Cal Club Autocross Forums

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

the important bit...


- Change the third paragraph of 14.0 to read as follows:
Under the provisions of Section 1.1 of these rules, Regions are free to allow any other version of the ST concept which meets their local needs. In particular, some tolerance in the area of bodywork allowances (e.g. wings/spoilers beyond those allowed in 14.2.F) is encouraged at this level.

- Modify 14.2.C to read as follows (ref. 10-127):
“C. Factory rub strips, emblems, mud flaps, bolt on front valance lips/spoilers, and fog lights (except those integral
to a headlight or turn signal) may be removed. Rear wings may be removed so long as the vehicle retains any
federally-mandated third brake light.”

- Replace 14.2.F with the following:
14.2.F Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed provided that either:
1) it is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a US model of the vehicle
2) it is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog for that vehicle, for normal highway use. Parts must be installed as directed by the manufacturer. Exact replicas (including weight) from alternate sources are also permitted.

That is just awesome for those aero guys They can still have style!

I thought removing the same manufacturer rule from SM engine swaps was much more significant...

What's a K20 cost?

Robert Puertas wrote:I thought removing the same manufacturer rule from SM engine swaps was much more significant...

What's a K20 cost?

As did I, wow.
"
- Per the SMAC, the following rule change proposal is being submitted for member comment:
- Replace 16.1.D.1 with the following:
“1. Engine blocks must be from production automobiles. Engines must meet minimum production quantities of
1,000 units built for street use, spanning all models of cars so equipped. Motorcycle, snowmobile, marine, or other
engines of non-automobile design are not permitted. This allows engine blocks manufactured as production units
for sale in other countries such as Japan or Germany.”
The intent of this proposal is to allow cross-make engine swaps into Street Modified vehicles, using engines produced in
sufficient quantities that replacement parts are readily available. Subframe restrictions are not expanded from the existing
rules. (ref. #3313)
"

Letter sent.

Keith Brown wrote:http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/ ... n-solo.pdf

Congrats Keith! A "new" King of FasTrack Title now updated in your profile.

Trying to kill XP and raise the bar in SM? Wow, that is huge. It also adds the production numbers and street use language, I guess this means the end of my plan to use the flat 12 Subie F1 engine for my charge at SM next year.

The member comment on 19s instead of dubs (yo!) is pretty big too. Seems like it would make classing a whole lot harder.

Alum LSx motors allowed in SM/SSM in any make? There are some cool cars running swaps, like FD RX7s, Monster Miatas, 240zs , M3s, etc. Probably crossmember and min weight issues though. A LS2 Datsun 510 would be fun. I'm sure Mike will be happy to still beat them with his stock block.

I bet all the TVR owners are glad they're classed in XP now.

So STAC is encouraging ST wing use at the regional level? What's up with that? (not directed at KJ)

Three rotor E36?

Any lightweight 300hp N/A four bangers? You can run 13.5 to 1 compression and race gas. Any cam. Any porting. Take a known quantity slotcar like Mike's E36 and take 100lbs off the nose? The bimmer inline 6 weighs more than many V8's. Definitely more than LSx's. But it doesn't need the power of an LSx and the weight savings is marginally. K20? K24? And all cheaper to acquire and to build into a race motor than BMW stuff. Lot of potential project cars out there. Might give SM a much needed boost.

XP is a cool class decimated by Zust's Lotus. The advantage that SM has over XP? Lotus exclusion.

Starlet or RX3 with a new Formula Atlantic motor (300hp 2.3 MZR/Duratec).

Most amazing thing about this Fastrack is I got the email the same day instead of three days later.

Some/all of the LSx into Miata setups don't use the same subframes, require modifications to firewall and trans tunnel.

I don't think there are a lot of LSx Miata owners who want to add 800 lbs (or 600, if they opt for 275s) just to run in SSM...

SM/SSM drivers need to always heed the lessons Mike has taught the class. You don't need 800hp in a tiny sports car. The LSx is exciting because it is a lightweight V8 (relatively speaking) and fairly nicely packaged (again relatively speaking). But its overkill in a miata at the true national level. Remember that in SM you can do things you can't do in SP. Like BUILD the motor. Another lesson of course, is to not make a hand grenade, but when you aren't constrained by stock parts and engine mod rules, you can build something light and strong. Not necessarily cheap.

