Cal Club Autocross Forums

What, is everyone sleeping in today?

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... august.pdf

So long STS / STS2 etc, it was nice while it lasted... but the Civics are a comin'

The've try to kill of the Civics with class changes... STS, ST, STC now back to STS... but all that really happens is they run every car that ran prior to the civics arrival off... Then they try to rebuild behind them, in the wake again. Pitty the Miata is the target car this time around.

Well I hope the couple of region members who do not run in the class, that pushed hard for this to happen, are happy with their results. Apparently they had their minds set... and made it happen.

I'm always curious at the politics and agendas behind these things. Personally, I think all letters should be public so we can see who is driving these changes.

Yeah, nothing like wrecking another class and driving more people out of the sport. STCivic does just fine as it's own class... why are we once again fixing something that isn't broken?

14084 Breather Tube Clarification
There are no provisions in the the ST rules for removing coolant hard lines or removing/substituting hood props.

Not sure what hood props have to do with coolant lines...I still have the factory hood prop installed, can I cite comfort and convenience for the addition of aftermarket hood props?

Edit: Really; we need to reign in hood props?

Sebastian Rios wrote:14084 Breather Tube Clarification
There are no provisions in the the ST rules for removing coolant hard lines or removing/substituting hood props.

Not sure what hood props have to do with coolant lines...I still have the factory hood prop installed, can I cite comfort and convenience for the addition of aftermarket hood props?

Edit: Really; we need to reign in hood props?

you are correct seb... What class does a gas hood prop but you in? X Prepared?

You can add them (under C&C) but heaven forbid you take that six ounce metal rod out, or it's off to Prepared you go!

And NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Anthony Porta wrote:you are correct seb... What class does a gas hood prop but you in? X Prepared?

I have gas hood props... and gas door props! - the Jester of XP

Steve Lepper wrote:You can add them (under C&C) but heaven forbid you take that six ounce metal rod out, or it's off to Prepared you go!

And NO SOUP FOR YOU!

re-read it "or removing/substituting hood props." They more or less did forbid you from adding one even with the existing one left behind. If your hood is propped up, and a gas strut is attached it is substituting for the factory one. By definition you would also need to raise that factory one and place it in it's proper receptacle... then you would not be substituting... but supplementing.

This has got to be the stupidest rule addition yet. One would think the general rule if it's not in the rule book,you can't...save comfort and convenience changes... So how did someone find a performance advantage in a hood prop, that they need to specify an exclusion of alteration?

Some cold-air intake kits require you to remove the hood prop rod (thew old Jackson Racing CAI kits come to mind) so maybe it is some way to block a modification on a particular make/model?

Having watched rod-propped hoods fall on people's heads on windy days, I would argue that the gas-charged units are a safety item.

Craig Naylor wrote: This has got to be the stupidest rule addition yet. One would think the general rule if it's not in the rule book,you can't...save comfort and convenience changes... So how did someone find a performance advantage in a hood prop, that they need to specify an exclusion of alteration?

It's not a rule addition.

The way I read it, you can add some gas hood props... you just can't remove the original OEM one.

What's with the breather tube clarification title?

Steve Ekstrand wrote:What's with the breather tube clarification title?

I little foreshadowing the deep sighs that would follow reading the rest of the statement.

KJ... label it as you wish... if the is intent to enforce the statement, it may not be by de jure, but by de facto its a new rule.

Craig Naylor wrote:

Steve Ekstrand wrote:What's with the breather tube clarification title?

I little foreshadowing the deep sighs that would follow reading the rest of the statement.

KJ... label it as you wish... if the is intent to enforce the statement, it may not be by de jure, but by de facto its a new rule.

Craig - someone was stupid enough to ask, and it got answered. Not a new rule - as you stated in your message above:

One would think the general rule if it's not in the rule book,you can't...save comfort and convenience changes... So how did someone find a performance advantage in a hood prop, that they need to specify an exclusion of alteration?

Did you really expect the STAC to say, "go ahead, even though nothing in our rules says you can?"

KJ Christopher wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:

Steve Ekstrand wrote:What's with the breather tube clarification title?

I little foreshadowing the deep sighs that would follow reading the rest of the statement.

KJ... label it as you wish... if the is intent to enforce the statement, it may not be by de jure, but by de facto its a new rule.

Craig - someone was stupid enough to ask, and it got answered. Not a new rule - as you stated in your message above:

One would think the general rule if it's not in the rule book,you can't...save comfort and convenience changes... So how did someone find a performance advantage in a hood prop, that they need to specify an exclusion of alteration?

Did you really expect the STAC to say, "go ahead, even though nothing in our rules says you can?"

K.J. and Craig: It's stated as a "clarification". By definition, would that not mean that it is simply clarifying a previous intent, as opposed to a new rule? Seems it's a bit confusing since we are receiving the "clarification" out of context without the submitted comment/request that triggered the clarification and resultant bundle that is "breather tube" and "prop rods".