Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

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

  • Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

    http://cms.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-feb-solo.pdf

    Some big changes are in store for the Street Touring category of classes within SCCA Solo racing, so if you are a competitor there it would be a good idea to read this and respond with your member comment to: www.sebscca.com

    And if you're not an ST competitor but might someday get tired of burning $1200+ a set on Hoosier A6 race tires that last maybe 40 runs... it might still be worth your time to respond. Having been in the SCCA for 24 years I have only seen 2 new categories of classes be created, and never expected Street Touring would be this popular this quickly (SMod, which was started around the same time, is essentially floundering by comparison). Stock, SP, and SM can have their gumball, crutch, cover-up-bad-driving, super sticky R comp tires... The astoundingly good idea of a series of classes that are restricted to real street tires that don't cost $100 per 60 second run was a large part of the continued success.

    Seriously, a lot of times there are only 1-2 letters in response to FasTrack notifications and requests for comment. Your single letter can literally make or break a rule. Please... this system works better when we respond with clear, concise, and well thought out letters. And it takes 60 seconds to do - you don't even have to burn a stamp anymore. Go to the link above, have your SCCA member number handy, and type. Easy.

    I'm writing several letters now and will post up the various sections to discuss here, along with my letters, as I get to the subjects within the FasTrack. I'm sure some of you here have already started talking about this FasTrack already, but its probably buried within somebody's random thread. This set of changes is part of a major overhaul they have planned for ST category for 1/1/2012, and by and large I see it as a good thing... but there are several options laid out for us and we the members can help guide the SEB (and STAC) to our will.

    ST racers.... Unite!
    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: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

    Wow... this Honda-friendly forum has over 300 replies and 3000 reads since the FasTrack went online... last night! http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=33055

    OK, so we can ignore the whole Sub $5000 "Civic - CRX - Miata 1.6" changes and let them hash those out there. We can focus on what applies to BMWs being raced in the STR/STX/STU classes... which is where a majority of Bimmerforum readers are probably autocrossing. Let's look at this first change....

    Standardization of catalytic converter rules across all ST classes

    This is a good idea, for a number of reasons. Mostly it finally equalizes the exhaust upgrade potential between all cars. The original factory layouts really held back a racer's choice on cat placement (and header style) on certain cars within ST/STS/STR. Now personally, I could give a fig about ST or STS ("that's not my bag, baby"), but I hated it when STR was strapped with the more limiting cat rules from those two lower classes.

    One of the 2 options proposed for the new standardized rule is the current STU/STX exhaust rule, namely:

    Catalytic Converters – Option #2:

    Replace 14.10.E with the following:

    “14.10.E Non-standard catalytic converter(s) are allowed. All but the primary converter(s) may be removed. Catalytic converters must be of the OE type (i.e. oxidation, three-way, etc.). The inlet of the primary converter(s) may be relocated within 6” rearward along the piping flow path.”


    Note: This standardizes the category on a reworked version of the existing STX/STU allowance. This gives ST/STS/STR competitors additional leeway in fabricating exhausts, while facilitating use of long-tube headers. It also removes all EPA labeling requirements.
    Good stuff.

    Here's my SEB letter supporting Option #2 above...

    I’d like to write-in with my opinion on the standardization of catalytic converters across all classes within the ST category, proposed in the Feb 2011 FasTrack.

    This standardization is a very good idea, as the current rule set is confusing and needlessly limiting to some cars and sub-classes. Imposing CARB certification requirements on the ST/STS/STR classes limits those competitors’ choices for catalysts. Also, the stock location limits would seriously hinder certain cars – but not all. This was another “unevenly applied” rule that would hinder some cars more than others. A standardized rule with more flexibility makes for a more even application.

    For the most flexibility and freedom, I strongly believe that option #2 (using the existing STX/STU rules) is the best proposed option. This option would not impose needless exhaust system rework on existing STU/STX that already have legal exhausts that don’t fit into “Option #1” rules. Having built custom exhaust systems for several STU, STX and ST cars previously, and having those cars pass emissions tests (OBD-II or sniffer) numerous times since, I know that the “Option #2” rule can still allow for emissions friendly exhaust gasses and yet still gives all ST* racers some choice with respect to exhaust header choice and system layout.

