Cal Club Autocross Forums

http://www.scca.com/solo/content.cfm?cid=44517" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

direct link: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... inutes.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have to wonder the reasoning behind not allowing the FRC in, but allowing the more powerful coupe to play? Must be because the FRC is so dominate in AS? Oh yeah, a coupe won in 2011 & 2012.

Proposed new listings added into
STU
(via Tech Bulletin):
Corvette (1997-2004) (Non-Z06, Non-FRC)

STU: C5 Corvette (excluding FRC)

Corvette's don't give a damn about a few extra pounds, so not sure why they would split the FRC from the Coupes, heck, even the Convertible's are just a couple of pounds heavier.

My question is, if you are allowing the C5, why not the C4? I would build a LT4 C4 for STU }:)

Jeff

I just sent my letter asking to class the C4 (excluding the ZR1 and Callaway)

*edit I was thinking C6 on the transmission.

Jeff Cawthorne wrote:After reading their reasoning for the C5 Corvette, I think they forgot the Z51 package adds the shorter gear box in the coupes as well. I think they believe all C5 coupes have the taller gear box, but they forgot the Z51 package has the Z06 gear box. All the FRC have the shorter gear box, and Z51 suspension. Corvette's don't give a damn about a few extra pounds, so not sure why they would split the FRC from the Coupes, heck, even the Convertible's are just a couple of pounds heavier.

My question is, if you are allowing the C5, why not the C4? I would build a LT4 C4 for STU }:)

Jeff

I just sent my letter asking to class the C4 (excluding the ZR1 and Callaway)

Huh? All non-Z06 C5s got the same MM6 6spd, regardless of roof or suspension. The Z06 got the M12 6spd, which offers a shorter 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th gear. All manual trans cars have the same 3.42 final drive. The only optional gear set was for an AT, 3.15 vs the standard 2.73 - which would not impact the FRC, because they were all manuals.

+1 on the C4.

C5 and C6 Corvette Manual Transmission Ratios

C5 Std C5 Z06 C6 Z51 C6 Z06
1st 2.66 2.97 ← 2.66
2nd 1.78 2.07 ← 1.78
3rd 1.30 1.43 ← 1.30
4th 1.00 1.00 ← 1.00
5th 0.74 0.84 0.71 0.74
6th 0.50 0.56 ← 0.50

Sorry about the spacing - cut/paste from Excel

Edited my post, I was thinking C6's.

Jeff Cawthorne wrote:STU: C5 Corvette (excluding FRC)

Corvette's don't give a damn about a few extra pounds, so not sure why they would split the FRC from the Coupes, heck, even the Convertible's are just a couple of pounds heavier.

One could say that in a class where everyone is on the same tire, and most likely traction limited to some extent, weight carries more "weight" than power?

Jeff Cawthorne wrote: My question is, if you are allowing the C5, why not the C4? I would build a LT4 C4 for STU }:)

Jeff

I just sent my letter asking to class the C4 (excluding the ZR1 and Callaway)

*edit I was thinking C6 on the transmission.

Why not? Nobody has asked for it. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the C5 idea seems to be well received.

Someone please help me out here, I'm unclear as to the new classing that's under discussion.

Am I interpreting correctly that the FRS and BRZ, as well as NB Miatas are remaining in C Stock/Street instead of being placed in ES?

Steve Towers wrote:Someone please help me out here, I'm unclear as to the new classing that's under discussion.

don't feel bad Steve, I think we're all lost at this point...

Ed Holley wrote:Am I interpreting correctly that the FRS and BRZ, as well as NB Miatas are remaining in C Stock/Street instead of being placed in ES?

Sorry Ed, the plan to move the NB miata (including Mazdaspeed ) to E-Street is still in effect. The FRS/BRZ and NC MX-5 remain in C-Street under this proposal.

Seb... I see that the MX-5 stays in C/Stock. Why isn't the regular 2006 non ZOK Solstice still in C/Stock?

I bought the Solstice in 09 to prove that the SEB made a mistake by not moving the NB to E/S in 2008. All I ever heard is how big of an overdog the 99 Sport was. OF course not 1 so called expert had one when we were running ours. The reason I don't care to internet write is that I like to prove my points at the track. There has never been a NB even show up at the Nationals since one poor guy in 08 and he finished 980th. Every NB in America disappeared from National level competition. Last years Nationals saw E/Stock straight time C/S just like I have been saying for 5 years. NA's and NB's are almost identical cars. IF NB's are superior to NA's then why have NA's dominated CSP since the beginning of CSP?

