Cal Club Autocross Forums

Click here --> March, 2011 - FasTrack (Solo)

Event Operations: per the EOC, abuses of mechanical delays are believed to be adequately addressed by 6.8.D, which
states: “Drivers of cars with mechanical difficulty shall have ten minutes after the car is scheduled to start to present a
car at the start line. Drivers may take one mechanical delay per run. For this purpose, a rerun counts as a new run. Grid
personnel will be notified of the mechanical difficulty, and will refer the request for a mechanical delay to the Chief
Steward in cases where the competitor may gain an unfair advantage by delaying a run. Abuse of this allowance
may be considered unsportsmanlike conduct and is protestable under section 9.1.F.” (ref. #3315)

I wasn't aware of this before (should have read the rule book, huh?), but it's good to know!

If the "un-streeting" of Street Touring goes through as currently being considered, I'm buying a Legends car for next year. I wonder how many runs you could get out of 275 width tires on a 1250 pound car?

Steve Lepper wrote:If the "un-streeting" of Street Touring goes through as currently being considered

Huh?

I should have added the word "proposed" in there...

I'm still frickin' amazed that the Solo2 powers that be still allow non-GCR compliant roll cages. "Strongly Recommended..."

Steve Lepper wrote:I should have added the word "proposed" in there...

Seems like it's going the other way to me. What proposed items are a "must have" that move ST away from streetability, that would push someone from running?

Thanks!

Rick

John Coffey wrote:I'm still frickin' amazed that the Solo2 powers that be still allow non-GCR compliant roll cages. "Strongly Recommended..."

I'm still frickin amazed that you still call it solo2.

}:)

Richard Jung wrote:

Steve Lepper wrote:I should have added the word "proposed" in there...

Seems like it's going the other way to me. What proposed items are a "must have" that move ST away from streetability, that would push someone from running?

Thanks!

Rick

Race cats in ST/STS. Howard screwed it up with the STX rules which carried over to STU. Race cats, single cats, downpipes all very visually tampering with federal emissions equipment. Even if your state doesn't test, it doesn't mean its legal to remove cats or replace them with resonators.

I'm guessing Lepper is speaking more broadly over the SEB giving up on the emissions legal stuff.

Steve Ekstrand wrote:I'm guessing Lepper is speaking more broadly over the SEB giving up on the emissions legal stuff.

Really? The only way to truly have everything emissions legal is (a) take back programming, (b) take back exhaust, (c) take back intake and (d) shoot me now.

Well, everything but D anyway. Who thinks A - C would be a great combo?

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Steve Ekstrand wrote:I'm guessing Lepper is speaking more broadly over the SEB giving up on the emissions legal stuff.

Really? The only way to truly have everything emissions legal is (a) take back programming, (b) take back exhaust, (c) take back intake and (d) shoot me now.

Well, everything but D anyway. Who thinks A - C would be a great combo?

Really the only way?

I'm mostly OK with your suggestion, even though it was said tongue in cheek... I'm OK with removing the programing, but I've replaced exhaust headers, and intake with CARB approved items. Some parts can be improved from stock, and still be smog legal. I'm OK even with what used to be 49 state legal, but is more like 37 state now? But wide open, more or less as it is now for a "street legal" car... I do disagree with that. ST class cars should not be trailer queens, they should be street-able, legally.

My ST Civic can get stopped by the cops. Looked over upside down and sideways by a smog inspector and even run through onramp remote sensors and do just fine. I've got CARB stickers on my intake and header. I might give up something to the custom bisimoto sitting in the garage, maybe, maybe not with the current cat rules. And I have a California legal cat, because its the same as the 48 state version Random Technologies sells. So, I'm plausibly legal. Nobody can realistically tell what voodoo may or may not be going on inside the stock honda ecu case. I've got one of the favorites in the class (with somebody decent driving). Yet if I have to (like when I wreck my trailer), I can drive it on the street.