    Thank you, Terry Fair, STX competitor
    Send those letters - go to www.sebscca.com and do it!
    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


    • #3
      Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

      Oooops! I made a mistake on my first post here. Please read this.

      Originally posted by murph1379
      For anyone writing letters in support of cat rule #2, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ask them to extend the length of relocation to 8" or more, or an allowance to move cats to the exhaust section.

      For many modern cars, such as mine, the cats are in the headers. I measured, and I'd need to relocate 6.5" to be able to buy simple bolt-on headers and move the cats to the exhaust section. Instead, to be rules-compliant, I'd need to spend potentially a thousand dollars or more to have custom headers built with cats in them. I think everyone agrees, if we need to have cats, (which I think is still a good idea!) being able to move them to the exhaust pipe makes life a LOT easier!
      This is a very good idea... let's see your letter proposal.

      One thing we need to point out to the STAC and SEB that I missed on my read thrus of the Feb 2011 FasTrack, but someone who shall remain nameless pointed out to me:

      THERE ARE 2 BIG TAKE-BACKS HIDDEN IN THE NEW PROPOSAL WORDINGS!

      This was a huge oversight on my part, and one we need to let the STAC know about before they sneak one past everyone. Let's break them down, and here is the first one:

      1. They have covertly changed the proposal of the cat rule to make many existing STU/STX exhaust systems illegal, as well as removing even more exhaust system and header choices from STX/U competitors. This is another one that will impact cars unevenly, and especially hurt certain BMWs like the E46.

      Catalytic Converters – Option #2:
      Replace 14.10.E with the following:
      “14.10.E Non-standard catalytic converter(s) are allowed. All but the primary converter(s) may be removed. Catalytic converters must be of the OE type (i.e. oxidation, three-way, etc.). The inlet of the primary converter(s) may be relocated within 6” rearward along the piping flow path.”

      Note: This standardizes the category on a reworked version of the existing STX/STU allowance. This gives ST/STS/STR competitors additional leeway in fabricating exhausts, while facilitating use of long-tube headers. It also removes all EPA labeling requirements.
      You have to look at the wording of the existing STX/STU rule word for word to catch it....

      14.10.E STX, STU – Any high flow catalytic converter(s) are allowed, but must attach within six inches of the original unit. Multiple catalytic converters may be replaced by a single unit. The inlet of the single replacement converter may be located no further downstream than 6” along the piping flow path from the original exit of the final OE converter.
      That might not seem like much but every single system I've built for STX and STU moved the front of the new cat back 6" from the exit of the OEM cat - like the existing 14.10.E rule states - and every one of those would now be illegal. This could limit you by 6-8" or more from the old wording, which makes fitting certain headers now impossible, if it wasn't already. Let's write some letters to let them know that this "reworked option" is unacceptable. And then add something to support Matt's issue above - let's agree on a number of something like "up to 12" back from the exit of the final OE catalyst".

      Please.. even if you don't currently run in ST*, please send in your letters asking the STAC to update their proposal to not only go back to the old wording to allow the catalyst relocation measurement form the EXIT of the final OE converter but to maybe add another 6" to 8" to that number.

      Write those letters!
      Last edited by Fair!; 02-07-2011, 03:05 PM.
      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: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

        Here's the letter I sent to the SEB:

        I had sent in a letter about the proposed 14.10.E proposals from the Feb 2011 FasTrack, in favor of “option #2”, but I have to revoke that vote now, and I'm also calling “shenanigans”. The sly rewording slipped into the Feb 2011 FasTrack proposal for the 14.10.E catalyst rules makes a lot of existing systems illegal, and limits exhaust choices on more ST* racers more than ever before.

        The change from the existing 14.10.E STX/STU was finally caught by someone and I'm letting everyone know that I can reach online that that this one phrase that was removed - "from the original exit" - might make their existing exhaust systems now illegal. Also known as: A TAKE BACK

        Original wording of 14.10.E : STX/STU
        "The inlet of the single replacement converter may be located no further downstream than 6” along the piping flow path from the original exit of the final OE converter."

