2009 SM Discussion
Jan 14, 2009, 03:31 PM
#18
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my first autocross in Anchorage when I was at Fort Richardson in about 1970.
Seems like a long time ago. I thought that the fall off in the V710's was precipitous after about 60 runs. They were serviceable but not competitive for the ext 30 to 40 runs. Time your purchase so that you are within that first 60 run window for the important events unless you can afford multiple sets.
Frank
Seems like a long time ago. I thought that the fall off in the V710's was precipitous after about 60 runs. They were serviceable but not competitive for the ext 30 to 40 runs. Time your purchase so that you are within that first 60 run window for the important events unless you can afford multiple sets.
Frank
Back OT, I agree that the Kuhmo V710 loose quite a bit of grip after that many runs, but I agree with madmax, they seem to still have useful grip for fun events that you may not feel the need to be ultra competitive in.
Jan 25, 2009, 08:59 AM
#19
Just reading through the 2009 Solo2 rule book and realized they changed the minimum weights for the class. The new calculation for turbo AWD cars is:
((liters of displacement + 1.4)x300) + 1800#
For a 2.0L EVO that works out to be 2820#.
For a 2.3L EVO that works out to be 2910#.
For a 2.5L STI that works out to be 2970#.
To put that into perspective with what some of our competition will get to run:
Civic w/ N/A B16 - 1550# after tire allowance
Civic w/ turbo K20A - 1775# after tire allowance
(The Janusz/Kugler civic weighed 1982# @ 2007 Nats.)
E36 M3 w/ M46 M3 motor - 2440#
E36 M3 w/ supercharged M46 M3 motor - 2720#
(Vic Sias' bimmer weighted 2623# @ 2007 Nats with a NA motor. He's talked about adding a supercharger this year so he'll probably have to add 100#)
OK, so they are trying to keep the AWD cars from getting any faster. That's OK. But, then they add the clause that if you run 275 width tires or lower that you get to drop another 200# from your minimum weight. That would allow an EVO on 275/40/17 tires to weigh in at 2620#.
I can tell you, without ALOT of $$$ and some custom ultralite parts that sub-2700# is not attainable for the EVO in SM trim. 2820# IS fairly easy to attain, though. Without all my aero crap on my car it would come in right around 2800# with an empty gas tank.
Unless you are going to exploit every possible allowance to take weight off the car and think you can get down close to 2700#, I say stick with the 285's and the 2820# minimum weight limit. . .
EVOlutionary
((liters of displacement + 1.4)x300) + 1800#
For a 2.0L EVO that works out to be 2820#.
For a 2.3L EVO that works out to be 2910#.
For a 2.5L STI that works out to be 2970#.
To put that into perspective with what some of our competition will get to run:
Civic w/ N/A B16 - 1550# after tire allowance
Civic w/ turbo K20A - 1775# after tire allowance
(The Janusz/Kugler civic weighed 1982# @ 2007 Nats.)
E36 M3 w/ M46 M3 motor - 2440#
E36 M3 w/ supercharged M46 M3 motor - 2720#
(Vic Sias' bimmer weighted 2623# @ 2007 Nats with a NA motor. He's talked about adding a supercharger this year so he'll probably have to add 100#)
OK, so they are trying to keep the AWD cars from getting any faster. That's OK. But, then they add the clause that if you run 275 width tires or lower that you get to drop another 200# from your minimum weight. That would allow an EVO on 275/40/17 tires to weigh in at 2620#.
I can tell you, without ALOT of $$$ and some custom ultralite parts that sub-2700# is not attainable for the EVO in SM trim. 2820# IS fairly easy to attain, though. Without all my aero crap on my car it would come in right around 2800# with an empty gas tank.
Unless you are going to exploit every possible allowance to take weight off the car and think you can get down close to 2700#, I say stick with the 285's and the 2820# minimum weight limit. . .
EVOlutionary
Last edited by EVOlutionary; Jan 25, 2009 at 09:35 AM.
Jan 25, 2009, 09:05 AM
#20
OK, so they are trying to keep the AWD cars from getting any faster. That's OK. But, then they add the clause that if you run 275 width tires or lower that you get to drop another 200# from your minimum weight. That would allow an EVO on 275/40/17 tires to weigh in at 2620#.
I can tell you, without ALOT of $$$ and some custom ultralite parts that sub-2700# is not attainable for the EVO. 2820# IS fairly easy to attain, though. Without all my aero crap on my car it would come in right around 2800# with an empty gas tank.
EVOlutionary
- just thinkinScorke
Jan 27, 2009, 09:37 AM
#23
Lightweight parts on my car:
- Ultrashield aluminum seats/Sparco bases/sliders
- Keys steering wheel (gets rid of airbag)
- custom carbon fiber hood
- ams mini-radiator kit
- PPI shaved/ported stock exhaust mani
- ASPEC titanium test pipe
- Greddy titanium cat-back
- Nisei small battery kit
- ARC intercooler (heavier than stock but lighter than most bar/plate ICs)
- Nisei aluminum IC pipes
- Girodisc brake rotors
- Devo 1-piece light driveshaft
- BR ultralite mustache bar
- Ohlins aluminum bodied shocks
- WedsSport SA-70 18x10's (heavier than stock, but lighter than many 18x10's)
- DC titanium strut tower bars
- hollow tubular sway bars
That should get you very close to 2820# IF you started with an RS. . .
