2009 STU Discussion
Sep 25, 2009, 08:59 AM
#481
Perphaps because being a Guru might have more to do with mechnical, electronic and aerodynamic prowess as opposed to possessing PHENOMINAL driving skills. Truely awesome driving man! Way to represent 03 EVO8s and EVOs in general!
Anyways, my letter has been sent to the SEB, since I don't think it is fair to handicap cars that didn't originally come with wings. I would however love to see the contradictory rules on HFC and emissions legal somehow be solved.
Anyways, my letter has been sent to the SEB, since I don't think it is fair to handicap cars that didn't originally come with wings. I would however love to see the contradictory rules on HFC and emissions legal somehow be solved.
Oct 29, 2009, 07:29 PM
#487
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumping the 2009 thread back to life...
I've been considering going from the DFVs to some AST 5100/5200s for next year. I wanted to switch spring rates for next year and between a future rebuild/revalve upcoming, it was worth looking into something different.
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has experience with both coilovers.
I've been considering going from the DFVs to some AST 5100/5200s for next year. I wanted to switch spring rates for next year and between a future rebuild/revalve upcoming, it was worth looking into something different.
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has experience with both coilovers.
Oct 29, 2009, 10:15 PM
#488
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nyc
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a major movement headed by our friend Hollis in ST, to take back the rule on allowing aftermarket wings.
I know some don't use them here, but I don't like ST imposing rule take-backs on STU!
We need a few letters ASAP to head off the take-back of aftermarket wings. Write to seb@scca.com and they will be routed to the STAC for consideration.
Things to cite:
- No Rule take back, plus Rules creep issues:
Rule has already been changed once to measure chord width instead of "as seen from above".
5 sq. feet has been established, with no complaints, to limit significant function at solo speeds.
- Good for participation:
Newbs like wings, draws them into the sport.
- Right for STU/X
STU cars come stock with big wings.
Wings are one of the major characteristics of STU class cars, and STX WRXs.
- ST class intent of common mods done on street cars:
Any Tuner/import mag, has wings on our type of cars.
I will write mine today, if you run out of time use mine when I post it.
Thanks,
Rick
I know some don't use them here, but I don't like ST imposing rule take-backs on STU!
We need a few letters ASAP to head off the take-back of aftermarket wings. Write to seb@scca.com and they will be routed to the STAC for consideration.
Things to cite:
- No Rule take back, plus Rules creep issues:
Rule has already been changed once to measure chord width instead of "as seen from above".
5 sq. feet has been established, with no complaints, to limit significant function at solo speeds.
- Good for participation:
Newbs like wings, draws them into the sport.
- Right for STU/X
STU cars come stock with big wings.
Wings are one of the major characteristics of STU class cars, and STX WRXs.
- ST class intent of common mods done on street cars:
Any Tuner/import mag, has wings on our type of cars.
I will write mine today, if you run out of time use mine when I post it.
Thanks,
Rick
"I am IN FAVOR of wing allowance modifications to ST cars. This rule should not me removed. It is a common appearance modification for regular enthusiasts. I say THE LESS STRICT on the issue of wings, THE BETTER. The spirit of the class has allowed it to grow into the biggest non-stock class at nationals. Please don't kill it with additional restrictions that are as silly as appear mods!"
Oct 30, 2009, 06:05 AM
#489
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sent mine late, but sent none the less:
"I am IN FAVOR of wing allowance modifications to ST cars. This rule should not me removed. It is a common appearance modification for regular enthusiasts. I say THE LESS STRICT on the issue of wings, THE BETTER. The spirit of the class has allowed it to grow into the biggest non-stock class at nationals. Please don't kill it with additional restrictions that are as silly as appear mods!"
"I am IN FAVOR of wing allowance modifications to ST cars. This rule should not me removed. It is a common appearance modification for regular enthusiasts. I say THE LESS STRICT on the issue of wings, THE BETTER. The spirit of the class has allowed it to grow into the biggest non-stock class at nationals. Please don't kill it with additional restrictions that are as silly as appear mods!"
Oct 30, 2009, 07:29 AM
#490
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Parker, TX
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumping the 2009 thread back to life...
I've been considering going from the DFVs to some AST 5100/5200s for next year. I wanted to switch spring rates for next year and between a future rebuild/revalve upcoming, it was worth looking into something different.
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has experience with both coilovers.
I've been considering going from the DFVs to some AST 5100/5200s for next year. I wanted to switch spring rates for next year and between a future rebuild/revalve upcoming, it was worth looking into something different.
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has experience with both coilovers.
Vorshlag had the "overweight-heavy-lover" Evo X MR on 5200s in STU, but no shock was going to overcome 3700 pounds on 245s.
Oct 30, 2009, 08:09 AM
#492
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd contact Craig Wilcox if you want an opinion on Evo 8/9 with AST 5200s. He almost won BSP in his first year with the car. Lost by 0.070s to multi-time BSP champion, Tom Berry. He actually beat Tom the first day by a few thousandths, and I think he had some cones Day 2.
Vorshlag had the "overweight-heavy-lover" Evo X MR on 5200s in STU, but no shock was going to overcome 3700 pounds on 245s.
Vorshlag had the "overweight-heavy-lover" Evo X MR on 5200s in STU, but no shock was going to overcome 3700 pounds on 245s.
Oct 30, 2009, 05:03 PM
#493
Sounds like we won this battle. I believe they may keep some sort of wing provision as well as discussing possible allowance for wing deletion?
STAC probably will be drawing up revisions to the rule soon. One thing we may want to fight for is front spoilers. This way the Evo guys with the SE lip, BMWs with factory-like splitter lips and STis with V-spec lips can keep them.
Rick
Hey, BTW nice paragraph in SportsCar about your performance. Most of the time no one knows about fast raw times.
STAC probably will be drawing up revisions to the rule soon. One thing we may want to fight for is front spoilers. This way the Evo guys with the SE lip, BMWs with factory-like splitter lips and STis with V-spec lips can keep them.
Rick
Hey, BTW nice paragraph in SportsCar about your performance. Most of the time no one knows about fast raw times.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