        This might not seem like a big deal, but it is. There are already cars that cannot use ANY aftermarket/off-the-shelf headers, especially the newer cars that have the catalyst built into the header itself. Now you've tried to move the aftermarket catalyst even further upstream by another 6-8", by removing that phrase about where to measure from.

        Because of the differences between OE exhaust systems, this rule already affected some cars much more than others, but this new rewording compounds these problems suffered by certain unlucky racers. For instance – some late models cars have factory exhaust systems with the catalysts built into the exhaust manifold itself (see picture below from 2001 BMW E46 330), and already couldn’t use any “long tube header” - as your Feb 2011 proposal stated this would help with.



        The OEMs have moved the catalysts upstream to promote faster light-off (warming) of the catalysts, which helps improve cold start emissions only. We’re already altering light-off with any relocation of the catalysts, and removing EPA tags makes resizing allowed, which affects this further. Why not go all in and allow the catalyst to be moved back enough to allow all racers real exhaust header choices, as stated in your proposal?

        If the new proposal was something like this, you could make the largest number of ST* racers happy:

        "The inlet of the single replacement converter may be located no further downstream than 12” along the piping flow path from the original exit of the final OE converter."

        That would give us all the most header choices and still work fine for warm engine emissions.

        Thank you,
        Terry Fair – Vorshlag Motorsports
        Member # xxxxxxx, STX competitor for 2011
        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


        • #5
          Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

          NOTE: After a night's rest and a few phone calls from concerned friends I did go back and edit this post. I was attacking Hollis too directly and this clouded my points, as well as unfairly picked on Hondas. Many owners of these cars are friends of mine and they are a valid chassis that I do support. My modified post doesn't alter my argument points at all, just removed some of the lashing. I'd like to publicly apologize to Hollis for my uncalled for harshness and poorly chosen words, if he indeed managed to see them in that handful of hours before I edited them here.

          Originally posted by murph1379
          Ooh, good catch, Terry!

          I'd mentioned my proposed "relocation to exhaust" change in a few different forums, and Hollis asked me for my wording that would prevent people building super long headers that render the cat useless. I think he has a good point there, and I was going to write my proposal to locate the cat within 6" of the end of the OE headers, but I wanted to take some measurements first. Then of course I've had my cars on lifts twice since then and forgot to take the measurements! But I think the wording can be valid without any measurements, if it's based on the location of the end of the original header, not the new one.
          Wait, hold on: Always question everything.

          To be frank, Mr. Hollis has no valid point here. Look at all of the proposed ST* changes in this FasTrack. The revised rules eliminate any mention of emissions compliance. With the proposed rules changes you can specifically use O2 sensor foolers. You can remove the CEL light. You can program the ECM to completely disable CEL fault codes. That's the intent of all of these changes, whether or not they state it. This means they want to allow racers more freedom and this will alter some emissions conditions from before.

          So Hollis' reasoning here doesn't jibe with the proposed changes.

          More than likely he doesn't want to change his existing (and STX winning) formula. Maybe he's trying avoid spending any time & money on experimenting with moving his cat, to see if it changes his power on his car? That would seem to be the case. You have to understand HOW MUCH TESTING the man does. I'd venture to say its more than anyone has ever done in any ST category. I've seen it first hand - he tests everything.

          But in this case I don't think he has need for concern, in his case. The Civic is old enough so that the OE catalyst is far enough back that he can already run the longest usable header in his car so he's not going to find more power with a longer header primary. This isn't the case with newer 1990s, 2000s, or 2010 decade cars. The newer the car, the closer the OE catalyst is to the exhaust port, with the extreme example of the BMW E46 shown here being the worst OE case.



          Look at that OE manifold again. This is without a doubt the worst OE exhaust manifold I've ever seen. And in person it looks even worse. Matt knows - he has 2 cars with this exhaust. The old rule limited you from any off-the-shelf header (but maybe you could make a custom one), and the new "modification" just made it even worse - you can never use any primary length header.

          There is no magic uber-header length that's going to put the collector so far back that the catalyst is at the rear bumper, so don't fall for that argument. Engine builders have formulas to help determine primary length (its a factor of cylinder volume), and the longest you tend to see for big engines is 36-38". That is fairly long, but these aren't 2-strokes and its not as critical as it might seem. The calculations for header primary length would never make it so that the catalyst would need to so far back it never gets up to temperature.