Change the cat rule.... Now I can't dare drive the car on the street. A real race cat means too much. And means now my custom race header might really work. No chance in Hell I'd risk being Christos Adams (sorry Bud) with that car on the street.

There is LEGAL, and there is plausible deniability. The later is all I'm asking for. The argument I'm hearing is we can't be squeaky clean letter of the law perfect so let's run the baby through the garbage disposal.

But if I were to stay in the class after it gets thrown to the Miatae and CRXen, which is doubtful, I'd benefit from the full out changes. I can afford to immediately get the most exotic race cat, custom header, and experiment and dyno tune to make the most of it. And I can play around and test to see if anything can be made of the piggyback changes. I can throw a lot of money at the changes if I stayed that others may not feel like spending or be able to. So, who are the changes helping and why? Just because I can doesn't mean I want to dump my house upgrade funds into my toy.

Steve Ekstrand wrote:

Richard Jung wrote:

Steve Lepper wrote:I should have added the word "proposed" in there...

Seems like it's going the other way to me. What proposed items are a "must have" that move ST away from streetability, that would push someone from running?

Thanks!

Rick

Race cats in ST/STS. Howard screwed it up with the STX rules which carried over to STU. Race cats, single cats, downpipes all very visually tampering with federal emissions equipment. Even if your state doesn't test, it doesn't mean its legal to remove cats or replace them with resonators.

I'm guessing Lepper is speaking more broadly over the SEB giving up on the emissions legal stuff.

Got it, I was thinking more about aero and light wt. rotor allowance take-backs helping streetability.

Marshall Grice wrote:

John Coffey wrote:I'm still frickin' amazed that the Solo2 powers that be still allow non-GCR compliant roll cages. "Strongly Recommended..."

I'm still frickin amazed that you still call it solo2.

}:)

Its that age thing...

John Coffey wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote:

John Coffey wrote:I'm still frickin' amazed that the Solo2 powers that be still allow non-GCR compliant roll cages. "Strongly Recommended..."

I'm still frickin amazed that you still call it solo2.

}:)

Its that age thing...

Aren't you more the Gymkhana generation?

Bill Schenker wrote:

John Coffey wrote: Its that age thing...

Aren't you more the Gymkhana generation?

I was thinking the Pastrana Nascar gen.

John Coffey wrote:I'm still frickin' amazed that the Solo2 powers that be still allow non-GCR compliant roll cages. "Strongly Recommended..."

Why should roll bars in Solo be held to the road racing GCR standard? I don't think we're trying to enforce a safety regulation, as much as making an allowance for those that have installed some form of roll over protection in dual use (track and street) cars they happen to autocross. If roll bars or cages in Solo were seen as a safety item, then we would have to require GCR compliant roll over protection across the board, for all Solo cars/classes, right?

I see your point, John, but I'm throwing out the "b argument", so to speak...believe me, I've seen folded over four point bars, gusset plates installed incorrectly and pulling through sheet metal, bars that barely get above helmet level etc etc...I'm not disagreeing with you, really.

The proposal the SAC came up with under 13.2.H was to try and accomodate those folks with newer cars (think NC Miata) that needed/wanted to install roll over protection for track events. Their problem is that the stock roll over hoops not only don't meet any safety standard, they also make it impossible to install a better designed solution for track use, but Solo rules don't allow for the removal.

One concern issue with rollbars is that if done incorrectly they can become MORE dangerous than not having one at all. My childhood racing idol (ProStock driver Don Carlton) was killed in testing in a very minor crash but a bad roll cage impaled the back of his skull right through the helmet. That one fluke crash caused a wave of rules changes across different sanctioning bodies in the late 70's. Safety rules evolve for a reason. If you allow something homemade to no standards then you run the risk of ignoring (and reliving) decades of bad experiences.

I think that it would be okay to not require GCR-compliant cages, if there were some other standard that was required. Improperly designed roll bars can be a safety hazard, so roll bars are required to at least meet the requirements of Appendix C of the Solo rules. I don't see that stipulated as a requirement for cages in the Stock rules. Just a recommendation to comply with the GCR.