldn't be testing for it.
Many of these products are marketed with the claim of lowering lap times 3-5 tenths so if it works and is legal how come it's not part of all of our autocross essentials?

Because it only works two, maybe three times. And dirt tire compounds are very soft compared to race slicks or DOT Rs.

2 or 3 times is good enoough for practice tires ...

Steve Ekstrand wrote:I think Rocky Entriken in KS sells it.

He used to sell it. He sold his business to Dave Whitworth's Solo Performance Specialties, in St.Louis.

Many of these products are marketed with the claim of...

"Marketed" is the operative word here.

They are good for giving a few 10ths back into old tires that have lost dozens of 10ths. They don't make a brand new tire a few 10ths faster. Been there, tried that.

I've used it...and several similar softeners. They have negative value if used on new tires, because the first lap is always slippery. But you can use them on two or three year old tires and bring them back to maybe 6-month old performance. For three laps. After that the softened rubber is gone and you're back to 3 year old tires. I would never compete on three year old tires, but would run regional events on 6-month tires. So I think you could say in that sense it's a money saver. If you use it, apply outdoors and with you upwind. Nasty chemicals.

My opinion it's legal in stock as it has no performance advantage (over fresh tires). I agree it can be argued.

ps...the good stuff is made by Pro Blend, and you can get it from Larry Dennstadt, B-Mod, San Diego Region.

Do we still send rule clarification questions to Doug Gill?

Sebastian Rios wrote:Do we still send rule clarification questions to Doug Gill?

Why, you wanna find out if something illegal is legal

seb@scca.com is best as Doug has help now (Brian Harmer) and log numbers have been getting assigned quickly.

So how do I put this.. Want to buy a list of all the auto-x driver’s I’ve sold this to?
Or how much will they pay me not to list them?

Steve Coe
http://www.C2Racers.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a gallon I bought from Steve. It's for the very dead Hoosiers I have as practice tires. :mrt:

Does it work on brand new tires with an '05 build date....cause that's what you get when you buy NEW Yoks.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Does it work on brand new tires with an '05 build date....cause that's what you get when you buy NEW Yoks.

that's a joke right?