Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

    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 Member input was late in arriving but it was almost unanimous and this "clarification" was quickly rescinded.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.
    Terry Fair - www.vorshlag.com
    2018 GT / S550 Dev + 2013 FR-S / 86 Dev + 2011 GT / S197 Dev + C4 Corvette Dev
    EVO X Dev + 2007 Z06 / C6 Dev + BMW E46 Dev + C5 Corvette Dev

  • #2
    Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

      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...
      Terry Fair - www.vorshlag.com
      2018 GT / S550 Dev + 2013 FR-S / 86 Dev + 2011 GT / S197 Dev + C4 Corvette Dev
      EVO X Dev + 2007 Z06 / C6 Dev + BMW E46 Dev + C5 Corvette Dev

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

        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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

          - Camber plates but with stock springs is retarded
          - I'm all for RWD cars in STX getting 9" wheels
          - I don't think the AWD STU buggy wheel sizes matter that much as long as the 245 tire limit is there (or maybe I'm missing something)
          - Fender rolling needs to be allowed
          - Reasonable race seats should be allowed, even though not doing so would help me without them.
          -A/C removal should not be allowed. Leave that for the SP classes.
          -BMW MAF changes should be allowed just like with the other cars, even though I won't be changing mine
          -Sean Martin
          2009 Pontiac G8 GT

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

            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. =)
            '11 Mustang GT / '95 Frankenpreza

            "A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster."
            - Dr. Clarkson

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                Fair... yes, a letter needs to be drafted. I don't really have time to draft one, but I am available to review / critique / support.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                  ... and if you think this is bad, get a load of THIS at SCCAForums. Looks like this rule got snuck the phuk in without member comment / feedback... and there last post by JenC says they won't consider a rule change until next year.

                  Anyone want to buy a slightly illegal M3?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    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.
                    ST is popular because competitors can be reasonably competitive with either a cheap (STS/STS2) or daily driven (STX/STU) car. Every one of the items you listed was implemented to keep the category from falling off the deep end. Lest you think that won't happen, see Street Prepared.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    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).
                    There is a period of member comment for all rule changes, and the SEB in most cases has followed the recommendations of the STAC. Besides, the STAC and other category committees are completely unofficial and exist at the whim of the SEB.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]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
                    Few would argue that it wasn't a good decision.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]"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.
                    The BMW's lost on this one. This was before my time on the STAC, but I'm positive that wasn't the intention. In this case, the good (stock air flow sensors) outweighs the bad (hurts the BMW a little bit).

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]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.
                    This was not a take back. If there were no restriction, it would effectively be the same as allowing flares. People don't want to flare the fenders of a nice car, and at some point it most certainly would become an issue. Want to win? Buy this new car and bend it all up. It may not be trivial, but from what you've said, you CAN fit the best tires available right now. It's a non-issue for most.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]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?!
                    Race seats are allowed, and the weight restriction changed from 15# w/o brackets to 25# w/ brackets. This change received overwhelming member support. I've heard nothing about removing this allowance.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]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.
                    The SEB screwed up, admitted it, and quickly fixed their mistake.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]Air conditioning removal. First it was allowed, now its not. That's a sure fire TAKE BACK.
                    This one sucks for some, but it's good for most. You still drive your car on the street, and so you've retained the AC. Now, you're not at a disadvantage because you've chosen to do so. Many that disagreed with the take back even mentioned that it should have never been allowed in the first place.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    [*]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.
                    This one is messy. My interpretation of the current rule is that OBD-II should be working as designed. Regardless, I think the clarification is better than some of the creative interpretations.

                    Originally posted by Fair!
                    Bumper cover/bodykit allowance. Oh, you can do any aftermarket body kit, but now it must use the OEM foglights, if so equipped? WTF??
                    I'm not sure about this one...

                    I think some of your suggested changes have merit, so write a letter to start the process. You'll do much better with that than with a bunch of letters telling the SEB that they're nuts.

                    Well, there's another perspective. Back to work...

                    Brian

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                      Brian stated something that kinda made me think....

                      Is there any measure of member satisfaction with rule changes / member comment since FastTrack has moved out of SportsCar? I honestly don't remember there being this much outward hostility to rule changes when we all got a copy of the information sent to our house.

                      I'll be the first to admit, I don't have time to go out and find all the changes on-line. When they were in the mag, I could read it on the bus, on the crapper or even at breakfast. Now I just don't seem to have the time.

                      Maybe this should go up for member comment?

                      Just a thought.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                        Wow, the SEB really screwed the pooch with this one. Just read some of the hate mail on the SCCAForums.... Big disaster, like "New Orleans has just Flooded and the President is sitting on his hands" Big... making the strut tower brace clarification disaster look small by comparison.

                        And now they're saying this can't be undone until 2009? Horsesh!t. We need to draft a letter FAST. The SEB is out of control. They just made 90% of the ST entrants illegal with the catalyst clarification alone! I want to see a list of members that are on the SEB. What steps are needed to have them removed?

                        And Brian - this whole "keeping the class under control" idea is crap. They just removed one of the biggest and most common modifications to most cars, and cut everyone off at the knees. Big difference. This is over-reaching.

                        And there is STILL NO WAY POSSIBLE to police a lot of the things that really matter, like boost compliance or ECM programming parameters, so they are pissing straight into the wind with those pipe dreams. Again. They are clamping down on the visual mods to the extreme, but still have no way of checking "what matters" on some cars.

                        Not allowing adequate fender rolling can and does hurt the BMWs - we can't fit a 275mm tire, no way, and a 265 is difficult (it will rub at full droop). I will be protested at Nationals for something lame like fog light delete covers or an undefined "fender contour" and I will probably lose, due to the weenies on the SEB and their interpretation of the rules. WEENIES!!!

                        STU is quickly becoming "Stock with Springs". You can count me out of that crappy class. LAME LAME LAME LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is NOT what people wanted out of STX/STU. And what would you know about cheap STS builds??? You have more $$ in your shocks than most of the STS guys have in their cars...

                        I am seriously thinking of boycotting Nationals for this latest STAC/SEB stunt. I have a better use of my vacation time and hard earned money than to go there knowing my formerly legal car is now going to probably be ruled illegal until at least 2009. I won't be alone.
                        Terry Fair - www.vorshlag.com
                        2018 GT / S550 Dev + 2013 FR-S / 86 Dev + 2011 GT / S197 Dev + C4 Corvette Dev
                        EVO X Dev + 2007 Z06 / C6 Dev + BMW E46 Dev + C5 Corvette Dev

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                          So they can make rules changes that go into effect immediately, right before nationals?
                          -Sean Martin
                          2009 Pontiac G8 GT

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                            I'm kind of confused on what ruling has been made recently vs. what could be made or what was made in the past. Jut the CEL/cat stuff?
                            -Sean Martin
                            2009 Pontiac G8 GT

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Letter Campaign to SEB, BOD against ST Take Backs!

                              Originally posted by Redwood
                              So they can make rules changes that go into effect immediately, right before nationals?
                              Yes - It's called a "clarification"!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X