Cal Club Autocross Forums

Tom Denham wrote:http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ct-bod.pdf

Damnit Tom

Some new BS for GS... Bring it!

Move from DS to GS:
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged
Mazdaspeed 3

Move from DS to GS as a group:
“Audi TT FWD
Dodge SRT-4
Dodge Caliber SRT-4
Dodge Daytona IROC R/T
Honda Prelude (97+)
Mazdaspeed Protégé
Mitsubishi Eclipse (06+)
Nissan Maxima (04+)
Oldsmobile Calais W41
Saturn Ion Redline
Volvo S60R
Volvo V70R

Move from DS to BS:
Acura Integra Type R

STREET TOURING CATEGORY
ITEM 10) Remove 14.1.B, the allowance for removal of non-optional A/C components.

A good portion of the Solo content is incorrect. Somehow the BoD took the out for member comment list and approved it. Look for a correction - hopefully soon.

The section that tom posted was just the BOD section

everything:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ck-oct.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Tom Denham wrote:http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ct-bod.pdf

Damn you TOM!!! You beat Marshall and I

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Tom Denham wrote:http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ct-bod.pdf

Damn you TOM!!! You beat Marshall and I

Christine Berry wrote:The section that tom posted was just the BOD section

everything:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ck-oct.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Thanks Christine,

Who's on STAC, was it Simanyi? What's the purpose of renaming STS2 into STS in '09. That's going to be confusing as hell to re-use a popular class name like that. Why not something different like ST2 or if you don't like numbers in the class (which I don't), STA, B, C etc.

Jay W

Jayson Woodruff wrote:Who's on STAC, was it Simanyi? What's the purpose of renaming STS2 into STS in '09. That's going to be confusing as hell to re-use a popular class name like that. Why not something different like ST2 or if you don't like numbers in the class (which I don't), STA, B, C etc.

Jay W

Yeah, that's kind of ridiculous. At one point I thought I saw a proposal for STA, B, C .... Logically, it would be AST, BST, CST, but I don't expect logic.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Jayson Woodruff wrote:Who's on STAC, was it Simanyi? What's the purpose of renaming STS2 into STS in '09. That's going to be confusing as hell to re-use a popular class name like that. Why not something different like ST2 or if you don't like numbers in the class (which I don't), STA, B, C etc.

Jay W

Yeah, that's kind of ridiculous. At one point I thought I saw a proposal for STA, B, C .... Logically, it would be AST, BST, CST, but I don't expect logic.

No one seems to quite know why they didn't go with the AST, BST and ASM, BSM routes.

Jayson Woodruff wrote:Who's on STAC, was it Simanyi? What's the purpose of renaming STS2 into STS in '09. That's going to be confusing as hell to re-use a popular class name like that. Why not something different like ST2 or if you don't like numbers in the class (which I don't), STA, B, C etc.

Jay W

That was not a STAC-originated proposal. I believe the intent is (a) to eliminate numbers in class names and (b) to have Street Mod and Street Touring nomenclature in sync.

That said, I now need to buy new class letters for the Miata.

Mike

Bob Beamesderfer wrote: Yeah, that's kind of ridiculous. At one point I thought I saw a proposal for STA, B, C .... Logically, it would be AST, BST, CST, but I don't expect logic.

I can imagine a scenario where ST and SP cars are both on course at the same time. Trying to distinguish between AST and ASP on a radio call would be nearly impossible, potentially causing some major timing and scoring snafus. The only problem with ST classes following the category name occurs after STC...

Mike

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote: Yeah, that's kind of ridiculous. At one point I thought I saw a proposal for STA, B, C .... Logically, it would be AST, BST, CST, but I don't expect logic.

I can imagine a scenario where ST and SP cars are both on course at the same time. Trying to distinguish between AST and ASP on a radio call would be nearly impossible, potentially causing some major timing and scoring snafus. The only problem with ST classes following the category name occurs after STC...

Mike

Car numbers are what come over the radio, not classes.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Mike Simanyi wrote: I can imagine a scenario where ST and SP cars are both on course at the same time. Trying to distinguish between AST and ASP on a radio call would be nearly impossible, potentially causing some major timing and scoring snafus. The only problem with ST classes following the category name occurs after STC...

Mike

Car numbers are what come over the radio, not classes.

You need to call in classes at national and divisional events because 2 cars on coarse could have the same numbers. It's happened to me many times.

Don't be coarse Aaron!

Max Hayter wrote:Don't be coarse Aaron!

Of course he will be.