          I've personally spent many hours learnin' me some header tech, and many more welding and building them. A good bit of what is discussed on the interwebs about header design is black magic voodoo - in reality having a good routing with fewest number of bends is more important than equal length primaries or ultimate primary length. There's some innovation with respect to merge collectors of late, but most of the design elements of exhaust headers was perfected decades ago. What the SEB needs to ensure is that all racers, no matter what year their car was built nor how FUBAR the OE catalyst placement was, can all build something usable, and hopefully use the commonly available headers offered for their car.

          That's isn't the case right now as there's much more freedom for older cars than newer cars, which is the exact opposite of what the SCCA club as a whole should be striving for. We don't want Solo to end up like Club Racing, where we build classes around 1950s British cars and protect them for half a century. The SEB has even talked about making having older cars retire from classes (gasp!) so this doesn't become the case. Its nothing more than Age Discrimination, and its illegal under Federal law.

          Let's agree to not let the rules for an entire category of classes stay stunted around what has essentially become a spec autox class around a car that what would otherwise be a good LeMons entry (ie: a 1980s crap can, heh), and stop limiting hundreds of other ST* racers' choices in later model cars like yours.

          We as a club need to be more forward thinking than this, and strive to make the rules work for more than just one car - they need to work on fresh blood like your E46 ZHP. Its time for some serious updates to modernize class rules throughout the SCCA Solo Rulebook. This one should not be ignored. Leaving the rules as they are or even with the "Revised" set totally screws late model cars, but revising the rules to open up your choices doesn't affect performance one iota on Hondas built in the 1980s.

          Thanks,
          Last edited by Fair!; 02-08-2011, 09:34 AM.
          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


          • #6
            Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

            As someone who sits on a sub-committee (STAC), the personal accusations and insults geared at Andy Hollis are completely ridiculous and unwarranted. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with a rule and make arguments for or against it, but to write something publicly about a member on the committee is just uncalled for. I'd say that regardless of committee or person by the way. I'm not an "Andy Hollis worshiper".

            If you knew how these committees work, it isn't even possible for one person to steer a sub-committee (STAC) and then the main decision maker (SEB) by coming up with personally driven rules that only make sense for your vehicle. Since the beginning of time, different cars have been able to take advantage of rules more than others. There's never going to be a rule in a category that is equal for every car on the planet from a Honda Fit to a Subaru STI to an E92 M3. It just can't happen.

            Use the process to help write the rules. That's what the process is there for. Leave the personal attacks and unfounded accusations for conspiracy theorist.
            Brian Hanchey
            AST Suspension - USA

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

              As a former PAC member, no one person can steer a committee but it is only an advisorial group. The SEB still holds the power to make a change unless the BOD wants to be involved. FWIW, the SEB once tried to stuff a change past us but we stood our ground and got our way, not theirs.

              I think the committees are a better way of doing things but they are generally made up of people that don't know much about eligible car models other than their own. Educate them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                Originally posted by hancheyb View Post
                ...It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with a rule and make arguments for or against it, but to write something publicly about a member on the committee is just uncalled for. I'd say that regardless of committee or person by the way. I'm not an "Andy Hollis worshiper".
                Agreed. I shouldn't have written that and I've edited my post here and on Bimerforums to remove the direct attacks on Hollis.

                I do feel Hollis has a unique position to affect rules for the category, with his bully pulpit of GRM articles and massive exposure on the autocross scene, but that still doesn't excuse my previous words.

                In this particular argument his points about catalyst relocation do not stand up to data, and that was not edited out of my post. There is distinct protectionism surrounding the Civic and the large number of Civic drivers tend to stick with their cars for a good length of time and many of those tend to want to avoid changes. That needs to be looked at from a larger perspective.

                Cheers,
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                  My letter to the SEB:
                  ==================================

                  Gentlemen,

                  On the following proposal I have found some issues that will make for a huge TAKE BACK and an all around BAD IDEA for ST classes:

                  Brakes:
                  Replace the 14.6 subsections with the following:

                  “A. Non-Standard brake rotors are permitted, provided they are of equal or larger weight and dimensions (diameter and thickness), and the rotor disc is made of ferrous material (e.g. iron).

