Cal Club Autocross Forums

Full: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... ck-may.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Solo: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... y-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sneaky how they're changing the ST category treadwear limit from 140 to 200 by pointing back to the street rules instead of specifically defining it in the ST rules.

Someone must really have an axe to grind against the R1R ... and there goes all the pony car tire options.

...and you can remove the factory top shock mounting plate and Adjustable camber plates may be installed...

However, Replacement control arms for vehicles having intergral bushing/arms assemblies must be standard factory parts as per Section 12.4 and 13.0.

Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.

Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.

Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.

Steve Lepper wrote:

Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.

Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.

Looks like the blind leading the blind.

Anthony Munoz wrote:

Steve Lepper wrote:

Anthony Munoz wrote: Can somebody please explain? Don't see the rationale.

Because the rule was written by a BMW or Subaru owner? }:)

What's the deal with full-length exhausts? The rule was fine the way it was.
Many times, cars are quieter when the pipe is turned towards the ground under the car, so what's the benefit?.

Looks like the blind leading the blind.

Its magic... Get people to focus on something stupid like a new exhaust change so you can take their tires away.

First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.

Michael Wood wrote:First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

Camber plates for MC strut cars Yes All years of production please.

Michael Wood wrote:First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.

As a McStrut car driver, my wallet loves the camber plates! I was thinking about revising my exhaust to put in a substitutable downturn under the car, but now that the rules will prohibit it, that's off the table. Not a big deal though, since it never got past the consideration stage and it probably would've been a pain to have to swap in and out for events.

The camber plates on Mc Strut cars will help.

The stock springs and spring hats will limit how much negative camber will be available. My car is a tad positive as it sits.

I look forward to the change and will live with what ever I gain by the new rules.

Michael Wood wrote: On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.

I think the wording would be better if the requirement was the exhaust must exit at the perimeter of the vehicle behind the driver. That way you still create an allowance for some creative or interesting exhausts and remove the dumps that are the problem in question. The wording on the proposal as I read it is like this, if I have a rear exit exhaust that turns to the right/left it would now be illegal because its no longer exiting in the original location even though it fits with the intention of the rule.

Michael Wood wrote: Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC.

What do you mean by that?

KJ, I believe the exhaust suggestion was related to ST* cars and then also submitted to the SAC to close the loop.

Bobby, I hear you on the wording. We struggled with that one, a bit. In certain instances, the easy button might be a central exit, below the bumper and extending beyond the body's perimeter...that would be completely in line with the intention of the proposed rule, but considered illega.

Michael Wood wrote:
On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.

The old Showroom Stock rule might be a place to start if you feel the need to make a change:

26. Exhaust system may be removed and or modified within the
following parameters:
A. Any part of the exhaust system beyond the catalytic
converter(s) may be replaced provided:
1. Said replacement system retains the same original
configuration, e.g., routing, single, dual, etc.
2. The system exits from beneath the body in the same
approximate location(s) as the original. When a factory
(OEM) single exhaust system is cosmetically split into
dual outlets, it is permitted to continue as a single system
provided it exits in approximately the same location as
one of the originals.
3. The system meets all appropriate event-specific sound
level requirements.

My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.

What I was going to say along those lines, but you beat me to it. Couldn't have said it better myself. So there!!!

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.

All cars are not equal. Some gain negative camber under load, some gain positive camber. You know that.

Sebastian Rios wrote:My thoughts: I think additional allowances of any kind in the entry level category should be discouraged, but if you are going to allow changes to alignment beyond factory methods, it should be allowed for all cars regardless of suspension configuration.

I agree, otherwise the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Or is that the point of this SEB?

Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).

To the folks who are complaining about camber plates for cars with struts: how much negative camber can you dial in with your stock-class suspension configuration?

Kurt it depends on how the suspension is setup, if you have a typical 2 bolt ear like a lot of cars you can get somewhere between -1.5-3 degrees camber where as cars like the Mini need a plate to get any negative camber since the strut attaches to the spindle.

I could get ~-2.5 if I used 2 crash bolts in my Yaris and I have -4.5 with slotting the strut and have no option of a camber plate, and I could get around -1.1 drilling out the stud on the upper mount and another -1-2 degrees using camber bolts so around -2.5-3 give or take total if I did all of that on my Mustang before event thinking about camber plates and slotting.

The only cars that NEED camber plates are cars that don't have mounting ears that can use crash bolts aka German Cars(BMW, Mini, VW, Audi, Porshe) and the Mazda 3. I'm sure there are more out there but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong but if bolts/slotting was opened up for the Subaru would you be able to get sufficient camber?

Will Kalman wrote:

Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).

I only got 20.

Jonathan Lugod wrote:

Can i have some.