Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

[Fair!]

OK guys, this is getting ridiculous... the SEB is going TAKE BACK crazy and we need to put a stop to it with an organized letter writing campaign from both the RWD (BMW/RX and AWD( Sti/EVO) groups unified, for once! This is effecting STX, STU, and even STS/STS2. We have a huge and growing category and it needs to be kept as is, and maybe even opened up MORE... not reigned in to "stock with springs and camber plates", which is where they are pushing the category.

HISTORY

Here's what's going on... ST has always been about popular street modifications and street tires. Suspension mods (coilovers, camber plates, etc), exhaust mods (down pipes, high flow cats, headers, cat-backs), some tuning, and of course wheels and STREET tires. That part is working.

What isn't working is the increasing number of TAKE BACKS forced upon us, without member feedback, by the SEB (Solo Events Board) and usually against the recommendations from the STAC (Street Touring Advisory Committee).

TAKE BACKS

• First it was update/backdate (first year). This was a big one, but it kept many folks form having to do the torturous SP route of hybrid year model set-ups, engine swaps, etc. It shouldn't have been allowed in ST from the first
• "Free" intake tract TAKE BACK. The initial rules allowed for free modifications ahead of the throttle body or turbo. Well, this quickly turned into "except for BMWs", which lost the right to do a high flow MAF sensor and removal of the secondary traction control throttle body due to some BS ruling on OEM part number listings.
• Fender rolling - the intent was "to allow the maximum legal tire size to be used" but then the rules contradict themselves elsewhere and now an undefined "stock fender contour" must be adhered to. Unenforceable.
• Then it was racing seats. We had an allowance for race seats, then it became 25# with brackets. Now they threaten to remove this allowance entirely?!
• Strut tower braces: The "clarification" that was thrust upon the class to allow only hinged (read: worthless junk) style attachment was a big old TAKE BACK. Member input was late in arriving but it was almost unanimous and this "clarification" was quickly rescinded.
• Air conditioning removal. First it was allowed, now its not. That's a sure fire TAKE BACK.
• ECM tuning for NA and turbo cars. Always a sticky point, and unenforceable, now this is being "Clarified" (read: TAKEN BACK) to include "no CELs", no CEL-defeats, full functionality, and even OEM O2 locations? PU-LEASE! This would make for stock downpipes on the turbo cars, which has a lot of people pissed off.
  Bumper cover/bodykit allowance. Oh, you can do any aftermarket body kit, but now it must use the OEM foglights, if so equipped? WTF??

SOLUTION

Here's where we need to decide what we want. I think this is a given:

• NO MORE TAKE BACKS without MEMBER INPUT. "Clarifications" that significantly reduce allowable mods is a TAKE BACK.
• Remove the "clarifications" and restrictions with regard to MAF, exhausts, etc.

Here's some more suggestions that could help equalize the class, allow for more common modifications that many racers want, and keep the diversity within STU and STX:

• For STX: allow the RWD cars to move to a 9" wide wheel and 255mm tire. Keep the AWD cars limited to 225mm and an 8" wheel max. The disparity in horsepower is significant between the AWD turbo cars and NA RWD cars in this class, but they are all limited to the same wheel and tire maximum. What works so well in STU is the DIS-parity of wheel/tire maximums... so why not make that part of STX as well?
• For STU: keep the current maximum tire allowances of 275mm (RWD) and 245mm (AWD) but allow "fender rolling to fit the maximum legal tire size". Limit AWD cars to a maximum 9" wide wheel.
• Allow boost modifications on the STU cars. Yes, I said it. It is 100% unenforceable right now, might as well take the StreetPrepared way on this one!
• Allow aftermarket exhausts from the turbo or head back but they must incorporate "catalysts within 6 inches of the rearmost stock unit" and can be of any "high flow design, with 2-way or 3-way design". Pre-catalysts can be removed (this is all per the current ruleset - just spell it out better). Air injection, if factory equipped, must also be incorporated into the exhaust header/manifold/piping in a "similar manner as the OEM system". Oxygen sensor location on OBDII cars must be "before and after" the catalysts or in the stock location. Leave it at that!

