Cal Club Autocross Forums

Full:http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... k-july.pdf

Solo:http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... y-solo.pdf

Bit annoyed with the solid axle rules clarification, since it comes off as a bit inconsistent but what can you do.

I'm a bit surprised they moved the FR-S/BRZ to E-Street with the NB. I thought they were classed more appropriately with the NC and RX-8. ES is going to be a pretty fun field next year though!

I've stopped trying to read into the Appendix A classing, I'm positive its going to be a cluster for the next year...or three.

Hmmm... I've never run a stock car/class in my life, but ES has considerable appeal from a $$$ perspective!

A movement to pump younger blood to E-Stock, I guess?

So whats the likelyhood of Super Street disappearing with the loss of the C5 Z06?

So where will SSP cars come from ?

Brian Kelly wrote:I'm a bit surprised they moved the FR-S/BRZ to E-Street with the NB. I thought they were classed more appropriately with the NC and RX-8. ES is going to be a pretty fun field next year though!

That IS an odd move and takes away the budget feel of ES if the FR-S/BRZ become overdogs. I think the twins will be really close competition for the 99 NB Sport and 94-97 ES R, though.

My 2nd rule in the rulebook:

"#8752 ABS Brake Proposal Change Section 17.6.C as follows:
C. Addition, replacement, or modification of Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) is prohibited. The standard system
may be removed in its entirety or disabled electrically in a manner not readily accessible while driving, but not
altered in any other way. Sensors, control and proportioning valves, and computers and master cylinders are
considered part of the ABS system and may be not altered nor relocated.

Comment: The PAC submits that the proposed amendment brings the Prepared rules with respect to braking systems
and ABS systems into alignment with the related section of the Street Prepared rules. The proposed amendment
improves progression from the Street Prepared category by eliminating a potential take-back between the categories."

*text in red gets stricken

Wouldn't that hurt long time supporters and vendors such as Wilwood?

Arthur Grant wrote:Wouldn't that hurt long time supporters and vendors such as Wilwood?

Bill just sucks at the internet. what his is trying to show is the things in red will be deleted, and thus open for modification in prepared.

Marshall Grice wrote:

Arthur Grant wrote:Wouldn't that hurt long time supporters and vendors such as Wilwood?

Bill just sucks at the internet. what his is trying to show is the things in red will be deleted, and thus open for modification in prepared.

Or some folks just suck at reading. It would appear that Bill's post and rule had an asterisk specifically indicating that things in red would be stricken from the rule.
BILL...this is the last time I'm coming to your defense. Oh, that's right. It's the FIRST time. :heyes:

Ed Holley wrote:BILL...this is the last time I'm coming to your defense. Oh, that's right. It's the FIRST time. :heyes:

Feel the Miata-guy love.

Not ..er... Now that there's nothing wrong with that.....

Uh...don't stricken and deleted mean the same thing? So that means Bills sucks at the Internet and Ed can't read? And I don't feel the Miata-guy love...probably because I can't fit in one.

Wow. Just, wow.

Marshall = fail
Ed = pass

What is in RED is what gets deleted from the present rule and will become the wording for the NEW rule on 1.1.14. By no longer including "...control and proportioning valves..." "...and master cylinders..." as part of the ABS system, those STRICKEN (WHICH IS SYNONYMOUS WITH DELETED) components will then become part of the present Prepared rules regarding brakes, i.e., they are free, within the limits of safety rules that do not allow a single channel brake system (front and rear brakes can't be controlled by one channel), and Wilwood and other manufactures will be able to make their millions from all the Prepared racers that have ABS and wish to modify/replace their prop. valves and master cylinders.

And Ed? This may be the first time, but I really think you've turned a corner now and this will not be the last.

Jeez, Marshall. Miss one weekend and you just can't think like an AXer anymore - and THIS from the guy that writes letters to the S.E.B. on a monthly basis!

Kurt? Miatas are equal opportunity cars - no Prop. 8 limitations here: they're convertibles - I'm sure we can squeeze you into one - there just might be a lot of you sticking out the top.

Will? I got you that hairdresser appointment you wanted; next Thursday at 11.

Bill Schenker wrote:Wow. Just, wow.

Jeez, Marshall. Miss one weekend and you just can't think like an AXer anymore - and THIS from the guy that writes letters to the S.E.B. on a monthly basis!

talk about reading comprehension fail. go re-read what I wrote and explain how it is different than what you wrote.

my point was that you start off your post claiming your "2nd rule [added] in the rule book" with some text shown in red and then make a footnote that says actually the stuff in read is stricken. so up until the last sentence in your post it reads like you were adding additional restrictions not removing them. had your note about deleting stuff been before the quoted rule or used S̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶T̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ text you wouldn't suck at the internet.

makes me wonder how misinterpreted all of my letters are...