Now SEB is doing it again with our Solstice...IF the Solstice is moved to B/S every Solstice will disappear too.

Sebastian Rios wrote:

Ed Holley wrote:Am I interpreting correctly that the FRS and BRZ, as well as NB Miatas are remaining in C Stock/Street instead of being placed in ES?

Sorry Ed, the plan to move the NB miata (including Mazdaspeed ) to E-Street is still in effect. The FRS/BRZ and NC MX-5 remain in C-Street under this proposal.

Not a problem for me, since I'm not running ES. I've moved on to a much less competitive class...STS. ;)

KJ Christopher wrote:Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the C5 idea seems to be well received.

Just because STU drivers haven't said anything, doesn't mean we like it.

Pure sports cars like Corvettes and 350Zs don't match the original charter of the class. Like how SSM RX7s, Z06s and GTRs are faster than SM sedans.
- The 350Z is already competitive on 255's in in STR, which is arguably a faster class than STU. In STU trim, the 350Z can fit 285s in front and larger on the rear, and would be able to put down power better and increase corner speed.
- At Nats on concrete in Topeka, a C4 in SP trim set the FTD for all cars on DOT tires. Not sure how much of that was due to SP power allowances, but the suspension will be the same in ST. Also back in the day, STU was slower than the C4s in AS.

Ideally a new ST class to allow sports cars would be great, especially now with the premier street tires being offered in the larger sizes, and would allow stability for STU. But I can see including the sports cars to STU to add diversity and increase class participation. Maybe just removing the narrow tire size limit for AWD would provide the needed parity? The popular WRX was killed off in STX, so hopefully the rules will prevent that from happening again.

Richard Jung wrote:

KJ Christopher wrote:Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the C5 idea seems to be well received.

Just because STU drivers haven't said anything, doesn't mean we like it.

Pure sports cars like Corvettes and 350Zs don't match the original charter of the class. Like how SSM RX7s, Z06s and GTRs are faster than SM sedans.
- The 350Z is already competitive on 255's in in STR, which is arguably a faster class than STU. In STU trim, the 350Z can fit 285s in front and larger on the rear, and would be able to put down power better and increase corner speed.
- At Nats on concrete in Topeka, a C4 in SP trim set the FTD for all cars on DOT tires. Not sure how much of that was due to SP power allowances, but the suspension will be the same in ST. Also back in the day, STU was slower than the C4s in AS.

Ideally a new ST class to allow sports cars would be great, especially now with the premier street tires being offered in the larger sizes, and would allow stability for STU. But I can see including the sports cars to STU to add diversity and increase class participation. Maybe just removing the narrow tire size limit for AWD would provide the needed parity? The popular WRX was killed off in STX, so hopefully the rules will prevent that from happening again.

I smell a letter to the SEB in progress

"Prepared
#11021 Roll Bar Clarification
The SSC agrees that the use of a Standard hard top (as defined in Section 12) would make a Prepared car a Closed car and
thus it would not require a roll bar."

Really? Sorry, my "bosses" (S.S.C.), but I don't get this; a removable hard top bolted on gives ZERO roll-over protection. Zero.

Maybe just removing the narrow tire size limit for AWD would provide the needed parity? The popular WRX was killed off in STX, so hopefully the rules will prevent that from happening again.

And allow fender modifications

Richard Jung wrote: Ideally a new ST class to allow sports cars would be great, especially now with the premier street tires being offered in the larger sizes, and would allow stability for STU. But I can see including the sports cars to STU to add diversity and increase class participation. Maybe just removing the narrow tire size limit for AWD would provide the needed parity? The popular WRX was killed off in STX, so hopefully the rules will prevent that from happening again.

i think the single year of poor attendance is giving the stac a chance to hijack the class and turn it into a sports car ST class without having to add a new ST class.

I kind of like the idea though. might just be the swift kick in the behind all the STU evo drivers need to start having real fun in ASP. }:)

Marshall Grice wrote:i think the single year of poor attendance is giving the stac a chance to hijack the class and turn it into a sports car ST class without having to add a new ST class.

'06 - 48
'07 - 47
'08 - 37
'09 - 46
'10 - 36
'11 - 34
'12 - 28

Data at other events shows similar trends.

I leave STU and you see what happens..... Gesh.

I would seriously stay on street tires is there was a ST class my mazdaspeed could compete in. Its either stock or BSP at a national level...

Dumb question of the day what is FRC?

Fixed roof coupe, body style like our Z06. Less weight over the rear as opposed to the original C5 fastback

Thanks Mako.


Next question, why all of a sudden the mentions of the C4. I thought I was driving a dinosaur.