SS RX7 r2

iTrader: (1)

I was wondering if some BSP and SM folks, like Marshall, Jarrod, John, Brian etc., could help us out it STU?

A very influential ST/STS racer trying to eliminate the wing allowance for all ST classes. We need some more letters sent to the SEB to help counter the rule take-back.

A letter just stating that you "like rule 14.2F as is" would help. The SEB does not put much weight in form letters, but below is a letter template someone else wrote, that can be pasted into an email to the SEB.

Send to seb@scca.com, and it will be routed to the STAC for consideration.

Thanks,

Rick



SEB/STAC,
I am writing in favor of leaving 14.2F as-is for the following reasons:

-No Rule take back: this rule is well established and many people have spent lots of time and money to be fully legal in regards to this rule.
-No Rules creep: This rule has already been changed once to measure chord width instead of "as seen from above".
-The Rule is clear, measurable, and adequate: The 5 sq. feet has been established and is clearly to meet the intent statement to limit significant function at solo speeds.
-Good for participation: The "import" crowd like wings, and it draws them into the sport because they see similar cars to what they own.
-Right for ST cars: Many ST cars come stock with big wings (Evo, STi,...).
-ST's intent of common mods done on street cars: Any Tuner/import mag has wings on our type of cars.

Thank you,

John Doe
SCCA member # XXXXXX

griceiv

iTrader: (2)

just thought I'd bump this up. I paid closer attention to our fuel usage at nationals. 62 miles from the time we pulled the car out of the trailer in lincoln until we put it back in to go home, 25 gallons of gas (+/- maybe a gallon or so).

so somewhere in the 2.5-2.3 mpg for us.

Mr. MR

iTrader: (3)

That run was going good until the slalom, after that not so much......

What do you think the reaction would be if I post some of mine Maybe I will post my Pro Solo video of spin and chasing of course worker, very entertaining...

Ugggh, I have not been on EvoM since Nats, it has taken me that long to get over my fail in Lincoln!

I just want to say that it was great meeting everyone at Nats this year, could not have gotten my *** whooped by a nicer bunch of people!

griceiv

iTrader: (2)

nah, i hit like the 3rd cone on the course too. pretty much a total failure of a run from the get go. and I never really recovered from that spin. I chickened out there on both of my other two runs. oh well.

And lets be fair here, you were behind the 8 ball from the start. having the car not work right and having to sort it out in between runs really screws with your head. The good news is I'm sure you'll do better next year.

Mr. MR

iTrader: (3)

^ Thanks Marshall, you are the best man, hopefully I will beat you and the Berry's next year, gotta think big to be big!

Hear is a picture of my new Autox Sensei, he is going to get me concrete ready, looks familiar for some reason!

griceiv

iTrader: (2)

hahah

Straw hats FTMFW!!!

Evo_Someday

I have a question about tire fitment.

I have the FPF1s in 17X9 and I'm looking at my Hoosier A6 options for BSP. Yeah I know 18s are the way everyone else is going but I have 17s. Maybe I'll change next season but for now, this is what I have.

I'm really tempted to try the 295/35-17. Do you think I could get them to fit with a bit of fender widening? The dimensions are almost the same as the stock tires (see image below).

What do you think?

point&shoot

iTrader: (3)

My guess (and it's only an educated guess) is that you would have no more fitment issues than us who are running the 285/30-18 A6's. (Fender rolling in the rear, nothing necessary up front if you run a lot of camber).

The interesting thing about the 295's (in both 17 and 18 in sizes), according to Tire Rack, is that the section width (fattest part of the tire) is only .1" larger than the 285, when one would expect it to be .4" wider, based on the ratio of 295/285. The rim width is the same as for the 285 and the tread width is slightly *smaller* on the 295.

The real issue is whether you have the right wheel offsets. There is very little room for error on the offset, if you want to avoid both tire rubbing on your coilovers and still have clearance on the fender side. Oh and in the back, you need just the right offset so the tire just barely clears the trailing arm, but a little more than that and you don't clear the fender. That tire is 1/10th inch fatter (section width) than our 285s, so that's 1/20th on the inside and 1/20th on the outside. The extra width on the inside might give you some rubbing issues (on the front coilover or the rear trailing arm), but probably nothing that a 3mm spacer wouldn't cure. The extra 1/20th of section width on the outside is not an issue, since thats in the middle of the tire's sidewall. Since the tread width is 1/10th inch narrower, the shoulders of the tire are actually a little farther in, and fender clearance should not be a problem.

Anyway, that's my armchair analysis. Good luck. You might want to buy just one tire first, make sure it fits front and rear, then buy the other three.

Mike

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

they will fit, I have seen it done. remember that rubbing is subjective.

Evo_Someday

Well that's good to know. I probably will take the suggestion above and buy one and see how much it rubs, where it rubs, if it's tolerable, and what changes would be necessary to make it fit right.

boost247

iTrader: (9)

Maybe a big change for BSP/ASP?:

June Fastrack

point&shoot

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, it's a big freaking change. While they move all the Porsches except the turbo 911's and better down from ASP to BSP, they move the Evos up to ASP. Locally, I've been competing with an ASP GT3 and just slightly bettering his raw times, but I really don't think the Evo is competitive with GT3s nationally.

And the quote about BSP Evo's approaching 400whp? Does anyone else believe that? I can get 300 whp on 104 octane and 27 psi boost, maybe a little more with my cat removed, but who's getting 400 whp? Even Daddio only reached about 425 whp in an SM Evo, if I recall correctly.

Mike

RJones

iTrader: (5)

A lot of BSP Evos run e85 now and are able to achieve around 350-375whp

Jarrod Hoops is in the mid-400s now in SM

e85 use resulted in a huge power bump.

kekek

iTrader: (22)

Daddio ran 104 octane in his car, tuned for 100. He also had cams, huge front mount, turbo upgrade, 4.11 final drive, AEM EMS, etc. Tuned by AMS.

Sooo that 350-375whp number is probably about right for a IX, an 8 may see 350 whp, but with less are under the curve. But the 8 will have to be fully built (FMIC, IM, EM, etc).

I think it would be interesting on asphalt, but rough on concrete. Wasn't Collett (sp?) blazing fast in ASP last year at Nationals?

Also a note on E85, this is a very geographically dependent fuel and last I checked it's impossible to find in the northeast. Too bad for us.

John

chrisw

iTrader: (2)

Owning an '03 8, I do not think you can get even close to 350whp with the 9.8 turbo. Not a chance, not in SP. That is why I switched over to SM.