Who's with me?? Charge!!!!

Suggestions on tweaks, rules, letter wording is welcome. This needs to happen ASAP and we need to have 100+ people from NASIOC, EVOM, BimmerForums, RX8Club, etc to agree! How can we move forward and keep the class competitiveness/diversity/fairness and keep the AWD turbo cars in check on performance but allow what they all want/already have - boost.

[John in Houston]

The biggest issues I have are as follows:

1. Rules contradict themselves. Rules state I can replace a catalytic converter with a high flow model. New rule says I have to follow EPA rules which clearly state that I cannot replace it unless X, Y & Z are present (and 96+ cars don't even get that).

2. The SEB / SMAC keeps coming up with clarifications that either a) don't clarify the rule or b) make a rule that is completely un-enforceable without major monetary expenditures... and they aren't open to member comment prior to being put into effect.

I know that SEB / SMAC is voluntary, but man... wtf is going on here?

From my point of view, I'm illegal. I have Euro headers on the car which have O2 ports (standard) in close to the stock location (about 2mm off of where they were before). I have all of the air injection hooked up (although not stock looking) with all new O2s and stock cats (all of them) still in place. Car still throws a CEL every 30 cycles or so. I fail this new ruleset... but pass local emissions / inspection.

[Fair!]

Originally Posted by John in Houston

The biggest issues I have are as follows:

1. Rules contradict themselves. Rules state I can replace a catalytic converter with a high flow model. New rule says I have to follow EPA rules which clearly state that I cannot replace it unless X, Y & Z are present (and 96+ cars don't even get that).

2. The SEB / SMAC keeps coming up with clarifications that either a) don't clarify the rule or b) make a rule that is completely un-enforceable without major monetary expenditures... and they aren't open to member comment prior to being put into effect.

I know that SEB / SMAC is voluntary, but man... wtf is going on here?

From my point of view, I'm illegal. I have Euro headers on the car which have O2 ports (standard) in close to the stock location (about 2mm off of where they were before). I have all of the air injection hooked up (although not stock looking) with all new O2s and stock cats (all of them) still in place. Car still throws a CEL every 30 cycles or so. I fail this new ruleset... but pass local emissions / inspection.

Yep, you have gone to great lengths to remain legal in the eyes of the sniffer but you fail some arbitrary SEB interpretation.

What do you think of the letter idea? Any suggestions or additions before we try to get widespread support on BF, NASION, EVOM, etc forums?? Let's hash it out and get it worded correctly here and then take it abroad...

[Max]

I would agree with all those proposals except for limiting AWD STU cars to a 9" wheel. I don't think running wider wheels when limited to a 245 tire is a huge advantage, but it does help me not to run spacers which just make me nervous, since I am limited on the size of extended studs I can fit on the front of an STI. I run 10" on the front of my STI, mainly because that's the only size with the offset I want.

It does upset me to read the amount of posts on this site accusing all the turbo cars of cheating. I think most of us who compete at a National level go to very great lengths to make sure our cars are legal.

Flame away

-Max Hayter
#31 STU

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Max

It does upset me to read the amount of posts on this site accusing all the turbo cars of cheating. I think most of us who compete at a National level go to very great lengths to make sure our cars are legal.

Flame away

-Max Hayter
#31 STU

Take that with a very big grain of salt Max. It isn't as bad as you think. =)

[John in Houston]

Originally Posted by Max

It does upset me to read the amount of posts on this site accusing all the turbo cars of cheating.

I don't think that any of the people on this board are purposely cheating. However, with this new ruleset (or 'clarification' if you buy that shit) in place, it is very possible that several people on this board (and others) are in fact out of compliance and in effect 'cheating' (Umm... like me since my CEL keeps going off).

I've ridden through with Paul where he has changed the programs in his car and was mightily impressed with the ease with which one could load an illegal program and most likely get away with it. The difference in power was astonishing. The ability to police it most likely underwhelming.