- Ultrashield aluminum seats/Sparco bases/sliders
- Keys steering wheel (gets rid of airbag)
- custom carbon fiber hood
- ams mini-radiator kit
- PPI shaved/ported stock exhaust mani
- ASPEC titanium test pipe
- Greddy titanium cat-back
- Nisei small battery kit
- ARC intercooler (heavier than stock but lighter than most bar/plate ICs)
- Nisei aluminum IC pipes
- Girodisc brake rotors
- Devo 1-piece light driveshaft
- BR ultralite mustache bar
- Ohlins aluminum bodied shocks
- WedsSport SA-70 18x10's (heavier than stock, but lighter than many 18x10's)
- DC titanium strut tower bars
- hollow tubular sway bars
That should get you very close to 2820# IF you started with an RS. . .
Last edited by EVOlutionary; Jan 27, 2009 at 09:49 AM.
Jan 28, 2009, 09:39 PM
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Carlock, IL
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you weighed it with an eighth tank? My RS came in at 3075 with but I don't have the seats or the driveshaft (or the hood). You really weigh 250 pounds less than that or is this a guess?
Jan 28, 2009, 11:04 PM
#25
Lightweight parts on my car:
- Ultrashield aluminum seats/Sparco bases/sliders
- Keys steering wheel (gets rid of airbag)
- custom carbon fiber hood
- ams mini-radiator kit
- PPI shaved/ported stock exhaust mani
- ASPEC titanium test pipe
- Greddy titanium cat-back
- Nisei small battery kit
- ARC intercooler (heavier than stock but lighter than most bar/plate ICs)
- Nisei aluminum IC pipes
- Girodisc brake rotors
- Devo 1-piece light driveshaft
- BR ultralite mustache bar
- Ohlins aluminum bodied shocks
- WedsSport SA-70 18x10's (heavier than stock, but lighter than many 18x10's)
- DC titanium strut tower bars
- hollow tubular sway bars
That should get you very close to 2820# IF you started with an RS. . .
- Ultrashield aluminum seats/Sparco bases/sliders
- Keys steering wheel (gets rid of airbag)
- custom carbon fiber hood
- ams mini-radiator kit
- PPI shaved/ported stock exhaust mani
- ASPEC titanium test pipe
- Greddy titanium cat-back
- Nisei small battery kit
- ARC intercooler (heavier than stock but lighter than most bar/plate ICs)
- Nisei aluminum IC pipes
- Girodisc brake rotors
- Devo 1-piece light driveshaft
- BR ultralite mustache bar
- Ohlins aluminum bodied shocks
- WedsSport SA-70 18x10's (heavier than stock, but lighter than many 18x10's)
- DC titanium strut tower bars
- hollow tubular sway bars
That should get you very close to 2820# IF you started with an RS. . .
Jan 29, 2009, 03:14 PM
#27
I will be running it on my car again this year.
Hotchkis rear is hollow, and red, so it matches the Tanabe
Mar 2, 2009, 11:21 AM
#28
Evolving Member
iTrader: (59)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bringing this back up I'm running in SM this year and had some questions.
First is anyone moving their battery to the trunk area to try to get closer to 50/50 weight distribution?
I've read the rules and all 1300+ posts and I couldn't find a answer about weather the AMS mustache bar delete kit is legal or not. I'm thinking it's not because you have to take out the rubber bushings and put in solid metal ones.
Can I remove the intercooler sprayer bottle in the front of the car? I'm thinking no on this one as well.
Would this front bumper be legal? I'm concerned more about the splitter/undertray assy. Since it extends past the bottom of the front bumper, could I call it a splitter and not a undertray?
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n63/cox5t/voltex.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...5t/voltex1.jpg
And are the Voltex rear over fenders legal? I'm thinking yes on this one because you can cut the rear fenders all you want and you can put a fender flars on IAW 15.2A.
Thanks!
First is anyone moving their battery to the trunk area to try to get closer to 50/50 weight distribution?
I've read the rules and all 1300+ posts and I couldn't find a answer about weather the AMS mustache bar delete kit is legal or not. I'm thinking it's not because you have to take out the rubber bushings and put in solid metal ones.
Can I remove the intercooler sprayer bottle in the front of the car? I'm thinking no on this one as well.
Would this front bumper be legal? I'm concerned more about the splitter/undertray assy. Since it extends past the bottom of the front bumper, could I call it a splitter and not a undertray?
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n63/cox5t/voltex.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...5t/voltex1.jpg
And are the Voltex rear over fenders legal? I'm thinking yes on this one because you can cut the rear fenders all you want and you can put a fender flars on IAW 15.2A.
Thanks!
Mar 2, 2009, 01:21 PM
#29
Would this front bumper be legal? I'm concerned more about the splitter/undertray assy. Since it extends past the bottom of the front bumper, could I call it a splitter and not a undertray?
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n63/cox5t/voltex.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...5t/voltex1.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n63/cox5t/voltex.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...5t/voltex1.jpg
legal
Mar 2, 2009, 02:42 PM
#30
I agree with everything Griceiv said. I would also like to add that the splitter is not legal as it sticks out the sides farther than the bumper. The rules state that a splitter/undertray can not extend outwards farther than the bumper. . .
If you want that bumper I would run the Voltex undertray (undertray only, no splitter). I have it and it will give you some downforce but not as much as the giant road race splitter. . .
EVOlutionary
If you want that bumper I would run the Voltex undertray (undertray only, no splitter). I have it and it will give you some downforce but not as much as the giant road race splitter. . .
EVOlutionary