                  G. Brake calipers may be replaced, provided the number of pistons is equal to or greater than the original number of pistons. Caliper mounting brackets may be replaced to accommodate this change, but may serve no other purpose. Alternate caliper brackets must bolt to the original caliper bracket mounting location(s). The alternate caliper and bracket assembly must be no lighter than the Standard assembly.
                  I get that you seem to be trying to prevent autocrossers from installing super lightweight rotors and calipers, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are possibly unforeseen consequences with this tepid rule update that I would like to point out.

                  The issue I see is that virtually all Big Brake Kits (BBK) are lighter in the caliper+ bracket and/or the rotor, even when they are much larger than the stock pieces. This is because almost all BBK calipers are aluminum instead of the much more common steel of OEM brakes and many rotors are 2-piece vs. cast as a single unit. I have data (examples/weights/pictures) below to back up this claim.

                  Look at this massive 4-piston aluminum AP caliper vs a stock steel E36 M3 single piston caliper:



                  It looks even worse when you add in the caliper brackets:



                  And here are some rotor weights... first a 13" 2-piece rotor that came in the AP BBK (14.0 lbs)



                  Now the OEM E36 M3 rotor, both used and brand new:



                  The picture at right is a weight on a used OEM E36 M3 front rotor taken by a former STU racer. At right is a new Brembo replacement for the same car we purchased for this letter and weighed last week. These are both 12.5" in diameter OEM sized. The OEM rotor is again heavier than the larger and more common BBK rotor.

                  At 7.2 pounds the large 4-piston AP caliper and bolt-on bracket is 4.6 pounds lighter than the 11.8 pound stock set-up. The larger rotor is more than 3 lbs lighter than the stock piece. Many of us that ran these cars in STU often used the common/affordable 2-piece BMW E36 M3 "Euro" rotor, which we could buy at the BMW dealer, and it was 1.5 lbs lighter than the stock iron piece. So my now legal STU M3 would be illegal with these new rules, and it still has the factory calipers and the OEM rotor size.

                  This data helps show that in this case and likely in many others, most common/affordable/standard BBKs will be illegal on any ST car. Of course many autocrossers don't need bigger brakes, but not all autocrossers are limited to this sport alone - many of us run our cars at HPDE events or Time Trials. And that is where this rule misses the mark. Not only is the revised 14.6 rule a bad idea because it limits racers' choices, but it moves SCCA Solo rules even further away from HPDE/Time Trial racers' desires.

                  I currently see NASA Time Trial fields bursting at the seams but SCCA PDX continues to struggle along with the ever shrinking SCCA Solo fields (look at year to year regional entry numbers - I know our region is down 15-20% and just raised entry fees to compensate for lost income).

                  I hate to see this happening. If the SCCA ever hopes to catch up to NASA's HPDE/TT program with their PDX program, and to keep Solo growing and healthy, we really need to broaden the rules scope to not alienate more track people from Solo - but instead invite them to autox. As when ST was created and the SCCA hoped to invite the Sport Compact scene (that was mostly poseurs that never actually showed up), let's not ignore the very real and active HPDE entrants that can and should enter SCCA solo events.

                  Thank you,

                  Terry Fair
                  (SEB Letter Tracking Number #4311)
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                    So how much would that BBK cost on an E36 M3?

                    Terry, the problem with that letter is that I think you're making the very case you're trying to disprove. You've just shown that this BBK saves seven pounds of unsprung mass per wheel, which would make it darn near a necessity for any seriously competitive car.

                    You've also added $2k+ (just guessing) to the cost of a competitive car. Rotors are wear items (especially for HPDE/TT cars), so you've also just increased the operating cost for said car, unless your 14" rotor section is cheaper than a Brembo OEM blank. All for a car that might - or might not - need a rotor upgrade to be used for an alternative sport that the car might - or might not - be involved in.