Max Hayter wrote:Don't be coarse Aaron!

I've been driving with you too long! It's all I know!

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:A good portion of the Solo content is incorrect. Somehow the BoD took the out for member comment list and approved it. Look for a correction - hopefully soon.

I hope the RX-8 to STX AND 265 tires at the same time is a mistake. If it's not, it's time to up the displacement limit for forced induction to 2.5l (WRX, MS3, SRT-4).

Now that I've had to call them in a bunch at national events, numbers in the class really is a pain. The numbers where only letters usually are interrupts your call in pattern. Same with L1 and L2.

Does this really bring it in line with the Street Mod classes nomenclature? SM2 is becoming SSM.

(SM2 to SSM, What happens if we have a s-stutterer on the radio?)

Jay W

Mike Simanyi wrote:

Jayson Woodruff wrote:Who's on STAC, was it Simanyi? What's the purpose of renaming STS2 into STS in '09. That's going to be confusing as hell to re-use a popular class name like that. Why not something different like ST2 or if you don't like numbers in the class (which I don't), STA, B, C etc.

Jay W

That was not a STAC-originated proposal. I believe the intent is (a) to eliminate numbers in class names and (b) to have Street Mod and Street Touring nomenclature in sync.

That said, I now need to buy new class letters for the Miata.

Mike

so i'm confused.

ITEM 22) Add new section after 15.10.G:
“Camber kits, also known as camber compensators, may be installed. {snip.....}
Note: Many modern suspension designs known by other names actually function as double A-arm designs. These include the
rear suspensions on 88+ Honda Civic/Integra, Neon, E36 BMW, and most ‘multi-link’ and are covered by 15.8.H.1.”

A) ok so 15.10 is the engine/drivetrain section, why are suspension allowances being added in there? My best guess is that its a typo and they really meant that this is an addendum to 15.8.G.

B) the bottom part says that 'multi link' suspensions are covered by 15.8.H.1. how do solid axle allowances (section 15.8.H) apply to multi link suspensions?

Does this make sense to anyone else?

edit: OH, i think I figured the second part out. my part A) isn't an addendum to 15."8".G it is a new section 15.8.H and thus the multi link suspensions are covered by .1 of this new section. so in effect it is referencing itself. all the other sections get relabeled i guess.

wow this is tough

Who is smoking crack on the Tech bulletins? Did nobody that owns a Mazda show up? I have Mazda documentation in front of me for the intake in question, and it specifically mentions the plastic piece in question. I don't use this kit, but I've tested it and have all the documentation to go with it.

This seems to set the precedent that it's not legal to slightly trim/bend parts to facilitate the installation of other parts (even though that exact phrase is used elsewhere as specifically allowed.) If this is the case, I can think of at least four other CSP cars that will likely get protested come next spring as they have had to trim/modify other parts in order to install their induction systems.

Steve Lepper wrote:Who is smoking crack on the Tech bulletins? Did nobody that owns a Mazda show up? I have Mazda documentation in front of me for the intake in question, and it specifically mentions the plastic piece in question. I don't use this kit, but I've tested it and have all the documentation to go with it.

This seems to set the precedent that it's not legal to slightly trim/bend parts to facilitate the installation of other parts (even though that exact phrase is used elsewhere as specifically allowed.) If this is the case, I can think of at least four other CSP cars that will likely get protested come next spring as they have had to trim/modify other parts in order to install their induction systems.

Sounds like you were the one missing with the magic paperwork. Neither Mazda nor any competitor has shown anything to support what you are saying.

I think you are confused on your precedent as well.... 16.1.P allows minor modifications (trim/bend/cut) to allow for class legal mods, but this is a SM rule. Unless you can show me the page in the SP rules your got your info from. :ibrightdea:

Jason,

Sent you some email; what part of the FasTrack is not meant to have been shown to have passed by the BoD? All the stuff in the BoD. minutes?

Thanks.

Also, Steve, have to go w/Jason here: no bending, cutting, etc. is allowed in SP.

Bill Schenker wrote:Jason,

Sent you some email; what part of the FasTrack is not meant to have been shown to have passed by the BoD? All the stuff in the BoD. minutes?

Thanks.

Also, Steve, have to go w/Jason here: no bending, cutting, etc. is allowed in SP.

Must have got caught in my spam filter... We are in the process of working it all out (on a call right now). Won't be able to correct anything until we have our approved minutes.

Steve-

Are you talking about the Mazda instructions for the installation of the air intake? That documentation would be entirely irrelevant.