thanks goodness
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-nov-solo.pdf
deleted 14.2.f from the 2011 SCCA solo rules
Printable View
thanks goodness
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-nov-solo.pdf
deleted 14.2.f from the 2011 SCCA solo rules
Well that's unfortunate. Another reason to not like SCCA classing.
That's fortunate. Another example of SCCA rulesmaking process working.
It took long enough, but it worked.
Hooray!
Happy to see that. I really didn't want to develop and attach a stupid wing to my NC to be competitive at Nats next year. I'm sure some people have cars that can use aero on the street, but most I've seen developed for ST are pretty race-specific.
"Well that's unfortunate. Another reason to not like SCCA classing."
"Happy to see that. I really didn't want to develop and attach a stupid wing to my NC to be competitive at Nats next year. I'm sure some people have cars that can use aero on the street, but most I've seen developed for ST are pretty race-specific."
Why it's so hard to write a rule that lets the novice run his street car with a wing or body kit in a class where it would have a chance if well driven vs. The hard core autocrosser that's going to use the rules to go as fast as he can, which he should it is racing.
This sends all cars with aftermarket wings to SM and cars with the Miata R lip to SP. I would have liked to see a middle ground on this, but don't know how you would word it to let people run nice body kits but keep people from running Swiss cheese bumpers.
I think this change makes the most people happy.
When people spend 5000 on shocks I have a hard time seeing why allowing aero would be a problem. It is not necessary to be competitive, and is very easy to test and tune for. They are common aftermarket parts and now people who have them are jumped into ridiculous classes, I think that just goes against what the ST classes were created for.
The original ST concept was to try to encourage the "street racer" market into autocross. But people took the rule set & used it to find an "edge" in the class. Just what racers do. Nothing new. The idea now is to stop some of the "madness" on the aero situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by 762
BTW, you don't have to spend $5K on shocks. I've paid $3K on Penskes for my C4. And I know AST has good adjustable shocks for around $2.3K. Now if you look hard enough, you'll find $5K shocks if that's what you want. But there's no reason you have to go that way to be competitive.
If you want to talk "silly", it's the fact that "R" compound tires are allowed in the "Stock" class. Also, dual-adjustable shocks in "Stock" class. Now that just doesn't make sense!
I agree 100%. As a former AS, S2000 driver my "Stock" S2000 had $5K Moton Club Sports, $900 front swaybar, $1,800 Top Secret Ti exhaust, $2K JDM S2000 wheels, and ran Hoosier A6s. Yep just like off the showroom floor only with $10,700 in improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by autoxmax
No offense, but this just shows how little you know about the world of National level competition. Just because you would buy some bolt on APR wing, stiffen your rear shocks a click or two and call it done doesn’t mean that those with the means won’t push the envelope. Your comment on $5000 shocks is a perfect example – the rule was originally intended to allow people to use inexpensive non-OEM replacement shocks instead of new OEM parts. See where that got us?Quote:
Originally Posted by 762
You may think that it’s not necessary to be competitive now (I’m sure people used to think the same about aftermarket shocks), but under the old ruleset it would be soon. And it wouldn’t be cheap. A fifty dollar Pep Boys wing isn’t going to help you against someone willing to use wind tunnel and CFD data to custom design a wing to create 150+ pounds of downforce at 60 mph, any more than a set of Monroe Sensatracs is going to help you against someone with an $8k set of Penskes that knows what to do with them.
Personally, I think this goes along exactly with the premise for the Street Touring class – a place where you can run street legal cars with minor bolt on modifications on street legal, non "competition only" tires. If you want to spend thousands of dollars custom fabricating aero parts for your particular chassis, there are plenty of higher prep classes you can play in.
Brad, I know you do not need 5000 dollar shocks, it is just that some people do choose to. I love my ASTs and they certainly are not that expensive. I also do agree that the r comps in stock classes seems wrong too.
However if people are allowed to spend as much as they want on shocks I feel the aero should not be restricted. If someone wants to spend the time testing aero then more power to them, just the same as if someone wants to buy and tune triple adjustable shocks.
I completely understand that people will exploit a rule to it's fullest to gain as much as possible, but in this situation I just can't see the difference between choosing to spend large sums of money on shocks vs spending large sums of money on aero testing.
Just trying to say that the $5K shocks wern't a "must have" to win... most of the time ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by 762
The problem with the aero is it's not a shocks $ vs aero $. It's shocks $, PLUS aero $. The concept on the aero matter is to "draw the line" somewhere before it gets out of control on the $$ side.
Like those darn shocks...
But that's a whole different discussion.
I guess I just think that if someone has the means to afford to do that level of testing then they will just choose to spend the money no matter what. It may not be on aero, but it will be on something.