                    I'll take an example that I'm familiar with. RacingBrake.com offers an upgraded 4-piston front caliper kit for the RX-8, and lighter 2-piece rotors for the rear. The total overall weight savings (2 calipers + 4 rotors) is over 21 pounds, all unsprung weight. That's a huge difference, especially on a lighter, torque-challenged car like the RX-8.

                    Unfortunately, the whole mess will set you back $2431 + shipping... and the rotors (wear items) are ~$300 each, versus $69 each for new OEM blanks. I go through a set of rotors a year at the track, so my annual operating budget just increased by almost $1000, on top of the $2500 up front costs.

                    Problem is, my car doesn't need a BBK for track use, because (unlike your typical BMW) it was designed with good brakes from the get go. So if I compete with the car for 3 years, my costs just went up $5500 to support this rule change.

                    Not a good idea, imho. To me, your letter reads like this: "I track my ST car with NASA as well, so here's why I should be allowed to add a BBK." What you really need to address with this issue is why the inevitable cost creep of allowing BBKs is justifiable in Solo, since the SCCA really doesn't care if you can't track your car competitively with NASA.
                    Last edited by altiain; 03-03-2011, 10:30 AM.
                    Iain

                    '01 Honda S2000 - extra crispy
                    '05 Honda CR-V EX AWD - alphabet soup family truckster
                    Always looking for a co-drive...

                    "We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                      Point.... missed.

                      Weall know that a BBK isn't required for auto-x. However, reading the rules shows that BBKs are already allowed in STU.

                      We all know that the SCCA doesn't care about cross-shopping members. They don't care if you road race or auto-x or time trial. That is proven on a daily basis with lack of cross-over within it's own organization.

                      The key issue is that they want to change the 'rules' as to what is allowed for a BBK. This 'rule change' effectively makes any non-stock BBK illegal (as proved to a point with Fair's scale-theatrics).

                      Rule Change (in this case) = (yet another) Take Back

                      Once again, another class with no rules stability and lack of following what the class was originally designed for: poseur or street modified cars on 140 tread wear tires.

                      At least one STU car has been pulled from Rocky Mountain since this latest rule set showing. Mine has been out for 2 years (since the wing BS). I see the class losing numbers if any of this goes through.

                      Regardless of if you need a BBK or not, or have a wing or not, all this shows is rules instability, and that never draws competitors.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                        Allowing alternate brake components was one of the basic reasons for the creation of the ST category...

                        The idea that some common "street tuner" type modifications would be allowed and use that as a tool to recruit the ricer crowd into solo. The body kits and aero allowances were in there for the same reasons.

                        Granted, the side effect is serious solo folks will take advantage of the rules to run lighter components, but 10 years later seems a little late to stuff the cat back into the bag.


                        -Brian

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                          The problem is, Iain, your RX8 is one of the few ST*-legal autocross cars that does come with track-worthy brakes. Then you have the STIs and EVOs, which come with Brembo BBKs from the factory, and their OEM replacement rotors are just as costly as those for any BBK. Many cars have total crap for OEM brakes, and do benefit greatly from a BBK upgrade on track.



                          The RX8 has great brakes and incredible suspension, and can swallow 18x10" wheels under stock fenders with ease. If these cars didn't have such a turd of a motor, we'd all own them.

                          As for running costs going up with a BBK, that's not usually the case, and the opposite is often true. There's even traditional iron-based rotor BBKs being made for the GTR and ZR1, since their ceramic OEM rotors can cost five figures to replace, and their 12 brake pads per axle get pricey. Often a BBK has a cost savings with consumables - which is half the point of the upgrade (the other half being better stopping power). The weight savings is purely a by-product of better designed system with larger rotors, more pad control (via more caliper pistons) and larger pads themselves.

                          With the larger rotor and better caliper of a typical BBK, wear rates tends to go down compared to a typical (inadequate) OEM set-ups, so your "cost x number of annual replacement" calculations are slipping into off-base extrapolation. And the brake pad options and choices often go up considerably when a car is upgraded to a common caliper like a Wilwood Superlite IIA, which is hugely popular in some circles and has cheap pads available.