I've got your federally-mandated-third-brake-light right here:

Will Kalman wrote:I've got your federally-mandated-third-brake-light right here:

LOL

But I think you might need 12 of those to meet DOT lighting requirements...

Richard Jung wrote:So STAC is encouraging ST wing use at the regional level? What's up with that? (not directed at KJ)

I didn't really get that from the wording. More like encouraging leniency for people who show up with appearance mods that meet the intent but not the letter of the aero allowance, or so it seems to me.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Most amazing thing about this Fastrack is I got the email the same day instead of three days later.

Hah! You know I thought the SAME thing....then realized oooh...let's who posted it first. Was expecting Isley or Peng...but it was someone new.

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Most amazing thing about this Fastrack is I got the email the same day instead of three days later.

Hah! You know I thought the SAME thing....then realized oooh...let's who posted it first. Was expecting Isley or Peng...but it was someone new.

I would normally say, well Keith is sitting up in the cold Washington rain and snow with nothing to do but post fastracks... But that weather pretty much covers all of us right now.

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:Hah! You know I thought the SAME thing....then realized oooh...let's who posted it first. Was expecting Isley or Peng...but it was someone new.

Me??? I never get the Fastrack e-mails early. Usually they're DAYS late. But today I got it only a few hours late.

Robert Puertas wrote:Starlet or RX3 with a new Formula Atlantic motor (300hp 2.3 MZR/Duratec).

Or just use the car it comes in: MX-5.

My choice would be BDA Cosworth (made in sufficient numbers back in the day, and was offered in street-legal trim in Europe) in an early Miata.

Steve Ekstrand wrote:I would normally say, well Keith is sitting up in the cold Washington rain and snow with nothing to do but post fastracks... But that weather pretty much covers all of us right now.

Hello Mr. Noah......can I borrow that Ark of yours to go up the I-405 Fwy? It has been "foul" weather here in SoCal.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Trying to kill XP and raise the bar in SM? Wow, that is huge. It also adds the production numbers and street use language, I guess this means the end of my plan to use the flat 12 Subie F1 engine for my charge at SM next year.

Done right, I think the engine allowance could *increase* both SM category and XP participation.

SM essentially becomes a progressive step between SP and XP.

But I obviously agree with Steve - huge horsepower isn't exactly necessary in SM.

Mike

Hm...is it possible to put an LS7 in a Prelude for SM? FWD to RWD legal in SM?

Steve Ekstrand wrote:SM/SSM drivers need to always heed the lessons Mike has taught the class. You don't need 800hp in a tiny sports car. The LSx is exciting because it is a lightweight V8 (relatively speaking) and fairly nicely packaged (again relatively speaking). But its overkill in a miata at the true national level. Remember that in SM you can do things you can't do in SP. Like BUILD the motor. Another lesson of course, is to not make a hand grenade, but when you aren't constrained by stock parts and engine mod rules, you can build something light and strong. Not necessarily cheap.

Hmmm. me.. I don't see a reason why, given the current rule set you'd want a LSanything. With E85 turbo motors are favored powerwise with the current ruleset. Just need to find the stoutest lightest 2 liter turbo motor, get your rwd car down to 2480 with 450hp. I don't see the equivalent 3.4 liter NA motor making that without spending a fortune, and no need to spin it to some crazy RPM.

Re: SM cross-make swaps
Love it or hate it, let the SMAC know. It was my baby that took a bunch of effort to get this far.

While there will always be the impetus to build a high-strung motor to get the requisite power out of the minimum net displacement so long as SM stays with its current weight-by-displacement scale, my hope was this would be a step towards making SM more accessible to more people and chassis. Unless you happen to start with a platform that has an inexpensive and reliable yet powerful powertrain available, you may have to spend a bunch of $ to get there. If you consider a reasonable (by SM standards) budget of $20k, most cars will be better with $5k spent on a warmed-over LSx or 5.3 & T56 making a dead-nuts reliable and easy-to-drive 400/400 to the wheels, leaving $15k spent preparing the rest of the car, than they would be having to spend 2x that or more to make possibly less power, leaving $10k or less for everything else. Even if the V8 car has to weigh a little bit more when done.

My hope is this would make satisfying the power portion of the SM equation a bit more obtainable for more members, lower the perceived barrier to entry, and up the numbers. In addition it could open the door to a lot of cars people wouldn't run before, because it was too expensive or too hard to make enough power using a Porsche or Volvo or Jaguar or Mercedes or Triumph (or whatever) powerplant.