Marshall Grice wrote:...makes me wonder how misinterpreted all of my letters are...

Marshall, when you wrote the SEB and asked that all Southern California based Evos be allowed to have unlimited chassis, suspension and drivetrain, I think we (SPAC) interpreted exactly what you meant! ;)

P.S. I had no idea how to do the strike-out lettering, otherwise I would have to replicate what was in FT. So, I'll concede some Interweb ignorance, but I stand by my use of the Queen's English. It's O.K. Marshall, you're an engineer, so English is actually a second language for you.

Bill Schenker wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote:...makes me wonder how misinterpreted all of my letters are...

Marshall, when you wrote the SEB and asked that all Southern California based Evos be allowed to have unlimited chassis, suspension and drivetrain, I think we (SPAC) interpreted exactly what you meant! ;)

P.S. I had no idea how to do the strike-out lettering, otherwise I would have to replicate what was in FT. So, I'll concede some Interweb ignorance, but I stand by my use of the Queen's English. It's O.K. Marshall, you're an engineer, so English is actually a second language for you.

well I'm glad we both agree that you suck at the internet.

p.s. no one misunderstood the use of the word stricken.

p.p.s http://adamvarga.com/strike/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Marshall Grice wrote:
p.p.s http://adamvarga.com/strike/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Warning! Bill, to prevent your head from exploding, don't attempt to read the description of this tool. Just type the text you want to strike through in the first box and copy/paste what shows up in the second box.

Rick Brown wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote:
p.p.s http://adamvarga.com/strike/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Warning! Bill, to prevent your head from exploding, don't attempt to read the description of this tool. Just type the text you want to strike through in the first box and copy/paste what shows up in the second box.

Should he have someone standing by to observe his proper clicking of the "Click to Strike" button?

So, if I read the proposed rules correctly, FS will include E46 and E92 BMW M3's as well as regular E46 and E92 3-series and 1-series. What is the logic behind this? With tighter suspension, more front negative camber and an LSD, aren't the M cars faster?

Mihail Milkov wrote:With tighter suspension, more front negative camber and an LSD, aren't the M cars faster?

Sounds logical!

Mihail Milkov wrote:So, if I read the proposed rules correctly, FS will include E46 and E92 BMW M3's as well as regular E46 and E92 3-series and 1-series. What is the logic behind this? With tighter suspension, more front negative camber and an LSD, aren't the M cars faster?

That is exactly my thought too. I wanted to submit my letter with proof to SEB, but just didn't have the time to put it together. The proof is from late 2009, early 2010. Michael Oest was in his E90 M3, all stock except for tires, he was running in SK1 with an AS index. I was in my E92 335i, all stock except for tires, and I was running SK1 with an FS index. Looking at raw times only, he was at least 1.5 seconds quicker than me (see the 11/29/2009, 1/10/2010, and 3/7/2010 results). I think SEB should just leave the M cars and the 3-series the way they are now in the 2013 rules or move the M cars back up to AS if SEB wants to move the 3-series into FS. I prefer the latter.

Looks like I'll have to find some time to prepare my letter.

Vincent Wong wrote:

Mihail Milkov wrote:So, if I read the proposed rules correctly, FS will include E46 and E92 BMW M3's as well as regular E46 and E92 3-series and 1-series. What is the logic behind this? With tighter suspension, more front negative camber and an LSD, aren't the M cars faster?

That is exactly my thought too. I wanted to submit my letter with proof to SEB, but just didn't have the time to put it together. The proof is from late 2009, early 2010. Michael Oest was in his E90 M3, all stock except for tires, he was running in SK1 with an AS index. I was in my E92 335i, all stock except for tires, and I was running SK1 with an FS index. Looking at raw times only, he was at least 1.5 seconds quicker than me (see the 11/29/2009, 1/10/2010, and 3/7/2010 results). I think SEB should just leave the M cars and the 3-series the way they are now in the 2013 rules or move the M cars back up to AS if SEB wants to move the 3-series into FS. I prefer the latter.

Looks like I'll have to find some time to prepare my letter.

According to the July fastrack, "Unless noted otherwise the effective date for all rule, class, and listing change proposals herein is 1/1/2014". So why has Matt Ales already been running FS index in RTR in his E46 M3 starting from June?