                          Its not all gold plated AP and Brembo BBKs out there, and many initial BBK system are not always in your $2000-2500 range. That's the middle to high end of the range for BBKs available, but there's more affordable options from other companies. I deal with RacingBrake personally (we've contemplated carrying their products), and their BBK systems and replacement parts are some of the most over-priced Taiwanese built parts on the market. They look pretty, but there's a huge mark-up built into those parts. They just happen to be one of the only companies bothering with the RX8 crowd (again, a rare car with very good OEM brakes). The same is true for some of the European built systems. The domestic suppliers don't play these same games, or at least not all of them do (StopTech can get pricey).

                          Check out BBK system options from places like MassiveBrakes.com (which makes systems for BMWs starting at $800-1000), or the many options from Baer, Wilwood, and others. I could build a killer 4 wheel BBK with larger rotors and 4 piston calipers for $500 in parts or less, if I wanted to.


                          The 12" rotor above is $33. Seriously. That's cheaper than your OEM RX8 12" rotors cost

                          http://www.wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorList1.aspx

                          Look at the MSRP numbers on Wilwood's massive listing of hat-style rotors. They have a staggering amount of options, styles, sizes, and costs. It makes me chuckle when I hear about people spend $800-1000 for a pair of 2-piece rotors. 13" hat-style rotors from Wilwood cost as little as $40/each. Having just yesterday paid $400 for a set of track worthy PFC-01 pads for OEM E36 M3 brakes, which will be done for in short order, I know I am eying a Wilwood based BBK upgrade for one of my tracked BMWs.

                          Also, your "year of tracking" might be different from others'. Where you might see 5-8 events a year, some folks run on track every other weekend, and even more often during the season. I've heard from many a customer with more miles on track per season than GRAND AM race teams, and the wear and tear to show for it. Their brake pad and rotor usage is likely 3-4 times that of what you see, and possibly worse if they aren't blessed with an RX8 brake system. On many OEM brakes I've seen some folks go through $300+ in race pads per weekend until they went to a BBK, where they often see much more track miles per dollar spent on brake consumables.

                          And remember - the entries at track events are soaring while Solo numbers are dwindling, so this is a group of racers to be courted, not shunned with this new 14.6 TAKE BACK rule writing. Since the beginning of STU and STX there was always a BBK allowance, now they are taking it away. The whole basis of the Street Touring category was based around a group of no-show poseurs that never materialized ("Honda drag race pimps", aka "the Import Tuner Crowd"), so building the classes to attract the market is not out of the realm of ideas. At least HPDE and TT guys drive on track more than they park and talk smack, and I think its a group that needs to be considered when writing or RE-writing the rules.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                            Originally posted by Fair! View Post
                            The RX8 has great brakes and incredible suspension, and can swallow 18x10" wheels under stock fenders with ease. If these cars didn't have such a turd of a motor, we'd all own them.
                            Hah, truth! Man what I wouldn't give for a set of double wishbones, some nice big fenders, dropping a few hundred pounds, and keeping my straight six. =]

                            My car has brakes that are fine for autocross or track use, though about half of current ST* does not. I guess I don't really care if we allow BBKs or not, since the main reason for these is for track days, not Solo, but if we're going to allow them, I think the current STX/STU rules make sense, just prevent swiss cheese rotors. If we allow BBKs, telling 1/4 of ST* that they have to use mythical heavier BBKs which don't exist seems rather silly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Feb 2011 SCCA FasTrack - Massive ST Category Changes!

                              Originally posted by murph View Post
                              Hah, truth! Man what I wouldn't give for a set of double wishbones, some nice big fenders, dropping a few hundred pounds, and keeping my straight six. =]

                              My car has brakes that are fine for autocross or track use, though about half of current ST* does not. I guess I don't really care if we allow BBKs or not, since the main reason for these is for track days, not Solo, but if we're going to allow them, I think the current STX/STU rules make sense, just prevent swiss cheese rotors. If we allow BBKs, telling 1/4 of ST* that they have to use mythical heavier BBKs which don't exist seems rather silly.
                              The problem is, the STX &STU rules have always allowed BBKs... this sneaky re-write to note "same or more weight" nonsense is nothing more than a complete TAKE BACK of the original rule.

                              Rules stability... chasing away existing and potential racers... this is a bad idea.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X