Note: I did not say Paul had or used an illegal program and was only commenting on how he switched from stock to STU programs at Miserable Wells.

[hancheyb]

Originally Posted by Max

I would agree with all those proposals except for limiting AWD STU cars to a 9" wheel. I don't think running wider wheels when limited to a 245 tire is a huge advantage, but it does help me not to run spacers which just make me nervous, since I am limited on the size of extended studs I can fit on the front of an STI. I run 10" on the front of my STI, mainly because that's the only size with the offset I want.

It does upset me to read the amount of posts on this site accusing all the turbo cars of cheating. I think most of us who compete at a National level go to very great lengths to make sure our cars are legal.

Flame away

-Max Hayter
#31 STU

Welcome aboard Max! You have to take our comments with a grain of salt. We've all known each other 15+ years I think. Plus Paul gives STI owners a bad name. The Mad Mapper. Mr. "Oops, I forgot to change it back!" he says at the end of a weekend.

I wish I had time to take these tortured views on the rules. It is almost August people, who cares?! The MAF thing screwed BMWs, but being a BMW owner, it was maybe FIVE horsepower. Who cares? Width of wheels, who cares? A/C staying? That's a good one IMO. Boost can't be totally regulated so why bother?

[Max]

Originally Posted by hancheyb

Plus Paul gives STI owners a bad name.

No argument there!!

[Fair!]

Originally Posted by Max

I would agree with all those proposals except for limiting AWD STU cars to a 9" wheel. I don't think running wider wheels when limited to a 245 tire is a huge advantage, but it does help me not to run spacers which just make me nervous, since I am limited on the size of extended studs I can fit on the front of an STI. I run 10" on the front of my STI, mainly because that's the only size with the offset I want.

Well, that might not be a good argument for not limiting wheel width (availability) but its certainly a legit wheel right now. It always seemed odd to me that STX did explicitly limit wheel and tire width but STU only limits tire size. Odder still that all of STX has the same limits, but the turbo AWD cars seem to have the power and traction advanatages without any handicap at all.

I think we all agree that the tire limits in STU are to keep the extra power potential and double the forward traction of the AWD cars in check... so for non-AWD STX cars it only makes sense to give them some sort of grip advantage... and a 255mm tire seems fair to the AWD cars' 225.

Likewise, if we admit the COMPLETE LACK OF TURBO BOOST ENFORCEABILITY (no cheating implicated on you, Max) and push to allow boost alterations (which already goes on, sometimes unknowingly)... then there needs to be something to really limit grip for the AWD cars or they will just get that much faster again... I thought a downsize to 225 or 235mm max AWD tire size would go over like a turd in a punch bowl, but maybe "allowing" the RWD cars to go to a 285mm tire to compensate is also a good "balance" to the added power that boost mods would allow. The wheel width maximum and any tire balacing would only make sense if boost was allowed for the turbo cars.

Of course, this only makes sen IF the archaic fender rolling rules are streamlined!

Yes, there are few 275mm competitive ST tires out there (Falken 615, Bridgestone RE050) but there are a lot in 285mm. I think THIS, allowing a 285 on a RWD STU car, would finally allow them to compete against the AWD cars. Don't think my personal bias is clouding my judgement - I've got a lot more wins lately in AWD cars than RWD cars. Right now I see a large advantage to going AWD turbo than RWD in this class... with a 285 allowed I think its a lot more balanced.

Fair and Balanced - its not just for Fox News!

Originally Posted by Max

It does upset me to read the amount of posts on this site accusing all the turbo cars of cheating. I think most of us who compete at a National level go to very great lengths to make sure our cars are legal.

Flame away

-Max Hayter
#31 STU

Hehehe... that's just us non-turbo driver's lashing out against the power advantages that you guys can get, legal or not. When you're pumping out 100 less hp and have half the drive wheels and nearly the same weight, it temds to make you bitter.

[Max]

Originally Posted by Fair!

When you're pumping out 100 less hp and have half the drive wheels and nearly the same weight, it temds to make you bitter.

We should not be blamed for your poor choice of race car