As an outsider looking in, I always thought it would make sense to change the stock class shock rules to simple allow the use of any shock with an MSRP no greater than the OEM shock. Even if re-valving was allowed, it would keep max shock spending well under $2000 for the Miata and most other cars.
Why not open the class up to R compounds and let people spend large sums of money on tires? After all, a Hoosier A6 is just as street legal as a Star Spec. I don't see the difference between spending large sums of money on tires versus spending large sums of money on shock testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 762
You have to draw the line somewhere. Besides, the rules on body kits have been quite clear from the inception of the class - the allowance was originally intended to allow aftermarket bumpers and body kits that "provided no aero benefit" (quoting from the rulebook). If people are custom engineering wings to provide downforce, that's pretty blatant case of exploiting a loophole to disregard the stated intent. All the SCCA has done is close the loophole.
The vast majority of the letters the STAC received (did you write a letter?) were against aero in ST. I know mine was. Sometimes democracy works.
"any shock with an MSRP no greater than the OEM shock"
The problem with that is how to police it. People would just put high $ internals inside cheap shock bodies.
In a lot of ways double adj shocks (within reason) are cheaper than non adjustable shocks that have been re-valved 5 times.
Or carrying multiple sets of shocks for multiple surfaces/conditions. I know I set my shocks up differently for an event at Pennington than I do for a wide open course at Mineral Wells.
"provided no aero benefit"
This is not quite right it's "which have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo
speeds."
Now what's significant?
You can not go by the intent of the rules. If we did we would not have 6K "stock" Miata motors, or 5K shocks or 2K exhausts or R comps in stock. Wait this is starting starting to sound good. From now on everyone just play by the oringal intent of the rules when they were writen and we all save lots of money.
While I do not think R Comps is the best analogy, I do understand the point of drawing a line. I guess I just saw the ST classes as the place to allow the common bolt ons and an off the shelf wing is a bolt on in my eyes.
No I did not write a letter, I will not be a SCCA member until march or so. Having only been doing autocross for a year, I am not near the level to be actually influencing policy because I do not know what would be best. I just do not like the idea of now possibly getting protested for having holes in my trunk as weight savings from removing the wing for scca specific events.
"possibly getting protested for having holes in my trunk as weight savings from removing the wing for scca specific events."
While it is possible to get protested for the holes that type of protest is very rare and I think most PC would not DQ someone for 4 small holes in the trunk. If the trunk lid is Swiss cheese that's another matter.
Attachment 4728
I stole this from another forum. I think it shows where body kits were headed in ST* and why the changes were needed.
Equipe Rapide classing too. Same car classing rules apply for ER the last I read!Quote:
Originally Posted by 762
If someone protested small mounting holes as a "weight savings" intention, I would imagine the protest wouldn't stand up past the filing & the protest commitee would keep the protesters filing money.
As Robert stated, "Swiss Cheese" is a whole different matter.
As a side note, there was a guy in STX at Nationals that did the "swiss cheese" modification to his bumper covers. Most folks had no "sense of humor" about the mod either! (Like it saved him any real wieght)
LOL! Robert found the photo!
If it was the rear bumper, I doubt it was for weight savings. On most cars the rear bumper cover is like a large air brake (especially when - like me - your aftermarket exhaust takes up about 1/4 of the space of the OEM one). Cut holes in it or remove it altogether and you've removed a big source of drag.
just make sure you use a rough drill bit and call it "rust" They certainly can't protest your for having a rusty car can they?
I own a wind tunnel and am available to test your significant aerodynamic function, or lack thereof. Maybe I should submit a proposal for a test procedure to the SCCA. It would allow a competitor to test and submit evidence that their aero had no significant aerodynamic function. I'm sure I could test each car for less than the $5k benchmark set by this forum.
We could set the "significant" value at an arbitrary figure such as 200 lbs of downforce at 35 mph.
I did not mean to set that as benchmark. It was more of just an arbitrary value to define what could be a prohibitive cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadtrash
I find it odd that the intent of the aero rule comes up often in ST* talk but SP uses the same terms but it never comes up for the spoilers in SP. Do we really belive that the splitters/spoilers in SP are non-functional?
From the SP rules
"I. Spoilers/splitters and cosmetic trim pieces are permitted. Side skirts
may not be used. Spoilers/splitters must comply with the following
subsections. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly
available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no
significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds."
The swiss cheese bumper was 6 pounds lighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by autoxmax
Agreed. As someone who has been in STS (formerly STS2) since its first year as a supplemental class I am glad it is gone. The interpretations of the body kit allowance had become obscenely tortured and many running wings admitted that they had documented the effects at solo speeds. They had clearly gone far beyond the orginal intent of the rule. On Glenn's car at Nationals you could only open the trunk about 8 to 10 inches.
Glad its gone and it is a classic example of how member comment works.
Steve E
just realized, this thread should probably move to autox tech, not events. Just sayin...